You are viewing the older version of this Weblog. I have left this version available for those of you who do not have Javascript enabled in your web browser.
If you have Javascript enabled and would like to view the lastest version of this Weblog, please go here.
If you have Javascript enabled and would like to view the lastest version of this Weblog, please go here.
November 15, 2005
Are you still shopping at Wal-Mart?
Tsk tsk.
Doug Weinbrenner and I went to see WAL-MART – The High Cost of Low Price this evening. Both of us are pretty anti-Wal-Mart already (for innumerable reasons) but everytime I see their evils displayed, I am sickened.
Anyway, other than instilling my own snide opinions here (it is my Weblog afterall and I don’t think I’ve stepped inside a Wal-Mart for over three years now, so there), I know I can’t tell you what to do (even though there are plenty of other places — ahem — to get cheap stuff. What I can do is ask that you make an effort to see this film — if only to see another side of the story. It’s playing at a number of locations (most of the time for free) for the next couple of months, so it shouldn’t be too difficult.
As God is my witness, if I ever step into another Wal-Mart again, may He strike me down on the welcome mat.
Here are some links you should click on:
Posted at 10:04 pm
Trackback:Trackback Link:
Please enable javascript to generate a trackback url
Comments (33):
VERY cool. I will be attending in Studio City.. after i get some shopping done.
Corvette Joe () - November 16, 2005 at 10:27 am
Of course you should know that I am ALL OVER THAT FILM. I can’t wait to see it! The last time I stepped inside a Wal-Mart, it was because my tires (purchased by my dad) were under warranty there and I needed one repaired. On Tuesday I had the fine folks at Hyde Park Service put new tires on my car, so I’ll never need to darken the doorway of Wal-Mart again. Thanks for passing on the info about the film, Tim.
Mary () (URL) - November 16, 2005 at 9:35 pm
Haven’t been to WalMart in 2 years. Two days after I said no more never again, somebody got shot at the store where I’d been shopping with my 4 yr. old. Can you spell G-O-O-D D-E-C-I-S-I-O-N ?
cindy () (URL) - November 17, 2005 at 07:50 am
Oh, definitely see it, Mary. You will dig it.
And, I forgive you for your Wal-Mart infractions.
And, I forgive you for your Wal-Mart infractions.
timsamoff () (URL) - November 17, 2005 at 07:51 am
Wow, Cindy, that’s crazy… There is a sad scene in the film that talks all about the safety problems that Wal-Mart continues to deal with — and the class-action lawsuits that come from things like store shootings, etc.
timsamoff () (URL) - November 17, 2005 at 08:28 am
I haven’t been to Wal-Mart in almost 2 days, and I’m starting to feel a little weak. I will grant you that Wal-Mart does use their incredible power to drive down prices and that sometimes that means American jobs are lost, but we have to admit that the savings passed on to Americans are beneficial as well.
We complain about the fact that we lose manufacturing jobs to China, but I think we need to wake up and smell the coffee in regards to world economics. Why the h-e-doule hockeysticks should we pay someone $20 an hour to cut out denim for jeans (or sew the jeans or inspect the jeans or whatever)? Unions in the U.S. have cut their own throats in many ways driving up the price of unskilled labor where manufacturers are forced to move production out-of-country to produce products at a price that is affordable.
Wal-Mart may hasten these moves in some cases, but that is debatable also.
And we of course hear the horror stories of companies that do business with Wal-Mart and then find themselves at the mercy of the store. That is nothing but poor management of the smaller company. If they do not adequately assess the risk of doing business with a Wal-Mart, how do they have the right to complain when they are asked for price concessions or more production or shorter delivery times. They don’t have that right.
I do not argue that Wal-Mart is perfect or that they do the right thing every time. But I also think that if we do to business in America what we’ve done to our schools (cater to the lowest common denominator and essentially hold back the high achievers) that we are headed to an unpleasant economic time.
