Is Wal-Mart Evil?

[indie]

Your thoughts and opinions, please.

[CoHo]

I don't consider Wal-Mart Evil

but I do consider Monster Cable Evil
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/11/08/BUG1J9N3C61.DTL&type=business

[booyalab]

I cant stand ideas like this. corporations aren't people. They don't have morals. They don't have consciences. If something is not a person, it cannot be called 'evil' or 'good'.

[EdwinJefferson]

I forgot to say why.. ASDA (terribly dull supermarket with terrible adverts) were bought by Wal-Mart. If ASDA is anything to go by, then Wal-Mart are just as cheap and tacky.. and since they are the same company.. they must be. Thus making them evil because their products are inferior to competitor's products.

[CoHo]

corporations aren't people. They don't have morals. They don't have consciences. If something is not a person, it cannot be called 'evil' or 'good'.

I disagree. A group of people could be considered evil or good and a corporation is just a group of people. The morals, actions and tendencies of a corporation/government/cult organization is decided by the people in charge. If those people are "evil" then their choices would reflect on the organization.

Would you consider Nazi Germany evil?

I guess the topic could be rephrased to "Do you think the majority of Wal-Mart's actions are morally reprehensible?"

[booyalab]

I disagree. A group of people could be considered evil or good and a corporation is just a group of people. The morals, actions and tendencies of a corporation/government/cult organization is decided by the people in charge. If those people are "evil" then their choices would reflect on the organization.

Would you consider Nazi Germany evil?

I guess the topic could be rephrased to "Do you think the majority of Wal-Mart's actions are morally reprehensible?"

NO, nazi Germany was not evil. Hitler was evil. The nazis were evil. In my opinion, collective morality is an excuse for people to not take responsibility for their own actions. "If my government gives to the poor for me, then I don't have to...and I can blame the government when the poor have no food!"

The actions of corporations have different underlying principles than the action of an individual human.

Would you think it's ok for a couple to base their decision to have children and/or how to raise them on what's the most profitable? No, then why do you apply human standards to an inhuman entity?

[relaxo]

Walmart is amazing. It provides inexpensive goods for all people. It provides jobs. It frees people from having to shop at outdated overpriced stores that refuse to compete and improve. Walmart is good.

[EdwinJefferson]

Walmart is amazing. It provides inexpensive goods for all people. It provides jobs. It frees people from having to shop at outdated overpriced stores that refuse to compete and improve. Walmart is good.

from a guy who has a dollar sign in his avatar..

[booyalab]

from a guy who has a dollar sign in his avatar..

and the satan symbol....hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[EdwinJefferson]

and the satan symbol....hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Could it be he is a personified wal-mart?

[booyalab]

Could it be he is a personified wal-mart?
at the risk of contradicting myself.......sure why not!

[EdwinJefferson]

at the risk of contradicting myself.......sure why not!

He could be the CEO.. the CEO could be evil and it wouldn't ne a contradiction. so he's the CEO. agreed?

[relaxo]

I am an evil satanic capitalist of course.

[booyalab]

He could be the CEO.. the CEO could be evil and it wouldn't ne a contradiction. so he's the CEO. agreed?
agreed

[Sackanaka]

Is "just doing your job" evil? I guess it can be when you don't follow your so-called conscience, but then to say the Devil, whose job was/is to tempt others, is doing so against his moral conscience creates a problem. Unless of course, he is evil because he is doing what he does against what he feels is truly right... ahh now that Sympathy for the Devil is starting to make sense, at least title-wise.
Anyway, who cares if Walmart is evil, it's not like society 1) gives a damn 2) does anything about it. Only when Sam Walton is exposed for having had an affair with a younger woman 35 years ago will Walmart gain public notoriety.

[CoHo]

The nazis were evil. In my opinion, collective morality is an excuse for people to not take responsibility for their own actions.

The Nazis were just a collective, just like a corporation/cult/organization is just a collective. If the Nazis became incorporated as a non-profit organization would you no longer call them evil because they had become a Corporation and were therefore an inhuman entity?


Would you think it's ok for a couple to base their decision to have children and/or how to raise them on what's the most profitable? No, then why do you apply human standards to an inhuman entity?

Simply because a corporation ISN'T an inhuman entity. It is a collective. You stated that you felt "The nazis were evil". The Nazis are just a collective, they are just a group of people. A corporation is the exact same thing. It is just a group of people.

Because it is just a group of people its goals and actions could be underlined with good or evil decisions.

How about this: A group of Nazis made a shoe company called Nazi Shoes and they sent the earnings to build concentration camps. So, you could call the workers, owners, investors, buyers and sellers of Nazi Shoes evil but you could not call Nazi Shoes evil?

I guess it is just a difference of opinion. I see a corporation as driven by individuals, therefore I have no problems giving them human characteristics.

[booyalab]

I mean the individuals who did Hitler's bidding were evil. The difference between saying "nazis are evil" and "walmart is evil" is that I am holding the individuals that make up the nazi party accountable for their actions, with no possible exception. Whereas, if you are holding the individuals that make up walmart all accountable for their actions, you're saying that some granny as a cashier trying to pay her prescription bill is just as guilty as some decision maker at the top who made a decision that might be morally reprehensible.

[EdwinJefferson]

When you say Nazis, you mean the people. It's a plural. When you say Wal-Mart, it is singular, and treating it like an individual.

[INTrPosr]

I hesitated to respond to this thread. In fact, I erased my original response. I would simply say that, as for a shopping I like them. But working for them especially in Bentonville, I don't think that the work environment is conducive to INTPs (working from a cubicle, no room for ingenuity, losing the individuality and independence, etc.).

[CoHo]

I understand your point. To nitpick a little:


The difference between saying "nazis are evil" and "walmart is evil" is that I am holding the individuals that make up the nazi party accountable for their actions, with no possible exception.

and


Whereas, if you are holding the individuals that make up walmart all accountable for their actions, you're saying that some granny as a cashier trying to pay her prescription bill is just as guilty as some decision maker at the top who made a decision that might be morally reprehensible.

"Walmart is Evil" - You're saying that some granny as a cashier trying to pay her prescription bill is just as guilty as some decision maker at the top who made a decision that might be morally reprehensible

"Nazis are Evil" - You're saying that some granny seamstress making uniforms during WWII is just as guilty as Hitler

The way I see it, both are blanket statements. And really this seems to be just a disagreement of preferred wording.

When I see a term like "Walmart is Evil" then I assume they are talking about either some recent actions of Walmart (their recent excersize in grave robbing) or some actions of walmart's executives.

So are specifically against using the term Evil? Or are you against any of the following phrases:

Walmart is evil
Walmart is a bad company
Walmart sucks
Walmart makes horrible decisions
Walmart sells crap

Because all of these terms imply human characteristics

[booyalab]

You're making up contradictions where there are none. A 'granny seamstress making uniforms for the nazis' is far less likely to be considered a part of the 'nazi party' than a granny cashier would be considered a part of walmart. (edit: if said granny participates in the questionable nazi activities, that would make her a nazi in my eyes and therefore she should be held accountable....but someone can be a worker at walmart and falsely accused when it is said that 'walmart is evil' because 'walmart' is not mutually inclusive with evil activities, like 'nazi' is)
As far as your terms go, if I were to display such um, expressive contempt towards anything, I wouldn't use that subjective outburst as a guiding force for my personal belief system or the way I think objectively about it.

[CoHo]

When you say Nazis, you mean the people. It's a plural. When you say Wal-Mart, it is singular, and treating it like an individual.

So you would prefer
"The Employees that make up Wal-Mart are Evil"
Just as
"The Nazis that make up the Nazi party are evil"

It simply sounds like a preference in how it should be worded.

[booyalab]

So you would prefer
"The Employees that make up Wal-Mart are Evil"
Just as
"The Nazis that make up the Nazi party is evil"

It simply sounds like a preference in how it should be worded.

The way you 'word' such things demonstrates your understanding of the deeper meaning of the issue. People who 'word' it the way you do tend to think a certain way, as opposed to people who word it more precisely.

[CoHo]

You're making up contradictions where there are none. A 'granny seamstress making uniforms for the nazis' is far less likely to be considered a part of the 'nazi party' than a granny cashier would be considered a part of walmart.

How do you figure? A Nazi is part of the Nazi party. It doesn't matter if that person sat in a bunker all day mopping up oil, or if they tortured thousands of people. They were both Nazis. So if that seamstress granny was a Nazi then she was IN THE NAZI PARTY and part of your "All Nazis are Evil" blanket. Simple as that.

To re-quote

I mean the individuals who did Hitler's bidding were evil. The difference between saying "nazis are evil" and "walmart is evil" is that I am holding the individuals that make up the nazi party accountable for their actions, with no possible exception. Whereas, if you are holding the individuals that make up walmart all accountable for their actions, you're saying that some granny as a cashier trying to pay her prescription bill is just as guilty as some decision maker at the top who made a decision that might be morally reprehensible.

I simply don't see how you offer more individualized weight when you say "All Nazis are evil". You imply that by saying it in this fashion that you aren't making a blanket statement, when it is obviously a blanket statement.

Saying:
“Members of the Nazi party are evil”
and
“Employees of Walmart are evil”

Is the exact same thing. There is no specific wording to imply that you are holding greater accountability to the leaders of the Nazi party then to the ones who mopped oil, made uniforms and cut wood (the granny-cashiers of the Nazi party).


The way you 'word' such things demonstrates your understanding of the deeper meaning of the issue. People who 'word' it the way you do tend to think a certain way, as opposed to people who word it more precisely.

I'm not sure where you are going with this. Are you assuming to know how I think?


I think this can go round-and-round,

Cheers!

[booyalab]

1.Refer to the editted version of my post.

2. Your posts aren't so important and popular that you need to write a novel out of each one. I'm just skimming because you could use a lot less words to say the same thing.

3. You're right, to say "members of the nazi party are all evil" is the same thing as "employees of walmart are all evil". Though I don't get where you think this was some contradiction I made, are you saying that YOU actually believe all walmart employees are evil? Because I know I didn't even imply it.

4. You've obviously misunderstood everything I said.

5. Oh yeah Macguffin, I can see why you think the 'serious' posting is so much better. (sarcasm)

[MacGuffin]

5. Oh yeah Macguffin, I can see why you think the 'serious' posting is so much better. (sarcasm)

Don't blame me! Besides, this give and take is a lot more interesting than other threads.

P.S. Wal-Mart is not evil.

[booyalab]

Don't blame me! Besides, this give and take is a lot more interesting than other threads.

P.S. Wal-Mart is not evil.

lol it might be interesting for you...but it could be so much better for me.

p.s. thank you!

[mgb]

I think it is evil.

But I want to define what I see "Walmart" as being. I don't look at it as a group of people as much as it is a set of rules of governance - held only by Walmart (as much as every company has one). These rules are carried out by individuals who could say that they are "just following orders" but in truth they probably all believe that they are making the world a better place.

It is these rules that define Walmarts "morality" or lack of it. The mandate of Walmart seems to be to provide inexpensive goods and expand everywhere. The reprecussions of this mandate don't seem to be dealt with and that is what makes Walmart evil.

[CoHo]

2. Your posts aren't so important and popular that you need to write a novel out of each one. I'm just skimming because you could use a lot less words to say the same thing
...
4. You've obviously misunderstood everything I said.

Now you are simply being rude.



(edit: if said granny participates in the questionable nazi activities, that would make her a nazi in my eyes and therefore she should be held accountable....but someone can be a worker at walmart and falsely accused when it is said that 'walmart is evil' because 'walmart' is not mutually inclusive with evil activities, like 'nazi' is)


So basically what you THINK and FEEL should be considered fact and no other opinion is valid? You are simply stating an opinion yet you pretend to have something concrete.

This is entirely a debate about perception, there is no hard facts. I don't assume that you are unintelligent by your perception just as I would appreciate you not doing the same.

So your argument is:

"All nazis are evil"

Oh wait, I don't mean all of them, I mean just the evil ones are evil, you know the ones that did evil stuff, but you should have gathered that when I said "All nazis are evil". Because I only consider the Nazis that did questionable nazi activities part of the Nazi party... once again you should have gathered that from the phrase "All nazis are evil". I mean, it is so obvious.

[booyalab]

ok this is quickly moving from serious to unintentionally funny

[MacGuffin]

For all the discussion about whether certain organizations can be evil by definition, I've yet to see anyone list the practices of Wal-Mart that are actually "evil".

[booyalab]

For all the discussion about whether certain organizations can be evil by definition, I've yet to see anyone list the practices of Wal-Mart that are actually "evil".

its not necessary...something that isn't human is not subject to the same standards as a human

[mgb]

Heres some stuff:

Here's one. To protect against employee theft, many Wal-Mart store managers until recently kept the overnight workers locked in, unable to get emergency help quickly for injuries or sickness, the New York Times reported last month.

[mgb]

I'll just keep posting stuff as I find it.

Working Off the Clock

There have been stories and lawsuits alleging Wal-Mart managers force employees to work off the clock to avoid overtime pay. This sort of thing, along with low wages and benefits, encourages union organizing.

But, as Bloomberg Markets reports in its March issue, there is evidence Wal-Mart has spies to hunt for organizers and retaliate against union-friendly workers. Wal-Mart denies it.

Meanwhile, female Wal-Mart employees are suing in San Francisco, claiming some 1.6 million current and former employees were paid less and denied promotions because of their gender. And last October, federal authorities arrested 245 undocumented aliens working in 61 Wal-Mart stores.

Then there is the matter of squeezing suppliers and contributing to the national trade deficit and the loss of U.S. jobs. As the world's No. 1 retailer bent on constantly lowering prices, Wal-Mart muscles its suppliers to drop their costs, pushing manufacturing jobs out of this country and into low-wage ones. The magazine Fast Company had an extensive story on this in December.

[CoHo]

They also have a bad habit of buying up land that used to be native burial grounds

[mgb]

A typical Wal-Mart store with 200 employees would cost taxpayers $420,750 per year, according to the report. Its employees were paid an average of $8.23 an hour in 2001, compared with $10.35 for a supermarket worker, the report said.

[MacGuffin]

Illegal? Probably. Heartless? Okay. Evil? I don't see it.

[mgb]

As jobs in America are lost to foreign sweatshops to feed the Wal-Mart engine, American workers are forced to accept jobs at lower pay, with bad working conditions. They are funneled to Wal-Mart's promise of cheap goods, in effect patronizing the very companies that caused their economic misery

[mgb]

Here is the last one, there is more, but you are getting the point.

Wal-Mart is currently being sued in some 40 cases charging various abuses of labor laws, and last fall it was reported the company extensively employs illegal aliens as janitors. Wal-Mart has successfully opposed unionization and frequently pays well below competing stores.

All of these practices — alleged abuses of labor laws, hiring illegals, and the low rate of pay and benefits at Wal-Mart — serve to depress the labor market in communities in which the giant is located.

[mgb]

Personally I think the fact that they do this on purpose is what makes them evil.

[EdwinJefferson]

Personally I think the fact that they do this on purpose is what makes them evil.

Company policy, written by humans. Not the company. Humans are evil, companies can not be, because they are controlled by humans. The humans controlling them can be evil.

[MacGuffin]

So a bunch of stories, allegations, and lawsuits makes a corporation evil?

You should see what they say about the U.S. government*!




*a government of the people, by the people, and for the people no less!

