Pinko Wal-Marts

[Massive Quasars]

As for employees benefits and wage issues, employees aren't entitled to and employers are required to provide more in either category than the market dictates as sufficient incentive to retain employees.

This may sound like a deontological moral assertion, but it's based on consequence. Government interference in this area rarely benefits more people than it hurts, particularly beyond some not-so-easily determinable lower threshold.

[R00k]

They have uplifted dirt-farming yokels in one part of the world at the expense of the same people in another part -- casting them back to 3rd-world-class health and social benefits.

Which is apparently a model business practice?

The game is positive sum, not zero sum. There's no static supply of wealth from which China is taking at the expense of the US, both countries are exchanging and creating wealth simultaneously. All parties benefit, granted some more than others at times.

Sure, if you look at it in global terms. But the benefit that comes to America is really only going into the pockets of Wal Mart executives, who are in turn abusing workers here in the states and avoiding paying taxes. In other words, it is not benefiting America, it is benefiting Wal Mart, and enabling them to continue their shady practices, and enabling them to expand them so they can continue to do the same in as many locatons as possible.

So I don't see how you can fault me for having an issue with the company.

They are greedy and unethical, and you are trying to tell me that, because poor Chinese people are benefiting from this, I shouldn't have a problem with it since it is also helping "America" -- which is essentially just globalist rhetoric in this case, because the net gain for the people here is zero. Aside from the fact that we can buy cheap crap - and I'm sure you're not telling me I should be happy about that.

Sorry for the rant, but this stance seems uncharacteristic of you from past discussions.

[R00k]

Federal law requires that a full-time employee working 40 hours a week be given certain benefits - we do have some labor laws here in the states. What Wal-Mart does is work poor and easily exploitable employees one hour shy of that mark, for years on end, so they don't have to provide those beenfits, and still get full-time performance.

That is not illegal, and I never claimed it was. I said it was unethical, and for you to try to refute my claims by saying that there is nothing illegal about it....... Well, frankly it reminds me of one of Canis' defenses regarding the Vietnam War.

I'm not very familiar with your federal labour laws.

With that in mind, the reason I don't regard it as unethical is because I don't think federal (and often times more onerous state) labour laws produce net benefits in most cases. I try to leave consequence-detached ethics out of this discussion whenever possible.

So, hypothetically speaking, you do not consider sweat shops unethical, as long as they exist in a capitalist free-market society where market forces create them?

[Massive Quasars]

Sure, if you look at it in global terms. But the benefit that comes to America is really only going into the pockets of Wal Mart executives, who are in turn abusing workers here in the states and avoiding paying taxes. In other words, it is not benefiting America, it is benefiting Wal Mart, and enabling them to continue their shady practices, and enabling them to expand them so they can continue to do the same in as many locatons as possible.

So I don't see how you can fault me for having an issue with the company.

I don't fault you for having an issue with the company, the company isn't faultless. I just happen to disagree with your list of faults.

They are greedy and unethical, and you are trying to tell me that, because poor Chinese people are benefiting from this, I shouldn't have a problem with it since it is also helping "America" -- which is essentially just globalist rhetoric in this case, because the net gain for the people here is zero. Aside from the fact that we can buy cheap crap - and I'm sure you're not telling me I should be happy about that.

Sorry for the rant, but this stance seems uncharacteristic of you from past discussions.

All companies are greedy to some extent, when that greed is adequately restrained by government it can be applied to useful ends.

That said, yes I'm telling you that the cheap crap Walmart sells is one of their main benefits domestically. Understand that this can offset temporary drops in wages locally as a result of Walmart moving into a community, and ultimately (to generalize here) communities are better off economically after they've adjusted to Walmart's presence. The flow of money is far more complex than I can convey here, but it flows far beyond the hands of Walmart execs to enrich a large number of people in the US and significantly more abroad.

[Massive Quasars]

So, hypothetically speaking, you do not consider sweat shops unethical, as long as they exist in a capitalist free-market society where market forces create them?

Yes, an unfortunate outcome, but employees who can't do better are often forced by circumstance to work there in order to subsist. Sometimes from our supposedly enlightened western perspective, we think it best to regulate these places, but even minimal regulations for a wealthy country would serve to regulate most of the market out of business were it enforced in these poorer environments.

We mustn't forget that there are far worse modes of existance than working in sweat shops.

[S@M]

which does not by default make sweat shops a good thing by any means.
The reality of such businesses is that employees tend to be locked in to a cycle of enormous working hours with inadequate net gain to break the poverty cycle, keeping them locked in to teh business where invariably their children get drawn in to the same process - so that other, richer people can have cheap shit

[feedback]

So, hypothetically speaking, you do not consider sweat shops unethical, as long as they exist in a capitalist free-market society where market forces create them?

