[nolidad]

Originally Posted by slap_j

Why not just have the government subsidize them? At least then you're not encouraging seeking happiness in material things.

Silliness aside, propagate anti-consumerist philosophy such as the gospel. And no, I am not endorsing asceticism.

Well the govt. produces nothing! The only money a govt. gets is from taxing those who produce wealth- whether meager or major wealth.

If more and more go unemployed- there is less monewy to be had for taxing so less subsidizong.

Which is the point of the video... The reason we choose Mom'n'Pop over WalMart is because our values place more importance on maintaining community and the stability of that community rather than simply getting something cheaper. That's how consumerism and liberal capitalism fundamentally begin to undermine our priorities as Christians.

Well first off that video was made wothout one whit of a christian spiritual concern.

I will agree unbridled consumerism leads to materialism which dulls ones sensitivity to the voice of the Lord.

So then you are against Microsoft, IBM,Dell, Exxon, Krogers, IGA, CVS, Rite-aid, Target, Kohls, GM,Chrysler, Ford, Home Depot. Lowes, Gap, Old Navy, Verizon, Sprint, AOL, NBC,ABC,CBS,CNN and on and on it goes for they are all mega corporations and take away from community?????

[slap_j]

Originally Posted by nolidad

Well the govt. produces nothing! The only money a govt. gets is from taxing those who produce wealth- whether meager or major wealth.

If more and more go unemployed- there is less monewy to be had for taxing so less subsidizong.

I did say I wasn't serious.

I will agree unbridled consumerism leads to materialism which dulls ones sensitivity to the voice of the Lord.

What is bridled consumerism supposed to look like?

[thesteve]

Originally Posted by nolidad

Well the govt. produces nothing!

Are you sure? I'm pretty sure my coworkers and I are producing something all day.

So then you are against Microsoft, IBM,Dell, Exxon, Krogers, IGA, CVS, Rite-aid, Target, Kohls, GM,Chrysler, Ford, Home Depot. Lowes, Gap, Old Navy, Verizon, Sprint, AOL, NBC,ABC,CBS,CNN and on and on it goes for they are all mega corporations and take away from community?????

Some companies actually do contribute. I know Home Depot has been known to build homes in the communities they are in to help those caught in natural disaster.

That being said, I think there's a big difference between being a mega-corporation and being Walmart. It's one thing to be a "one-stop shop) and a whole other thing to force manufacturers to lower their standards in order to let you maintain the same profit margins while lowering prices for the consumer.

[ICTHUS]

Originally Posted by nolidad

So then you are against Microsoft, IBM,Dell, Exxon, Krogers, IGA, CVS, Rite-aid, Target, Kohls, GM,Chrysler, Ford, Home Depot. Lowes, Gap, Old Navy, Verizon, Sprint, AOL, NBC,ABC,CBS,CNN and on and on it goes for they are all mega corporations and take away from community?????

I'm curious why you didn't include Fox on there. You've stated elsewhere that they are your favorite news source (why am I not surprised?) and they are just as big as any of the major news sources you've listed.

While we're at it, let me introduce you to some more varied and (at least I think) less biased sources:

BBC - Homepage
CBC News - Latest Canada, World, Entertainment and Business News
CNN.com - Breaking News, U.S., World, Weather, Entertainment & Video News
http://www.abc.net.au/news/

[nolidad]

Originally Posted by metropolis4

- Wal-Mart's average employee can work a full 40 hour week and still be eligible for food stamps, medicaid, welfare etc
-In 2005 Chief Executive H. Lee Scott Jr. made over $17.5 million while the average employee made less than $14,000
-Wal-Mart factory workers in China make less than $3 a week after working more than 72 hours

It must feel good to buy that $5 radio and know that some person in China is slaving in a factory 72 hours a week making barely enough to survive so that you can have a cheap radio..

Not to mention it's predatory business practices...

Compare that to Costco who's average employee makes $17 an hour and is provided with affordable health care plans and 401k's while their CEO's annual salary is around $350,000.

(I don't know if I'm supposed to quote sources on here, but if so this information came from an article in the Denver Post on 11-22-05 by Cindy Rodriguez Smiley face belies Wal-Mart)

First it is not $3/week- it is $30 which is why Wal mart and all the other corporations that import from China have helped create a middle class in China where one never existed.

Wal MArt Jobs as in store employess (dept heads excluded) were never designed to be high paying jobs . Just like their counterparts in K-Mart, Kohls, Target and others (Best Buy, Gap, Old Navy,) they are lower end paying jobs except at managment level. That has always been true in the retail industry for "discounters". Costco is a whole different genre. As is Macy's, and other high end retailers.