[mgb]

Company policy, written by humans. Not the company. Humans are evil, companies can not be, because they are controlled by humans. The humans controlling them can be evil.

I think at some point the company takes over the humans...for example, Sam Walton ran the company and eventually he wrote down his rules for running the company. That doctrine worked (I don't even know what it is, I assume there is one, but whatever, you get the idea) and so is stringently followed, despite the death of the companies founder and doctrine write.

Corporations these days have to answer to nothing but the bottom line. It is that practice that makes them evil, or rather their actions evil.

Is it a group of individuals, yes. There are forced to act a certain way (profit driven at all costs) by the rules of the company. The company becomes their master, they could change this but I would say the "the company" has warped their values so far beyond belief in most cases that they become slaves to the company.

[EdwinJefferson]

You should see what they say about the U.S. government*!

*a government of the people, by the people, and for the people no less!

and how much does it cost to run for president? what friends do you need? a government is never by the people, since a homeless person will never be able to get elected..how many housewife congresswomen are there.. the general public don't get in.

[mgb]

and how much does it cost to run for president? what friends do you need? a government is never by the people, since a homeless person will never be able to get elected..how many housewife congresswomen are there.. the general public don't get in.

Let's not get into the democracy is a farce debate, to bring it back:

Arkansas-based retail giant is currently the largest corporate donor through its political action committee (PAC), having doled out nearly $1.3 million to federal candidates until the end of January, according to Politicalmoneyline.com.

[EdwinJefferson]

I think at some point the company takes over the humans...for example, Sam Walton ran the company and eventually he wrote down his rules for running the company. That doctrine worked (I don't even know what it is, I assume there is one, but whatever, you get the idea) and so is stringently followed, despite the death of the companies founder and doctrine write.

Corporations these days have to answer to nothing but the bottom line. It is that practice that makes them evil, or rather their actions evil.

Is it a group of individuals, yes. There are forced to act a certain way (profit driven at all costs) by the rules of the company. The company becomes their master, they could change this but I would say the "the company" has warped their values so far beyond belief in most cases that they become slaves to the company.

But if they wanted to change things, they could. They control it.

[mgb]

But if they wanted to change things, they could. They control it.

They could change, but their changes would have to meet a few criteria, which is part of the problem. They would have to see an increase in growth and profits, which in the case of Wal-Mart would be hard because they already scour the world for the best "deals".

I don't think they want to change though. I also don't think they see the problems they cause, or they don't care.

I would say, that to work at Wal-Mart, you have to buy into their morality, and therefore be pre-disposed (not necessarily evil) to resist change at Wal-Mart that may have a positive effect on the world but raise the bottom line.

[EdwinJefferson]

They could change, but their changes would have to meet a few criteria, which is part of the problem. They would have to see an increase in growth and profits, which in the case of Wal-Mart would be hard because they already scour the world for the best "deals".

I don't think they want to change though. I also don't think they see the problems they cause, or they don't care.

I would say, that to work at Wal-Mart, you have to buy into their morality, and therefore be pre-disposed (not necessarily evil) to resist change at Wal-Mart that may have a positive effect on the world but raise the bottom line.

Advertising can change, and so can company policy. A company can 're-invent itself' if it wanted to. If those in control do not wish to, then you can not blame every single employee, just as you can not blame every single Nazi, because some people have little option but break morals so as to survive. If not for themselves, for their children.

[mgb]

They could re-invent themselves but you would have to prove to them that they are doing something wrong and need to, which is even hard to do with non-Wal-Mart employed INTPers.

I don't blame every single employee. Most I feel sorry for because they were probably forced out of their old jobs because they disappeared because Wal-Mart found a cheaper place to do business and they ended up at Wal-Mart because it was one of the few employers left in town.

There is an upper escelon (sp?) at Wal-Mart that runs the show and believes in Sam's ideas. There is a board that also makes decisions that affect (let's call it the root of evil) the shareholders which make sure that the bottom line is always met.

[EdwinJefferson]

There is an upper escelon (sp?) at Wal-Mart that runs the show and believes in Sam's ideas. There is a board that also makes decisions that affect (let's call it the root of evil) the shareholders which make sure that the bottom line is always met.

Then those who are evil, not a company.

[mgb]

Then those who are evil, not a company.

But I wonder if the company is acting under their mandate or if they are acting under the company's mandate?

[EdwinJefferson]

But I wonder if the company is acting under their mandate or if they are acting under the company's mandate?

They create the mandate, they can change it if they wanted to, since they don't, they are to blame.

[mgb]

Then we have to figure out if all of them is evil and what drives them to be evil (since I assume that they aren't completely profit driven, the execs I mean).

[mgb]

Where the hell did everyone go?

[Dman]

Evil or good from who's perspective?

[mgb]

Evil or good from who's perspective?

From yours.

[Dman]

From yours.

From my perspective I would say good, in the sense that Enron and Worldcomm were good.

They show what happens when their actions eventually catch up with them and turn on them. Trust me, we'll see where Wal-Mart is in the next few years. It's already happening, they're going on the offensive with a media blitz to show how "caring" they are. They're getting nervous. When you bully everyone you come into contact with, employees, vendors, communities, consumers - sooner or later they find themselves in a position needing something from one (or all) of them - then it all comes down. It'll work itself out.

Like their proponents say, "it's the natural market forces at work." Eventually those same forces will spell their demise, unless they are savvy and agile enough to change in time.

[indie]

I started this thread because I've long been fascinated with public opinions about Wal-Mart. Personally, I can't decide if Wal-Mart is good or evil.

As a former poor, starving college student in southern Utah (where Wal-Marts are everywhere), I liked Wal-Mart, I admit it. When you're just trying to get by, you don't really *care* that much about corporate ethics or about the "mom and pop" businesses that are getting "squeezed" out by the big box stores. I cared about price, variety of products available in one "stop", and saving time. Also, I loved that I could go to one store and buy spaghetti sauce, beer, and socks all at once.

However, Wal-Mart's ethics were often hotly contested at school . . . Did it intentionally pay women less than men? Did it intentionally undercut competitors? I think so. . .Wal-Mart's strategy is basically a predatory one. Open a new store in a new area, undercut the competition until the competition goes out of business, and then (gradually) raise prices again because it *can* because it has a monopoly. One of my professors said that WM's prices were statistically 20 percent lower, on average (compared to local grocery stores) than the competition in the area immediately after coming into the area.

Case in point: Less than one year after the new "Super Wal-Mart" opened in my college town, "Big K-Mart" went out of business. Keep in mind, this (college town) is a very small, rural area with the nearest "city" over 45 miles away.

Its power is so incredible. Its sales account for about 2 percent of the GDP . . . and it is aggressively seeking international expansion. (Reference from a recent documentary on CNBC about it). One of the talking heads said that the last time a company had so much power was when GM had a similar percentage of of the GDP over 40 years ago.

Basically I see it boils down to:

Does Wal-Mart give more back to the community than it takes (in the short term). . . money donated to local charities, jobs created, etc.?

Does Wal-Mart stimulate the economy enough to be justified for its treatment of workers, predatory pricing, etc. ?

I'd be interested in hearing your opinions on what defines your perception of "good" or "evil," because I have not decided.

[mgb]

Like I said, I think good and evil has to do with intentions. You listed some pretty "standard" criticisms of Wal-Mart and I think they do carry on their negative practices intentionally. I think their positive practices are done more for advertising than to benefit the community.

If Wal-Mart didn't have to pay any minimum wages would they? I don't think so.

That is why I think they are evil.

(Maybe we need to define evil first, who knows)

[Sackanaka]

And I'd like to ask what ought to be done after it is deemed evil or not.

[mgb]

And I'd like to ask what ought to be done after it is deemed evil or not.

Don't go there.

I hated going there even before I thought it was evil.

[Sackanaka]

:p exactly why my suspicions are that this thread, like many others, will eventually disintegrate until someone feels like reviving it (often a newcomer).

but for "productivity's" sake, I'd say if Walmart is not evil, then why all the suffering? and if it is evil, just "how evil" is it? Vin-Diesel-making-baby-movie-evil or et-tu-Brute evil?

[s]

Wal-mart gives its customers what they want, albeit cheap, tacky, and unhealthy. I believe it is not evil (which implies intention and an absolute state of being). Wal-Mart is fueled by its consumer and the consumer is hardly evil intentioned. I do not count myself among the Wal-Mart shoppers, because I am admittedly elitist about taste and quality, plus I do not care for their various business, political affiliations, and trade practices. I vote with my dollar and that is about as much as most of us can do.

There will always be pendelum shift in politics, fashion, and commerce, so I sense Wal-Mart's sucess will not likely last forever. When (and if) local Wal-Marts begin to close, what will fill their empty carcasses? Likey the new king of the hill "evil" business. Local businesses often find sucess when focusing on what Wal-Mart does not sell with an empahisis on quality and service. A retail store where people spend their social security checks, get underpaid, and which hocks cheap shit from China is no doubt an good candidate for "evil", but is the term completely accurate? I relucutantly must answer... "no."

Anyone see the South Park about it? I laughed so hard, and it just reinterated what I believe.

[nobarcode]

I know the owner of Walmart personally. He is not "evil" in my estimation. It does seem that the company itself is more than one can manage. It is still family owned and operated, but there seems to be a generation gap between the family and the "board"/operators from what I gather.

It's all subjective, but I don't know why they purchase and sell (or anyone else, for that matter, products from China) from the "moral" standpoint of not supporting dictoral (communist) type governments. I mean, China has nuclear, biological, psy-weapons and has killed more of it's own people than the total population of Iraq.

Why wouldn't China be considered "evil"?

[Biff_Loman]

The law of mixed motives applies, as always. As always. This applies to institutions as readily as it does individuals. Let us bear that in mind.

So, can institutions, governments, corporations or other groups of people be considered "evil"? As far as I'm concerned: absolutely, without reservation. To the extent that one accepts the concept of "evil," it can be applied to groups.

As a history major, I am sick to high heaven of learning about people exploiting each other. We do it all the time - we all do. But there's a difference between enjoying the benefits of exploitation and exploiting others to the maximum possible extent.

There is a distinct trend towards amorality in the way that people like us see the world. God knows that my first impulse is to point out that Wal-mart is, essentially, an amoral entity populated with moral people. Those individuals may or may not be "evil," and they may need to do heartless things in order for the company to prosper.

However, I know that I have grown weary of people ducking behind amorality when asked to place a value judgment upon something. An epidemic disease is not evil - it is "pernicious." But no one thought up the disease or invented it. Someone made Wal-mart, and people make it what it is today. It is NOT an amoral phenomenon.

Is Wal-mart evil? I don't know. Could it be evil? I certainly think so. What should we do about it, Sackanaka? I'm not sure. We make deals with the devil all the time, and they are only giving us what we want.

Sorry for the long post. :(

[MonChat]

I agree with the idea that the conduct of WalMart "as a whole" could be considered "morally unacceptable" based on the anecdotal evidence provided so far--however more research needs to be done to pinpoint problems and where they are.

So who is to blame for what within the Walmart corporation?

It seems that the entire structure of a corporation is designed to 'defer' responsibility...

Lets see. The common shareholders are technically the 'owners' of a corporation--at least legally. Buying a common share entitles a person to (usually)one vote towards who will make up the board of directors(BOD). Of course if there is a majority shareholder(s) (a person or special interest group who owns > 50% of the outstanding shares) then it is them and not the shareholders 'as a whole' who determine who is on the BOD.

The BOD is directly responsible for keeping the shareholders happy. How much should each shareholder be responsible for the operating activities of their corporation? This is a tough question to answer since shareholders can only really exert influence on a corporation by proxy through the election of the BOD. That is to say, once the BOD has been elected it has a lot of freedom to "act on its own"--although presumably the shareholders can still fire members of the BOD. The BOD of course sets standards for the senior managers they hire such as what percentage of net income will form the bonus on management salaries. But it is really up to Senior Managers and managers to handle all the implementation details of making sure the operating activities yield the highest net income. The actual hiring and firing of employees and what wages to pay are usually decided at the mangement level. Where the products come from(the suppliers list) is also more of a Senior management function. So perhaps the responsibility falls more between the BOD and its managers(since it is the responsibility of the BOD to hire responsible Senior managers who are responsible for hiring responsible managers)..or perhaps we should be simply targeting managers :)..I wonder what a corporation would be like if their Senior management could somehow be directly scrutinized by the public.. would this increase the overall amount of 'responsible' action of the corporation as a whole?

So..

it is the "majority of the shareholders" responsibility to elect a responsible BOD who are responsible for hiring responsible Senior management who are responsible for hiring responsible management who are responsible for hiring responsible employees.

as you can see the 'owners' or shareholders are actually acting quite indirectly in the process of 'operating' the corporation..thus responsibility for the owners quickly moves into the Buddhist realm of philosophy--that is to say very complicated stuff.

Perhaps the problem is in the extent of relationship between the BOD and shareholders after the BOD has been elected to act on the 'shareholders behalf'. Perhaps if shareholders were somehow held more accountable for the actions of the BOD(besides how many dividends they receive each year) ,that they elected, responsibility, as we see it, would be taken more seriously. Of course making shareholders more accountable for the conduct of the corporation removes one of the "advantages of incorporation" which is "limited liability". Its kind of scary that "limited liability" is listed as "an advantage" in most 1st year econ/accounting textbooks. However corporations do need capital to survive and they would probably be bankrupt without the financing from their shareholders.

Perhaps the public relations members of the BOD should more effectively handle the publics questions on whether or not the corporation is acting responsibly. Of course, to be implemented effectively, federal policy would probably have to be used.

[mgb]

I know the owner of Walmart personally. He is not "evil" in my estimation. It does seem that the company itself is more than one can manage. It is still family owned and operated, but there seems to be a generation gap between the family and the "board"/operators from what I gather.

It's all subjective, but I don't know why they purchase and sell (or anyone else, for that matter, products from China) from the "moral" standpoint of not supporting dictoral (communist) type governments. I mean, China has nuclear, biological, psy-weapons and has killed more of it's own people than the total population of Iraq.

Why wouldn't China be considered "evil"?

Did you see the Corporation? They had this great scene where protesters go to the house of Shell's president (somewhere in the English countryside) and try and put signs on the roof and such. Well the owner came out with his wife and asked them what they were all doing. Eventually, the group ended up watching a movie out Shell's good deeds with the Shell president and his wife served everyone tea and and cookies.

When the protesters left they were quite apologetic about their actions against this nice old couple.

Then the movie goes on to show how Shell influenced governments and hired private contractors to kill hundreds of people for protesting Shell because they were being displaced from their homes so Shell could drill for oil smack dab where they were living.

Just because someone seems good and moral it doesn't mean that their decisions will be.

[Dman]

Let’s just say that it’s a fine line. It’s about power, and how much power is too much.

Wal-Mart is good for business, because it drives out the inefficient ones (K-mart for example) and gives customers what it perceives they want, low prices. For anyone that’s interested or doesn’t already know, the secret to Wal-Mart’s success is its distribution chain. The main reason this chain is so efficient is because of the power Wal-Mart has over its suppliers. Do to its size and success, Wal-Mart can dictate terms to these suppliers. If they don’t oblige, they (suppliers) lose because they won’t have access to Wal-Mart’s huge customer base. So eventually Wal-Mart becomes so powerful that they begin to behave almost monopolistic.