We complain about the fact that we lose manufacturing jobs to China, but I think we need to wake up and smell the coffee in regards to world economics. Why the h-e-doule hockeysticks should we pay someone $20 an hour to cut out denim for jeans (or sew the jeans or inspect the jeans or whatever)? Unions in the U.S. have cut their own throats in many ways driving up the price of unskilled labor where manufacturers are forced to move production out-of-country to produce products at a price that is affordable.
Wal-Mart may hasten these moves in some cases, but that is debatable also.
And we of course hear the horror stories of companies that do business with Wal-Mart and then find themselves at the mercy of the store. That is nothing but poor management of the smaller company. If they do not adequately assess the risk of doing business with a Wal-Mart, how do they have the right to complain when they are asked for price concessions or more production or shorter delivery times. They don’t have that right.
I do not argue that Wal-Mart is perfect or that they do the right thing every time. But I also think that if we do to business in America what we’ve done to our schools (cater to the lowest common denominator and essentially hold back the high achievers) that we are headed to an unpleasant economic time.
Todd M () (URL) - November 18, 2005 at 07:20 am
Todd, I have a number of things to say in rebuttal here, but I won’t… I’d like you to go see the film before making any other (seemingly misinformed — although, since I know you, I know you’re probably not) statements like the ones you just made.
Sorry to be so blunt, but there are greater evils happening than just the loss of American jobs or smaller companies falling to “the mercy of the store.”
Sorry to be so blunt, but there are greater evils happening than just the loss of American jobs or smaller companies falling to “the mercy of the store.”
timsamoff () (URL) - November 18, 2005 at 07:46 am
Todd seems informed to me. I watched the show that was on TV regarding Wal-Mart and while I became concerned about their practices I also saw stuff “over-the-top” against Wal-Mart, overal it was okay. I’m big on predispostions of shows and studies. I “consider the source”. The source must be not leaning for against any one side when presenting a case. I also look at the group or organization they are from when considering a source. Personally, I have found these type of shows to be lacking in regard to this. After watching the Wal-Mart show on TV I came up with the same questions and concerns as Todd. While I haven’t watched the movie the one on TV had the same type of interviews and issues, the questions and concerns of Todd and I were not addressed.
dh () - November 18, 2005 at 10:23 am
As above, I will ask you to see the film before making any remarks of this nature.
timsamoff () (URL) - November 18, 2005 at 10:34 am
I think I might of saw this movie on PBS. It might have been a TV show on the subject. Irregardless, after looking at the websites you posted, the show that I happened to watch addressed the same issues as this movie. I am informed on the subject beyond this film and I still have the questions and concerns as Todd. Like I said before I am concerned about certain practices by Wal-Mart but for as many studies against Wal-Mart I could find as many studies for Wal-Mart and from sources with no predispostions. I feel I can make these remarks because I have seen shows and done research on these issues. Now if I hadn’t done those things then yes seeing the show would be a requirement to say these type of remarks.
DH () - November 18, 2005 at 11:17 am
> I think I might of saw this movie on PBS.
Nope… It’s only available in theaters right now.
I think I saw the show on TV too (on 60 Minutes or 20/20 or something), and it didn’t address nearly as much as the film does.
This “argument” is futile unless you see the film, as that is what the original post is about. If you’d like to comment further, please see the film.
(One simple fact: an average Wal-Mart employee makes $13 per hour and, upon hire, is given a printout of various social services they are eligible for; the CEO makes over $27 million per year.)
Nope… It’s only available in theaters right now.
I think I saw the show on TV too (on 60 Minutes or 20/20 or something), and it didn’t address nearly as much as the film does.
This “argument” is futile unless you see the film, as that is what the original post is about. If you’d like to comment further, please see the film.
(One simple fact: an average Wal-Mart employee makes $13 per hour and, upon hire, is given a printout of various social services they are eligible for; the CEO makes over $27 million per year.)
timsamoff () (URL) - November 18, 2005 at 1:08 pm
I wasn’t trying to argue but trying to look at the big picture on these issues. On your “fact” With much given much is required the Wal Mart CEO has thousands of employees and shareholders to account for. I too feel $27 million is too much but if you look at the hundreds of thousands of peoples livelihoods employees and shareholders as well as the economies of many groups of people they account for you can see how much responsibility goes with that. I’m not defending the pay of Wal Mart for I too, agreeing with you, think it is too high but at the same time I feel $13 an hour for a Wal Mart worker seems pretty good in relation to the same type of work like Target, Kohl’s, etc. If the pay was bad people would work somewhere else. The fact is $13 a hour is probably the highest category ofpay for the same type of work elsewhere.
