Each Wal-Mart Store Cost Taxpayers $400,000

Actually, those visible companies usually have little to do with it. Nike, for example, is a marketing firm and does not manufacture their products.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Actually, those visible companies usually have little to do with it. Nike, for example, is a marketing firm and does not manufacture their products.

Maybe in the old days they were the manufacture? This notion is interesting for any manufacture to sell they must market - maybe the cost was less in the beginning to go to the Pacific Rim and Mexico to get tennis shoes made, now lots of folks do that.

As a electronics manufacturer I need to import certain items to create my product, but the assembly jobs are still here.

0 Replies

Teresa Heinz-Kerry is a big investor in Wal-Mart.

0 Replies

L.R.R.Hood wrote:

Phoenix32890 wrote:
Sure you have to work two jobs. That is, if you want an SUV, a big screen TV, a razzle dazzle computer, and all the various and sundry toys that many American young people consider as "necessities".

Today, the young people in America want everything "NOW", and I see that as a big part of the problem.

That is very true from all that I have seen. I don't know many people who don't have a mountain of debt. Its sad. Ive had a few friends ask me for help with their budget, and I really tried, but they were usually unwilling to downsize their spending.

Why do high school kids need cars to get to school? What happened to riding the city bus or even walking.? No wonder so many kids are overweight. Embarrassed

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Actually, those visible companies usually have little to do with it. Nike, for example, is a marketing firm and does not manufacture their products.

I was using them for examples, I believe you understand the gist of my statement.

0 Replies

suzy wrote:

Who's talking about witholding jobs? I'm saying that WalMart CAN and should do better by those people. Children work long hours in those shops, too. WalMart can help, not just profit from, these people, if they chose to.

The question is, how many of those people? The Indians and the Chinese alone make up 2 billion people. There's just no way for American corporations to lift that many people out of poverty by charity alone.

What you are proposing -- Wal-Mart paying those people more -- would create nice work for those who get it, but only few could get it. Higher wages would make more third world workers want to work in sweatshops. Meanwhile in America, less people would want to buy from Wal-Mart because prices are higher. Both effects would combine to create a small labor aristocracy and price everyone else out of the job market, into joblessness, and into excruciating misery.

Is that really what you want?

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
Actually, those visible companies usually have little to do with it. Nike, for example, is a marketing firm and does not manufacture their products.

I was using them for examples, I believe you understand the gist of my statement.

I do, and my point takes yours one step further. The people who "run" these third world "sweatshops" are from the third world for the most part. Itr's not Walmart and not even the brands that Walmart sells for the most part. It's the companies and factories that are hired to do the job.

Those entities, as well as the local government and culture are responsible for working conditions.

American corporations generally pay other third world companies. For American corporations to stop doing so would, in almost all "sweatshop" cases, hurt those people more than help them.

I'have a lot of gripes about Walmart but the sweatshop angle is one that I give very little credence to.

0 Replies

Well, I've shopped around and I've found out a few things.

I miss Wal-Mart when it comes to regular groceries and household products. If I want specialty things, and health foods, I'll go to Target and Kroger... otherwise, the whole shopping in more than one store just exhausts me.

Wal-mart may treat their people badly, but I haven't heard of many minimum wage type jobs that don't.

0 Replies

Well, there are obviously people who do appreciate what Wal-Mart is doing!

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040321/D81EQP680.html

0 Replies

Nobody is forced to work at Wal-Mart or McDonalds, and nobody is forced to shop at these places. Sounds like good 'ole capitalism to me! We can't just tag the Waltons for being wealthy at the expense of the tax payers. All other places that pay below poverty wages all contribute to the capitalist economy. You must look at the "total" picture in order to make any claims of how much Wal-Mart is costing tax payers. You see, those low wages at Wal-Mart and McD's allows us to buy things on the cheap. We end up paying one way or another; but I like the idea of people working to try and improve their lives. Without those jobs, the people working and paying taxes will be paying a whole lot more - if you get the drift.

0 Replies

Welcome to the world! There has never been a work place that had NO flaws.....Wal-Mart hires a lot of people, and that bi-weekly check puts a roof over their head and pays the bills! More people should be thankful, instead of doing all that finger-pointing.....the world would be such a happier place.

0 Replies

Each Wal-Mart Store Cost Taxpayers $400,000

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know