This is where it gets sketchy; thus far it has simply been business behaving like business. But now Wal-Mart has so much power, it has created a culture of power. It believes this is how they retain success – wielding their power over local governments, employees, communities, etc. This is how they do things. It would take a massive cultural change within the company to get out of this vicious cycle, yet it is so huge that this type of change is virtually impossible without drastic action. This is why I predict their eventual demise. They’re getting too big for their own britches and can’t reign it in.

[mgb]

How will this lead to their demise? I think the people that complain the most about Wal-Mart don't shop there anyways.

Sorry more ideas.

I don't think the suppliers will ban together to fuck Wal-Mart because they are just as predatory and starved for the contract.

[Dman]

I’m thinking more along the lines that they will continue to cross the line regarding ethics, because they can’t stop, they don’t know how to stop. Eventually the lawsuits will pile up, the negative PR will pile up, the Federal investigations will begin, etc. People will crave something else, and something else will pop up to offer a more palatable alternative.

So they will either go bankrupt or be forced to change the way they do business, either case ending Wal-Mart as we know it. Unless they’re slick enough like Microsoft to survive it, but I don’t think they are. Microsoft has way more international influence and power.

[s]

There is more than one owner of Wal-Mart... four Waltons and a shit load of investors.

[Dman]

Including myself, indirectly, and others here who own shares in particular mutual funds

[jimkopelli]

My friends and I had a discussion about this... and we came to the conclusion that "Wal-mart is convenient, but souless."

[jjt]

This is an interesting discussion, I've never been to Walmart (none in New Zealand) but I've just read "How Walmart is destroying America (and the World) And what you can do about it." by Bill Quinn (tenspeed press) www.tenspeed.com.
It may be a company that's monetarily efficient, gives a good return to it's investors but to exploits and damages a huge number of people in the process. This seems amoral to me.

[Phreon]

I cant stand ideas like this. corporations aren't people. They don't have morals. They don't have consciences. If something is not a person, it cannot be called 'evil' or 'good'.

By this logic, the Third Reich wasn't evil.

Phreon

[Miss Anthropic]

How about this: A group of Nazis made a shoe company called Nazi Shoes and they sent the earnings to build concentration camps. So, you could call the workers, owners, investors, buyers and sellers of Nazi Shoes evil but you could not call Nazi Shoes evil?

Did you mean Nike shoes? :devil:

I like Walmart. I like to purchase inexpensive things I need at Walmart. Being one of those poor starving students making less than a living wage it is worthwhile to shop there. The "mom & pop" stores they are supposedly putting out of business charge more for the same items, collectively have (had) fewer employees and can't afford to offer health insurance to their employees either. Yes, Walmart's wages may be lower than grocery stores, but not all grocery stores are unionized either, and you can't buy the same stuff at grocery stores, so you can't really compare. Here in the US it is sometimes better to have a lower paying job and health benefits, than it would be to make a couple more bucks an hour but be on your own for health insurance. As for the sweatshops in other countries, we don't need to pay those workers US wages and if we kept all the manufacturing jobs in the US, then nobody here would be able to afford any of the goods. As far as jobs being sent overseas...my big gripe is calling Dell for help and not being able to understand Mr. Punjabi across the world as he tries to tell me in heavily accented English how to fix my computer. (Yes, I'm a computer feeb--a disgrace to the INTP IT world) OR Mervyns and AT&T sending their customer service to the same place....Grrr
I would never work for Walmart though....

[mgb]

By this logic, the Third Reich wasn't evil.

Phreon

Let's not compare Wal-Mart to the Nazis or this thread will go nowhere fast.

[indie]

My friends and I had a discussion about this... and we came to the conclusion that "Wal-mart is convenient, but souless."

Yes, very good logic indeed.

Wal-Marts tend to prosper in rural areas, thus fulfilling a type of "need" for the smaller communities. The documentary on CNBC showed a clip of Nicole Ritchie and Paris Hilton from The Simple Life:

NR: "So, do you guys really hang out at Wal-Mart?" "I heard you people like to hang out at Wal-Mart."
PH: "What's Wal-Mart?"

*stunned silence and crickets chirping*

PH: "Is that, like, where you buy stuff for your walls?"

*incredulous looks exchanged among family members*

Typical, but true. Large cities don't have many of them. If I wanted to go to one here in Portland, I couldn't. I'd have to drive over 25 miles. So what they do (basically) is thrive in small, rural communities. In many cases, simply having a Wal-Mart open is an immediate indication that the community is going to experience a boom in growth.

WM is an anchor-store, that is, once a city has one, it paves the way (literally) for other large box-stores to come in and build (often Home Depot and/or Lowes). Often the community will be happy to have the WM at the beginning, but when new subdivisions start popping up everywhere, they step back and say "Hey, we've lost our small-town feel, and this all started with Wal-Mart coming to town."

Anyhow, there's another side of the multi-dimensional coin.

[booyalab]

gee, maybe wal-mart is soulless because it's NOT a PERSON. "frickin idiot!"

[jimkopelli]

No, no... I agree that corporations are not personifications.

What I meant was (and perhaps I should have made that clearer, with previous conversation coloring the statement) that you don't go to Wal-mart because it's a fun place to be, or because you like the ambiance, or because the people that work there are nice... (BTW... all the greeters around here glare. Maybe it's because they're old and decrepit and I usually go with a group of college kids...) You go because they're cheap, they'll probably have what you want, and they're all organized relatively the same way so you can find what you need quickly and get out. Convenient, yes. Souless (in this sense) yes. Statement stands.

[booyalab]

No, no... I agree that corporations are not personifications.

What I meant was (and perhaps I should have made that clearer, with previous conversation coloring the statement) that you don't go to Wal-mart because it's a fun place to be, or because you like the ambiance, or because the people that work there are nice... (BTW... all the greeters around here glare. Maybe it's because they're old and decrepit and I usually go with a group of college kids...) You go because they're cheap, they'll probably have what you want, and they're all organized relatively the same way so you can find what you need quickly and get out. Convenient, yes. Souless (in this sense) yes. Statement stands.

I'm glad someone has sense on here :P I didn't know what you believed about it, it just seemed that most everyone else thinks wal-mart doesn't go to church enough.

[Mr. Good Beats]

I used to steal shit from Nazi-Mart and return it the same day for cash. They're stupidly evil.

[mgb]

I used to steal shit from Nazi-Mart and return it the same day for cash. They're stupidly evil.

Doesn't that make you evil too?

[Dman]

That would explain why they now treat customers like potential criminals. The last time I was in a Wal-Mart, I practically got jumped by security because I was attempting to walk out the "in" door (I had no products or bag in my hands). They gave my wife a serious run-around when she went to return a legitimate purchase as well.

I can only imagine how they treat their employees, who are typically the largest source of shoplifting for a retailer.

[Dman]

Humor me for a minute here. How about if we replaced the words “Wal-Mart” in this thread with “Enron”. Would these points still apply? Forgiving that we’re talking about different industries of course. But Enron was “convenient” & had “good deals” for its customers also, and those same customers were aware of the “soul-less” nature of Enron, yet turned a blind eye as long as it was good for them personally. So could we say in these same terms that Enron was not evil?

[CoHo]

gee, maybe wal-mart is soulless because it's NOT a PERSON. "frickin idiot!"


I'm glad someone has sense on here I didn't know what you believed about it, it just seemed that most everyone else thinks wal-mart doesn't go to church enough.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metonymy

The common figure "The White House said..." is a good example of metonymy, with the term "White House" actually referring to the authorities who are symbolized by the White House, which is an inanimate object that says nothing.

And another example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_empire

edit (Add): I'm not trying to be a dork, I was doing some more research on the subject and I came across the links above.

[indie]

WM may not be a person, but it is an "entity," and it is among the top 100 most powerful (if money is equated with power) entities in the world, when compared to countries:


The World's Largest Economies (http://www.rescueamericanjobs.org/articles/index.php?info=top-100-worlds-largest-economies)

[Valtro434]

Having worked there when I was younger, yes - they are evil.

They hire single moms because they know they can push them around more. If you dont like you, they cut your hours - I tried to get on nights to make an extra $1 per hour - 3 managers kept pointing to each other in a circle and I finally pinned one down and tried to get a straight answer.

Now, at the time, I worked in electronics - I sold big screens, computers, stereos, etc - did they care? no - that is not tracked.

But when I got assertive, they decided to put me on "special crap duty" and give me all kinds of lame tasks that were clearly punitive.

Luckily, they lined out what they were going to do to me and said it would start the next day.

I strolled in over an hour late all non-chalant and devil may care (ENTPs are good at pissing off mean SJs). She blew up at me and I laughed at her. It was awsome. I was quitting of course - she said that without 2 weeks notice, I could NEVER WORK FOR WALMART AGAIN!.

I asked her for that in writing :)

They also self insure and put their employees through hell when they get hurt.

They are cheap, stingy bastards.

[coffeezombie]

Wal-Mart will do whatever they can get away with in the present American capitalist system. Wal-Mart is as evil as capitalism is evil. I'll leave it to your own judgments about how evil you think the latter is. I know I have my own.

[Mr. Good Beats]

Doesn't that make you evil too?

No, I would say that makes me just. Stealing from a multinational damn near conglomerate whose sole purpose is to control the companies that supply them in order to 'bring its customers everyday low prices' should not be considered 'evil' (unless it is wal-marts point of view) is should be the norm. Wal-Mart 'steals' from its suppliers, so much so that it has the power to shut down a lot of its suppliers, and these are multinational companies in themselves. Perhaps one day when Wal-Mart controls every market there is to be had on this world and they can choke or flood the supply lines at will, then more people will consider them evil.

As for the Enron thing, as long as Wal-Mart keeps their books clean I would say they are good to go. The sheep need their cheap goods. No-body had a problem with Enron until what they were doing with their financials, thus affecting their money, was considered illegal.

[mgb]

No, I would say that makes me just. Stealing from a multinational damn near conglomerate whose sole purpose is to control the companies that supply them in order to 'bring its customers everyday low prices' should not be considered 'evil' (unless it is wal-marts point of view) is should be the norm. Wal-Mart 'steals' from its suppliers, so much so that it has the power to shut down a lot of its suppliers, and these are multinational companies in themselves. Perhaps one day when Wal-Mart controls every market there is to be had on this world and they can choke or flood the supply lines at will, then more people will consider them evil.

As for the Enron thing, as long as Wal-Mart keeps their books clean I would say they are good to go. The sheep need their cheap goods. No-body had a problem with Enron until what they were doing with their financials, thus affecting their money, was considered illegal.

Is vigilante justice just?

Oh, and nice avatar indiejade.

[Dman]

So with that logic, the US military is killing people, so we can kill them, right?

I know the Enron thing is a rough comparison, but the point is nobody cares until it affects them. That’s not right – if something is wrong, it’s wrong, regardless of whether it’s hurt anyone yet or not. So Wal-Mart “steals” from its suppliers, that’s ok because it doesn’t affect me? I don’t buy it. (get it, “buy” it? Ok I’m lame)

[Mr. Good Beats]

I wasn't saying that wal-mart stealing from its suppliers did not affect 'you' the consumer, because it does. Im saying this is what makes wal-mart evil. Its like a Robin Hood thing. I was stealing from the rich and giving to the poor (me).

[mgb]

I wasn't saying that wal-mart stealing from its suppliers did not affect 'you' the consumer, because it does. Im saying this is what makes wal-mart evil. Its like a Robin Hood thing. I was stealing from the rich and giving to the poor (me).

I see your avatar got into the onion patch.

(we got into this in the piracy thread.) I am not sure that Robin Hood is morally viable argument, isn't stealing, stealing, no matter what the justification.

And it's not like you are getting some "rich" goods if you stole from Wal-Mart.

[Mr. Good Beats]

Sure stealing is stealing, but the way I was doing it, Wal-Mart ended up with their goods back and I ended up with cash in my pocket. Is that really stealing. They willingly returned their merchandise and gave me money for it.

"So with that logic, the US military is killing people, so we can kill them, right?"

But, who are they killing. If they are killing those responsible for the death of 'innocent' people (which then I would say they are justified), or are they using 'smart' bombs to wipe out everybody? If it's the former than no, if the latter then yes. It is the business practices of Wal-Mart being talked about so when talking about killing the US military it would be the ones creating the overall plans, so I would say that would include everyone from the president to gernerals (sure they should all be shot, all politicians should), everyone else is just following orders. They could be likend to the low level wal-mart employees. Its not their fault their jobs suck.

[Warrior413]

Wal-Mart is closer to evil than not and I'm indifferent. It's just human nature.

[Miss Anthropic]

Sure stealing is stealing, but the way I was doing it, Wal-Mart ended up with their goods back and I ended up with cash in my pocket. Is that really stealing. They willingly returned their merchandise and gave me money for it.
That is an incredibly lame justification for stealing


gee, maybe wal-mart is soulless because it's NOT a PERSON. "frickin idiot!"
Yeah, and for all the athiests out there it would be soulless if it WERE a person!

[mgb]

gee, maybe wal-mart is soulless because it's NOT a PERSON. "frickin idiot!"

Sorry boo, read the history of corporations in America, I highlighted one part, sorry it's so long.


We tend to think of corporations as fairly recent phenomena, the legacy of the Rockefellers and Carnegies. In fact, the corporate presence in prerevolutionary America was almost as conspicuous as it is today. There were far fewer corporations then, but they were enormously powerful: the Massachusetts Bay Company, the Hudson's Bay Company, the British East India Company. Colonials feared these chartered entities. They recognized the way British kings and their cronies used them as robotic arms to control the affairs of the colonies, to pinch staples from remote breadbaskets and bring them home to the motherland.

The colonials resisted. When the British East India Company imposed duties on its incoming tea (telling the locals they could buy the tea or lump it, because the company had a virtual monopoly on tea distribution in the colonies), radical patriots demonstrated. Colonial merchants agreed not to sell East India Company tea. Many East India Company ships were turned back at port. And, on one fateful day in Boston, 342 chests of tea ended up in the salt chuck.

The Boston Tea Party was one of young America's finest hours. It sparked enormous revolutionary excitement. The people were beginning to understand their own strength, and to see their own self-determination not just as possible but inevitable.

The Declaration of Independence, in 1776, freed Americans not only from Britain but also from the tyranny of British corporations, and for a hundred years after the document's signing, Americans remained deeply suspicious of corporate power. They were careful about the way they granted corporate charters, and about the powers granted therein.

Early American charters were created literally by the people, for the people as a legal convenience. Corporations were "artificial, invisible, intangible," mere financial tools. They were chartered by individual states, not the federal government, which meant they could be kept under close local scrutiny. They were automatically dissolved if they engaged in activities that violated their charter. Limits were placed on how big and powerful companies could become. Even railroad magnate J. P. Morgan, the consummate capitalist, understood that corporations must never become so big that they "inhibit freedom to the point where efficiency [is] endangered."

The two hundred or so corporations operating in the US by the year 1800 were each kept on fairly short leashes. They weren't allowed to participate in the political process. They couldn't buy stock in other corporations. And if one of them acted improperly, the consequences were severe. In 1832, President Andrew Jackson vetoed a motion to extend the charter of the corrupt and tyrannical Second Bank of the United States, and was widely applauded for doing so. That same year the state of Pennsylvania revoked the charters of ten banks for operating contrary to the public interest. Even the enormous industry trusts, formed to protect member corporations from external competitors and provide barriers to entry, eventually proved no match for the state. By the mid-1800s, antitrust legislation was widely in place.

