Open the f-ing lanes!!!

[david_42]

Guess Utah has changed. Last time I was there (SLC) on a Sunday, NOTHING was open. Heck of a time to be looking for a radiator hose.

 

[Bytor1100]

It's still like that, but not quite as bad as it was.

 

[Austinhomebrew]

Simply put Wamart charges too little and it is bad for the economy. I don't expect everyone to understand, especially if it doesn't effect you.

Forrest

 

[Evan!]

Simply put Wamart charges too little and it is bad for the economy. I don't expect everyone to understand, especially if it doesn't effect you.

Forrest

I'm honestly interested in why you feel this is so. I'd love to see another point of view, especially one from yours, as a business owner.

I'm also curious whether you think that it's WalMart's responsibility to charge whatever is best for the economy.

 

[AnOldUR]

At one time the US wealth was somewhat self-contained. We produced most of what we needed and exchanged goods and services on a fairly equal scale keeping those riches here at home. It all changes when big business gets greedy and buys from outside where labor is cheaper, safety regulations are non-existent and living conditions suck. The end result is to lower our overall standard of living to meet those. The homeless guy Evan mentioned lost his job when the plant he worked at closed. He has no choice but to take your $5.00/hr offer now that he’s competing with the wages paid in China.

Feel free to buy from Wal-Mart, but “what goes around comes around.” Manufacturing in this country is at a point where we no longer have the facilities to be competitive. How long do you think an economy can last that doesn’t produce any viable product?

End of political rant . . . . time for a homebrew

 

[Evan!]

At one time the US wealth was somewhat self-contained. We produced most of what we needed and exchanged goods and services on a fairly equal scale keeping those riches here at home. It all changes when big business gets greedy and buys from outside where labor is cheaper, safety regulations are non-existent and living conditions suck. The end result is to lower our overall standard of living to meet those. The homeless guy Evan mentioned lost his job when the plant he worked at closed. He has no choice but to take your $5.00/hr offer now that he’s competing with the wages paid in China.

Feel free to buy from Wal-Mart, but “what goes around comes around.” Manufacturing in this country is at a point where we no longer have the facilities to be competitive. How long do you think an economy can last that doesn’t produce any viable product?

It's called shifting to a service-oriented economy. That's how.

The end result is not what you state, though. If you think our standards of living have dropped over the past 50 years, then you're just ignoring the facts! The standards of living actually increase when big american companies move their factories into developing nations' economies. It's a fact that companies like WalMart pay the factory workers 10 times or more what the mean wage in that country is.

Now you can bemoan this, you can say that it's bad for them to get a leg up while we have to suck it up, but if you ask me, it's just a bit racist and nationalist. American protectionism serves americans, but it does so at the expense of developing nations. Did we have all the minimum wage limits and the safety regulations when WE were a developing economy? Of course not---it's how we got to where we are now. And now that we're here at the top, we have the nerve to demand that poor, developing economies enact the same strict standards that we have? It's absurd! If you want to keep america on top at the expense of developing nations via immoral protectionism, I'll have to say that I disagree wholly.

Manufacturing just for the sake of jobs is silly to me. It isn't about jobs, it's about product. By that logic, the government should just build a bunch of factories that produce nothing of use but still pay people to work there. Oh, wait.

 

[EdWort]

If I was going to be poor, I'd want to be in America. Our "poor" people have a better standard of living than most Europeans.

The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various gov*ernment reports:

• Forty-three percent of all poor households actu*ally own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
• Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
• Only 6 percent of poor households are over*crowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
• The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
• Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.
• Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
• Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
• Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.

 

[MikeFlynn74]

produce nothing of use but still pay people to work there. Oh, wait

Thats called welfare, or is that what you were getting at?

 

[Bytor1100]

I think the gap between rich and poor is just widening, and the middle doesn't mean the same thing that it used to. In order to be "middle class" both the wife and husband are required to work to maintain the same lifestyle since decent paying jobs for people with no college aren't as numerous as they once were.

 

[MikeFlynn74]

EdWort- But they have national health care! So they are better off arent they?!?

 

[MikeFlynn74]

I think the gap between rich and poor is just widening

All of our friends are right there either making 150K + or less than 45. Whats best about those who make the big money is they dont have any real skills more than the next guy. Its all about selling yourself in the interview.

