MovieChat Forums > Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price (2005) Discussion > They Don't Care About Me When I Leave Th...

They Don't Care About Me When I Leave The Store??

posted 15 years ago by golo_dog
12 replies | jump to latest

I just watched this movie and I must say that I was absolutely shocked when they said that Wal-Mart doesn't care about me after I leave their store. Are you kidding me?!? I had no idea that I meant so little to them! This is distressing! Come to think of it... yes, now I'm sure that I didn't get a Christmas card from them this year! Bastards!

Seriously though:

1) It's a (or close to) minimum wage job-- so are many other jobs. Unless you're from a REALLY small town like some depicted in this movie, the presence of a Wal-Mart is not going to shut down every other job opportunity in town. If employees don't like it, they should work somewhere else. Wal-Mart pays people what it does because it can. Wal-Mart doesn't give the benefits it could because it can. Note that I'm not saying-- "You don't like minimum wage, then get an education, etc...", I'm saying that Wal-Mart does not have a monopoly on the minimum wage scene.

2) When did having a successful business model become such a crime? In this respect, I'm quite impressed with Wal-Mart. While it would be nice, I don't think that rich people/families like the Waltons have any obligation to "give back to the community". Some small business owners in this movie seemed to be saying that Wal-Mart was squashing their American dream-- the Wal-Mart family and other executives in the company are living it!

3) I think that many more low income people (as well as middle and high income people) benefit from being able to shop at a Wal-Mart than are hurt by its practices because of how low it can keep its prices.

Did anyone else think it was funny when they talked about a Wal-Mart possibly being right down the street from an elementary school (egads!) as if they were talking about putting in a whorehouse crack den or something? I also found it somewhat amusing when they were covering a particular town's protests to keep a Wal-Mart out, which is fine, but then showed the chain-linked fenced up weed covered paved abandoned parking lot they were defending. They were citing crime statistics as their main reason for not wanting the Wal-Mart in that gem of an abandoned lot that looked oh so safe.

Sheesh!

[–] xavieryz 15 years ago

you totally missed the point, walmart can be still successful and turn a huge profit and have there low prices by paying there employees a fair wage, and provide 100% benefits.

so it would mean 8billion in profits instead of there 10billion. It might Mean the Walton family's worth would be 107billion combined instead of 109. my heart bleeds for them. they would not be able to spend that money in there lifetimes 10 times over unless (short of buying up other corporations)

you don't think Filthy rich people (billionaires) have no obligation to give back to the community. Wow. and I bet you walk right past the salvation army santa without thinking twice about dropping $2 in the pot.

There's nothing wrong with being a successful cooperation, but *beep* on its employees who may be uneducated(because they have no money for school) taking home 12K a year, and still can't make ends meet.

Hey but at least the Managers help them fill out forms for subsidized housing etc.

[–] dlbkr2 15 years ago

"walmart can be still successful and turn a huge profit and have there low prices by paying there employees a fair wage, and provide 100% benefits."

They would just be doing much more than every one of their competitors do. Target doesn't pay more or have more benefits. They just aren't in the news because Target doesn't employ over half of the people in any given state like Wal-Mart does. A fair wage is equal to what the competitors are paying for the same job. If a cashier is making $7.50 at Target, then why should Wal-Mart have to pay their employees $9.00 and provide 100% health insurance coverage? Maybe, people should realise that $7.50 an hour IS the fair wage for a Cashier. If you want more money, then maybe a "CAREER CHANGE" is what you need.

"you don't think Filthy rich people (billionaires) have no obligation to give back to the community. Wow. and I bet you walk right past the salvation army santa without thinking twice about dropping $2 in the pot."

Wal-Mart has NO OBLIGATION to give back to the community. They are providing JOBS for the COMMUNITY. They are providing SALES TAX REVENUE for the community. And they also GIVE MONEY AND GOODS to families in need. Who had truck loads of supplies delivered to New Orleans before FEMA showed up? Wal-Mart. How many "Target SuperStore" trucks showed up to New Orleans after Katrina?

You get more attention when you are the big dog. Wal-Mart is the Big Dog that has the most stores in the most locations selling the most goods at the lowest price. They are not in business to help keep Target in business by raising prices. They are in business to turn a profit. And as for the Waltons, Those kids and their kids and their kids kids, all will be taken care of because they "Save" their money and don't "Waste" their money on overpaying cashiers as if they are Lawyers.

[–] Walter_D_Plants 15 years ago

actually, costco pays higher wages than walmart and sam's club and beats walmart and sam's club at their own game. there is the concept that if you pay a worker a better wage, you will get more productivity out of them and more loyalty. meaning you save costs in the long run because you don't have a higher turnover rate and have to keep hiring and training new people. you get more productivity because the more experience people accumulate at a job, the better and more productive they become at it. with more experience they can also start to see ways that the company can improve its operations which turns into even more savings costs to the company.

read this businessweek article about the difference between costco and walmart:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_15/b3878084_mz021.htm

"The only place to spit in a rich man's house is in his face."
--Diogenes of Sinope

[–] dlbkr2 15 years ago

There is only one problem. They compared Costco to Sam's Club. Sam's Club could operate at a complete loss and using Wal-Mart profits, they would still make more than Costco.

