Originally Posted by GregW
No, actually that is completely wrong. The economy is run by many factors , not just one purchase.
I was speaking to the factor you brought up--the consumer pushing jobs offshore by spending at places like walmart. In respect to that factor, the money saved by spending there is money that can be spent elsewhere. Is that completely wrong?
First example, consumer spending is often driven by confidence.
I don't know about other consumers, but the only confidence I look to in spending is the confidence that I can afford to spend. Is your spending restricted by "consumer confidence" or by your own ability and desire? I have yet to talk to anyone who has confided that they weren't going to buy something because of some poll manufactured "consumer confidence" being down.
Confidence is closely related to the unemployment rate. Walmart is the worse offenders off forcing companies to go offshore to produce products at the price that walmart demands. When there are massive job losses it causes a problem in two ways. Those that are laid off don't have money to spend and those that do have jobs don;t have the same confidence, therefore not spending as much money as before.
Walmart has been around for many years during which time the unemployment rate has varied from low to high. So during the times that the rate was low, was Walmart responsible for the low unemployment? It seems you're implying that Walmart is part of the reason for high unemployment. If that's the case, the rate should have been and stayed high for a long while rather than fluctuating. And how does Walmart "force" companies to go offshore? Are you speaking of products that are produced solely for sale at Walmart? Is there some kind of contract between Walmart and these manufacturers wherein their products can only be sold through Walmart? If so, then Walmart is "forcing" the creation of a company that otherwise would not exist. As I mentioned to Spence above, much of what is for sale in Walmart are normal brand products that can be purchased at other stores for a higher price. If they are forced by Walmart to manufacture at a lower price, why are their products more expensive elsewhere, and is it not good for the consumer that Walmart sells them cheaper? And doesn't this lower price help those that are laid off rather than hurt them? And there are other stores, there really are, that those who choose not to spend at Walmart, can spend--with confidence. I have not seen a real correlation between Walmart, unemployment, and so-called "consumer confidence."
Second reason: Walmart does not pay a viable wage. When supermarkets have unions (and I am not arguing for or against them) they can not compete price wise and may be forced out. Those employees went from making a livable wage to being forced into a low wage by the only place in town.
So how do Walmart employees avoid starvation and homelessness? I have been going to Bowling Green, Ohio for several years to visit my son. When I first started going there, there were two large grocery stores (Kroger and a Value-something-or-other) and a K-mart. A Meier store moved in about ten years ago, then a Walmart followed. At first the Meier was the price competitor, which drove the Value-something-or-other out of business. Then Walmart created even more price competition. The Kroger is doing well and has lowered prices and maintained or improved quality and service, as well as has Meier, and a new really low-priced grocery store named Aldi has moved in. The town now has four grocery stores with varying competitive prices and quality including the super Walmart and Meier. The Kmart was in trouble and went out of business before Walmart moved in. The consumers have benefitted. There are more jobs.
Do you work for walmart?
|