3 ms·

ITT: people defending the actions of a corporation owned by a family worth over 230 billion USD. Businesses should expect that society protects them, sure. Bu

ITT: people defending the actions of a corporation owned by a family worth over 230 billion USD. Businesses should expect that society protects them, sure. But those same businesses can't then go and bribe the government to cut worker protection laws, labor laws, can't slash wages and expect that the government covers the costs of labor, etc... If Walmart paid their workers lavishly, gave them huge pensions, didn't engage in far-right lobbying to diminish worker protections, didn't demolish the proverbial Main Street all across America, sure, I'd give them the benefit of the doubt and say that we should cover their security costs. But look at their actions over the last 35 years....they've enriched themselves greatly as a corporation, bribed the government, and told regular Americans to pound sand.

WalterBright 3y ago
And provided inexpensive goods to the masses.
- spondylosaurus 3y ago
  https://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/walmart-effect.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/walmart-effect.asp
  - WalterBright 3y ago
    I shop at Walmart now and then, and benefit from the low prices. So does everyone else who shops there.
- NickC25 3y ago
  Walmart is able to provide cheap goods because it can strong-arm providers into taking a loss or operating at a break-even point just for the chance to sell at Walmart. It can also provide cheap goods because they pay their workers jack shit and instruct employees to use government subsidized healthcare and insurance. It's totally possible to provide good pay, healthcare, etc... to employees, still have healthy enough margin % to make Wall Street happy, keep the C-Suite well paid, all while providing a great service at competitive prices to consumers. Maybe not enough to enrich the owners to a quarter trillion dollars in net worth, but plenty enough to keep the ship going. Case in point: CostCo. Whole Foods prior to Amazon was another.
  - WalterBright 3y ago
    1. Nobody makes providers sell thru Walmart. 2. Nobody makes anyone buy from Walmart. 3. Nobody makes anyone work for Walmart. 4. Anybody is free to spin up a competitor to Walmart. 5. Walmart is not responsible for government wealth transfer programs. > It's totally possible to provide [...] You and anyone else are free to do so.
    - NickC25 3y ago
      Have you ever been to a small town in America? Outside of a few regions, Walmart is all they have...so that sort of nixes points 2 and 3. Regarding point 4, and your quoting of me - yes, people have. And some have been lucky in that they've made themselves multigenerational wealth in doing so. The guy who founded Costco did it, and made himself over a billion dollars. However, the Waltons have hundreds of times that amount. You can make a billion by doing right by everyone, or hundreds of billions by doing right by everyone not named you. I know what number I'd be content with, not sure about you though. (Hint: if you give me a billion dollars, I'm retiring tomorrow) Regarding point 5, Walmart IS however responsible for spending vast amounts of money (generational money) over the years to enact some pretty anti consumer and anti worker laws throughout the country. It IS responsible for funding some crazy far-right politicians. It IS responsible for paying its workers so little that they are "encouraged" to go on food stamps and apply for section 8 housing.
      - WalterBright 3y ago
        > Have you ever been to a small town in America? Outside of a few regions, Walmart is all they have...so that sort of nixes points 2 and 3. Yeah, I've lived in them. My dad was in the AF, and (to save money) my parents would shop on the nearest AF base, which was maybe 30 miles away. They'd go once every 2 weeks or so and fill up the car with groceries. The indisputable point is people prefer to shop at Walmart. Nobody makes them. Name one "far right" law Walmart got enacted.
        Apocryphon 3y ago
sneak 3y ago
We are criticizing the government, not defending Walmart. The idea of equal protection under the law is much bigger and more important than a corporation that sucks. Every business should have equal access to law enforcement regardless of how big they are. If law enforcement sucks, it is simply not any private company’s job to address the problem.
- NickC25 3y ago
  If a corporation donates heavily to anti-government think tanks, funds several union-busting operations, sponsors politicians that write laws that would exempt that corporation from having to pay tax.....then we're not criticizing the government, we're calling the corporation out for antisocial behavior. If I run a company, make bank, and then use that money to engage in lobbying that would see public services cut significantly, I shouldn't get to whine that those same public services (which includes policing) should be protecting my private interests first and foremost.

WalterBright 3y ago

And provided inexpensive goods to the masses.

spondylosaurus 3y ago
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/walmart-effect.asp https://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/walmart-effect.asp
- WalterBright 3y ago
  I shop at Walmart now and then, and benefit from the low prices. So does everyone else who shops there.
NickC25 3y ago
Walmart is able to provide cheap goods because it can strong-arm providers into taking a loss or operating at a break-even point just for the chance to sell at Walmart. It can also provide cheap goods because they pay their workers jack shit and instruct employees to use government subsidized healthcare and insurance. It's totally possible to provide good pay, healthcare, etc... to employees, still have healthy enough margin % to make Wall Street happy, keep the C-Suite well paid, all while providing a great service at competitive prices to consumers. Maybe not enough to enrich the owners to a quarter trillion dollars in net worth, but plenty enough to keep the ship going. Case in point: CostCo. Whole Foods prior to Amazon was another.
- WalterBright 3y ago
  1. Nobody makes providers sell thru Walmart. 2. Nobody makes anyone buy from Walmart. 3. Nobody makes anyone work for Walmart. 4. Anybody is free to spin up a competitor to Walmart. 5. Walmart is not responsible for government wealth transfer programs. > It's totally possible to provide [...] You and anyone else are free to do so.
  - NickC25 3y ago
    Have you ever been to a small town in America? Outside of a few regions, Walmart is all they have...so that sort of nixes points 2 and 3. Regarding point 4, and your quoting of me - yes, people have. And some have been lucky in that they've made themselves multigenerational wealth in doing so. The guy who founded Costco did it, and made himself over a billion dollars. However, the Waltons have hundreds of times that amount. You can make a billion by doing right by everyone, or hundreds of billions by doing right by everyone not named you. I know what number I'd be content with, not sure about you though. (Hint: if you give me a billion dollars, I'm retiring tomorrow) Regarding point 5, Walmart IS however responsible for spending vast amounts of money (generational money) over the years to enact some pretty anti consumer and anti worker laws throughout the country. It IS responsible for funding some crazy far-right politicians. It IS responsible for paying its workers so little that they are "encouraged" to go on food stamps and apply for section 8 housing.
    - WalterBright 3y ago
      > Have you ever been to a small town in America? Outside of a few regions, Walmart is all they have...so that sort of nixes points 2 and 3. Yeah, I've lived in them. My dad was in the AF, and (to save money) my parents would shop on the nearest AF base, which was maybe 30 miles away. They'd go once every 2 weeks or so and fill up the car with groceries. The indisputable point is people prefer to shop at Walmart. Nobody makes them. Name one "far right" law Walmart got enacted.
      - Apocryphon 3y ago

sneak 3y ago

We are criticizing the government, not defending Walmart. The idea of equal protection under the law is much bigger and more important than a corporation that sucks. Every business should have equal access to law enforcement regardless of how big they are. If law enforcement sucks, it is simply not any private company’s job to address the problem.

NickC25 3y ago
If a corporation donates heavily to anti-government think tanks, funds several union-busting operations, sponsors politicians that write laws that would exempt that corporation from having to pay tax.....then we're not criticizing the government, we're calling the corporation out for antisocial behavior. If I run a company, make bank, and then use that money to engage in lobbying that would see public services cut significantly, I shouldn't get to whine that those same public services (which includes policing) should be protecting my private interests first and foremost.