I liked what Todd said (rephrased) “Why should we pay someone $20 an hour to cut out denim for jeans?” Same could be said for “other” types of labor. The fact is forcing the raising of pay raises inflation which hurts everybody.
I liked what Todd said (rephrased) “Why should we pay someone $20 an hour to cut out denim for jeans?” Same could be said for “other” types of labor. The fact is forcing the raising of pay raises inflation which hurts everybody.
dh () - November 18, 2005 at 2:38 pm
“Average” means that the salary I stated is an accumulation of every employee of Wal-Mart — from new hire to regional manager.
Here is a link to a break-down of indivual wages:
– http://www.vault.com/companies/company_m..
Because of this Wal-Mart managers actually encourage new hires to apply for social services, like Medicaid — even though Wal-Mart has health insurance (there is a scene in the film where a Wal-Mart employee explains that while he was on his mother’s health insurance, his prescriptions cost $5 and on Wal-Mart’s insurance he was paying $70).
As for paying $20 for someone to cut denim… After seeing the working conditions of the Chinese factories, you might want to reconsider siding with this argument. The important fact is that even though many companies successfully run ethical businesses by using Chinese labor does not mean that all do (one of these companies being Wal-Mart).
Here is a link to a break-down of indivual wages:
– http://www.vault.com/companies/company_m..
Because of this Wal-Mart managers actually encourage new hires to apply for social services, like Medicaid — even though Wal-Mart has health insurance (there is a scene in the film where a Wal-Mart employee explains that while he was on his mother’s health insurance, his prescriptions cost $5 and on Wal-Mart’s insurance he was paying $70).
As for paying $20 for someone to cut denim… After seeing the working conditions of the Chinese factories, you might want to reconsider siding with this argument. The important fact is that even though many companies successfully run ethical businesses by using Chinese labor does not mean that all do (one of these companies being Wal-Mart).
timsamoff () (URL) - November 18, 2005 at 2:59 pm
I wasn’t even thinking of Chinese or any country for that matter when I brought up what I did. The fact is $20 dollars anywhere is too high to cut denim. For me the unions are to blame for this like Todd said. Many non-union companies are so successful that to force companies only makes it worse for everybody. Also, what is the premium for the Wal-Mart insurance in relation to the mother’s health insurance? Is the insurance premium that the WalMart employee pays less, is the insurance premium the mother paying more? Also does the comparison work premium vs. coverage compare for other types of insurance? If we bring up Wal-Mart in China, there was a scene from the show I watched where Wal-Mart is expanding into China with more stores in China and the Chinese workers are happy about the prospects of working at a Wal-Mart interviewed by the show not by Wal-Mart. If we care about the workers in China it seems to me that giving them a job at Wal-Mart would benefit them especially if the people want to work there.
DH () - November 18, 2005 at 3:13 pm
This will remain an argument until you see the film — at which point it will become a discussion. Until then, I will respectfully discontinue discourse on the subject.
timsamoff () (URL) - November 18, 2005 at 3:32 pm
I’m sorry you thought this was an argument. It is just that what you said raised more questions (the ones I gave) than answers. My inclination is that these questions I raised might not get answered. However, Oh well, maybe your right I just might need to watch the movie. :)
dh () - November 18, 2005 at 3:42 pm
I’ll probably take my nephew to see this movie since he hates Wal-Mart, and I figure it will be a good lesson for the youngster in critical thinking and considering two sides of the story.
I’m glad the CEO of Wal-Mart makes over $27 million a year. He runs a company that has created billions of dollars in wealth for people around the world (and continues to do so). He’s worth every penny.
I wish I could find the actual statistic, but I’d read somewhere recently about the impact of Wal-Mart on prices across the board in the United States. They estimated that the savings to every household in the U.S. was several hundred dollars a year—whether they shopped at Wal-Mart or not.