In the early history of America, the corporation played an important but subordinate role. The people -- not the corporations -- were in control. So what happened? How did corporations gain power and eventually start exercising more control than the individuals who created them?

The shift began in the last third of the nineteenth century -- the start of a great period of struggle between corporations and civil society. The turning point was the Civil War. Corporations made huge profits from procurement contracts and took advantage of the disorder and corruption of the times to buy legislatures, judges and even presidents. Corporations became the masters and keepers of business. President Abraham Lincoln foresaw terrible trouble. Shortly before his death, he warned that "corporations have been enthroned . . . . An era of corruption in high places will follow and the money power will endeavor to prolong its reign by working on the prejudices of the people . . . until wealth is aggregated in a few hands . . . and the republic is destroyed."

President Lincoln's warning went unheeded. Corporations continued to gain power and influence. They had the laws governing their creation amended. State charters could no longer be revoked. Corporate profits could no longer be limited. Corporate economic activity could be restrained only by the courts, and in hundreds of cases judges granted corporations minor legal victories, conceding rights and privileges they did not have before.

Then came a legal event that would not be understood for decades (and remains baffling even today), an event that would change the course of American history. In Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad, a dispute over a railbed route, the US Supreme Court deemed that a private corporation was a "natural person" under the US Constitution and therefore entitled to protection under the Bill of Rights. Suddenly, corporations enjoyed all the rights and sovereignty previously enjoyed only by the people, including the right to free speech.

This 1886 decision ostensibly gave corporations the same powers as private citizens. But considering their vast financial resources, corporations thereafter actually had far more power than any private citizen. They could defend and exploit their rights and freedoms more vigorously than any individual and therefore they were more free. In a single legal stroke, the whole intent of the American Constitution -- that all citizens have one vote, and exercise an equal voice in public debates -- had been undermined. Sixty years after it was inked, Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas concluded of Santa Clara that it "could not be supported by history, logic or reason." One of the great legal blunders of the nineteenth century changed the whole idea of democratic government.

Post-Santa Clara America became a very different place. By 1919, corporations employed more than 80 percent of the workforce and produced most of America's wealth. Corporate trusts had become too powerful to legally challenge. The courts consistently favored their interests. Employees found themselves without recourse if, for example, they were injured on the job (if you worked for a corporation, you voluntarily assumed the risk, was the courts' position). Railroad and mining companies were enabled to annex vast tracts of land at minimal expense.

Gradually, many of the original ideals of the American Revolution were simply quashed. Both during and after the Civil War, America was increasingly being ruled by a coalition of government and business interests. The shift amounted to a kind of coup d'état -- not a sudden military takeover but a gradual subversion and takeover of the institutions of state power. Except for a temporary setback during Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal (the 1930s), the US has since been governed as a corporate state.

In the post-World War II era, corporations continued to gain power. They merged, consolidated, restructured and metamorphosed into ever larger and more complex units of resource extraction, production, distribution and marketing, to the point where many of them became economically more powerful than many countries. In 1997, fifty-one of the world's hundred largest economies were corporations, not countries. The top five hundred corporations controlled forty-two percent of the world's wealth. Today corporations freely buy each other's stocks and shares. They lobby legislators and bankroll elections. They manage our broadcast airwaves, set our industrial, economic and cultural agendas, and grow as big and powerful as they damn well please.

[Mr. Good Beats]

Sure stealing is stealing, but the way I was doing it, Wal-Mart ended up with their goods back and I ended up with cash in my pocket. Is that really stealing. They willingly returned their merchandise and gave me money for it.


That is an incredibly lame justification for stealing


Yeah, but I still needed to defend myself some how. At least I was stickin it to the man.

i like mgbradsh explanation as to how corporations became an all consuming entity, and believe it proves that not only is Wal-Mart an evil entity, but all corporations are such.

[Edmond Zedo]

Let's not compare Wal-Mart to the Nazis or this thread will go nowhere fast.
Nazis are more fashionable.

[mgb]

Nazis are more fashionable.

haa haa, you might be right. Those blue smocks are pretty hideous.

[Dman]

Sorry boo, read the history of corporations in America, I highlighted one part, sorry it's so long.


We tend to think of corporations as fairly recent phenomena, the legacy of the Rockefellers and Carnegies. In fact, the corporate presence in prerevolutionary America was almost as conspicuous as it is today. There were far fewer corporations then, but they were enormously powerful: the Massachusetts Bay Company, the Hudson's Bay Company, the British East India Company. Colonials feared these chartered entities. They recognized the way British kings and their cronies used them as robotic arms to control the affairs of the colonies, to pinch staples from remote breadbaskets and bring them home to the motherland.

The colonials resisted. When the British East India Company imposed duties on its incoming tea (telling the locals they could buy the tea or lump it, because the company had a virtual monopoly on tea distribution in the colonies), radical patriots demonstrated. Colonial merchants agreed not to sell East India Company tea. Many East India Company ships were turned back at port. And, on one fateful day in Boston, 342 chests of tea ended up in the salt chuck.

The Boston Tea Party was one of young America's finest hours. It sparked enormous revolutionary excitement. The people were beginning to understand their own strength, and to see their own self-determination not just as possible but inevitable.

The Declaration of Independence, in 1776, freed Americans not only from Britain but also from the tyranny of British corporations, and for a hundred years after the document's signing, Americans remained deeply suspicious of corporate power. They were careful about the way they granted corporate charters, and about the powers granted therein.

Early American charters were created literally by the people, for the people as a legal convenience. Corporations were "artificial, invisible, intangible," mere financial tools. They were chartered by individual states, not the federal government, which meant they could be kept under close local scrutiny. They were automatically dissolved if they engaged in activities that violated their charter. Limits were placed on how big and powerful companies could become. Even railroad magnate J. P. Morgan, the consummate capitalist, understood that corporations must never become so big that they "inhibit freedom to the point where efficiency [is] endangered."

The two hundred or so corporations operating in the US by the year 1800 were each kept on fairly short leashes. They weren't allowed to participate in the political process. They couldn't buy stock in other corporations. And if one of them acted improperly, the consequences were severe. In 1832, President Andrew Jackson vetoed a motion to extend the charter of the corrupt and tyrannical Second Bank of the United States, and was widely applauded for doing so. That same year the state of Pennsylvania revoked the charters of ten banks for operating contrary to the public interest. Even the enormous industry trusts, formed to protect member corporations from external competitors and provide barriers to entry, eventually proved no match for the state. By the mid-1800s, antitrust legislation was widely in place.

In the early history of America, the corporation played an important but subordinate role. The people -- not the corporations -- were in control. So what happened? How did corporations gain power and eventually start exercising more control than the individuals who created them?

The shift began in the last third of the nineteenth century -- the start of a great period of struggle between corporations and civil society. The turning point was the Civil War. Corporations made huge profits from procurement contracts and took advantage of the disorder and corruption of the times to buy legislatures, judges and even presidents. Corporations became the masters and keepers of business. President Abraham Lincoln foresaw terrible trouble. Shortly before his death, he warned that "corporations have been enthroned . . . . An era of corruption in high places will follow and the money power will endeavor to prolong its reign by working on the prejudices of the people . . . until wealth is aggregated in a few hands . . . and the republic is destroyed."

President Lincoln's warning went unheeded. Corporations continued to gain power and influence. They had the laws governing their creation amended. State charters could no longer be revoked. Corporate profits could no longer be limited. Corporate economic activity could be restrained only by the courts, and in hundreds of cases judges granted corporations minor legal victories, conceding rights and privileges they did not have before.

Then came a legal event that would not be understood for decades (and remains baffling even today), an event that would change the course of American history. In Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad, a dispute over a railbed route, the US Supreme Court deemed that a private corporation was a "natural person" under the US Constitution and therefore entitled to protection under the Bill of Rights. Suddenly, corporations enjoyed all the rights and sovereignty previously enjoyed only by the people, including the right to free speech.

This 1886 decision ostensibly gave corporations the same powers as private citizens. But considering their vast financial resources, corporations thereafter actually had far more power than any private citizen. They could defend and exploit their rights and freedoms more vigorously than any individual and therefore they were more free. In a single legal stroke, the whole intent of the American Constitution -- that all citizens have one vote, and exercise an equal voice in public debates -- had been undermined. Sixty years after it was inked, Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas concluded of Santa Clara that it "could not be supported by history, logic or reason." One of the great legal blunders of the nineteenth century changed the whole idea of democratic government.

Post-Santa Clara America became a very different place. By 1919, corporations employed more than 80 percent of the workforce and produced most of America's wealth. Corporate trusts had become too powerful to legally challenge. The courts consistently favored their interests. Employees found themselves without recourse if, for example, they were injured on the job (if you worked for a corporation, you voluntarily assumed the risk, was the courts' position). Railroad and mining companies were enabled to annex vast tracts of land at minimal expense.

Gradually, many of the original ideals of the American Revolution were simply quashed. Both during and after the Civil War, America was increasingly being ruled by a coalition of government and business interests. The shift amounted to a kind of coup d'état -- not a sudden military takeover but a gradual subversion and takeover of the institutions of state power. Except for a temporary setback during Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal (the 1930s), the US has since been governed as a corporate state.

In the post-World War II era, corporations continued to gain power. They merged, consolidated, restructured and metamorphosed into ever larger and more complex units of resource extraction, production, distribution and marketing, to the point where many of them became economically more powerful than many countries. In 1997, fifty-one of the world's hundred largest economies were corporations, not countries. The top five hundred corporations controlled forty-two percent of the world's wealth. Today corporations freely buy each other's stocks and shares. They lobby legislators and bankroll elections. They manage our broadcast airwaves, set our industrial, economic and cultural agendas, and grow as big and powerful as they damn well please.

That was very, very well said.

[mgb]

That was very, very well said.

You'll have to thank someone else (I hate reading things in the quote boxes). I forgot where I got it from. I'm not sure I have it in me to say things that well.

[indie]

You'll have to thank someone else (I hate reading things in the quote boxes). I forgot where I got it from. I'm not sure I have it in me to say things that well.

:shock: Unauthorized fact-citing? Tsk, tsk.

[Zero Angel]

Gotta love precidents. Its one of the reasons why corporations are so able to successfully raise themselves higher then individuals in law, by eroding at the very laws that keep them in check. Then the very people who think rules are absolute wonder why the corporations have so much power.

[Dman]

If ya can't beat 'em, join 'em.

[indie]

How I wish I'd written this book:

The Naked Corporation: How the Age of Transparency will Revolutionize Business (http://books.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/19/0017245&tid=187&tid=149&tid=95&tid=6)

:( Sounds right up my alley.

[mgb]

:shock: Unauthorized fact-citing? Tsk, tsk.

I know, the quote came from the middle of a post from some other site and was copied off of another source. I already feel bad about it. At the same time, I tend not too read lengthy discourses in quotation boxes.

[mgb]

Here, in quotations. More Wal-Mart evil.


By MARINA STRAUSS
Republished from Globe and Mail
Wal-Mart to Close Store Seeking Union

Wal-Mart Canada Corp. will close its first unionized store in Jonquière, Que., in the spring, saying it wasn’t able to reach a first contract that would allow the outlet to be profitable.

The closing is a setback for the United Food and Commercial Workers, which has been trying for more than two years to organize a union at a Wal-Mart and, just three weeks ago, was successful in winning certification at a second store in St-Hyacinthe, Que.

The union will file unfair labour practices charges with the Quebec Labour Relations Board because the closing is “clearly a violation of the workers’ right to join a union,” UFCW national director Michael Fraser said last night.

The world’s largest retailer, Wal-Mart has been union-averse. It has said it would shut a store only for economic—not union-related—reasons, but in October it warned it might have to close the Jonquière outlet unless it could reach a contract with the 190 or so employees.

The decision suggests that Wal-Mart is determined to return to its non-union status, said Richard Chaykowski, a professor at Queen’s University’s School of Policy Studies in Kingston, Ont. “It’s pretty clear, in terms of labour relations, that Wal-Mart has been set back on its heels by the success of the unionization drives.”

The store closing illustrates both the difficulty of organizing in the retail industry as well as the strength of resistance to union drives, Prof. Chaykowski said.

The union movement has targeted Wal-Mart as a priority for organizing drives because it dominates a generally low-paying sector that is growing in importance in the labour market.

Last August, the UFCW won union certification at the Wal-Mart in Jonquière and since then the company and union have met nine times in a bid to reach a collective agreement.

Last week, the union asked Quebec’s Minister of Labour for binding arbitration after the conciliation process had broken down. Wal-Mart said yesterday that in applying for first-contract arbitration the union was acknowledging that it and the company weren’t likely to strike a deal.

“The company has been unsuccessful in reaching an agreement with the union that would allow the store to operate efficiently and profitably,” Wal-Mart Canada, based in Mississauga with 256 stores countrywide, said in a statement.

Wal-Mart spokesman Andrew Pelletier said in an interview the company is very disappointed about the closing, and had tried very hard to prevent it. He said the store’s performance had not improved since the fall, when the company revealed the outlet was in the red. He would not disclose the profitability of other stores, including two nearby outlets.

He said the bargaining was stuck on three key issues, including scheduling of employees and “employee status.” He said the union demand would have required hiring 30 new people.

Another contentious matter involved full- and part-time workers and demands that would mean a “fundamental change to the business model,” Mr. Pelletier said.

The union had also refused to provide the company with its wage demands, he added. UFCW’s Mr. Fraser did not go into details about the negotiations, but said the outstanding issues could have been settled in arbitration.

Earlier efforts to unionize Wal-Mart Canada in the 1990s were ultimately unsuccessful. The Canadian branch of the United Steelworkers of America had succeeded in getting certification at a store in Windsor, Ont., but the union failed to sign a contract before the local branch collapsed.

There was a successful campaign to unionize meat cutters in 2000, at a Wal-Mart store in Jacksonville, Tex., but the meat department eventually closed, effectively ending the union’s involvement.

The UFCW decided about two years ago to make Wal-Mart a focus when the retailer’s Canadian operation began expanding into the grocery business. Most of the union’s members work for Canada’s large grocery chains.

Six applications for union certification at 12 Wal-Mart stores are pending or under appeal in three Canadian provinces.

A spokeswoman for the provincial Labour Ministry said there is little the government can do at this point.

“In terms of the labour code, there is no recourse the minister can take regarding a decision by a company to close,” said Josée Delisle. “It’s an unfortunate situation for the [local] population and the workers.”

She said the irony is that both sides were informed yesterday morning—just hours before Wal-Mart announced its decision to close—that the request for a mediator had been accepted.

In an unrelated development, Ontario’s Workplace Safety and Insurance Board reported yesterday that the company has been fined $500,000 after pleading guilty to 25 charges of failing to notify the WSIB within three days of learning of injuries to its employees.

The agreed statement of facts submitted to the Ontario Court of Justice does not disclose the severity of the injuries, but cites 25 occasions in the past four years where Wal-Mart failed to report injuries “which necessitated health care or resulted in the worker not being able to earn full wages.”

With files from reporters Bertrand Marotte and Virginia Galt

© Copyright 2005 Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.

[MacGuffin]

I don't see how that is evil....

[indie]

TY for that story, mgbradsh. Wal-Mart is very VERY anti-union, and it'll be interesting to see how it will try to worm its way out of this one.

So, did you have "permission" to copyright that article? ;)

[mgb]

TY for that story, mgbradsh. Wal-Mart is very VERY anti-union, and it'll be interesting to see how it will try to worm its way out of this one.