Home depot p[ays far better than Lowes. They hire plumbers for their plumbing dpets etc.

And the average work week in Chinese factories is 60, not 72 hours which is normal for that culture. So they are working the same- but are now middle class in that country.

In 2005 Chief Executive H. Lee Scott Jr. made over $17.5 million while the average employee made less than $14,000

Do you have a problem with sports stars making $25 million a year while the hot dog vendors mak $8/ hour?

How about movie stars grabbing $10-15 mil a film while the theater employess make $8-9/hour? I have never seen outrage at these.

Well Wal Mart is doing something right- every where they go- they succeed.

I am sorry but going to Walmart and paying $3.99 for a pair of fruit of th eloom boxers is not sin because I won't go to Mom and Pops clothiers and pay $5.99 for the same item.

Yes Wal -Mart stocks many low end items. They never pretended they didn't. But they also sell identical items at lower prices. Why? Through their massive buying power they get better deals. They also work on a far less profit margin than most of their competitors.

In 2008 Wal MArt world wide grossed approx. $300,000,000,000 in sales- their net profit on that that went to shareholders and upper management? $8,000,000,000 for a 3.75% profit.

The thing to consider is that when Walmart charges a low price to you, they also pay less to the producer. In turn the producer cuts costs somewhere in the production aspect, theoretically lowering the quality of the product. A friend of mine saw this first hand in terms of the clothes at Wal-mart. He said that the companies that make t-shirts (he worked for a t-shirt designer that supplied designs to stores like JC Penney and Sears) would make one set of shirts for Penney, Sears, etc. and another, lower quality set, for Wal-mart.

this is almost totally untrue. Producers agree on a price and the reason why the cost is so much less is that they work on a huge contract for one customer. As a result the net cost per item goes way down. You get a better price if you buy a million of an item insteafd of a thousand.

[thesteve]

Originally Posted by nolidad

this is almost totally untrue. Producers agree on a price and the reason why the cost is so much less is that they work on a huge contract for one customer. As a result the net cost per item goes way down. You get a better price if you buy a million of an item insteafd of a thousand.

While this is true of mass production in general, from what I have read and seen in documentaries, Walmart takes this a step further and basically tells producers, "make it at this price point or you don't get to sell at Walmart". This price point is typically below what the producers' bottom line would normally be and in order to compensate they cut corners because they know how important it is to sell units at Walmart. Thus they could be making virtually the same unit for two retail outlets (say, Sears and Walmart), but the Walmart version will have a lower bottom line and will have corners cut in production. FWIW, unless you have some insider track on Walmart and their practices, I'm going to believe my designer friend that saw firsthand what goes on over your opinion here. Sorry.

On top of this, Walmart has had a documented history of making their employees work without federally mandated breaks and overtime without compensation.

[nolidad]

What is bridled consumerism supposed to look like?

http://www.mindspring.com/~ebancroft/images/curly05.jpg

While this is true of mass production in general, from what I have read and seen in documentaries, Walmart takes this a step further and basically tells producers, "make it at this price point or you don't get to sell at Walmart".

Well then that is the fault of the manufacturer. His greed is forcing him to do wrong. And yes that has happened, but what you don't see in those documentaries is the number of suppliers who get tossed because they cut too many corners. Remember there are enormous number of national brands at Wal MArt. what youp are talking about are private label items. The reason why Wal Mart can sell an HP digital camera for $40 less than the same at Sears- is their enormous buying power lets them get better deals.. It is the same camera for both.

As for the Chinese Issue- some facts that teh anti Wal MArt documetaires do ot tell you.

1. Teh govt. negotiates with all foreign companies for the factories that produce their goods.
2. Goods made for Best buy are made at teh same wage rate in China as for Wal MArt.
3. The govt. decides who gets to work at these factories
4. Outside of the "privileged" wage jobs (mostly military, govt. and physicians) the average wage for a chinese worker outsideo f the 7 special economic zones (8 including HIng Kong) is $40 U.S. a month. So when a factory starts up in rural China and the worker is paid $30 a week for a 60 hour week (once again the govt. sets work times in China in these factories) they are tripling what they would have otherwise made.
5. As the middle class grows in China this is beginning to change- but teh govt. still has its hands firlmly on all foreign companies that have goods manufactured inChina for them.

How do I know? I went there twice and still have missionary friends there. So if you want ot place blame- be kind- the chinese workers are making 3X as much as they use to make for woreking about the same amount of hours.

[thesteve]

Originally Posted by nolidad

Well then that is the fault of the manufacturer. His greed is forcing him to do wrong. And yes that has happened, but what you don't see in those documentaries is the number of suppliers who get tossed because they cut too many corners. Remember there are enormous number of national brands at Wal MArt. what youp are talking about are private label items.

I'm not sure what "private label items" are. In the case of clothing they are probably suppliers for Walmart's house brands.

I agree that the manufacturer is also falling prey to greed. I don't think this justifies Walmart pushing the manufacturers bottom line lower than what it already is.

[normajean777]

Originally Posted by thesteve

Dollars and cents wise, it probably doesn't make sense.

The thing to consider is that when Walmart charges a low price to you, they also pay less to the producer. In turn the producer cuts costs somewhere in the production aspect, theoretically lowering the quality of the product. A friend of mine saw this first hand in terms of the clothes at Wal-mart. He said that the companies that make t-shirts (he worked for a t-shirt designer that supplied designs to stores like JC Penney and Sears) would make one set of shirts for Penney, Sears, etc. and another, lower quality set, for Wal-mart.

Wal-mart isn't passing the savings onto the customer because they're feeling generous. They're doing it by telling manufacturers something akin to, "We can sell 1 million units of your product, but only if you let us buy it from you for cheaper than what you usually make it at."

Which means that Walmart made an expensive product cheaper. That is a wonderful thing. Honestly though, would you expect savings and quality, or just one or the other. In the real world we rarely get both. But there is a difference if I want quality or if I want savings. When I buy packages of white shirts from Walmart, I don't buy them because they are stylish and will last forever, I buy them because they are $2.50 each and thus cheap enough to abuse.

Walmart has a 3.3% profit margin, can we expect them to lower prices without them getting lower prices? McDonalds on the other hand has an 18% profit margin. Perhaps you guys need to get on their case about charging to much!

Originally Posted by ICTHUS

While we're at it, let me introduce you to some more varied and (at least I think) less biased sources:

CBC News - Latest Canada, World, Entertainment and Business News

Thats rich....

[nolidad]

Originally Posted by ICTHUS

I'm curious why you didn't include Fox on there. You've stated elsewhere that they are your favorite news source (why am I not surprised?) and they are just as big as any of the major news sources you've listed.

While we're at it, let me introduce you to some more varied and (at least I think) less biased sources:

BBC - Homepage
CBC News - Latest Canada, World, Entertainment and Business News
CNN.com - Breaking News, U.S., World, Weather, Entertainment & Video News
ABC News - Top Stories - Breaking news from Australia and the world

Well FOX too , I just want to get enormous.

I agree that the manufacturer is also falling prey to greed. I don't think this justifies Walmart pushing the manufacturers bottom line lower than what it already is.

Wal Mart pushes nobody. They set a price point they want to sell an item at. They tender offers for bids to supply that item. Companies then match that bid. They don't twist arms. The manufacturers twist their own arms to get into teh market place of Wal Mart. Wal MArt doesn't go into the companies busieness to see what there proft margins are how they cut corners. If the product is shoddy (and this means for a low end or generic item).

I'm not sure what "private label items" are. In the case of clothing they are probably suppliers for Walmart's house brands.

Exactly, just like generic food items in stores and private label food items in stores. They are seconds. Not teh high quality stuff used by say Libbys or Green Giant, but perfectly edibles, just not as pretty.

On top of this, Walmart has had a documented history of making their employees work without federally mandated breaks and overtime without compensation.

This was in regions and not a national problem if I recall correctly. Yes it was a problem and has been corrected. Some bossed fired, others demoted.

Are you sure? I'm pretty sure my coworkers and I are producing something all day.

Well unless you are part of G. M. (govt. motors) alll govt. workers are productive, but do not produce things for resale. We provide services paid by tax dollars.

A question for the anti walmarters out there. Where is the outrage at apple, Nike, Puma, Adidas and legions of other companies who have their goods manufactured in China for tthe same and at times, less wages than the factories that build wal mart goods.

Some companies actually do contribute. I know Home Depot has been known to build homes in the communities they are in to help those caught in natural disaster.

Well I touched onthis. Wal-Mart gave $15,000,000 in cash to Katrina victims, approx 50 tractor trailer loads of needed supplies and had employess distribute these goods on the clock. They do this in all the communities they ahve stores in when disaster strikes.

[Hopeful]

Noli's right. If it was not Wal-Mart, it would have been someone else that would be doing what they do. He knocked off KMart because he was better. Sam Walton was a small town retailer who saw the future and acted on it. However, his primary goal was not to become #1, but to deliver low prices to the buying public. That meant that his profit margins were also very low, which meant that the only way his model would work was to sell a lot. Other companies like Costco, Ikea, Home Depot, Barnes & Noble, etc. realize this too and their success is often tied to their price points. These stores are always crowded because their prices give good value to the buying public. If you were a supplier for Wal-Mart, even though you have to deliver at lower margins, you are manufacturing and selling a lot more than you would have if you did not sell to Wal-Mart. That means a lot more people are employed because of it, even in the periphery. And don't think Wal-Mart is the only one that is selling you things made in China, India, Indonesia, S. America, etc. Many of your affordable goods are made off shore, even your affordable music equipment.

One more thing. Sam Walton saw that the computer was going to play a large part of his operation in tracking inventory, sales, reporting, etc. A lot of the current technology and advancements in computers is a result of his demands for a system that would work for him.

[ICTHUS]

Noli: Fox news is a joke. They deliberately distort the facts and display clips out of context in order to further an agenda.

Ample proof can be found here.

[nolidad]

Originally Posted by ICTHUS

I'm curious why you didn't include Fox on there. You've stated elsewhere that they are your favorite news source (why am I not surprised?) and they are just as big as any of the major news sources you've listed.

While we're at it, let me introduce you to some more varied and (at least I think) less biased sources:

BBC - Homepage
CBC News - Latest Canada, World, Entertainment and Business News
CNN.com - Breaking News, U.S., World, Weather, Entertainment & Video News
ABC News - Top Stories - Breaking news from Australia and the world

I checked all four links, couldn't find a thing on "the story of stuff" or businesses doing business in China. Whjat am I supposed to be looking for on these links.

Noli: Fox news is a joke.

Ample proof can be found here.

So let me see if I have this right, a liberal Christina points me to a liberal web site and points out stuff on fox that isn't kosher and that makes them a joke. Is that right? Is that teh standard that makes a news org a joke? Because I can set up CNN, CBS,ABC.NBC.CBC, BBC and Al-Jazerya and find them gaffing TONS.

So I encourage you not to watch Fox news at all. (though Meagan Kelly is by self confession not a fox journalist) As for me I enjoy FOX because its talking shows (with the exception of Beck and Hannity) offer balanced presentations of both sides. And judging by the ratings numbers - more and more Americans do so as well.

I watch CNN and NBC also. I recognize their liberal slant to the news and "legal" issues just as I recognize Fox has a conservative slant.

[nolidad]

Originally Posted by ICTHUS

I'm curious why you didn't include Fox on there. You've stated elsewhere that they are your favorite news source (why am I not surprised?) and they are just as big as any of the major news sources you've listed.

While we're at it, let me introduce you to some more varied and (at least I think) less biased sources:

BBC - Homepage
CBC News - Latest Canada, World, Entertainment and Business News
CNN.com - Breaking News, U.S., World, Weather, Entertainment & Video News
ABC News - Top Stories - Breaking news from Australia and the world

Well I hate to break it to you, but CBC, ABC are liberal with a liberal slant. CNN is so far left it can't see liberal anymore.

Fox news division (not their talking head shows but the news broadcasts) tend towarld conservatism, but are very balanced on their presentation of news. Their talking heads- with the exception of Beckel, and Colmes (token liberrals) are conservative to very conservative.

Do a google or biong search and you will find that the polls show that news folks tend to be very very liberal.

[Fandrew]

Originally Posted by nolidad

Well I hate to break it to you, but CBC, ABC are liberal with a liberal slant. CNN is so far left it can't see liberal anymore.

Fox news division (not their talking head shows but the news broadcasts) tend towarld conservatism, but are very balanced on their presentation of news. Their talking heads- with the exception of Beckel, and Colmes (token liberrals) are conservative to very conservative.

Do a google or biong search and you will find that the polls show that news folks tend to be very very liberal.

The only reason Fox can be considered balanced is that it balances out the liberal slant of CNN. Seriously, you can have the tv muted, and tell a conservative bias just by reading the ticker on the bottom of the screen. Heck, we spent a week on this when I was student teaching Government Class in high school.

You want unbiased news? Try the BBC... or Al-Jazeera, they're rather indifferent on some thing.