Is Wal-Mart Good for America?

[Fosco33]

Instead of hiding an interesting debate with Tank's blog (that's twice in a week for ole APB) - I figured we could start a new one. I'll post the relevant pieces below....

[Fosco33]

6-26-06 at 5:59 PM ET

Ok, Madtown Packer seems to think all I do is data entries so I will summarize what I did today to contrast his thinking.

First, let me say that in this age of computer, data entries are almost unavoidable. Effective companies like to store datas in computers as backups to the hard copies. That way the company can simply retrieve data at the click of a bottom, instead of wasting time looking through piles and piles of papers.

Today I continue to work on the company's balance sheet, mostly with account receivables/payables. The boss trust me enough by now to let me write checks for payables and record receivables. I balanced the balance sheet with a computer program. You know the simple debit/credit stuff. As I result I was able to see where the company stands financially at this time of the year.

Nothing to brag about because what I did today are basic Acc 311 stuff. But it sure does beat working at wal-mart as an "associate"

[Fosco33]

So they had you move the boxes with all the paperwork from one room to another? By balance do you mean making sure it doesnt tip over?

There is nothing wrong with what you do tank. I just said that cuz I know it burns a lil spoiled bitch like you up to be a commoner. I have done much, much worse jobs.

Right now it is 108 where I live and I was recalling when I would do field labor as a teen. 8-10 sometimes even 12 hour shifts in this heat aint no joke and is something that made me stronger. But YOU think you are TOO GOOD for that kind of work when you really should be grateful you never had to.

I dont work at WalMart but I would never look down on someone who does, cuz at least they are working and trying to provide for themselves.

[Fosco33]

Madtown packer, do yo understand the phase "getting a taste of your own medicine?" Hey you started it.

I have worked at wal-mart and a burger joint in HS to earn the income for my "addiction," so I know that its work at those places. Who said i look down at people who works at such and such places? In a way, although I disagree with some of their labor practices, I admire wal-mart for helping lower the unemployment rate. I also admire the blue-collar workers who get up to work each day and work diligently for their families.

[Fosco33]

WalMart is bad for healthcare and leads to increased cost for society. As an extreme liberal - shouldn't you hate WalMart for their sexist practices, non labor union and minimal benefits for FTEs?

[Fosco33]

I was kind of thinking the same thing. Yet conservatives hate Walmart since they kill off the small businesses. What it comes down to is there is really nothing good about Wal-Mart for businesses or employees, only consumers.

[Fosco33]

I was looking at a breakdown of shoppers by family income. It turns out that the average income of customers at Wal-Mart is dramatically lower than other discount stores, like Target & Shopco. Sorry I can't remember the numbers, but it blew me away.

Wal-mart is a lifeline for poor people. Of course there is a problem with driving-out small businesses. But a Wal-mart boycott is an elitist idea that isn't gonna work.

We need national health insurance, that's the real underlying problem.

[Fosco33]

Wal-Mart delivers value to their customers and their shareholders by driving cost out of the supply chain, driving prices down to end users. So did Amazon. There is nothing inherently wrong there. It represented a paradigm shift for small businesses that were unable to react and compete.

The solution in capatalism is the same as it's always been - evolve or become extinct. And it works the same way in business as it does in nature.

[MJZiggy]

Wal Mart sucks...

[Fosco33]

agreed, I am not one to boycott walmart, I shop there all the time. It's convient and great to have all my goods (especially at school where there aren't many options) in the one place (super-walmart).

It is also significantly cheaper (several dollars for same products) then the local grocery store.

I really wish Wal-Mart would just pay their employees better. Cost Co pays their full-time employees 42,000 a year I read in an article. They did this because it gives them enough to put their kids through school and live a good live. In addition to this, it raised moral and made the workers something like ten times as productive. It was an interesting study. Tomorrow at work i'll see if I can pull it up.


right, but there are laws and regulations that have been broke in the past by wal-mart in a deliberate attempt to monopolize the small town. For example, Wal-Mart has been taken to court by so many companies for selling products below their cost in order to grab shoppers, and then once they kill off the other business, they hike up their prices again. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't understand the legality of it, but at the very least one has to agree its unethical. Obviously, a company like that can afford to take a hit for an extended period of time until it monopolizes that stuff.

[Fosco33]

I'm not familiar with the intracacies of monopolistic practices, but I am aware that there are laws against predatory pricing. If Walmart abuses the system, I'm confident they'll get their just due. People are watching them like a hawk now. They get plenty of bad press.


I'm not sure Costco is being completely altruistic. They're getting value for that $42K, as their employees seem far more capable than those I've seen at Sam's and Walmart.