So, did you have "permission" to copyright that article? ;)

I think I am ok since I am not using it to make money.

[Chall T. Dow]

Wal-Mart used to be ok, back when Sam was still around. Then the C.E.O.s sold their souls for cash and made Wal-Mart the Hellspawn it is today.

Chall T. Dow

[Dman]

Typical, but true. Large cities don't have many of them. If I wanted to go to one here in Portland, I couldn't. I'd have to drive over 25 miles. So what they do (basically) is thrive in small, rural communities. In many cases, simply having a Wal-Mart open is an immediate indication that the community is going to experience a boom in growth.

Hey Indiejade, I meant to tell you – there is a Wal-Mart here, it’s in SE Portland off 82nd. It’s not too far from the Clackamas Town Center. The next closest one I know of is down in Woodburn or something, like 25 miles away.

[INTerloPer]

Walmart is definitely evil. They are short-sighted and monopolistic. They are not good for local economies anywhere (regardless of how often they try to convince people of that). Walmart destroys jobs and vibrant community centres, and helps to channel money AWAY from north america, and it even goes so far as to put its own suppliers out of business. way to bite the hand that feeds you, Walmart.

[indie]

Hey Indiejade, I meant to tell you – there is a Wal-Mart here, it’s in SE Portland off 82nd. It’s not too far from the Clackamas Town Center. The next closest one I know of is down in Woodburn or something, like 25 miles away.

Yep, I went down to the outlet mall in Woodburn last weekend or so and saw the behemoth Super Wal-Mart off the freeway. Those things are so UGLY!

Did you hear that they are trying to bring one to Beaverton? I was reading the Sunday Oregonian, and the "Washington County Weekly" editorial section was full of people debating the pros and cons of having a Wal-Mart somewhere near Cedar Mill and Barnes.

[LuridLemur]

I don't like paying $9.56 for an item and $9.83 for an almost identical product. It's baaaad.

[Dman]

Yep, I went down to the outlet mall in Woodburn last weekend or so and saw the behemoth Super Wal-Mart off the freeway. Those things are so UGLY!

Did you hear that they are trying to bring one to Beaverton? I was reading the Sunday Oregonian, and the "Washington County Weekly" editorial section was full of people debating the pros and cons of having a Wal-Mart somewhere near Cedar Mill and Barnes.

Yup. They tried in Hillsboro, but Hillsboro wouldn't let them. The location they would have put it in would have been a logistical nightmare. I'm actually surprised that Hillsboro was able to fend them off, Walmart tried pretty hard and pulled a few punches to try to get in there.

I'm sure you saw today's paper (Tuesday Mar. 1), which outlines the plan to put one in near Forest Heights/Cedar Mill, which of course the neighbors hate but Beaverton is basically giving them the green light. Beaverton is starting to act like an evil corporation itself these days.

[jimkopelli]

Saw this one today... hmm.

http://www.intpcentral.com/uploads/lbo050306.gif.jpg

[booyalab]

:rofl: I looked at this thread with the intention of complaining that it's still active, but now I'm glad it is. I love boondocks and pinky and the brain. Thanks :D

[mgb]

Yup. They tried in Hillsboro, but Hillsboro wouldn't let them. The location they would have put it in would have been a logistical nightmare. I'm actually surprised that Hillsboro was able to fend them off, Walmart tried pretty hard and pulled a few punches to try to get in there.

I'm sure you saw today's paper (Tuesday Mar. 1), which outlines the plan to put one in near Forest Heights/Cedar Mill, which of course the neighbors hate but Beaverton is basically giving them the green light. Beaverton is starting to act like an evil corporation itself these days.

Isn't Beaverton where the Nike headquarters are?

[FactsDontMatter]

I love boondocks and pinky and the brain.
I love lots of comics, and I make a point of reading them every day. i wonder if comics are particularly popular among INTPs, and which are the favorites. Has there been a thread?

[coffeezombie]

I love lots of comics, and I make a point of reading them every day. i wonder if comics are particularly popular among INTPs, and which are the favorites. Has there been a thread?

Well, favorite webcomics, yeah. At least Boondocks is one of the few newspaper comics anymore that actually seems to have an edge to it, while most of the many webcomics do.

[Sir Isaac Lime]

They also have a bad habit of buying up land that used to be native burial grounds

8O

Does wal-mart sell pets?

[indie]

Isn't Beaverton where the Nike headquarters are?

Indeed it is. The city of Beaverton is working on this annexation plan that would cause their (Nike's) taxes to be raised significantly. Needless to say, Nike isn't very enthusiastic about that . . . I think that's why Dman referred to it (Beaverton) acting like an evil corporation these days.

[jimkopelli]

:rofl: I looked at this thread with the intention of complaining that it's still active, but now I'm glad it is. I love boondocks and pinky and the brain. Thanks :D
Ye're welcome. :hello:

[Dman]

Indeed it is. The city of Beaverton is working on this annexation plan that would cause their taxes to be raised significantly. Needless to say, Nike isn't very enthusiastic about that . . . I think that's why Dman referred to it (Beaverton) acting like an evil corporation these days.

Precisely. Beaverton's annexation plan was constructed "behind the scenes", without holding meetings or notifying the community - just came out one day and said "we're going to annex all these parts of unincorporated county property", which will boost the population (and thus tax base) from current 80k to 300k people.

Obviously residents who are currently in/near Beaverton but on unincorporated land (including Nike) are not happy about it. Because of the decision, I believe Nike pulled the plug on leasing their land to a hospital that was going to be built (or something like that), which irritated Beaverton, whose mayor had the nerve to say it was unfortunate that Nike was employing "these kinds of tactics" - after the city had pulled the wool over everyone's eyes in the first place!

[indie]

Precisely. Beaverton's annexation plan was constructed "behind the scenes", without holding meetings or notifying the community - just came out one day and said "we're going to annex all these parts of unincorporated county property", which will boost the population (and thus tax base) from current 80k to 300k people.

Obviously residents who are currently in/near Beaverton but on unincorporated land (including Nike) are not happy about it. Because of the decision, I believe Nike pulled the plug on leasing their land to a hospital that was going to be built (or something like that), which irritated Beaverton, whose mayor had the nerve to say it was unfortunate that Nike was employing "these kinds of tactics" - after the city had pulled the wool over everyone's eyes in the first place!

So now have we have blurred the lines between "evil corporations" (in the private sector) and "evil cities" (in the public sector)?

Perhaps that thin fine line is at the very root of all the "evil" . . . maybe that balance of power is the very problem. Each side is working to "supposedly" create some form or another of greater good. The public side (the side that raises taxes and that wants to create a larger "pool" of revenue) says that it will create a greater good by establishing a better environment for the "locals," (better emergency response systems for the residents and a better overall economy for those who are employed by Nike as a result of the raised taxes) whereas the private side says it will create a greater good "for all". . . a greater good for the shareholders (less taxes=greater profit and a higher return to those shareholders).

It seems kind of ironic that the "public" side seems to be favor the local residents of a community whereas the "private" side seems to favor the big business aspect. Their names seem to indicate that their purpose is or should be quite opposite.

[mgb]

But would you want the public and private working together? I think the system is best when they work in opposition to one another.

The next civic elections will be interesting in Beaverton/Portland. I imagine Nike will be making some large campaign contributions to sympathetic individuals.

[Dman]

But would you want the public and private working together? I think the system is best when they work in opposition to one another.

The next civic elections will be interesting in Beaverton/Portland. I imagine Nike will be making some large campaign contributions to sympathetic individuals.

The state legislature is already in process of rewriting the laws to close the loopholes that Beaverton is exploiting in it's annexation process. Virtually know one likes what the city is doing, not just Nike - it's just that Nike has a bigger stick than everyone else.

I don't know if I would go so far to say that the system is always better when working in opposition to each other, but they definitely have different priorities and must always remember why they exist and what their purpose is. In Beaverton's case, regardless of if they thought they were doing the right thing for the community, their tactics were sneaky and not upfront with the very community they supposedly are representing.

Why would a government that is acting in the people's best interests not communicate it's intentions and ask for feedback? Before they did this, the policy was to notify affected landowners that they wanted to annex them, and the owner had the choice to say yes or no. Now they are using a loophole in the law to take the land by force, and without prior notification. You just wake up one day and you have to pay a bunch more taxes. The other insidious thing about is that the city has been slowly preparing to do this for a very long time.

[mgb]

I'll be honest, I don't feel bad for Nike. I have a hunch if they were in charge of annexation for Beaverton, Beaverton would be about the size and shape of Oregon.

The government should have a consultation process in place, if for no other reason than to just let people know what's going on. As well, Beaverton is pretty commercial. I've been to Tualatin and Wilsonville and they look nothing like Beaverton. If I were a citizen I'd want a say on joining that.

The only reason I could see for the annexation is that the 300k people outside of Beaverton rely heavily on Beaverton services anyways and are getting the services that the 80k taxpayers are paying for, for free.

[Dman]

I'll be honest, I don't feel bad for Nike. I have a hunch if they were in charge of annexation for Beaverton, Beaverton would be about the size and shape of Oregon.

True. But it's not about what Nike wants anyways, it's about how the city is behaving. In addition to pissing off every resident affected, you have to admit that it's foolish of the city to aggravate one of the primary reasons the city has a relatively high tax base (i.e. all the employees, contractors, suppliers, etc. basically the economy directly related to Nike being there). If Nike got bent out of shape and relocated, that would absolutely hammer Beaverton's local economy.

It's the similar situation with Intel in Hillsboro, and likely every other city in the country that has a large corp in it. You have this cold corporation calling the shots, not paying their share of taxes (not paying ANY taxes) and overpopulating the area and all the headaches that comes with that, but at the same time your local economy is benefitting from it and people have good jobs.


The government should have a consultation process in place, if for no other reason than to just let people know what's going on. As well, Beaverton is pretty commercial. I've been to Tualatin and Wilsonville and they look nothing like Beaverton. If I were a citizen I'd want a say on joining that.

The only reason I could see for the annexation is that the 300k people outside of Beaverton rely heavily on Beaverton services anyways and are getting the services that the 80k taxpayers are paying for, for free.

How heavily they rely on Beaverton services is arguable; for some it's more true than others. The county provides a lot of services to the folks further away from central Beaverton. Plus, what Beav did is over the years has been annexing a street here, a street there, under the radar. Eventually they had spread so much and annexed so many "random" streets that they created several "islands" of land that were unincorporated, but surrounded by beaverton streets. So now beaverton is using a law that says they can annex "islands" within the city. So all these people that 15 - 20 years ago were nowhere near Beaverton and did not use their services are now surrounded, basically forced to use their services, and are now forced to become part of the city. That seems to me more like how a corporation would behave.

I suspect their motives are to grab all the unincorporated land before any other cities do, because this place has exploded in growth so much over the last 15 years there's no way the unincorporated land will remain that way for long. They figure if they used a community process, which used to be the norm, it would take too long to get it all before another city started grabbing.

As for Tualatin and Wilsonville - Wilsonville was one of the last metro areas to see big growth (thanks to Hollywood video HQ, Infocus, Xerox, and mainly H-P), so that city is still "new". It was a wide spot in the road 15 years ago. That's why they don't look like Beaverton - Beav was the biggest burb on the west side for decades and thus has been developed for a long time. Tualatin will never be very big, simply because it is a logistical nightmare, as you may have seen.

Out of curiosity, would you mind sharing why you were visiting?

[mgb]

True. But it's not about what Nike wants anyways, it's about how the city is behaving. In addition to pissing off every resident affected, you have to admit that it's foolish of the city to aggravate one of the primary reasons the city has a relatively high tax base (i.e. all the employees, contractors, suppliers, etc. basically the economy directly related to Nike being there). If Nike got bent out of shape and relocated, that would absolutely hammer Beaverton's local economy.

It's the similar situation with Intel in Hillsboro, and likely every other city in the country that has a large corp in it. You have this cold corporation calling the shots, not paying their share of taxes (not paying ANY taxes) and overpopulating the area and all the headaches that comes with that, but at the same time your local economy is benefitting from it and people have good jobs.



How heavily they rely on Beaverton services is arguable; for some it's more true than others. The county provides a lot of services to the folks further away from central Beaverton. Plus, what Beav did is over the years has been annexing a street here, a street there, under the radar. Eventually they had spread so much and annexed so many "random" streets that they created several "islands" of land that were unincorporated, but surrounded by beaverton streets. So now beaverton is using a law that says they can annex "islands" within the city. So all these people that 15 - 20 years ago were nowhere near Beaverton and did not use their services are now surrounded, basically forced to use their services, and are now forced to become part of the city. That seems to me more like how a corporation would behave.

I suspect their motives are to grab all the unincorporated land before any other cities do, because this place has exploded in growth so much over the last 15 years there's no way the unincorporated land will remain that way for long. They figure if they used a community process, which used to be the norm, it would take too long to get it all before another city started grabbing.

As for Tualatin and Wilsonville - Wilsonville was one of the last metro areas to see big growth (thanks to Hollywood video HQ, Infocus, Xerox, and mainly H-P), so that city is still "new". It was a wide spot in the road 15 years ago. That's why they don't look like Beaverton - Beav was the biggest burb on the west side for decades and thus has been developed for a long time. Tualatin will never be very big, simply because it is a logistical nightmare, as you may have seen.

Out of curiosity, would you mind sharing why you were visiting?

Oh it's a nightmare of a story.

There is a show jumper in Wilsonville named Rich Fellers (bit of a prick). Anyways I had a g/f (sort of, that's the nightmare part), who moved down there to work for him. She lived in Beaverton for a while (right by an Albertsons, sorry that's all I remember). Then she moved to Tualatin.

I had another friend, and we went down there one summer for a few days. He had a friend that was working on Nike's Y2K conversion and lived in some condos right outside the Nike complex.

So I ended up getting the whole tour of the future annexed area.

The one thing that would be a tragedy is that little town just west of Portland with the pizza place/movie theatre getting annexed. I have a hunch that's a while off. But still.

The real problem is urban sprawl. Even city counsels are powerless against it.

[indie]

But would you want the public and private working together? I think the system is best when they work in opposition to one another.

No, definitely not. I was merely commenting that the balance of power between the two might be at least partially to blame for the problems. As Dman said, the city of Beaverton wants to annex some land owned by Nike, so the Nike people say "Fine, we're not going to give you this land for a hospital." Both sides try to assert too much power, and it's like a tug of war where both sides end up on their asses in the mud.

[Chicken]

Hell yeah WalMart is evil.. Damn outsourcing mother fuckers..

[Dman]

The real problem is urban sprawl. Even city counsels are powerless against it.

Oregon, and Portland specifically, is well-known for trying to be pro-active against urban sprawl. If you were here recently, you probably noticed especially in Beaverton all the high-density housing, with house on top of house on top of house. Even relatively upscale houses ($300k - $500k, 3000sq ft+) are close enough together that you can stand in between them and touch them both, and the yards are basically glorified porches.

The metro area is very determined to keep the urban growth boundaries stationary, or at least with minimal creep, so the population boom has all been fairly well contained. It’s completely ruined the suburbs, with all those houses crammed in (Hillsboro was actually a farming community when I was a kid, now it’s as big or bigger than Beaverton and completely filling in – the change has been shocking…you would not recognize the place at all compared to then). But the upside is that outside the metro boundaries things still haven’t changed too much.