Yes, an unfortunate outcome, but employees who can't do better are often forced by circumstance to work there in order to subsist. Sometimes from our supposedly enlightened western perspective, we think it best to regulate these places, but even minimal regulations for a wealthy country would serve to regulate most of the market out of business were it enforced in these poorer environments.

We mustn't forget that there are far worse modes of existance than working in sweat shops.

Not always. Being dead isn't that good, is it? Coca-Cola is infamous for having union organizers for their subcontracted sweatshops killed.

[R00k]

I don't fault you for having an issue with the company, the company isn't faultless. I just happen to disagree with your list of faults.

What do you fault them for?

All companies are greedy to some extent, when that greed is adequately restrained by government it can be applied to useful ends.

I thought your stance was for the government not to interfere with free enterprise? The less interference the better, right?

That said, yes I'm telling you that the cheap crap Walmart sells is one of their main benefits domestically. Understand that this can offset temporary drops in wages locally as a result of Walmart moving into a community, and ultimately (to generalize here) communities are better off economically after they've adjusted to Walmart's presence. The flow of money is far more complex than I can convey here, but it flows far beyond the hands of Walmart execs to enrich a large number of people in the US and significantly more abroad.

I'm afraid I need you to support such a vague and general statement for me to accept it, especially since your entire argument rests on it.

Because I don't believe that is the case at all.

[Massive Quasars]

I don't fault you for having an issue with the company, the company isn't faultless. I just happen to disagree with your list of faults.

What do you fault them for?

For their unmeritocratic hiring practices, for the words of their execs at times, for their needlessly confrontational approach (spoken words and actions) to the many groups that oppose them for various reasons, etc. I admit I can't immediately recall all my gripes, and I probably haven't examined all or an entirely representative portion of faults and supposed faults.

I thought your stance was for the government not to interfere with free enterprise? The less interference the better, right?

I'm not an anarchist, nor necessarily a minarchist, some regulations and government control appear to be required for things to flow smoothly.

I'm afraid I need you to support such a vague and general statement for me to accept it, especially since your entire argument rests on it.

Because I don't believe that is the case at all.

The nature of this discussion is rather vague and general, so pulling up specific evidence would be difficult (or given the broadness, unreasonably onerous). Though it sounds as if a better understanding of economics would clear things up for you to some degree.

Could you at least narrow and/or better articulate your points of contention for me, what don't you believe at all?

[Massive Quasars]

I'll give it a shot anyway, R00k.

Walmart's profits do indeed go to it's execs and shareholders, but it enriches millions of Americans indirectly as well. A portion of those profits are funnelled back into buying more goods to put onto shelves. Walmart negotiates down prices for products wholesale with manufacturers in exchange for Walmart's commitment to buy x huge amount of said product. They save, and those savings are passed on to you minus their profit margin. If consumers choose or are tempted to buy more unnecessary products because of those lower prices, are we to fault Walmart for that?

That's the most easily explained and readily identifiable example of how money funnels through Walmart down to the consumer. Walmart also pays a significant amount of state and federal taxes and those taxes are used in all sorts of ways, despite what you hear they don't dodge all taxes imposed upon them.

Edit: Don't take this simple explanation as in anyway a denigration of your intelligence if you already regarded it as an obvious but non-applicable example.

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

walmart is not good for America

mq you fancy yourself an economist?

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

Wal-Mart's Tax On Us
Greg LeRoy
November 09, 2005



Greg LeRoy is the author of The Great American Jobs Scam: Corporate Tax Dodging and the Myth of Job Creation and executive director of Good Jobs First . This piece originally appeared on Alternet.org.

Wal-Mart, the Alpha Dog of discount stores, has also become the Alpha Hog at the public trough.

The phenomenal growth of the world's largest corporation has been supported by taxpayers in many states through economic development subsidies. A Wal-Mart official once stated that the company seeks subsidies in about a third of its stores, suggesting that more than 1,100 of its U.S. stores are subsidized. A national survey by Good Jobs First in 2004 looked at 160 stores and all of the company's distribution centers—and found that more than 90 percent of them have been subsidized. Altogether, 244 subsidized facilities in 35 states received taxpayer deals of more than $1 billion.

The economic impact of these subsidies on small businesses is given a human face in one powerful segment of Robert Greenwald's new documentary, "Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price." The sweetheart deals given to two Wal-Mart Supercenters in Hamilton, Mo., undermined Red Esry's four family-owned grocery stores. Esry watched his sales plunge as soon as the Supercenters opened—he couldn't compete with Wal-Mart's prices and lost almost half of his business virtually overnight.

In the film, Esry's wife ruefully recounts how her husband went to City Hall to ask for a property tax abatement to match Wal-Mart's subsidy, but was turned down. Esry cut costs, but refused to stop paying his employees a good wage and continued to provide them with full health-care benefits and a pension package. Red Esry's story is being played out in thousands of communities across America.