You do realise that the large majority of Sam's Club stores are located next to (Usually sharing the same parking lot) of an existing Wal-Mart super store. So the sales that are not made at Sam's Club, are made next door at Wal-Mart.

[–] Walter_D_Plants 15 years ago

they compared costco to sam's club and walmart. they compared costco's labor and overhead tab, also called its selling, general, and administrative costs (SG&A), as totalling just 9.8% of revenue. While Walmart's is 17%. So, even though Costco pays its employees better ($15.97 an hour compared to sam's $11.52 an hour and walmart's $9.64 per hour) its labor and other costs is actually a smaller percentage of revenue than sam's club's or walmart's.

there is a different business model that walmart could adopt that would include paying their employees better. costco proves this. the issue here is that there are problems that walmart creates by paying them low wages and not providing adequate healthcare. as the article points out about walmart's low wage model:

"Yet the cheap-labor model turns out to be costly in many ways. It can fuel poverty and related social ills and dump costs on other companies and taxpayers, who indirectly pick up the health-care tab for all the workers not insured by their parsimonious employers. What's more, the low-wage approach cuts into consumer spending and, potentially, economic growth."

"The only place to spit in a rich man's house is in his face."
--Diogenes of Sinope

[–] db103 15 years ago

So if Costco pays their employees better and "beats Walmart at their own game" why is any of this necessary? Wouldn't Costco either run Walmart out of business or force Walmart to adapt? This is the problem, people freak out when someone creates a new model that is more efficient, unless it makes everyone happy. But thats not the way the world works. We dont move forward without making people adapt to change. Yes, its tragic that there are downsides to the Walmart model but it is unfair to point out the flaws without acknowledging the benefits. After all, people would not choose this model if it were not for these points. And to all you doom-gloomers, why is that during the last few decades where Walmart has become a larger part of the economy has the economy consistently shown about the same level of unemployment and a steadily growing average income per family (ignoring the current financial crisis which has nothing to do with walmart)? If Walmart really destroys small towns and hurts low income families there should be macro-economic data to support it. Using misinterpreted data and anecdotal evidence doesn't expose truth, it merely captivates those who are too blinded by their own ignorance and emotion.
And congratulations to Costco if they found a better model, that is what this country and business are about. We win as people when a company chooses to take on competition and forces everyone to play better instead of complaining and trying to change the rules.

[–] marka99-1 12 years ago

"Wal-Mart has NO OBLIGATION to give back to the community. "

There was a time when leaders cared about the well being of the country and their communities. I guess since there's no law saying they have to they shouldn't. This country helped this family attain ridiculous success but they don't need to give back? Take, take, take; the new American motto.

Target has been a leader in giving back to the community for decades so you can keep ripping that company and make yourself look like a buffoon or find a better example. And I know you desperately want Target to drown but there's enough of us Americans who give a shmit about the well being of the country that we'll frequent morally and financially supportive businesses to their communities while you "takers" do your thing.

[–] DMRyanEsq 12 years ago

Walmart gives back plenty. They aren't obligated to do it, but they do it anyways. People act like not only should they be obligated, but they should give back even more than they do.

In reality, it doesn't matter how much Walmart gives back, because no matter what they give, as long as they are still on top, people will want them to give back even more.

Could they give more? Sure. But should they be obligated to keep only enough to stay in business and give away the rest? How much is enough? What is the cut off? They do give a lot, but for some it will never be enough.

[–] marka99-1 12 years ago

"Walmart gives back plenty."

Actually it's the bare minimum. Many many companies without the bankroll they have give more, and thank goodness for that. I'd hate to think what would happen if all companies had the same financial morality as the leaders of Wal-Mart. You'd hope an obscenely wealthy family would give back more but like you said, they are not obligated to so they may as well keep their $100 billion plus.

"How much is enough?"

That's up to the individuals. How they handle that situation speaks volumes about themselves.

[–] garrett4987 15 years ago

Spoken like a logical person. Maybe there's hope after all.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] g_dekok 12 years ago

Your ridiculous idea that people can just "work someplace else" when wally world has indeed forced smaller stores to shut down is just that. Utterly ridiclous and completely FALSE. Your bff wally world also ONLY gives decently-priced health benefits to the higher-ups (read the walton family), and "offers" outrageously-priced "health benefits" to those who can't afford it, thus forcing their employees to go on food stamps and apply for Medicare.

Get a frickin' CLUE and grow UP. You need to.