Class warfare summed up in a simple joke (with an accompanying cartoon)

It's not about losing money. It's about not making so much so that your employees (whether here or overseas) don't get screwed.

I posted the example a few pages ago about Wal-Mart. They could easily still make a substantial profit and pay their workers more. But they choose not to.

And the consequences of that are that people criticize them. Build up enough bad feelings through the years, eventually, there will be a backlash (see Standard Oil).

 

And if investors are so greedy that they don't want to invest in a company that makes money AND treats their workers right, then they deserve to blow every single dollar.

Of course, that won't happen, except in rare occasions.

 

Baron, price is biggest reason why people shop at Walmart.

They operate on thin margins. They make a lot of money because of their volume of sales not because of big margins.

Their customers are extremely price sensitive.

If Walmart did what you suggest, their customers would go to Target or some other competitor would spring up.

It's really not as simple as you suggest. Everything is interconnected.

And, in general, you've got to get away from looking at profits as evidence of wrongdoing. Maybe some companies are evil, but profits are not evidence of such.

 

Perhaps the bigger problem is that average, middle-class people do NOT take the time and energy to understand these issues and use their economic power to foster positive change? Instead, they buy Walmart stock and cheer the company on when it screws its workers, including the family next door, because it lifts the stock prices. I'm afraid we're as much of the problem as the giant, ruthless corporations.

 

As this thread proves, we get nowhere trying to argue the absolute morality or applied ethics of Walmart.

Instead, as a practical matter, how about we just agitate for Walmart and other large corporations to pay their fair share of local, state and federal taxes?

As Ragu so well demonstrated, large corporations (mostly) zero-out when it comes to paying these taxes. This they do (mostly) legally through favorable tax codes and loopholes. They also benefit on the front end when panicked and poorly informed municipalities give away huge incentives and tax breaks for fear of losing a big box store.

My earlier point in posting about Wisconsin and Walmart was that there'd be no budget "crisis" if Wisconsin simply collected what it was owed by its biggest retailer(s).

 

I agree, in a way, with both of you. People don't take the time (or more probably, they don't have the time) to educate themselves about where they shop.

And the same thing with the prices. People want to save money. Understandable. But at the same time, if they were educated enough, maybe they'd be a little more willing to spend $12 on a T-shirt instead of $10 if they knew the $12 shirt was made in the USA.

 

It's been proven time and time again that people do not want to pay $12 for something they can buy elsewhere for $10.

And, instead of trying to change that, we'd be better off accepting it.

Baron, you come across as a good guy, and I'm sure you are. But, I really think you'd do yourself a favor and try to look at some things in a different way.

The world is not going to change in the way you would like it to. And, that's not because people are mean and/or evil.

 

And paying $12 for a $10 made in the U.S.A. wouldn't be a good thing. The spiral of protectionism would end in paying $30 for that t-shirt. And $10 for a gallon of milk.

The economy running more efficiently isn't a bad thing.

 

That's where I disagree. I don't think people would be willing to pay $30 for a T-shirt (unless it was some big fad, or something like that). This is where competition would come in.

It's like the sneakers that are $150 that are made by people making $6 a day overseas. If the workers were making $60 a day, does that mean the sneakers are going to be priced at $1,500? Who, outside of the super wealthy, are going to pay for a pair of $1,500 sneakers? No one.

Which is why you might see a $225 pair of sneakers instead, but the work is done over here. That's if people are willing to spend $225 for a pair of sneakers.

 

I don't necessarily agree. I'd like to think that there are many people who, like me, see a connection between American jobs and buying American-made products (regardless of retailer). It's both patriotic and good for our economy. The rising tide would lift all boats. We've been conditioned to think "imported" products are better; in fact, generally speaking, they're not better. We're beginning to see a shift in this thinking in automobiles and I don't see why through eduction and better marketing we wouldn't see a shift in many product categories where Americans can compete.

 

I've only ever bought American cars. And, all things being equal, a lot of people will do the same.

But, if imports of similar quality were 20% cheaper, not many people would by American.

 

Who's going to pay $225 for a pair of sneakers? Not me, especially if I can by a similar pair for $150. (And I wouldn't even spend that much.)

Besides, while I think Rockport/New Balance still makes shoes here, any ramp up of "Made in America" clothing would likely be made by exploited workers in places like Guam, American Samoa, or Saipan where they could still stick the label on the item. It wouldn't solve much.

Or, look at the work conditions of American Apparel's factory in LA. The clothes were being made by exploited illegal immigrants.