Wrong-headed Subsidies

Giving subsidies to suburban retailing is bad policy on many levels. The proliferation of far-flung stores contributes to sprawl and its many problems: undermining traditional downtown business districts and worsening traffic jams and air quality. The diversion of tax dollars into the coffers of developers and big retailers takes much-needed revenues away from public schools and other services. The low-wage jobs created in the malls do little to stimulate the economy and actually serve as a drag, given that workers with McJobs need more assistance from taxpayer-financed safety-net programs.

The subsidies Wal-Mart lobbies for run the whole gamut: free or reduced-price land, infrastructure assistance, tax increment financing (TIF), property tax abatements or discounts, state corporate income tax credits, sales tax rebates, enterprise zone tax breaks, job training funds and low-interest tax-exempt loans. The most deals and dollars were found in Texas (30 deals worth $108 million) and Illinois (29 deals worth $102 million).

And because of poor disclosure in most states, this could be just the tip of the iceberg.

Of course, the real force driving Wal-Mart's site location behavior is its voracious appetite for more market share, not subsidies. The 2004 survey found cases in which the company had sought subsidies, didn't get them—and still built new sites.

In Chula Vista, Calif., a $1.9 million subsidy deal was successfully challenged in court in 1998, after citizens complained that local redevelopment agencies were awarding state money to big-box retailers for projects with little benefit to the public. The Chula Vista Wal-Mart ended up being built without public assistance.

In 2001, voters in Galena, Ill., rejected a $1.5 million sales tax rebate sought by the company for a planned Supercenter. Immediately after the vote, Wal-Mart said it would drop the plan, but later decided to move forward after getting the private seller of the land to agree to a lower price. Wal-Mart also proceeded with the construction of an unsubsidized Supercenter in Belvedere, Ill. after its request for a $1.5 million sales tax rebate was opposed by local officials.

Such events are especially controversial in TIF deals, since the governing law often requires that the beneficiary of TIF affirm that the project would not occur "but for" the subsidy.

According to a report by 1000 Friends of Wisconsin, Wal-Mart admitted that the TIF funding provided to a project in Baraboo did not meet that requirement. The report also noted that the supposedly blighted area chosen for the project consisted of a cornfield and an apple orchard.

Public opposition to subsidies for Wal-Mart has played a role in some successful site battles.

In 2000, voters in Olivette, Mo., rejected a $36 million TIF proposal for an 80-acre shopping center that was to be anchored by a Wal-Mart and a Sam's Club. In 2002, Wal-Mart was rebuffed when it sought an $18 million subsidy in connection with a project that was to be located on the Near South Side of Chicago. According to a press report, Mayor Richard M. Daley "guffawed" when presented with the request. The project was abandoned.

Denver officials dropped plans for a Supercenter project in 2004 that could have involved as much as $25 million in public money. The plan was controversial because of the subsidy and because it would have used eminent domain to displace a group of Asian-American small businesses. In 2004 voters in Scottsdale, Ariz., voted resoundingly against a plan to give a developer up to $36 million in sales-tax rebates for a complex that was to include a Supercenter and a Sam's Club.

Costs And Benefits...Or Costs And Costs?

Wal-Mart's reaction to the 2004 survey of its reach into taxpayer subsidies was classic bait and switch. The company responded by saying it couldn't verify the figures, but that if they were correct, then "it looks like offering tax incentives to Wal-Mart is a jackpot investment for local governments."

Specifically, the company claimed that over the past 10 years, it collected $52 billion in sales taxes, remitted $192 million in income taxes, wage withholdings and unemployment insurance, and paid $4 billion in local property taxes. "Do the math and you will see that every dollar invested returned more than thirty," the company summarized.

Of course Wal-Mart "collected" sales taxes; as a retailer, it's required by law to do so. But that's consumers' money, not the company's. Wal-Mart is just a pass-through. And since much of its sales come at the expense of other retailers, any gain is obviously offset by lower sales taxes collected at competing stores—and by the taxpayer costs of abandoned downtowns and malls.

Of course Wal-Mart "remitted" income and payroll taxes—it's an employer, and is required to deduct taxes from its workers' paychecks. But income tax is not the company's money; it's money from the workers' meager paychecks. And since Wal-Mart jobs are largely shifted from other retailers and Wal-Mart pays so poorly, any net revenue gain is unclear.

And, of course, Wal-Mart paid some property taxes—all property owners have to support local services. Unless, of course, they get an abatement; our study found more than 40 such instances. But Wal-Mart offered no disclosure on how much in property taxes it hasn't paid. And as economists point out, companies pass on the cost of property taxes to customers as much as market conditions allow.

So there you have Wal-Mart's version of cost-benefit analysis. Taxpayer costs for economic development are balanced by "benefits" that mostly consist of, well, workers' costs, consumers' costs and taxpayers' costs.