[Fosco33]

I won't disagree with this statement but there are other underlying reasons why I dislike WalMart (I got into a debate w/ some coworkers a few months ago and ended up reading about 500 pages of pro/cons).

WalMart accounts for a large majority of retail sales for the US. Most of these products are purchased or produced in China resulting in a huge trade deficit. Implicitly, you'd think most of these companies (based in China) are US subsidiaries - but they are not. WalMart imports $20-$30B every year from China.

WalMart works on margins and a few deep discount products to bring in the masses (overall, there prices are lower but not significantly lower - say 2-4 % vs. other retailers). As they pressure the supply chain of US businesses (to evolve or disappear) - these companies are forced to lay off workers, cutting wages/benes or going overseas. True though, this has forced the productivity and innovation of US companies - that is until they get laid off and go work for WalMart (at which time they can't support their family and society has to step in).

I've yet to buy into the fact that with education (which doesn't appear to be improving) the US will be a service economy (focused on tech, engineering and biomed). We still need a positive trade balance with foreign countries and will always have demand for certain industries (agriculture specifically).

What was more intriguing in my research - the savings that customers saved didn't get piped back into other disposable/discretionary expenditures - instead it went right to the Walton family.

Personally, I've never spent a dollar directly at WalMart - I steer clear from them mainly because the customers and employees are disgusting - call me an elitist - I don't care. I'm not into pinching pennies yet.

[Fosco33]

Huh? Shouldn't the "savings that customers saved" be with the customers, not with the Walton family? I don't follow what is bad about the customers saving money.

What do we care what the Waltons do with the money they've earned? By the way, the ONLY way that the dollars don't get "piped" back into the economy is if the Walton's take the cash, put it into a sock, and stick it into their mattress.

Other than that, it's piped somewhere. Whether they do it, the bank does it, or whatever, it is still working.

[Fosco33]

LOL. What I meant is that the perceived savings from shopping at WalMart are not generally kept by the consumer (for other investments or critical expenses) - instead it's given to WalMart by purchasing more things - some of which are not critical. Let's say this money given to the Walton's is then invested back into creating more WalMarts - further reducing suppliers based in the US and increasing the trade deficit.

[Fosco33]

Well, part one is a consumer problem, not a Wal-mart problem. I agree with you that this problem exists and it is an epidemic, but I don't think we can blame that on Wal-Mart however. What happened to personal responsibility? I have yet to be "held at gunpoint" by a Wal-Mart cashier until I bought more Chinese goods than I wanted.

Purchasing non critical things is an epidemic in this country. For example, is ANYTHING purchased at Best Buy really a "necessity"? How much of Best Buy's stuff is "Made in the USA"? Can you even purchase a US made TV anymore? I don't think so...

Face it Fosco, we don't make much anymore. We can blame the trade deficit on Wal-Mart, but, in reality, they're just the largest and easiest to point fingers at. Our economy is changing, we're not primarily manufacturing anymore. That is not Wal-Mart's fault. There are many factors for this.

Wal-Mart is not "reducing suppliers" in the US. Suppliers are responsible for maintaining and growing their businesses. If they can be "price competitive" Wal-Mart will buy from them. If they can't, they won't. You do the same thing in your household on a smaller scale. Why is it OK for you to "comparison shop", but it isn't for Wal-Mart?

[Fosco33]

Agreed. The only people benefiting from WalMart are their consumers (which I am not), investors and owners. The problem I have with WalMart (and this is pointing out WalMart) is I have to pay for their employees healthcare (in part) and on a much smaller scale the social benefits of employees of the companies that couldn't compete with China, Ireland or India (at a wage differential of $0.50/hr vs $10-$15/hr w/ benefits).

Who knows - maybe WalMart choses (or is forced) to provide healthcare and better wages OR maybe they build clinics in every store for their employees. Being in the healthcare sector, I see and feel the effects of the uninsured on a daily basis. If a FTE can't support their family on a WalMart salary (at WalMart's own admission), who really benefits in the end?

[Fosco33]

Retailguy, how can we fix that problem? I think it can be contributed to the fact the american dream is no longer hard work and providing for a family, it's driving a beamer and living in orange county. Secondly, I blame unions. It's going to be even worse when my generation is grown up, everyone I know dreams of having a big house with a pool and a talk and a mercedes parked in the driveway. They are all going to school for engineering, or plan on getting an mba, or to be lawyers or doctors.

[Fosco33]

There are actually two "problems" in my opinion, Partial. First, there is a real problem with healthcare in this country. Second, some think it is Wal-Mart's fault, or other companies.