[indie]

One of the things that upsets me that is the mayor of the city of Beaverton has a higher salary than the governer of the whole damn state.

Oh, it also upsets me that residents have to pay $10 in order to install a burglar alarm in their apartment. And law requires burglar alarms in apartments. It's mentioned at dumblaws.com (http://www.dumblaws.com). . .

[mgb]

Oregon, and Portland specifically, is well-known for trying to be pro-active against urban sprawl. If you were here recently, you probably noticed especially in Beaverton all the high-density housing, with house on top of house on top of house. Even relatively upscale houses ($300k - $500k, 3000sq ft+) are close enough together that you can stand in between them and touch them both, and the yards are basically glorified porches.

The metro area is very determined to keep the urban growth boundaries stationary, or at least with minimal creep, so the population boom has all been fairly well contained. It’s completely ruined the suburbs, with all those houses crammed in (Hillsboro was actually a farming community when I was a kid, now it’s as big or bigger than Beaverton and completely filling in – the change has been shocking…you would not recognize the place at all compared to then). But the upside is that outside the metro boundaries things still haven’t changed too much.

I can see the Portland area being very difficult to build in though, pretty hilly.

When I was there I did notice that estate style housing was starting to expand west. And since my trips were a couple years apart they were starting to build big box stores in Wilsonville.

You can put houses close together (I can't wait for that fire) but it doesn't reall solve the problem. Things have to go really verticle to affect population density with any great measure. I wonder how that would affect Wal-Mart and what effect Wal-Mart has on residential building around their stores. I know Nike owned a ton of residences close by and rented them out to employees.

[mgb]

One of the things that upsets me that is the mayor of the city of Beaverton has a higher salary than the governer of the whole damn state.

Oh, it also upsets me that residents have to pay $10 in order to install a burglar alarm in their apartment. And law requires burglar alarms in apartments. It's mentioned at dumblaws.com (http://www.dumblaws.com). . .

Dumb laws is fun.

Here is my favorite Alberta one:

If you are released from prison, it is required that you are given a handgun with bullets and a horse, so you can ride out of town.

Never happens.

[indie]

Dumb laws is fun.

Here is my favorite Alberta one:

If you are released from prison, it is required that you are given a handgun with bullets and a horse, so you can ride out of town.

Never happens.

:lol:

and you *know* this from experience?

[mgb]

:lol:

and you *know* this from experience?

Not so much, but I've heard of the law before, it's one of those things complete tools bring up when they are trying to create a conversation.

I think if you get the horse, gun and bullets you aren't allowed back.

[kooliganka]

Evil or not, Walmart is one hell of a depressing place, and I have not been there in years.

[abiyoyo]

whatever happened to all those old trust-buster legislations?
true capitalism means competition.
but after a certain point, capitalism degenerates into fascism, as inexorably as socialism degenerates into communism.
Wal-Mart is a symptom of a fascistic economy.

[Dman]

I can see the Portland area being very difficult to build in though, pretty hilly.

When I was there I did notice that estate style housing was starting to expand west. And since my trips were a couple years apart they were starting to build big box stores in Wilsonville.

You can put houses close together (I can't wait for that fire) but it doesn't reall solve the problem. Things have to go really verticle to affect population density with any great measure. I wonder how that would affect Wal-Mart and what effect Wal-Mart has on residential building around their stores. I know Nike owned a ton of residences close by and rented them out to employees.

Not sure what effect it will have on Walmart…the latest news on our local situation is that Walmart is not allowed to have a grocery dept in this location, because the owners of the land they are leasing from also have an Albertson’s leasing nearby. They are also using an architect to make the building “fit in” with the local architecture, so it doesn’t look so much like a box. It’s in a suburban area, with a lot of upscale neighborhoods surrounding; there is a lot of elitism and nimby-ism going on about it, but at the same time it does seem like an unusual place for a Walmart but what do I know.

There was a meeting last night with Walmart reps for an info session, which about 650 local residents took over and began chanting and protesting. Sounded like a good time. At any rate it looks like it’s going to happen regardless of what the residents want. It certainly gives you the sense that a lot of people do consider Walmart evil, enough to get a bunch of hoity-toity suburban residents hot and bothered enough to actually stage a protest.

[indie]

And now, to prove how friendly and culturally-minded it can be, Wal-Mart has opened a store that caters to the Amish breed of customers:

"A new Wal-Mart in Middlefield, Ohio is equipped with 37 hitching posts for horse-drawn carriages, blocks of ice instead of crushed ice and fabrics for clothes to be made at home."

And another article: http://www.forbes.com/business/commerce/2005/05/24/cx_gl_0524Amish.html

:rolleyes:

[Robespierre]

And now, to prove how friendly and culturally-minded it can be, Wal-Mart has opened a store that caters to the Amish breed of customers:

"A new Wal-Mart in Middlefield, Ohio is equipped with 37 hitching posts for horse-drawn carriages, blocks of ice instead of crushed ice and fabrics for clothes to be made at home."

And another article: http://www.forbes.com/business/commerce/2005/05/24/cx_gl_0524Amish.html

:rolleyes:

How horrible! I bet if those Amish don't shop at their store, the walmart police will go into their towns and start taking them away and throwing them into walmart prisons.

[mgb]

How horrible! I bet if those Amish don't shop at their store, the walmart police will go into their towns and start taking them away and throwing them into walmart prisons.

Hey, the benefits attained by the Waltons seep in government. They are no ordinary citizens.

[Robespierre]

Hey, the benefits attained by the Waltons seep in government. They are no ordinary citizens.

And to be sure, they try to use the government to do violence on their behalf just as much as the other corporations, but they are not the problem. The government who would use violence to settle issues like copyright, trademarks, labor standards, etc is the guilty party.

[indie]

Here's a more detailed article:

http://www.cleveland.com/business/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/business/1116408999284370.xml&coll=2

Is it just me, or does it look funny to see the words "Amish" and "Wal-Mart" in the same sentence? I don't know very much about the Amish, but the mental image of horse-drawn buggies in a Wal-Mart parking lot. . . it's disturbing. Or is it poetic? ;)

[Robespierre]

I don't know very much about the Amish, but the mental image of horse-drawn buggies in a Wal-Mart parking lot. . . it's disturbing. Or is it poetic? ;)

You haven't yet said what is so onerous about walmart trying to please its customers. Your hatred of individual liberty colors your response to all things involving commerce or corporations.

[sbw]

I think it's poetic that wal-mart acting in an effort to please its customers was described as "disturbing" within a thread asking if wal-mart is evil or not.

Scott

[indie]

I think it's poetic that wal-mart acting in an effort to please its customers was described as "disturbing" within a thread asking if wal-mart is evil or not.

And you know Wal-Mart's motives were benevolant how/. . .?

[iponjs]

Last time I checked, Wal-Mart doesn't force anyone into it's stores - they CHOOSE to go (albeit out of the gross inconvenience of going to another distant store). So, are the customers evil?


HOWEVER, the fact that Wal-Mart doesn't offer a choice to it's customers to buy uncensored music based on it's "christian" "family" values does indicate evil-doing...

[Robespierre]

And you know Wal-Mart's motives were benevolant how/. . .?

Walmart's motive is to make money, is that malevolent? I guess you can't be troubled to lower yourself to such base concerns.

In order to make money, walmart must please its customers. What difference does walmart's motivation make?

[Robespierre]

HOWEVER, the fact that Wal-Mart doesn't offer a choice to it's customers to buy uncensored music based on it's "christian" "family" values does indicate evil-doing...

What is wrong with walmart trying to please their customers? Why should they distribute a product which they see as against their own best interests?

[iponjs]

What is wrong with walmart trying to please their customers? Why should they distribute a product which they see as against their own best interests?

Nothing - I just don't like it 'cause it inconveniences ME :thumbdow:

However, any store that caters to ME is likely to fail miserably...

[Robespierre]

Nothing - I just don't like it 'cause it inconveniences ME

Right on. I misunderstood your objection. I'm used to people stating their tastes, and intending that others be bound by law to cater to their tastes.

[In...TP]

Wal*Mart is the goose that lays golden eggs.(My retirement is heavily weighted in the stock) So ya'll be sure to feed and love my goose. :)

[iponjs]

Right on. I misunderstood your objection. I'm used to people stating their tastes, and intending that others be bound by law to cater to their tastes.

We have way too many laws. I try to avoid constraining people whenever possible. I do like to bitch and moan though :rant:

[indie]

Wal*Mart is the goose that lays golden eggs.(My retirement is heavily weighted in the stock) So ya'll be sure to feed and love my goose.

I'd sell if I were you. Not because I, personally, agree or disagree that company is "evil," but because shareholder value is gained through growth. And since Wal-Mart has been chasing the Amish they might be running out of ideas and/or getting desperate. . . :lol:

[In...TP]

There's a niche with the Amish and the Chinese.

http://www.walmartfacts.com/community/

"You can add it all up and they (Wal-Mart) have contributed to the financial well-being of the American public more than any institution I can think of.” - Warren Buffett, FORTUNE, March 2003.

[cwazyonyx]

I cant stand ideas like this. corporations aren't people. They don't have morals. They don't have consciences. If something is not a person, it cannot be called 'evil' or 'good'.


literally true like the saying "guns don't kill people, people kill people"

still guns and corporations can be the instruments of evil people. so you're really just splitting hairs.

i'm not much of an activist so i still shop at wal-mart even though i don't like a lot about it. common sense says save money if you don't have much - i don't want to be a martyr.

i also believe in the right to bear arms, but wish most people didn't have that right.

[cwazyonyx]

NO, nazi Germany was not evil. Hitler was evil. The nazis were evil. In my opinion, collective morality is an excuse for people to not take responsibility for their own actions. "If my government gives to the poor for me, then I don't have to...and I can blame the government when the poor have no food!"

The actions of corporations have different underlying principles than the action of an individual human.

Would you think it's ok for a couple to base their decision to have children and/or how to raise them on what's the most profitable? No, then why do you apply human standards to an inhuman entity?


a little naive

[cwazyonyx]

I mean the individuals who did Hitler's bidding were evil. The difference between saying "nazis are evil" and "walmart is evil" is that I am holding the individuals that make up the nazi party accountable for their actions, with no possible exception. Whereas, if you are holding the individuals that make up walmart all accountable for their actions, you're saying that some granny as a cashier trying to pay her prescription bill is just as guilty as some decision maker at the top who made a decision that might be morally reprehensible.


this is where judgement comes in. i'm pretty sure you understand the intended meaning of Wal-Mart is evil - that it of course does refer to the decision makers. I think one of the strong characteristics of an INTP is understanding the subtleties in words and grasping intended meanings.

Being literal, I have to believe is done on purpose.

[C.J.Woolf]

Yes, it looks like Wal-Mart's growth rate is due to slack off for lack of easy new markets to penetrate. Wal-Mart's business model depends on maximum exploitation, of workers and suppliers alike. It depends on customers who don't mind buying crap from low-morale workers to save a few bucks. It depends on customers who don't give a shit about the other guy. Now they are encountering resistance, and bad PR is increasing that resistance.

Why the resistance? Values. It seems that Wal-Mart has nowhere to go except places where Wal-Mart offends the people's values.

They're trying to expand into places where people care about the lot of all workers, not just themselves. Where people want all workers to be paid a living wage and to have health insurance. Where people don't want Wal-Mart to gain a competitive advantage at public expense because Wal-Mart's primary employee health program is Medicaid.

It's a bad sign for their growth rate that Wal-Mart is trying to expand into places that are pro-union, like Canada and Europe and major metropolitan areas in the US. Quebec workers tried to organize and the company shut down the store rather than deal. What the fuck were they thinking, that they wouldn't organize just because it's against company policy in Hicksville, Arkansas? In many places, like New York City, citizens organize to keep them out. They don't do that against Target.

It looks to me like Wal-Mart has picked all the low-hanging fruit (to use a popular buzzphrase) and if the stock price depends on continued expansion then it won't stay up.

[Robespierre]

It depends on customers who don't give a shit about the other guy.

Customers who shop in other stores DO give a shit about the other guy? At least more than those who shop at walmart?

The anti-walmart hysteria really is reaching an all-time high.

[mgb]

I'd say loyalty is a factor when talking about the other guy.

From before, I'm interested on your opinion of citizens, like the Waltons, that have a great deal of government influence, so much so that their wants and needs become very important to the government, even if that means treading on the rights of others.

Realizing that just like a corporation, government is an entity made up of individuals, how to you deal with corruption by the government on behalf of these "super-citizens" (for lack of a better name). I realize your answer is going to be, get rid of government, but will this problem still exist in some shape or form without the government?

[In...TP]

They're trying to expand into places where people care about the lot of all workers, not just themselves. Where people want all workers to be paid a living wage and to have health insurance. Where people don't want Wal-Mart to gain a competitive advantage at public expense because Wal-Mart's primary employee health program is Medicaid.
What about people who just want to work part-time to supplement income such as, mothers, students, and senior citizens.

Currently, 86 percent of Wal-Mart hourly store associates surveyed have medical insurance - 56 percent of those with coverage received health care insurance from Wal-Mart and the remainder receive health care through another source such as another employer, a family member, the military or Medicare. Unlike many plans, after the first year, the Wal-Mart medical plan has no lifetime maximum for most expenses, protecting our associates against catastrophic loss and financial ruin.

Associates enrolled in the Associates’ Medical Plan also have access to world class health care at the Mayo Clinic, Stanford University Hospital, Johns Hopkins University Hospital and many other health care facilities, all without insurance approval.




In many places, like New York City, citizens organize to keep them out. They don't do that against Target..

Just give it time, I see where the unions have their sights set on Target, also. These businesses represent competition. Which side of the fence do you stand on? I do agree that Wal-Mart's Public Relations have had their head in their ass. Alot of this is due to the CEO change from David "freight train" Glass to a more subdued, Lee Scott. http://www.dol.gov/21cw/speeches/lee_scott.htm

[Dman]

FYI -

"Wal-Mart takes on Oregon only way it can: it'll change
The retail behemoth is bending more and spending more to get past land use, design and other roadblocks to its expansion here "

Wal-Mart looks like a corporate behemoth on tiptoes as it tries to grow in Oregon: Minefields seem to be everywhere.

"Whether it is a shortage of land or local regulations that prevent the company from building its standard gray-and-blue box next to a sea of parking, Wal-Mart is finding it must be flexible in Oregon. It will have to spend more money, be more creative and make concessions to keep growing. "



http://www.oregonlive.com/search/index.ssf?/base/front_page/1117446945100990.xml?oregonian?fpfp&coll=7

[Jacque]

http://www.ufcw.org/images/rocha.jpg

Hey, did anyone see this?
http://www.hel-mart.com/products.php

[Robespierre]

Hey, did anyone see this?
http://www.hel-mart.com/products.php

It's funny to see a site making fun of walmart by claiming walmart supports communism... don't they see the irony?

[In...TP]

MarketWatch
Market Pulse: Shareholders ask Wal-Mart cmte to launch review of co
Wednesday June 1, 11:17 am ET
By Carla Mozee


SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) -- A group of Wal-Mart Stores Inc. shareholders,led by New York City Comptroller William Thompson Jr., on Wednesday called on the retailer's audit committee to form a special committee to launch a "comprehensive" review of the company's legal and regulatory controls and "its internal system for ensuring compliance with its own policies and standards." The shareholders, in a letter to audit committee chairman, Roland Hernandez, asked for the review to completed by December. The shareholders, which also include the chairman of the Illinois State Board of Investment, said they hold about 11.5 million shares with an estimated market value of $545.8 million. The group said Wal-Mart's global reputation has been damaged by raids by U.S. federal agents of 60 Wal-Mart stores, resulting in the arrest of 250 illegal immigrant workers, and the company's 2005 settlement with the U.S. Department of Labor over violations of child labor laws in three states. "The board of directors could help to bolster the company's image and shareholder confidence by enabling a committee of independent directors to take the action we have requested," said the shareholders.