It's ironic that a company which promotes itself as a free enterprise success story is so highly dependent on taxpayers. This fact was conveniently forgotten during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, when Wal-Mart garnered widespread accolades for its role in providing emergency supplies to victims of the storm. Those truckloads of supplies should be seen not as corporate charity, but as small bit of payback for the huge sums the company has previously drained from taxpayers of America.

[Massive Quasars]

Thank you for pointing that out, Puff. I hate corporate welfare, and if these accusations are true I would strongly fault Walmart for accepting, and elected officials for offering, these subsidies.

[Dr_Watson]

this thread went farther than i was expecting... nice ethics debate.

[tnf]

everyone I talk to around here hates walmart, yet 99% of them still go there to shop because they want to save 25 cents on pepsi.

*I must say that I just bought a 12 pack of Barq's root beer for $2.98 though*

I'll gladly spend a few more bucks on something at the smaller local stores in the neighborhood than giving wal mart a fucking thing most of the time though.

[7zark7]

I worked a summmer at wallmart.

hey. sometimes you just gotta pay the rent...Eph-U!

I spent all my time talking people out of buying whatever they were there for....
IE: go to a proper bike store, you'll get service and warranty past 30 days.... You get better furniture at ikea,
pay an extra dollar and go to Zellers FFS.
Or I'd tell them how to scam,
ie: buy a patio set, come back a week later and say there were no cushions in your set, they'd just give them too you, so you can have an extra set.
I'd tear open display boxes for them, then tell them to go to the cashier/ask for a service manager/ask for a discount for an open box discount..when the SM would come back to me...I'd hide all the other ones in another isle and say it was the last one.

It was a shit job...but I had alot of fun in the mean time.

[Hannibal]

I try to leave consequence-detached ethics out of this discussion whenever possible.

Why? Because it might make ethical decision making harder to mathematize?

[+JuggerNaut+]

I worked a summmer at wallmart.

hey. sometimes you just gotta pay the rent...Eph-U!

I spent all my time talking people out of buying whatever they were there for....
IE: go to a proper bike store, you'll get service and warranty past 30 days.... You get better furniture at ikea,
pay an extra dollar and go to Zellers FFS.
Or I'd tell them how to scam,
ie: buy a patio set, come back a week later and say there were no cushions in your set, they'd just give them too you, so you can have an extra set.
I'd tear open display boxes for them, then tell them to go to the cashier/ask for a service manager/ask for a discount for an open box discount..when the SM would come back to me...I'd hide all the other ones in another isle and say it was the last one.

It was a shit job...but I had alot of fun in the mean time.

[Massive Quasars]

@ Hannibal

If I may ask a question in the face of questions.

How would you go about determining deontologically which actions or types of actions are right and wrong? When arrived at, if arrived at, would your ethical prescriptions apply universally?

I gather from a few of your past remarks, that you're no big fan of consequentialism in general.

I haven't exposed myself to the work of many contemporary moral theorists and fewer with any depth, so if I seem naive more likely than not, I am.

[tnf]

MQ - that first question seems to go back to the nature of morality and something I've asked about several times (but not in the deontological sense) - how do we classify one morality as 'better' than another? And if there is no absolute by which we can measure them how can we ever say that one is absolutely wrong.

And MQ - I can't remember, but where are you at in your education now? And what are you studying?

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

how about 'that which one reasonably and sincerely determines as best for the greater good of humanity'?

[tnf]

how about 'that which one reasonably and sincerely determines as best for the greater good of humanity'?

yea, but who determines what the greater good for humanity is?

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

how about 'that which one reasonably and sincerely determines as best for the greater good of humanity'?

yea, but who determines what the greater good for humanity is?

Who, would be the 'one' I referred to, the individual. When it comes down to it we have to take responsibility for our (in)actions. I would argue it's each person's responsibility to be vigilant in their pursuit of the greater good.

Consideration of law and social norms should be factored in (according to me) In fact I would argue a very open minded approach should be taken.

[HM-PuFFNSTuFF]

do as i say of course. Lord help us if you do as I do.

[Massive Quasars]

I try to leave consequence-detached ethics out of this discussion whenever possible.

Why? Because it might make ethical decision making harder to mathematize?

Because it's easier to produce a near-universal consensus on certain shared value(s) (e.g. happiness, goal-actualization, etc.) from which a consequentialist ethic can be developed to further. As opposed to pinning down the supposed intrinsic moral nature of particular actions or types of actions, independent of any guiding consequences, and then having sufficient confidence in those ethical determinations to prescribe them universally.

edit: tnf, I'm avoiding broadening this discussion (again) by not responding to your posts. Hope you don't mind, but I'd prefer not to get roped in for another few pages. :icon32: