Wal-mart linked to increased poverty

alonzomourning23

alonzomourning23

CAGiversary!
Feedback
26 (100%)
A study focused on the effects of Wal-Mart stores on poverty rates found that an estimated 20,000 families nationwide have fallen below the official poverty line as a result of the chain's expansion.

Wal-Mart Stores Inc., based in Bentonville, Ark., ranked No. 5 on the St. Louis Business Journal's most recent list of the area's largest employers. As of Dec. 31, Wal-Mart employed 13,005 people in the St. Louis metro area.

The study -- Wal-Mart and County-Wide Poverty -- written by Stephan Goetz, a professor of agricultural and regional economics at Pennsylvania State University, and Hema Swaminathan for the International Center for Research on Women, was published in the latest issue of Social Science Quarterly.
Authors, Goetz and Swaminathan write that the presence of Wal-Mart was "unequivocally associated" with smaller reductions in family-poverty rates in counties nationwide during the 1990s relative to places that had no stores.

During the last decade, dependence on the food stamp program nationwide increased by 8 percent, while in counties with Wal-Mart stores the increase was almost twice as large at 15.3 percent, according to the study. Although Wal-Mart employs many people living in its communities, for most, the hours worked and the wages paid do not help these families transition out of poverty, the study said.

The study, which sought to identify the independent effect of Wal-Mart stores on changes in U.S. family-poverty rates at the county level, found that one of the greatest effects of a Wal-Mart opening is the closing of mom-and-pop-type operations.

The authors state in the study that "by displacing the local class of entrepreneurs, the Wal-Mart chain also destroys local leadership capacity."
Poverty rates will rise if retail workers displaced from existing mom-and pop-type operations work for Wal-Mart at lower wages because they have no alternatives, all else equal, according to the study.

The demise of mom-and-pop stores leads to the closing of local businesses that supplied those stores, such as wholesalers, transporters, logistics providers, accountants, lawyers and others. Many of these are higher-paying jobs. The study concludes that it is likely that these more highly-educated individuals depart from the rural community in pursuit of better opportunities elsewhere, contributing to the rural-to-urban exodus over the last decade, leaving behind those with fewer opportunities and raising the poverty rate by reducing the number of nonpoor households in the denominator.

Wal-Mart is estimated to employ no more than 2 percent of the average county's work force. The share of Wal-Mart's employment in total county retail jobs is substantially greater than only 2 percent. In addition, the Wal-Mart jobs may be part time as opposed to full time, leading to lower family incomes, all else equal, the study said.

A spokesperson for Wal-Mart was unavailable to comment for this story.
Click to expand...

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/stories/2006/05/15/daily29.html
 
oh boy!

"Stephan Goetz, a professor of agricultural and regional economics" and "Hema Swaminathan for the International Center for Research on Women"

Wtf is agricultural and regional economics?! and what does the International Center for Research on Women have to do with poverty and economics?

The reason why there is much higher poverty in areas with Walmart is because there is a market for Walmart there. Duh! Walmart is going to where the market for their products is the highest.

BTW, Walmart offers goods at lower prices than mom and pops because they are more efficent, would you rather pay higher prices?
 
I dont belive this walmart hires way more people than a few mom n pops buisness employ.
And they pay above minimum wage ..honestly wallmarts are ran by poor people foor poor people and everyone else comes because its cheap.
 
[quote name='Skelah']well im not like in office so why not say it..and im poor and I shop there. :cool:[/quote]

You're also stupid, like any other poor person! OMG, I'm not in office, so I can say it. :roll:

Walmart paying the stockers 6.50 isn't the issue. Its the fact that Walmart manages its own shippers, distrobution centers and also manufactures their own product line. Instead of paying locals more, doing business with other suppliers and paying to have things shipped like smaller, independant outfits, Walmart undercuts the economy at multiple levels. This policy may save you 10 cents on TP, but its probably costing you much more in the long run. You, as are most Americans, are blind to long term effects as long as you get instant gratification.

Walmart obtaining its goods internally means that they put less money into the economy. They don't have to pay the supplier's mark up, they don't have to pay the shipper's freight charges, they don't have to pay for warehouse storage. These are all things that would stimuate the local compainies and things they'd have to pay taxes.

Since they own the operation at all levels they can pay people less throughout the whole company which has an effect on the economy local to the center in which they employ people. Since they're paying the workers less, they have less to put into their local businesses which means those businesses have to lay people off. Which leads to more people working for less money at Walmart. At which point the problem starts all over again.

Walmart is very bad for the economy.
 
I havent been to Wal-mart in years. And though I miss Sams club, "Wal-Mart for people who have their teeth still".... I dont go there for the reasons Kayden listed above.