 

[EdWort]

EdWort- But they have national health care! So they are better off arent they?!?

Let's not go down that path. I've been there having lived in Germany as a foreigner dealing with their system.

 

[MikeFlynn74]

Ed- Go to England. Immigrants and non-brits get primary care before the locals do!

Dental extra

 

[EdWort]

I think the gap between rich and poor is just widening, and the middle doesn't mean the same thing that it used to. In order to be "middle class" both the wife and husband are required to work to maintain the same lifestyle since decent paying jobs for people with no college aren't as numerous as they once were.

I don't think there is a gap, except for those people who remain uneducated and have no skills. Many people in middle class have moved right along into different categories.

What do people who do not have a college education and do not learn a trade expect? What happened to self reliance and individual responsibility? Why is it always someone else's fault that our "poor" are poor? It couldn't have been their decisions and actions or inactions, it has to be someone else fault for their situation.

 

[AnOldUR]

Evan wrote:
It's called shifting to a service-oriented economy. That's how.

An industrial economy employs large numbers of relatively well-paid production workers. A service economy, however, employs legions of key punchers, salesclerks, waiters, secretaries, and cashiers and the wages of these jobs tend to be comparatively low. Barry Bluestone of Boston University and Bennett Harrison of MIT in their book, The Deindustrialization of America, echo this gloomy theme. The pattern of wages in the old, mill-based economy looked just like a normal bell curve. It had a few highly-paid at the top, a few low-wage jobs at the bottom, and plenty of jobs in the middle, but in the new services economy the middle is missing.

This sets up the environment where a Wal-Mart can thrive, under paying desperate employees and selling under priced goods.

May be you are in a sector that is immune to this effect, but for most American the outlook isn’t so good. Well thought out import taxes would be a way to start to reverse the trend.

But I’m just a machinist, what do I know about economics?

 

[zoebisch01]

Like I mentioned before, if one feels Walmart needs to go away, the place to start is to stop shopping there and begin shopping elsewhere.

As for those that are employed there and those shop there, they obviously don't care enough yet to change it.

Yes, they are smattering small retail stores to bits, but those stores are operating in the wrong element imho. They need to change their tactics if they want to survive. It could mean going into a totally different retail business. Niche. That's what I have been saying for a while now...small business needs two things to survive in this day and age: 1) Stellar customer service and 2) A Niche market. Otherwise, there is no reason they can stay in business.

Unfortunately (as I mentioned earlier), the biggest problem is that once Walmart decides to set up shop, the game is over for many retail stores. If they had been nurturing customer loyalty and strong community long before Walmart planted its foot down, they may have had a chance. I think about a 'mom-n-pop' here that was indeed very large. They carried just about anything, in fact they carried many hard to find parts. Trouble was, imo, they were riding on the coattails of the founder and lost the sense of customer service along the way. I recall going in there on several occasions and it was almost like I was a nuisance. I was even sworn at once (won't get into that one )...but my point is they couldn't compete with two Super Walmarts in the area and all the other Giants.

 

[PeteOz77]

If I need baby formula, I don't buy the small can at the grocery store, I get the bigger can of the same sh!t at WalMart for the same price. I guess you would call that being cheap. If you are willing to waste gas driving to 3 stores when you could get everything you need at one, more power to you.

It depends on how much baby formula you need, when you need it, and how close your local shop is, in comparison to Wal Mart

I can walk to my local shop and pay a bit more, but I have to drive to the Monster shops. I also have to park 1/2 mile away (which is further than my local shops, so not only do I drive, but I also have to walk further.) and fight the crowds to buy the can of whatever.

In the long run, I waste a lot less time, gasoline, and effort by purchasing from the small shop, even if the can of whatever is smaller, but costs the same. Now if I use a LOT of the stuff and buy it by the case once a month, and I also need to buy a lot of other stuff a the same time, then the gas, time and frustration might be worth it... to some.

 

[PeteOz77]

What other method would you prefer to live under? Socialism? Communism?

Mate, I don't have an answer for that, as no "ism" is without flaw. The problem is when we let those flaws compound and turn into something very ugly. We can have capitalism without Homeless people and we can have capitalism without Billionaires.