First, Fosco's Wal-Mart issue. He says that he "pays" for Wal-mart employee health care. In a way, he does. He blames this on Wal-Mart, and this is where I break company with him. I blame it on the employee who lacks the motivation to get an education, move, or lacks the desire to improve their life.

Wal-Mart is not and should not be required to provide health benefits to its employees. In the free market, they should be able to choose and they have chosen. Quite simply, they can find "suitable" employees without offering benefits. Most Wal-Mart jobs are not designed to be career paths. Some management jobs are, and they are compensated accordingly, most with GREAT benefits.

Hourly employee positions are designed to be STARTER jobs, NOT career jobs. If the employee decides to "make Wal-Mart cashiering a career", they need to accept the pay and lack of benefits that go along with it. That, and the issues that come about because of that decision (lack of retirement & healthcare) are THE EMPLOYEES PROBLEM, NOT Wal-Mart's. We all have a choice to get educated or not educated, and we as a society need to accept the fact that the days of $25/hr to be a grocery cashier with cradle to grave medical are GONE.

When Wal-Mart cannot recruit suitable employees they will change their benefit package. Until that happens, they should not be forced to offer things that they don't need to attract quality employees.


That being said, what do we do with the health care "crisis"?

Simply EDUCATE people.

When we as a society are willing to give our auto mechanic $80 per hour to fix our SUV, but FREAK OUT because the doctor wants $100 for an office visit, there is something wrong. Our perceptions are OUT OF WHACK with reality.

We need to accept that we as individuals need to PAY for quality medical care.

Benefits plans and insurance need to reflect this. An example would be an insurance plan that allows 2 - 4 visits per year at at normal co-pay, but insurance has a 1500 annual deductible with 80-20 coverage. People need incentive to THINK before they head to the doctor to get the latest "sniffle" or "scratch" repaired.

We need to focus on "preventative" medical care. We need to lower the cost of "preventative" care, and raise the cost of care for those who "plan poorly".

Socialized medicine is not the answer. I live near the Canadian border and our doctors offices are filled with Canadians crossing the border paying willingly to not wait 2 years for minor surgeries that could be done for free in Canada.

We need to stop "blaming" people, corporations, and insurance companies for the "problem" and work together for a solution.

[MadtownPacker]

Im actually going to Walmart right now! :mrgreen: Sorry guys!

[Partial]

I don't necessarily think its good for America, but it is what it is. It's an evolution of retail and it goes to show that if someone can do something better or cheaper than you're they're going to win.

I had a discussion with some guys the other day bringing up RG's points of how Wal-Mart is making the same economic decisions we make everyday, except they do it on a large scale. It really irritates me when the self-righteous think that Wal-Mart is such a sinner for sending jobs overseas when they think it's acceptable that mindless factory jobs pay 50k a year to their employees. I understand that it costs a lot to live because of inflation and stuff, but if there lifestyle isn't up to par then they should get educated and better themselves. It is the damn unions that send jobs overseas.

[Little Whiskey]

hell ya!!! they've got a great price on ammo!! I can get a box of 100 shells for under 20 bucks!! I do however get some strange looks as i check out with 2 cases of ammo and 2 cases of beer :mrgreen:

[SkinBasket]

I've seen more than enough trucks with "Union YES!" and "Buy American" bumper stickers in the WalMart parking lots to know that there are plenty of union types that expect everyone else to pay more for the goods they make in America to keep their own wages and benefits high in a broken labor system. Of course, they can't be held to those same standards. They want the lowest price after all.

[Partial]

I've seen more than enough trucks with "Union YES!" and "Buy American" bumper stickers in the WalMart parking lots to know that there are plenty of union types that expect everyone else to pay more for the goods they make in America to keep their own wages and benefits high in a broken labor system. Of course, they can't be held to those same standards. They want the lowest price after all.


It really is funny when you think about it.

[retailguy]

It really is funny when you think about it.


Actually, to me it is sad. See the unions indoctrinate the members as a whole with the BS that "if we all stick together" you (the worker) will win. Rarely does that happen.

We, as a society, need to accept that other countries can make things cheaper than we can. To top it off, their quality is improving also. We need to channel these workers into other industries where they can make a living. It is just progress.

Think of India today as to where the US was 50 years ago. They are making incremental gains in both their employment and there society. We can bitch and moan that the Indian woman making clothes only makes a fraction of what a US worker makes, but the true comparison is what did she earn BEFORE she had the job working for Wal-Mart, or whomever? That is what determines if her life is improving.