Wal-mart is evil, and instead of actually paying their employees living wages, they spend the money of patenting a frickin smiley face.
 
[quote name='Kayden']You're also stupid, like any other poor person! OMG, I'm not in office, so I can say it. :roll:

Walmart paying the stockers 6.50 isn't the issue. Its the fact that Walmart manages its own shippers, distrobution centers and also manufactures their own product line. Instead of paying locals more, doing business with other suppliers and paying to have things shipped like smaller, independant outfits, Walmart undercuts the economy at multiple levels. This policy may save you 10 cents on TP, but its probably costing you much more in the long run. You, as are most Americans, are blind to long term effects as long as you get instant gratification.

Walmart obtaining its goods internally means that they put less money into the economy. They don't have to pay the supplier's mark up, they don't have to pay the shipper's freight charges, they don't have to pay for warehouse storage. These are all things that would stimuate the local compainies and things they'd have to pay taxes.


Since they own the operation at all levels they can pay people less throughout the whole company which has an effect on the economy local to the center in which they employ people. Since they're paying the workers less, they have less to put into their local businesses which means those businesses have to lay people off. Which leads to more people working for less money at Walmart. At which point the problem starts all over again.

Walmart is very bad for the economy.[/QUOTE]

This goes both ways. Look at effeciency end of it. They make the suppliers charge less, and in turn the suppliers look for ways to cut costs and become profitable again.

Remember when big PC game boxes were the norm. Guess who made the smaller boxes a reality. No it wasnt your mom and pop stores it was Walmarts doing.

Looking at it from a different standpoint they have their strengths also. More efficient is better.

Thats like saying we should all buy SUV's and pay more for a less effecient vehicle.

The mom and pop shops are not opened to make everyone around them rich its opened to make them money.
 
[quote name='Snake2715']This goes both ways. Look at effeciency end of it. They make the suppliers charge less, and in turn the suppliers look for ways to cut costs and become profitable again.

Remember when big PC game boxes were the norm. Guess who made the smaller boxes a reality. No it wasnt your mom and pop stores it was Walmarts doing.

Looking at it from a different standpoint they have their strengths also. More efficient is better.

Thats like saying we should all buy SUV's and pay more for a less effecient vehicle.

The mom and pop shops are not opened to make everyone around them rich its opened to make them money.[/quote]

PC Game companies made large PC game boxes because older people were more likely to buy it cause it was bigger and more eye-catching. As the PC market shifted, so did its boxes... Wal-mart may have had a hand in that, but Wal-mart didnt bring that to happen. Cause if they did, they would tell them to put the games in DVD cases so they can put them in the locked case, like the rest of them.
 
[quote name='Mookyjooky']PC Game companies made large PC game boxes because older people were more likely to buy it cause it was bigger and more eye-catching. As the PC market shifted, so did its boxes... Wal-mart may have had a hand in that, but Wal-mart didnt bring that to happen. Cause if they did, they would tell them to put the games in DVD cases so they can put them in the locked case, like the rest of them.[/QUOTE]


Wow I didnt recognize you without the hat and cig!

Anyway check this link out about your thoughts ont he smaller game boxes NOT being brought on by Walmart:


Wal-Mart has shaped the field in other ways. Remember five years ago, when computer game boxes all got smaller? That was Wal-Mart. "Wal-Mart was a significant force in driving videogame producers (and software producers of all kinds) to dramatically reduce the size of their boxes," says Charles Fishman, senior writer for Fast Company magazine and author of the bestselling book The Wal-Mart Effect. "Wal-Mart's goal is to put as much merchandise on the shelves inside a given store-size as possible. By cutting the box size of games and software, Wal-Mart could easily increase the amount of product it displayed by 20 or 30 or 40 percent. More product in the same shelf-space. That's good for Wal-Mart, and good for customers, and maybe even good, ultimately, for game makers. Smaller boxes cost less.

"And Wal-Mart is increasingly interested in the environmental impact of such changes," Fishman says. "If
you literally cut the packaging of gaming software and routine software in half, [...] that eventually comes to forests of trees not cut down. This is something Wal-Mart works on consistently, not just in software boxes." Fishman's book opens with a similar story: Wal-Mart eliminated cardboard boxes for deodorants and antiperspirants to save shelf space and money and to reduce waste.
Click to expand...

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/issue/40/11
 
Wal Mart blows. My uncle works for them, so I know about their BS. This last Christmas they didn't give them their bonus, because they had used it to renovate the store, wtf?
 