There is nothing wrong with getting ahead by educating yourself, working harder and making a btter life for yourself. That's the way it is supposed to work.

There is however something wrong with destroying your competition, enslaving the masses and becoming FILTHY rich off the backs of less fortunate folks.

The Wal Marts of the world could pay all of their staff 50% more wages and still survive, but the shareholders couldn't drive new a new Bentley. So let's pay them as LITTLE as we can, take way their benefits and buy a dozen more houses! YAY

 

[EdWort]

becoming FILTHY rich off the backs of less fortunate folks.

That implies that everyone is poor or rich based on good luck or bad luck. Back to blaming problems on something else besides ones own decisions in life.

 

[PeteOz77]

I'll defer to what EdWort said so I won't have to repeat too many of his sage words. The fact is, capitalism (like democracy) is NOT perfect (I never said it was) but it's the best option---the one that leads to more wealth creation and more freedom. Your alternatives (socialism, communism, etc) are hideously immoral in many ways...they all but forgo personal freedom for "the greater good", i.e., the tyranny of the majority. Capitalism may not be perfect, but at least it doesn't force me to submit the tyranny of 50.1% of the populace. Furthermore, WalMart didn't invent their brand of large-scale commercialism, and I certainly disagree with their tactics of essentially bribing and blackmailing politicians in order to garner special favors, tax breaks, etc.

But the mere idea of "predatory" pricing is hogwash to begin with. It reminds me of the old joke where three guys were in jail and they got to talking. Turns out they were all gas station owners. What a coincidence! They ask the first guy, what're you in for? He says, "I sold my gas for too cheap. I'm in for predatory pricing". They ask the second guy, he says "I sold my gas for too much, I'm in for gouging". Then they ask the third guy...and he says, "I sold my gas for the same price as my competitors. I'm in for collusion".

Now can you comprehend the absurdity here? "Predatory" pricing?!?!


First off, I've already address this issue, and I've stated just how wrong I think this is---but I believe that just as much blame lies with greedy, crooked politicians who make that happen! So why are you using this as an argument against capitalism? It's not. It's an argument against cronyism and bribes. hey, great, we agree: cronyism and bribes are bad.


But what if, just what if, that mom and pop store figured out its own recipe for success, for overcoming the tide of big box stores? And they got bigger and bigger, until they were able to do that same thing. Hm, the tables have turned.

The point here is that we apparently differ on what we view as the goal. For me, the goal is the best system that affords the opportunity for everyone to move up the ladder and also allows for individual freedom to reign supreme (even more supreme than mom and pop). Apparently, the goal for you is more mom and pop shops. Or am I wrong?



Businesses going out of business because they can't compete is actually a fact of life, believe it or not. If there was no competition, then nobody would have any incentive to provide better service or lower prices. What don't you get about that? It sucks to see small stores close because of bigger stores, simply because the big stores don't have a local face, while the little stores have this image of a poor old couple just trying to make ends meet. It's emotionally driven, and disingenuous when looked at through the lens of economics. If we start injecting emotionalism into economics, we're in BIG trouble.




That's very mature of you, making cracks about poor people being drunks and working at walmart. I'm not saying that I am a "champion of the poor" or anything---the last thing I support is welfare or socialism or handouts---but I do find your mix of "we gotta save the mom and pop shops" and "the poor can suck it, because they're just drunks anyway" arguments quite puzzling. One minute, you think we should use the government to restrict the freedoms of people in order to save the little guy; the next minute, you're telling me that poor people don't need the lower costs of living that walmart provides because they're just welfare pimps. WTF?



You missed my point by a million miles, pete. Regardless of whether YOU need something at 3:30am, WalMart wouldn't be open if it weren't profitable---and the fact that it's profitable means that SOME people DO need stuff at that hour. Not everyone is on your schedule, and not everyone needs the same things you need. For you to project your narrow worldview onto the whole of humanity is disingenuous.



America also became the most powerful nation in the world without computers, without cell phones, without insulin, without cordless drills, without MRI machines, without...etc.,etc. Is it obvious yet that your point is illogical? Just because America made it this far without X does not mean X is unnecessary.



Oh, hey, finally we've found the arbiter of what will and won't make you happy! The path to happiness is paved with planning ahead 15 minutes so you don't have to shop at WalMart. Wait, what?

Dude, Settle down.... you have just stepped over the line and made it PERSONAL by attack ME, not a set of ideals...

I'm sorry if you don't like what I have to say, but if you can't debate a topic without attacking someone personally because of their views, then I won't further distress you with my opinions.


OH, and BTW, Communism, Socialism etc are not MY alternatives. Capitalism works quite well, until it gets UGLY.... and Wal Mart is the Poster Child for ugly capitalism.

 

[Bytor1100]

That implies that everyone is poor or rich based on good luck or bad luck. Back to blaming problems on something else besides ones own decisions in life.

Isn't that becoming the American way now
Oh well, I'm glad I have to opprotunity to carve my own future. While having a homebrew at the same time.

 

[Austinhomebrew]

I think people understand what I am saying. There are people that won't, but it would not be a good idea for me to go further.

 

[kornkob]

That implies that everyone is poor or rich based on good luck or bad luck. Back to blaming problems on something else besides ones own decisions in life.

On the other hand claiming that there is no component of luck in success, particualrly the kind of success that makes rich people out of broke people, is flat out wrong.

There are a number of poeple I could point at who were successful because they were in the right place at the right time and people just as talented, educated and dedicated who missed the boat because they happened to not be in that right place at the right time.

One also can't ignore the fact that who you know makes a difference. Being born to a family that is connected in your chosen profession -- be it a trade, business or politics-- makes a huge difference as well.



There are a lot of factors that go into success. Pretending that 'anyone can be a successful if they just work hard' is a fairy tale. One shouldn't use that as an excuse to not work hard either.

 

[EdWort]

Luck is always welcome by me. I missed the Internet bubble. Darn it!

Still, I'm a firm believer in self reliance, freedom, and individual responsibility. My experience in the school of hard knocks and living 5 years abroad as a foreigner has coarsened my attitude as time goes by.

 

[dibby33]

ibtl

I like to hunt badgers, but only at night when they are playing scrabble.

 

[PeteOz77]

That implies that everyone is poor or rich based on good luck or bad luck. Back to blaming problems on something else besides ones own decisions in life.

Not at all Ed, it implies that the richer you get, the easier it is to take advantage of the poor. My issue with this, as that too much is never enough

Millionaires want to be billionaires, instead of being satisfied with millions.... and they will DESTROY their competition, and take advantage of every person, tax dodge, government handout and shady business practice to do it,instead of co-existing as fellow citizens of a decent economy.

BTW, I know a lot of people who are well, and didn't educate themselves, or work hard for it. They were born into a wealthy family, or had parents that made they money and built up an empire.. junior just fell into it. That sounds like Luck to me Not trying to be a wise-ass about it, but luck can have a LOT to do with your financial situation.

Having said that, I know a LOT more people who are doing well because of hard work, than Hard workers who were "unlucky" and just can't seem to get ahead.

 

[EdWort]

I know a LOT more people who are doing well because of hard work, than Hard workers who were "unlucky" and just can't seem to get ahead.

There ya go.

 

[PeteOz77]

I have one last comment on this, and then I'll remove myself from the debate.

Everyone thinks a "Free Market Economy" is wonderful until it affects them in a negative way. Forget what Wal Mart is doing right now, think of where they may expand next. Wal Mart may not affect your job if you are a welder, or work in a lumber yard, or provide daycare.

But, how will you feel when they expand into Daycare, welding and lumber sales? They will compete at below market prices, run your employer out of business, and leave you without a job. Your only option may be to work for them in their Welding shop, lumber yard or daycare centre, for substantially less than you are making now. You will receive no benefits, as they will not allow you to work enough hours per week to be eligible. Soon, the only place will be able to afford to shop.. is WalMart.

Don't think it can't happen. I doubt many grocery stores thought Wal Mart would ever be offering Produce....

"In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up." – Martin Niemöller

 

[MikeFlynn74]

http://www.slate.com/id/2188409/

Cheap Chinese
Why American consumers are about to start paying more for clothes, electronics, toys, and just about everything else.
By Alexandra Harney
Posted Tuesday, April 8, 2008, at 7:33 AM ET

Workers assembling toys on a production line in Shantou, China
For years, American importers and Chinese factory managers have been having the same conversation. The importers would demand lower prices for products destined for American shelves. Factory managers would counter with a long list of reasons why they needed to charge more. Most of the time, the American importers would prevail, and Wal-Mart shoppers would rejoice.