But I’ll go see the movie and let you know if I’ve forsaken the godless infidels of Bentonville.
Is there anything in the movie that would be objectionable for a 14-year old?
I’m glad the CEO of Wal-Mart makes over $27 million a year. He runs a company that has created billions of dollars in wealth for people around the world (and continues to do so). He’s worth every penny.
I wish I could find the actual statistic, but I’d read somewhere recently about the impact of Wal-Mart on prices across the board in the United States. They estimated that the savings to every household in the U.S. was several hundred dollars a year—whether they shopped at Wal-Mart or not.
But I’ll go see the movie and let you know if I’ve forsaken the godless infidels of Bentonville.
Is there anything in the movie that would be objectionable for a 14-year old?
Todd M () (URL) - November 20, 2005 at 11:16 pm
> I’m glad the CEO of Wal-Mart
> makes over $27 million a year.
In my opinion, no one is worth that much — even if I agreed with the person.
> the impact of Wal-Mart on
> prices across the board in
> the United States
I would gladly pay a few dollars more to know that the compay’s employees were being taken care of (not to mention the intolerable working conditions overseas).
> Is there anything in
> the movie that would
> be objectionable for a
> 14-year old?
Not that I can think of.
> makes over $27 million a year.
In my opinion, no one is worth that much — even if I agreed with the person.
> the impact of Wal-Mart on
> prices across the board in
> the United States
I would gladly pay a few dollars more to know that the compay’s employees were being taken care of (not to mention the intolerable working conditions overseas).
> Is there anything in
> the movie that would
> be objectionable for a
> 14-year old?
Not that I can think of.
timsamoff () (URL) - November 21, 2005 at 07:46 am
If you were an unemployed worked barely able to make ends meat would your answer be the same? What should be the response to the unemployed worker on food stamps whose only choice for their livelihood and for a higher standard of living is to shop at a Wal-Mart? or the worker whose only choice is to work at a Wal-Mart because, for like work, it is higher and at the same time get more hours for a higher living?
These are the type of questions that I get. It is easy to point out the problems but when faced with alternatives the answers become more difficult.
These are the type of questions that I get. It is easy to point out the problems but when faced with alternatives the answers become more difficult.
dh () - November 21, 2005 at 12:27 pm
> If you were an unemployed
> worked barely able to make
> ends meat would your answer
> be the same?
There are cheap alternatives to Wal-Mart… I use some of them.
> What should be the response
> to the unemployed worker on
> food stamps
What would your response be to the Wal-Mart employee on food stamps?
> or the worker whose only
> choice is to work at a
> Wal-Mart because, for like
> work, it is higher and at
> the same time get more hours
> for a higher living
Or the small company who paid their employees well above minimum wage and offered complete medical benefits that put out of business when the Wal-Mart moved into town.
> It is easy to point out
> the problems but when
> faced with alternatives
> the answers become more
> difficult.
I don’t agree. I think people are lazy and like cheap stuff. If we all did our homework, we’d all find that there are alternatives that don’t take too much extra work. Do not let convenience overshadow truths that are easily accessible.
And…
Go see the movie before making another comment here!!!
> worked barely able to make
> ends meat would your answer
> be the same?
There are cheap alternatives to Wal-Mart… I use some of them.
> What should be the response
> to the unemployed worker on
> food stamps
What would your response be to the Wal-Mart employee on food stamps?
> or the worker whose only
> choice is to work at a
> Wal-Mart because, for like
> work, it is higher and at
> the same time get more hours
> for a higher living
Or the small company who paid their employees well above minimum wage and offered complete medical benefits that put out of business when the Wal-Mart moved into town.
> It is easy to point out
> the problems but when
> faced with alternatives
> the answers become more
> difficult.
I don’t agree. I think people are lazy and like cheap stuff. If we all did our homework, we’d all find that there are alternatives that don’t take too much extra work. Do not let convenience overshadow truths that are easily accessible.
And…
Go see the movie before making another comment here!!!
timsamoff () (URL) - November 21, 2005 at 12:42 pm
I Can’t afford to see the movie. I’m spending my money on the difference I had to pay for the same cheap stuff I paid more for at another store. IT’s ALL MADE IN CHINA! Why should I line the pockets of some big wig? It’s the same stuff. Ethical treatment for no one, who am I kidding if I purchase the crap from Bill or Bob. Everyones doing the best they can to compete. Environment? It doesn’t factor into Big business so get over it. Look, if you’re going to pick on Walmart you’re going to have to fill the page. They aren’t the anti-christ. I may not like what they do and I haven’t seen the movie, but until I stop buying from most companies on the planet I have no right to throw any stones. We are all connected, boycott one and you boycott most of the rest. Let’s sing the praises of the good guys and hope the praise is worthy. Then pass it on.
Melissa () - November 29, 2005 at 02:05 am
> I Can’t afford to see the movie.
First off, Melissa, I get the joke, but the movie is usually free (although, I’m sorry to see that it’s not free near you, but very affordable).
As for products being made in China? I’m all for it — that’s not what I’m against here. I’m glad that third-world companies can take part in the bigger, global economy. What I am against is the working conditions in which Wal-Mart endorses. They are terrible here in the U.S. (compared with other large corporations), so do you think that they’d be comparable in other countries? Not at all. Wal-Mart’s third-world working condition philosophy is condemnable to say the least.
Here are two screenings coming up in Portland, Melissa:
– Dec 4, 9:00PM ($5.00):
http://action.bravenewfilms.org/event/wm..
– Dec 17, 7:00PM ($3.00):
http://action.bravenewfilms.org/event/wm..
First off, Melissa, I get the joke, but the movie is usually free (although, I’m sorry to see that it’s not free near you, but very affordable).
As for products being made in China? I’m all for it — that’s not what I’m against here. I’m glad that third-world companies can take part in the bigger, global economy. What I am against is the working conditions in which Wal-Mart endorses. They are terrible here in the U.S. (compared with other large corporations), so do you think that they’d be comparable in other countries? Not at all. Wal-Mart’s third-world working condition philosophy is condemnable to say the least.
Here are two screenings coming up in Portland, Melissa:
– Dec 4, 9:00PM ($5.00):
http://action.bravenewfilms.org/event/wm..
– Dec 17, 7:00PM ($3.00):
http://action.bravenewfilms.org/event/wm..
timsamoff () (URL) - November 29, 2005 at 08:17 am
I have seen the movie and I was disgusted. I wasn’t a fan of Walmart before, but I refuse to patronize them in any way now that I have seen it. And, I’m making a concerted effort to avoid made in China products. I’m not dellusional enough to believe my one act of definace will bring the Walmart machine crashng down, but the money I previously spent there, is now channeled back into my local community. I eat in locally owned restruants, shop in locally owned stores, and I FEEL better for doing it. If we don’t deman American made products, US companies will continue to outsource. Which is great for the Chinese population…but I’m not Chinese. I want America to be a better country.
Elizabeth () - September 16, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Elizabeth ~
Re: Wal-Mart… Thanks for fighting the good fight!
Re: Outsourcing… I’m not so against outsourcing as you are, but I do understand the issues. I think you’re going about it in the right way.
Regarding all of these issues, I do think that one person can make a difference. Heck, if we all took on that attitude, then it would just be “one person”!
Re: Wal-Mart… Thanks for fighting the good fight!
Re: Outsourcing… I’m not so against outsourcing as you are, but I do understand the issues. I think you’re going about it in the right way.
Regarding all of these issues, I do think that one person can make a difference. Heck, if we all took on that attitude, then it would just be “one person”!
timsamoff () (URL) - September 17, 2007 at 07:30 am
What makes one think that the movie isn’t biased against Wal-Mart. What fight is needed when Wal-Mart has made dramatic changes? Third World conditions? don’t you think that is a little far-fetched or an overgeneralization?
I still stand by the comment and questions I made earlier. I researched the writer of the movie and he is biased against Wal-Mart before doing the movie so why should I watch it?
Way to go Melissa. I really enjoyed your reply.
I still stand by the comment and questions I made earlier. I researched the writer of the movie and he is biased against Wal-Mart before doing the movie so why should I watch it?
Way to go Melissa. I really enjoyed your reply.
dh () - September 17, 2007 at 09:37 am
Ummm… Isn’t that why someone would make a film (write a book, make a comment, whatever) about anything? Because they are biased in some way or another?
Of course the filmmaker is biased against Wal-Mart… I am too.
That’s why I recommend the movie as well as boycotting Wal-Mart (as I have done for over six years now). I would hope that people have the courage to stand up to any company that condones poor workng conditions and exploitation of power.
Of course the filmmaker is biased against Wal-Mart… I am too.
That’s why I recommend the movie as well as boycotting Wal-Mart (as I have done for over six years now). I would hope that people have the courage to stand up to any company that condones poor workng conditions and exploitation of power.
timsamoff () (URL) - September 17, 2007 at 09:58 am
So why would I need to watch the film before commenting when the film is biased? Couldn’t we look at this issue in an unbiased way and realize that the perceptions could be wrong against Wal-Mart? Wouldn’t be more influential to have the documentary be unbiased?
Films and books don’t have to be biased. Your perception that these things have to be biased to made is the problem. If one truly wants to get people like me and others away from Wal-Mart they need to present their views in an unbiased way. People are smart enough to know when they are being presented propaganda because all biased presentations are propaganda.
Films and books don’t have to be biased. Your perception that these things have to be biased to made is the problem. If one truly wants to get people like me and others away from Wal-Mart they need to present their views in an unbiased way. People are smart enough to know when they are being presented propaganda because all biased presentations are propaganda.
dh () - September 17, 2007 at 10:09 am
Part of research, learning and helping people to change is getting information that isn’t biased that presents both sides factually on the issue. After watching the unbiased information I don’t come to your conclusion. If one wants to present me with unbiased information against Wal-Mart with facts then I might move but the factual information I have seen to support fully those conclusions or at least to the extent concluded.
dh () - September 17, 2007 at 10:20 am
In any case, I didn’t say that the film was biased, I said that the filmmaker was biased. That is a reason someone might want to do a study on something. The film itself is very balanced (which you would see if you watched the film and didn’t read reviews by other — biased — writers).
timsamoff () (URL) - September 17, 2007 at 11:20 am
Whether it is the film or the writer I still think a person can keep their bias to themselves and make the film and writing unbiased. I have read unbiased reviews which have stated that the bias of the writer on this film is too evident. If one really wants to help people to get accurate information one really needs to keep the bias to themselves and at the same time present it in a non-bias way. That is why (analogy, as an example not an overgeneralization) I “consider the source”. If something on “business” is mentioned from NPR it begs the question before reading or watching the article what the conclusion on the subject will be. My research has stated otherwise. Also, the reaction to the information can also be overgeneralized or an overreaction. In my dealings with subject matter like this I have found “the truth is in the middle”.
If a person is “biased” why would I want to watch a film or look read the information? Many times when I look at people who are like this I find out the subconscience real reason people react this way and many times it isn’t due to the subject matter in question but some outside reason that is an overgeneralzation.
If a person is “biased” why would I want to watch a film or look read the information? Many times when I look at people who are like this I find out the subconscience real reason people react this way and many times it isn’t due to the subject matter in question but some outside reason that is an overgeneralzation.
dh () - September 17, 2007 at 1:32 pm
Wow. I have absolutely no idea what you just said.
timsamoff () (URL) - September 17, 2007 at 1:33 pm
PS: I read one of the pages on your picture “...Unionbusting”. Could it be that the ones putting forth these “ideas” on Wal-Mart come to these conclusions not based on the facts but that they support unions and so find the “self-fullfilled prophesy” from the “facts” with regard to these issues?
dh () - September 17, 2007 at 1:35 pm
What don’t you understand? I will be glad to explain. I’m sure some of it you couldn’t understand but I don’t see how ALL of it was unable to be understood.
Commenting has been permanently disabled. Please use the Contact button above.dh () - September 17, 2007 at 2:22 pm