Sam Walton Quotes

"Appreciate everything your associates do for the business. Nothing else can quite substitute for a few well-chosen, well-timed, sincere words of praise. They're absolutely free and worth a fortune.
Sam Walton

Capital isn't scarce; vision is.
Sam Walton

Each Wal-Mart store should reflect the values of its customers and support the vision they hold for their community.
Sam Walton

High expectations are the key to everything.
Sam Walton

I had to pick myself up and get on with it, do it all over again, only even better this time.
Sam Walton

I have always been driven to buck the system, to innovate, to take things beyond where they've been.
Sam Walton

Outstanding leaders go out of their way to boost the self-esteem of their personnel. If people believe in themselves, it's amazing what they can accomplish.
Sam Walton

There is only one boss. The customer. And he can fire everybody in the company from the chairman on down, simply by spending his money somewhere else.
Sam Walton

There's a lot more business out there in small town America than I ever dreamed of.
Sam Walton

We let folks know we're interested in them and that they're vital to us. cause they are.
Sam Walton

We're all working together; that's the secret.
Sam Walton

[Jacque]

It's funny to see a site making fun of walmart by claiming walmart supports communism... don't they see the irony?
At first I found it strange, but then I didn't. I suppose Wal-Mart screwed enough seniors and must have rubbed a few antiquated anti-communists the wrong way. Or perhaps it's the progressive protectionist Mid-Western types who fought the large railroads companies, and seem to enjoy fighting Big Brother, Federalism, Trusts, Communism, etc. Not that political philosophy deserves any form of romantization, but I thinks it's admirable. If Wal-Mart is a threat to that frontier spirit, then send it down the river. Or perhaps it's that sign of innocence which usually accompanies honest people.

[Robespierre]

Wal-Mart screwed enough seniors and must have rubbed a few antiquated anti-communists the wrong way.

How did walmart screw seniors?

[Jacque]

How did walmart screw seniors?
You thought it'd only happen to minorities. Overtime affects them all well and the last I read, when one complained he was fired for shop lifting. Kinda late in the game for an old man with a clean record to pick up that habit. This happened locally...but store managers are equally pressured and desperation leaves little room for discrimation. So seniors weren't targeted specifically, but were included. Inclusively affected, not exclusively.

Anyway, to settle this a better way, the "Wal-Mart Story" at walmartstores.com has been certified as 61% evil:
http://homokaasu.org/pics/g/e61.jpg

This thread:
http://homokaasu.org/pics/g/g43.jpg

http://homokaasu.org/gematriculator/

[Robespierre]

You thought it'd only happen to minorities. Overtime affects them all well and the last I read, when one complained he was fired for shop lifting. Kinda late in the game for an old man with a clean record to pick up that habit. This happened locally...but store managers are equally pressured and desperation leaves little room for discrimation. So seniors weren't targeted specifically, but were included. Inclusively affected, not exclusively.

What's this about minorities?

The best you can do is to claim that walmart fired someone they didn't want to pay overtime to? Is that the extent of their evil?

[Jacque]

The best you can do is to claim that walmart fired someone they didn't want to pay overtime to?

Since you're cleaning it up like this, removing the fact that it was on a boggus charge and that it applies to other employees, consider Wal-Mart in your employment future.

[QUOTE] Is that the extent of their evil?
Has it already been taken beyond my little spiel?

[CENTIPEDE HEAD]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/walmart/view/

Wal Mart has emerged as the current master of mass-market retail. They are brutally efficient, cut-throat, and are successful in their business model. And that model is to be a pipeline from China for cheap goods to pass on as cheaply as possible to the masses while keeping a healthy profit margin. If you were in their business, you'd want the things they have: efficiency, market penetration, profit, growth, rising stock. But they are outsourcing jobs overseas and pressuring American suppliers to the point that they must compete with Chinese factories. It destroys American manufacturer's businesses. As for me personally, I will pay a little more, and consume a little less and shop elsewhere.

[Miss Anthropic]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/walmart/view/

Wal Mart has emerged as the current master of mass-market retail. They are brutally efficient, cut-throat, and are successful in their business model. And that model is to be a pipeline from China for cheap goods to pass on as cheaply as possible to the masses while keeping a healthy profit margin. If you were in their business, you'd want the things they have: efficiency, market penetration, profit, growth, rising stock. But they are outsourcing jobs overseas and pressuring American suppliers to the point that they must compete with Chinese factories. It destroys American manufacturer's businesses. As for me personally, I will pay a little more, and consume a little less and shop elsewhere.

So many goods sold in the US are produced in foreign markets today, you'd have to do a lot of research to avoid products made in China. Or are you only boycotting Walmart? Even if their profit margin is high, the goods are still reasonably priced. (The negative aspect to extremely inexpensive products is the contribution they make to our "disposable" society--where it is cheaper to throw something away and replace it than to fix it.) I am more irritated at a company like NIKE which produces their product in a 3rd world country yet prices it exhorbitantly here. Can you imagine how much a pair of NIKES would cost if they were produced in the US?

[Ka.avik]

I'm boycotting Walmart, myself. Partly because cheap or not, the quality of WalMart crap is abominable. Mostly though, it's because they don't treat the employee and the customer with equal respect. I want things to be fair, and Wally World isn't. So they rarely get my money. I go there perhaps once every six weeks for either cost or selection issues, and spend no more than $20 or $30. So effectively I'm boycotting them.

YMMV, though http://forums.intpcentral.com/images/smilies/smiley_violin.gif

[Architectonic]

Can you imagine how much a pair of NIKES would cost if they were produced in the US?

Potentially less than they do now, depending on profit margin. ;)

[Miss Anthropic]

Potentially less than they do now, depending on profit margin. ;)
Yeah, Phil Knight is going to reduce his profit margin....

[ppc]

Walmart isn't evil - They are simply the best and of course when you are the best all the people who love to talk shit certainly talk about number one - well except when they shop there and all that money comes into their community. Other than that OMG WALMARTZISEVAL!!!!!

Either the system in which we operate is evil or nothing, no company can be evil.

[sbw]

I just noticed that almost 60% of the people here do think that wal-mart is evil. WTF?

Scott

[coffeezombie]

Either the system in which we operate is evil or nothing, no company can be evil.

If you employ illegal immigrant workers in order to get around wage laws, that could be construed as "evil," since that's against the rules in the system. Similarly, if you attempt to purposely exploit your monopolistic position in the system in order to create a lack of competition, such as what Microsoft does that could be construed as "evil" too, since monopolies are "market failures" and not supposed to be part of the capitalist system. If you purposely mislead the public about the health risks of your food, such as what McDonalds does, this could be construed as "evil" as well, as transparency of information is part of a pure capitalist system.

[Architectonic]

I just noticed that almost 60% of the people here do think that wal-mart is evil. WTF?

It's similar to the logic of most libertarians - large corporations (like large governments) are inherently evil. :ph34r:

[Zifmer]

Most conservatives are Christians who believe that man is inherently evil and if large corporations are enforced by men of power and greed then aren't the two inherently evil... unless of course Jesus is at the head of.

[CENTIPEDE HEAD]

I am not an activist and don't boycott Wal Mart out of some political conviction. I just find it very unpleasant to shop there. And, for example, I don't need a ridiculously oversized jar of pickles for $2.97 when they'd rot by the time I could eat all of them. (That was a profitable deal for WM and put their supplier, Vlasic, into bankruptcy.) Their hardware and other goods are second rate and don't last. Wal mart wouldn't want them to last because when what you bought from them breaks or stops working within six months to a year, they want you to come back in and buy more of their cheap crap. It's just part of the consumerist, throwaway mentality that seems to be in full swing and which lines the pockets of Wally World.

[In...TP]

I agree and I'm glad Coughlin got thrown out on his ear. I hope all those sons of bitches that kissed his ass, get thrown out too. :rant:

[Helios]

Ok, I hate Wal-Mart, cause they suck, but I was pissed yesterday I went to the shithole cause it was 2am and everything else was closed, you know those mofo's don't carry ANY recycled toilet paper. I had just read that most toilet paper was processed from virgin forests and swore I'd never buy it again. But godamnit! I bought the cheapest shit they cause, well..... I didn't know what else to do as a protest, buying nothing and dragging my ass on the carpet like a dog with worms seemed like a bad idea.

On a related note, I was in Target getting stuff for a party, 'casue I knew that they stocked Moet, always good swill to have about, but the new super-target by my house has dom perignon 1996, which isn't a bad year. Now I guess I'll have to see if they have post-consumer recycled shitter paper next time I am there, if only they were 24hr too I'd never set foot in Wal-Mart again!

[In...TP]

All toilet paper is from recycled.

[Helios]

I just read something the other day saying the reverse, I hope you are correct! God knows it should be recycled!

[CoHo]

Looks like it may be true... Proctor and Gamble make Charmin


What is P&G's position regarding forestry practices?
The world's global forest resources must be responsibly managed to sustain them for future generations and to meet a wide range of societal needs, including wood products, biological diversity, recreation, and natural beauty. Wood pulp derived from these forests should be produced by processes which minimize environmental impact.
Consistent with this position, P&G:


* ensures that pulp from suppliers comes from plantation-grown trees or sustainably managed forests. P&G does not own or manage any forests.

* does not purchase pulp derived from tropical rain forests or old growth forests, unless they are being actively managed for sustainable yield and preservation or biodiversity.

* requires that the forestry practices of suppliers meet or exceed local and regional laws. P&G requires suppliers to be engaged in local sustainable forest management programs.

* requires that the pulp we purchase is produced using Elemental Chlorine Free (ECF) or Totally Chlorine Free (TCF) purification processes. P&G does not use materials purified with chlorine gas.

* requires that supplier pulp mills meet or exceed all legal requirements for their air and water emissions. P&G seeks suppliers that manage waste and by-products appropriately, and that minimize the potential environmental impacts of their operations.

* ensures that suppliers meet the above requirements through mill visits and comprehensive written surveys.

http://www.pg.com/company/our_commitment/sus_faqs.jhtml

[In...TP]

Hood winked again. I use 1 ply and tear a corner off to clean my fingernail.

http://www.straightdope.com/art/1978/781222.gif

[elle]

wal-mart stands for everything i despise about corporate america.....while it may contribute good things for communites, such as jobs and convenience- it also exploits and strips resources from other countries....

wal-mart contributes to why this country consumes more than it should...

"Ecology of Commerce"- Paul Hawken, illustrates how corporations like wal-mart, regardless of their intentions are inherently neglegent for whats going on in the world.

[elle]

wal-mart stands for everything i despise about corporate america.....while it may contribute good things for communites, such as jobs and convenience- it also exploits and strips resources from other countries....

wal-mart contributes to why this country consumes more than it should...

"Ecology of Commerce"- Paul Hawken, illustrates how corporations like wal-mart, regardless of their intentions are inherently negligent, yet responsible for whats going on in the world.

[Helios]

Looks like it may be true... Proctor and Gamble make Charmin


http://www.pg.com/company/our_commitment/sus_faqs.jhtml



Thanx CW, I meant to do some research but never got around to it. The fact that they promise they aren't gonna cut old growth forest and turn it into something to wipe your ass with means that they or someone must be have been doing such prior!! Even to cut a plantation tree is insane. Am I the only one who thinks this should be illegal?!

[indie]

while it may contribute good things for communites, such as jobs and convenience- it also exploits and strips resources from other countries....

This is a very valid point. But at the same time, it does contribute something to the economic well-being of the countries that it gets products from. I suppose the point is, how much does it exploit before it gives back?

[wescoast]

wal-mart stands for everything i despise about corporate america.....while it may contribute good things for communites, such as jobs and convenience- it also exploits and strips resources from other countries....

wal-mart contributes to why this country consumes more than it should...

"Ecology of Commerce"- Paul Hawken, illustrates how corporations like wal-mart, regardless of their intentions are inherently negligent, yet responsible for whats going on in the world.

I have to agree with this post. Corporations will always be inherently negligent of the well-being of overall society because their focus is the improvement of profits. There is no grand scheme in the overall aim of any ordinary corporation. Profit comes first... morality is secondary. The simple fact remains that in the realm of overall betterment of society, corporations are not designed to improve the quality of life... at best, only the illusion of a better life is presented through the presentation of the consumer culture. Wal-Mart has proven themselves quite successful in this arena of profit, but at a great moral cost that cannot be quantitively measured. It isn't about how you define a corporation really, in my view, as the underlying goal makes corporations sacrifice everything to the bottom line. There are those rare gems that have a different culture, but I would not define Wal-Mart as terribly conscious, to put it mildly.

And to the next point, consumption is the evil of this society. It will undoubtedly be the downfall of our civilization, as it has been with all civilizations in the past. Wal-Mart completely embodies the current incarnation of consumption, so why wouldn't you associate it with evil?

As for Paul Hawken, all I will say is that I'm a big fan. The point made is the fact that corporations exist as the predominant (or at least upcoming) power structure in modern civilization. Therefore, its influence goes far beyond the contributions of some retiree giving you a shopping cart. It is the culture of Wal-Mart, and the corporate consumer culture in general, that puts all involved at fault. I'm sorry, but convenience and low cost comes at a price for someone and I choose not to be selfish enough to ingore that fact.

[Burble]

Is Wal-Mart evil? Is Capitalism evil? The REAL question is "do you have a better economic system?"

[indie]

More evidence:

Walmart in bed with Microsoft? Walmart says NO to Firefox, Mac, Apple (http://www.centernetworks.com/walmart-in-bed-with-microsoft-no-to-firefox)

Link courtesy o'slashdot (http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/02/11/1359256).

[intpgolfer]

As Wal-mar moves from an oligopoly to a monopoly - it reduces competition - and that is bad for a competitive society.

Microsoft, Exxon, Wal-Mart reach a point where they can easily buy presidents and congress and courts - and they become - evil empires.

Every business is attempting this - and only the successful ones - get close. That is why I believe it is an evil and a good.

We need Microsoft and Exxon and Wal-mart to weaken or die off and be replaced like USSteel, Ford, Enron, IBM, ATT - I think the economists call in creative destruction.

Something like the amazon forrest - more diversity - success and failure - than anywhere else in the world.. America shines because of its diversity - other countries fall behind us because they save big companies - and do not allow them to die. Japan was on it's way past us about 20 years ago - but it never happened because their CEOs and Government were in bed with each other - and because the Japanese really, really respect large business and large government. I believe the Chinese will make the same mistake.

As long as America continues to force competition - and let its large companies die when they can't compete - we should have a growing economy.

1. America believes its King is the consumer
2. Other countries believe their King is managment
3. And More countries believe their King is labor

In summary it is good Wal-mart has found a successful method - but as the method becomes tangled with politics - Wal-mart becomes an evil to competition. Like Microsoft and Exxon and .....

America must keep the consumer its King - and let even the big boys die when they can't compete in the world market - and look to congress to protect them - because of all the workers and brilliant managers they employ [who vote]?

