3 ms·

3. Michael T. Duke, President, CEO, and Director, Wal-Mart $12,238,209 total compensation 6. Eduardo Castro-Wright, Vice Chairman; President and CEO, Wal-Mart

3. Michael T. Duke, President, CEO, and Director, Wal-Mart $12,238,209 total compensation 6. Eduardo Castro-Wright, Vice Chairman; President and CEO, Wal-Mart Stores U.S. Division $9,987,493 total compensation 8. Thomas M. Schoewe, EVP and CFO, Wal-Mart $9,477,584 total compensation 16. C. Douglas McMillon, EVP; President and CEO, Wal-Mart International Division $8,191,857 total compensation Four out of the 20 "Highest Paid Retail Executives" are Wal-Mart executives. Source: http://www.risnews.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=MultiPublishing&mod=PublishingTitles&mid=2E3DABA5396D4649BABC55BEADF2F8FD&tier=4&id=19710C99B6A541E09B4B506CDD05844C http://www.risnews.com/ME2/dirmod.asp?sid=&nm=&type=...

hga 17y ago
And your point is?
- indiejade 17y ago
  To take your even more specific example of delivery trucks, someone has got to deliver the food that everyone eats. You can't arbitrarily assign the total resultant negative externalities to whichever companies own and operate them. Why not? There's a big difference between retail and food, especially in the US. Food can be grown and delivered locally, and agriculture can be optimized for certain climates. Retail products, however, almost always require far more distance had between the producer and the consumer. Roads are a great example, because even after that cargo hold of plastic GI Joes "Made in China" lands on the coast, Wal-Mart trucks still have to drive hundreds or thousands of miles get the product delivered to its target consumers in rural "agriculture" lands on the interior of the US. Wal-Mart is the extreme example, but if I remember from my MBA classes, it's fairly simple to point out where the company has exploited almost everything it could legally exploit. It undercuts competitors in almost every one of its new locations; predatory pricing puts mom-and-pop shops out of business. How is this a good thing?
  - sokoloff 17y ago
    Lower prices to the consumer is the most obvious answer to your last question. Either you take as a given that people will buy that GIJoe from China or they won't. If they will, some company is going to provide it; in your case it just happens to be Walmart. If the consumer won't buy it, no retailer will provide it. If your argument is that we should attempt to assign economic penalties (taxes, if you will) on the externalities such that the true cost of those is reflected in the fuel that Walmart (and everyone else) buys, I'm all for it. If you're suggesting that the most appropriate way to correct for those externalities is to raise the income taxes on the Walmart execs who appear on the "top 20 retailer execs" list, I don't see even a tenuous connection with which I can agree.

hga 17y ago

And your point is?

indiejade 17y ago
To take your even more specific example of delivery trucks, someone has got to deliver the food that everyone eats. You can't arbitrarily assign the total resultant negative externalities to whichever companies own and operate them. Why not? There's a big difference between retail and food, especially in the US. Food can be grown and delivered locally, and agriculture can be optimized for certain climates. Retail products, however, almost always require far more distance had between the producer and the consumer. Roads are a great example, because even after that cargo hold of plastic GI Joes "Made in China" lands on the coast, Wal-Mart trucks still have to drive hundreds or thousands of miles get the product delivered to its target consumers in rural "agriculture" lands on the interior of the US. Wal-Mart is the extreme example, but if I remember from my MBA classes, it's fairly simple to point out where the company has exploited almost everything it could legally exploit. It undercuts competitors in almost every one of its new locations; predatory pricing puts mom-and-pop shops out of business. How is this a good thing?
- sokoloff 17y ago
  Lower prices to the consumer is the most obvious answer to your last question. Either you take as a given that people will buy that GIJoe from China or they won't. If they will, some company is going to provide it; in your case it just happens to be Walmart. If the consumer won't buy it, no retailer will provide it. If your argument is that we should attempt to assign economic penalties (taxes, if you will) on the externalities such that the true cost of those is reflected in the fuel that Walmart (and everyone else) buys, I'm all for it. If you're suggesting that the most appropriate way to correct for those externalities is to raise the income taxes on the Walmart execs who appear on the "top 20 retailer execs" list, I don't see even a tenuous connection with which I can agree.