[quote name='Kayden']You're also stupid, like any other poor person! OMG, I'm not in office, so I can say it. :roll:

Walmart paying the stockers 6.50 isn't the issue. Its the fact that Walmart manages its own shippers, distrobution centers and also manufactures their own product line. Instead of paying locals more, doing business with other suppliers and paying to have things shipped like smaller, independant outfits, Walmart undercuts the economy at multiple levels. This policy may save you 10 cents on TP, but its probably costing you much more in the long run. You, as are most Americans, are blind to long term effects as long as you get instant gratification.

Walmart obtaining its goods internally means that they put less money into the economy. They don't have to pay the supplier's mark up, they don't have to pay the shipper's freight charges, they don't have to pay for warehouse storage. These are all things that would stimuate the local compainies and things they'd have to pay taxes.

Since they own the operation at all levels they can pay people less throughout the whole company which has an effect on the economy local to the center in which they employ people. Since they're paying the workers less, they have less to put into their local businesses which means those businesses have to lay people off. Which leads to more people working for less money at Walmart. At which point the problem starts all over again.

Walmart is very bad for the economy.[/quote]

That's capitalism though, I don't see how one can criticize a company for streamlining it's supply chain.

I criticize Walmart for it's practice of not hiring full-time workers, for not paying it's workers a fair wage, and thereby counting on government money (in the form of welfare and medicaid) to make up the difference and keep these poor people healthy and able to work.

I criticize Walmart for hiring discrimination against old and handicapped workers.

I criticize Walmart for it's practice of hiring illegal aliens and then not paying these people a fair wage.

I recognize that ruthless, morally-bankrupt corporations are a necessary by-product of capitalism. What I find truly awful about Walmart is that it finds ways to use my tax dollars to increase it's profit margin, it openly discriminates against the handicapped (in the name of being more efficient) and it inhumanely treats the employees who work in the bottom ranks of the company. Who says we can't have capitalism with a conscience?
 
[quote name='XxFuRy2Xx']Wal Mart blows. My uncle works for them, so I know about their BS. This last Christmas they didn't give them their bonus, because they had used it to renovate the store, wtf?[/quote]

That's such a sorry excuse that it's funny.

Can you imagine the board of directors telling the CEO to accept a deal like this?

"Scotty, fantastic job last year, you met all your targets, but we're not paying you a bonus because we're building a bigger and better HQ"

Just further proof about how the little guy's deal gets worse and worse every day.
 
[quote name='camoor']That's such a sorry excuse that it's funny.

Can you imagine the board of directors telling the CEO to accept a deal like this?

"Scotty, fantastic job last year, you met all your targets, but we're not paying you a bonus because we're building a bigger and better HQ"

Just further proof about how the little guy's deal gets worse and worse every day.[/QUOTE]


Its proof alright. Flat out PROOF I say.
 
Best Wal-mart quote.. (paraphrase)

Henry Ford wanted to pay his employees well so they could buy a Model T.

Wal-mart wants to pay their employees so bad that the only place they can shop is wal-mart.
 
[quote name='usickenme']Best Wal-mart quote.. (paraphrase)

Henry Ford wanted to pay his employees well so they could buy a Model T.

Wal-mart wants to pay their employees so bad that the only place they can shop is wal-mart.[/QUOTE]

Thats right. Once again this makes complete sense. No one at Walmart shops anywhere else.

They cant afford it and never do it. They dont even own cars because walmart hasnt got into the car business yet.
 
I just came from Wal-mart. Was able to buy t-shirts, underwear, some new drinking cups and windshield wipers for my truck all for under 50 bucks.

God bless America and Wal-mart.
 
I could kick you in the balls and take everything in your trade list. That'd be very efficient for my wallet; not so much for your scrotum.

[quote name='Snake2715']This goes both ways. Look at effeciency end of it. They make the suppliers charge less, and in turn the suppliers look for ways to cut costs and become profitable again.

Remember when big PC game boxes were the norm. Guess who made the smaller boxes a reality. No it wasnt your mom and pop stores it was Walmarts doing.

Looking at it from a different standpoint they have their strengths also. More efficient is better.

Thats like saying we should all buy SUV's and pay more for a less effecient vehicle.

The mom and pop shops are not opened to make everyone around them rich its opened to make them money.[/quote]
 
[quote name='Snake2715']Its proof alright. Flat out PROOF I say.[/quote]

LoL - ok it's anecdotal evidence.

However there is proof that life keeps getting worse for the guy on the bottom, every year the gap between haves and have-nots increases.
 
[quote name='penmyst']I just came from Wal-mart. Was able to buy t-shirts, underwear, some new drinking cups and windshield wipers for my truck all for under 50 bucks.

God bless America and Wal-mart.[/quote]

If they lowered the minimum wage to 2 bucks an hour you probably could have got all that for 35 bucks. Doesn't mean it's better in the end.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top