As long as american consumers can buy any of the worlds goods - at the best competitive price - we will be OK. No country in history has ever died from competition - but many have stumbled trying to protect themselves from competitiion.

Remember the amazon?

[CoHo]

Something like the amazon forrest - more diversity - success and failure - than anywhere else in the world.

The funny thing about absolute random is it doesn't lead to much. For there to be progress corporations (and organisms) need the ability to grow as big and fat as they want.

[meshou]

I am bothered that it is near impossible to live here without exploiting near-slave labor.

I also wonder if it's possible to have an entitiy that works in millions of people and billions of dollars without people becoming like ants to them. They may not intend to crush people under their feet, but they can't possibly spend all their time watching for ants either.

[Conan]

I was talking to someone I met down here in Georgia and he was telling me about how small town southern culture was disappearing as internet, television, and other forms of media homogenized their culture to that of mainstream America. He said in every single town this process entailed the exact same sequence of events. Event #1?... the construction of a Walmart.

[rhinosaur]

"This question is stupid"
^ Interesting how we always attempt to personify things we feel strongly about, isn't it?

I think it's a mistake to reduce anything down to black and white, especially when it's an opinion.

Wal-Mart is exactly the same as any other large company. They screw over certain people (and things) to make money from their target audience. When it no longer becomes profitable to screw something, they change direction.

Case in point: For the longest time, I'd heard about how Wal-Mart was destroying the environment by constantly pushing for lower prices and cheaper goods. Now, I'm hearing about how Wal-Mart is attempting to usher in higher standards of environmental sustainability for the cleaning products they sell (largely from P&G). Do they care about the environment now? Of course not. They're just trying to save face with an audience that is increasingly concerned about the environment.

[rhinosaur]

I was talking to someone I met down here in Georgia and he was telling me about how small town southern culture was disappearing as internet, television, and other forms of media homogenized their culture to that of mainstream America. He said in every single town this process entailed the exact same sequence of events. Event #1?... the construction of a Walmart.

I believe it.

If the people that shop at W*M start caring about saving the remains of their eroding cultures, we will start to see WalMarts embrace their customers' desires, becoming more "local" in flavor. Of course, with a multinational corporation, that would be mostly illusion...

[rhinosaur]

I am bothered that it is near impossible to live here without exploiting near-slave labor.

I also wonder if it's possible to have an entitiy that works in millions of people and billions of dollars without people becoming like ants to them. They may not intend to crush people under their feet, but they can't possibly spend all their time watching for ants either.

No, the bigwigs can't watch the little people, but they can pass things down the line to people like regional managers, who pass things on to store managers...

I think that issue is more about attitude. My co-workers tell stories about a boss who used to actually spend time with the people underneath him. He talked to the plant workers, and knew most of them by name. Now, the boss only cares about the people above him.

[euterpenc]

God bless America!

Note: I think I remember greed being bad in the Bible, and Jesus extoling the virtues of poverty. And the TenCommandments contain "Though Shalt not Kill" and "THough shalt not covet [thy neighbor's wife]." How the hell did America come to be blessed by God?

[dunee]

I was talking to someone I met down here in Georgia and he was telling me about how small town southern culture was disappearing as internet, television, and other forms of media homogenized their culture to that of mainstream America. He said in every single town this process entailed the exact same sequence of events. Event #1?... the construction of a Walmart.
I'd believe this too. I was quite pissed when I heard there was a new walmart being built 15 minutes down the highway. Then I was further pissed off when I found out my mother now does most of her grocery shopping there instead of the local BiLo. I associate Walmart with being a catalyst (or harbinger) of suburban sprawl, and I'd rather not have that happen where I live.


If the people that shop at W*M start caring about saving the remains of their eroding cultures, we will start to see WalMarts embrace their customers' desires, becoming more "local" in flavor. Of course, with a multinational corporation, that would be mostly illusion...
Interesting you say that. One mitigating (not so much, but the teensiest bit) thing about the walmart I speak of above is that in order to get the license to build in the town, the big box owner had to abandon the usual color scheme of industrial grey and blue, and use green roofing. Its less jarring against the trees and has better landscaping than most WMs I've seen (I suspect the rich folks who live on the mountain nearby and wouldn't want to see a blue eyesore on their panoramic view might have influenced some of this, but well, it benefitted all of us.)
It doesn't make the building and its effects any less Walmartish but if the town council were able to talk them down from the usual scheme, other things may be possible, with the correct blend of desperation/enticement of local people's $$$ on Walmart's side.


Walmart in bed with Microsoft? Walmart says NO to Firefox, Mac, Apple
I weep for the deprivation.

[Zephyrus055]

I do not care if there is a good or evil, because I can not empirically test it. Secondly, believing in non-empirically testable things like good and evil have only caused me trouble. They caused me to organize information in to vague abstractions, which severely impaired my ability to perceive my circumstances and respond to them in a way that was effective.

Now the Wal-Mart executive is acting very rationally, their objective is to maximize profit, so manipulating the legal and political systems in their favor is an intelligent and strategic decision on their part. It may have undesirable consequences for us as consumers and citizens, and maybe the actions of Wal-Mart and other corporations are a good example of what happens when we adopt commercial values like profit.

[Kanamori]

He also said to us: "Thou shalt inherit the Earth, and Mars; but first Thou shalt inherit land to the left of the Pacific Ocean!":joft: Anything after that is just us being like the Jews; later on we'll be punished, but we're still the chosen ones.


On Walmart... evil is a little more than just wanting money, and doing mostly legal things to get it... evil is going out of your way to brutalize people. If Walmart is evil, then there is hardly a person in the world who isn't evil.

[Kanamori]

I do not care if there is a good or evil, because I can not empirically test it. Secondly, believing in non-empirically testable things like good and evil have only caused me trouble. They caused me to organize information in to vague abstractions, which severely impaired my ability to perceive my circumstances and respond to them in a way that was effective.

Your only pleasures are wine and women?

[Zephyrus055]

Your only pleasures are wine and women?
See, that's what I mean. A non-empirical narrative causes you to make baseless assumptions.

[nittanylion302]

I was talking to someone I met down here in Georgia and he was telling me about how small town southern culture was disappearing as internet, television, and other forms of media homogenized their culture to that of mainstream America. He said in every single town this process entailed the exact same sequence of events. Event #1?... the construction of a Walmart.

Well esteban, from a solely economic point of view, walmart does wonders, right?

My intro macro prof gave a few reasons why.

1. People who work at walmart usually can't find better jobs anyway
2. Walmart improves the quality of life for the poor by making more things affordable to them

[Conan]

Well esteban, from a solely economic point of view, walmart does wonders, right?

My intro macro prof gave a few reasons why.

1. People who work at walmart usually can't find better jobs anyway
2. Walmart improves the quality of life for the poor by making more things affordable to them

Absolutely. People choose to work at walmart because they find working there to be better than their other available options. Hence the analogies in this thread with slave labor are unfair, as apparently, these workers are better off with walmart than without, or they would not be there. And the reason walmart has been so successful is because it provides quality products at the lowest price. Hence the comparisons of walmart to a monopoly in this thread are also unfair. The primary argument against monopolies is they make markets inefficient because they are able to price gouge. Were walmart to raise prices, its competition, which yes, does still exist (and for an industry as fundamental as retail, always will), would begin to cut into walmart's market share. From a purely economical standpoint, it is difficult to make a case against walmart, which is why I resorted to a very subjective cultural reason that I don't even really care about.

[Zephyrus055]

Esteban,
Right. One way to achieve and maintain a monopoly is to be more efficient at supplying the demand than any competitor. This is a rare strategy, but it is pretty effective in the long-run. But the history of Wal-Mart and its circumstances compel it to pursue this strategy.

Comparing Wal-Mart with slave labor could be fair, however. Option A may pay .50 an hour and Option B may pay $5.00 an hour. Working for Option A may pay 10x more than Option B, but still may not permit the worker to enjoy conceivable opportunities for advancement or a high enough wage to afford a comfortable lifestyle. In short, the circumstances you outlined can still foster an absence of equal opportunity and a wage that affords a comfortable lifestyle.

[Conan]

Comparing Wal-Mart with slave labor could be fair, however. Option A may pay .50 an hour and Option B may pay $5.00 an hour. Working for Option A may pay 10x more than Option B, but still may not permit the worker to enjoy conceivable opportunities for advancement or a high enough wage to afford a comfortable lifestyle. In short, the circumstances you outlined can still foster an absence of equal opportunity and a wage that affords a comfortable lifestyle.

Well thats a minimum wage law debate, not an is Walmart evil debate. Walmart is simply offering another option to the worker, the fact that the worker chose to work at Walmart would indicate that he found the option better than the options he would have to choose from otherwise.

[sbw]

Comparing Wal-Mart with slave labor could be fair, however....In short, the circumstances you outlined can still foster an absence of equal opportunity and a wage that affords a comfortable lifestyle.

which is NOT the same thing as slavery.

Scott

[omnirook]

I cant stand ideas like this. corporations aren't people. They don't have morals. They don't have consciences. If something is not a person, it cannot be called 'evil' or 'good'.

That's childish - by the same reasoning, governments are not evil, which, in some cases, would be a ridiculous assertion. Like governments, corporations are technically a pile of paper w/stamps and signatures - the very idea of the corporation was EVIL - letting people invest and reap the benefits of investing while sheltering them from liability and loss, allowing cruel, outrageous, monstrous descisions to be made in such ways as to allow the scum who made the decisions to hide behind the corporate logo. Sorry, what you said is so wrong that I hardly know what to do w/it. Just think HMO - so outrageous, so viscious, so hideous that even corporate America balked at what was going on back in the mid 1980's - they were murdering people for profit. If that isn't evil, what is?

[Zephyrus055]

Well thats a minimum wage law debate, not an is Walmart evil debate. Walmart is simply offering another option to the worker, the fact that the worker chose to work at Walmart would indicate that he found the option better than the options he would have to choose from otherwise.
Well that's irrelevant. You're talking about opportunity cost, and opportunity cost is not absent in slave conditions. A slave may be able to make choices and advance his position higher than another slave, while still being a slave.

I'm not referring to the minimum wage law debate at all. I'm referring to the conditions. The proposals to adjust the minimum wage are recommendations to change those conditions.


which is NOT the same thing as slavery.

Scott
Well according to some here, slavery apparently extends beyond the legal ownership of another person. Instead they seem to be attaching the concept of slavery with the conditions involving the extreme unequal distribution of resources to a small segment of the population and severe limitations on economic mobility.

[Conan]

Well that's irrelevant. You're talking about opportunity cost, and opportunity cost is not absent in slave conditions. A slave may be able to make choices and advance his position higher than another slave, while still being a slave.

I'm not referring to the minimum wage law debate at all. I'm referring to the conditions. The proposals to adjust the minimum wage are recommendations to change those conditions.


Alright, I now officially have no idea what your point is.

How exactly does whatever it is you're trying to say make Walmart evil?

[Zephyrus055]

Alright, I now officially have no idea what your point is.

How exactly does whatever it is you're trying to say make Walmart evil?
I was putting it all in an empirical perspective for you, and rebutting some of the arguments you have made.


Some arguers have implied that slavery extends beyond the legal ownership of another person. Economically, it may refer to the severe practical limitations on economic mobility and the state of having an extreme unequal distribution of resources. It does not matter if you agree with attaching this meaning to slavery, the meaning attached is the particular criticism against Wal Mart. Secondly, this particular meaning of slavery has also been attached to the concept of evil.

It is possible for a slave to be able to make choices, and make a choice that advances his position more than another choice while still being a slave. This means that Wal-Mart's wage, while higher than average and more attractive to poor laborers, can still be a slave wage. A slave wage would reflect the conditions attached to our definition of slavery, as stated earlier.

The first paragraph is not the argument to raise the minimum wage. It refers to a set of conditions, conditions that some people believe are undesirable. The argument to raise the minimum wage is a recommendation for changing these conditions.

In conclusion, I think the question is really about whether these conditions actually exist in our society, if they are conditions we want to change, and whether Wal-Mart is a significant player in advancing them.

[Conan]

Some arguers have implied that slavery extends beyond the legal ownership of another person. Economically, it may refer to the severe practical limitations on economic mobility and the state of having an extreme unequal distribution of resources. It does not matter if you agree with attaching this meaning to slavery, the meaning attached is the particular criticism against Wal Mart. Secondly, this particular meaning of slavery has also been attached to the concept of evil.

It is possible for a slave to be able to make choices, and make a choice that advances his position more than another choice while still being a slave. This means that Wal-Mart's wage, while higher than average and more attractive to poor laborers, can still be a slave wage. A slave wage would reflect the conditions attached to our definition of slavery, as stated earlier.

The first paragraph is not the argument to raise the minimum wage. It refers to a set of conditions, conditions that some people believe are undesirable. The argument to raise the minimum wage is a recommendation for changing these conditions.

In conclusion, I think the question is really about whether these conditions actually exist in our society, if they are conditions we want to change, and whether Wal-Mart is a significant player in advancing them.


How, as specific as you can be, would you like to see Walmart change in regards to its employment of labor?

[Zephyrus055]

How, as specific as you can be, would you like to see Walmart change in regards to its employment of labor?
Well, I think these conditions are present in our society and Walmart is a significant player in advancing them. But I would not pick on strictly Walmart to eliminate them, because that wouldn't do any good overall. The root of the problem is the increasing power of mega corporations, whose elite members are able to monopolize power and resources. What we could viably do to change and prevent these conditions in order to distribute power and resources more evenly leaves me answerless.

[nittanylion302]

Well, I think these conditions are present in our society and Walmart is a significant player in advancing them. But I would not pick on strictly Walmart to eliminate them, because that wouldn't do any good overall. The root of the problem is the increasing power of mega corporations, whose elite members are able to monopolize power and resources. What we could viably do to change and prevent these conditions in order to distribute power and resources more evenly leaves me answerless.

oh hogwash, people have been saying this for over 100+ years

see:http://www.harpweek.com/Images/SourceImages/CartoonOfTheDay/October/102088m.jpg

[Zephyrus055]

oh hogwash, people have been saying this for over 100+ years

see:http://www.harpweek.com/Images/SourceImages/CartoonOfTheDay/October/102088m.jpg
Hogwash?

http://www.uwec.edu/geography/Ivogeler/w111/greedy.htm

[twas-ever-thus]

If you don't like Wal-Mart practices don't buy there.

[Zephyrus055]

If you don't like Wal-Mart practices don't buy there.
That's one thing you can do. You can also lobby the government to destroy Wal Mart and arrest its major shareholders and executives. Well that's extreme, but you can do more than just not buy there.

[HilbertSpace]

Well, I think these conditions are present in our society and Walmart is a significant player in advancing them. But I would not pick on strictly Walmart to eliminate them, because that wouldn't do any good overall. The root of the problem is the increasing power of mega corporations, whose elite members are able to monopolize power and resources. What we could viably do to change and prevent these conditions in order to distribute power and resources more evenly leaves me answerless.

What is the origin of the moral principle you seem to be advocating here (i.e., that in a fair system, distribution would be equal)?

[Zephyrus055]

What is the origin of the moral principle you seem to be advocating here (i.e., that in a fair system, distribution would be equal)?
Just so you know, by me saying that there is a severe unequal distribution does not mean I advocate an equal distribution.

I approach these conditions as a problem only because of my self-interest and my values of meritocracy and equal opportunity, which having are also in my self-interest.