Not anymore. The era of cheap Chinese consumer goods may finally be ending, thanks to irrepressible inflation. Now when the Chinese present their lists, some American importers are conceding higher prices, meaning that American shoppers, for the first time in years, are starting to pick up the tab for rising costs in China. Some Chinese factories are now asking their American customers for price increases of as much as 20 percent to 30 percent.

A store manager at a young women's clothing store in Boston tells me the prices of some camisoles are rising. An executive in the athletic shoe industry says that Chinese factories and buyers are now negotiating about spring 2009 shoe lines, and that is where consumers will really start to see the impact of Chinese inflation. A manager of several discount stores confides his company has started raising prices of certain goods while putting others on sale. This is only the beginning: We'll be paying higher prices for Chinese goods for years to come.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consumers of Chinese exports (read: you and I) have for the past two decades benefited from an extraordinary confluence of factors. China's desire to attract foreign investment, rural workers' hunger for higher wages than they could earn on the farm, and excess capacity in nearly every industry helped limit price increases for Chinese exports. The renminbi was undervalued, wages were low, raw materials were cheap, and government officials turned a blind eye to factories' labor and environmental violations.

But now a perfect storm has hit China's manufacturers. So far this year, the renminbi has been appreciating at a 16 percent annualized rate. And prices for raw materials, which account for 60 percent to 70 percent of manufacturers' costs, are soaring. Hundred-dollar-a-barrel oil has raised transport costs and the price of oil-related materials such as plastics. Although some economists expect raw material prices to weaken in the second half of this year, in the long term, the emergence of millions of new car drivers, home buyers, and office workers in India and China will keep the price of steel, plastic, and other raw materials high.

At the same time, China is rolling out wage increases around the country and tightening its labor laws. Wages are rising at double-digit rates in coastal China. In January, Beijing introduced a new labor law that significantly strengthened the influence of the union in management decisions. The All-China Federation of Trade Unions, the country's state-backed labor organization, has launched an aggressive recruiting campaign. Beijing hopes that better protection for workers through the union and the new labor law will placate its increasingly restive manufacturing workforce. But a tidal shift in the country's demographics—a dwindling supply of young workers as a result of the "one child" policy in effect since 1979—will counteract Beijing's efforts.

China's Generation Y, the children born after the one-child policy came into effect, are increasingly aware of their rights to a legal wage, health insurance, and a certain number of days off every month. Their demands for better treatment will continue to drive up the cost of manufacturing in China. Already, southern China's Guangdong province, known as "the workshop of the world," is short 2 million workers, the equivalent of 14 percent of America's entire manufacturing workforce.

The problem for American retailers and consumers hooked on $3 T-shirts and $30 DVD players is that there is no other China waiting in the wings to make cheap goods reliably for American shoppers. American importers are now arriving by the planeload in Vietnam, hoping to take advantage of the country's lower wages. But Vietnam, hard as it tries, has only 85 million people—the size of one Chinese province. And only a fraction of its population is suitable for factory work. Moreover, prices are rising faster in Vietnam than anywhere else in Asia. Add in the rising incidence of strikes and labor disputes, and Vietnam looks increasingly like a short-term alternative.

India, the other country often mentioned as a China surrogate, has not yet managed to get its act together to take advantage of China's rising export prices. Importers say India is good at certain things—embroidery, for instance—but not at the volume production that the world depends on for cheap goods. India's road and port infrastructure, while improving, is nowhere near as efficient as China's.

So importers are looking back to countries they once rejected in favor of China—Indonesia, Mexico, and Malaysia. And they are looking ahead to countries not yet integrated into the global consumer-goods supply chain, such as Brazil and Kenya. Every country, however, offers its own special risks: strong labor unions in one, political instability in another. None offers the one-stop shop appeal of China, where factories make everything under the sun. For the time being, then, we will all still be buying a lot of "Made in China" products—and paying ever more for them.

 

[EdWort]

I welcome higher prices on chinese goods. Maybe we'll see less and less of their stuff as other countries, USA included can compete with them.

With that said, let's end this thread on a good note.

RDWHAHB!