How we adjust to global society determines whether we will be ultimately successful. The unions sure seem to be struggling with that concept.

Oh, maybe most of you didn't know, but major US CPA firms are shipping their tax prep work overseas to India. They find it cheaper to hire foreign firms to prepare the tax return and send them electronically back to the States than to hire workers. It affects EVERY industry, not just manufacturing.

[Deputy Nutz]

I try to stay out of Walmart as much as possible, but sometimes you need a toster at 3 in the morning along with some JU-JU Fruit, so shit, you gotta do what you gotta do.

I do agree with Skin's take on the lovely union workers and supporters, but shit, the Walmart and McDonalds of the world just can't be stopped, so if you can't beat'em, join'em

[Fosco33]

It really is funny when you think about it.


Actually, to me it is sad. See the unions indoctrinate the members as a whole with the BS that "if we all stick together" you (the worker) will win. Rarely does that happen.

We, as a society, need to accept that other countries can make things cheaper than we can. To top it off, their quality is improving also. We need to channel these workers into other industries where they can make a living. It is just progress.

Think of India today as to where the US was 50 years ago. They are making incremental gains in both their employment and there society. We can bitch and moan that the Indian woman making clothes only makes a fraction of what a US worker makes, but the true comparison is what did she earn BEFORE she had the job working for Wal-Mart, or whomever? That is what determines if her life is improving.

How we adjust to global society determines whether we will be ultimately successful. The unions sure seem to be struggling with that concept.

Oh, maybe most of you didn't know, but major US CPA firms are shipping their tax prep work overseas to India. They find it cheaper to hire foreign firms to prepare the tax return and send them electronically back to the States than to hire workers. It affects EVERY industry, not just manufacturing.

I just want everyone to know - I'm not in favor of unions. In general, I support big business but also want corporate responsiblity (mainly in line of social, environmental and fiscal lines). It's not the unions that are moving jobs overseas though - it's the suppliers who can't stay in business.

There's no way to compete w/ cheap labor. And true, if the person in India/China/Ireland wasn't working for a manufacturer making $1/day they may be unemployed or making $0.50/day.

I think there's a bit of a slippery slope here. What jobs in the US are people in poorer countries capable of doing w/ the advent of a more reliable communication device - the Internet? Are these rare jobs the only ones that will be left after globalization? Will overall costs of living and wages have to be scaled back in order to compete on a global scale or will the US be forced into an even more socialist society if people can't afford to live? Does the US gov't have to subsidize all these jobs/industries in order to survive?

Seems kinda bleek to me.

Personally, my life's goal is to purchase an island w/ a group of friends and be as self sufficient as possible - I could even build a hotel and hire a ton of foreign workers and import lots of goods when people want to visit - it'll be sad if those foreign workers happen to be former US citizens.

[GBRulz]

Wal-Mart has very strict policies in place with their suppliers. If these supplies can't deliver the goods on time, Wal-Mart won't pay for them. Because the suppliers know how many people shop there, they basically bend over and adhere to these policies.

An example, the truck carrying toilet paper from P&G is 3 hours late due to traffic - Wal-mart gets the goods without paying.

That is my beef with Wal-mart - that they screw their own suppliers... not because of overseas jobs, hell everyone is doing that now a days.

I choose to stay away because I don't want to spend 30 minutes getting milk and tampons, which are on opposite sides of the store! Besides, Target is much better :wink:

[Fosco33]

Observing Healthcare
Employer Healthcare Costs and Global Market Competition: Two Solutions
By Scott MacStravic, Ph.D., for HealthLeaders News, July 6, 2006

It has been persuasively argued that U.S. employers are at a distinct disadvantage in the global market because they have to pay so much of the country’s exorbitant healthcare costs, while employers in other countries have government insurance programs for all plus lower healthcare costs. No doubt General Motors is at a major disadvantage when it has to pay $1,500 extra per car it sells to cover employee healthcare insurance, and it competes with cars from Asia and Europe that are not thus handicapped.

Many other companies, however, have used this “disadvantage� �¢â‚¬Â as justification for dropping or minimizing their contributions to employee health insurance even though they seem not to be handicapped like GM. Wal-Mart has become infamous for shifting costs of its employee healthcare to Medicaid and the employees, themselves; this is a retail store chain that buys in the global market, rather than selling there, so any claim of being disadvantaged doesn’t fit. But Wal-Mart’s approach is becoming increasingly popular, and is certainly one solution to employers’ global marketing handicap--or perhaps better stated, it adds to their profitability if they have no such handicap.

The second solution, one that runs counter to employers’ abandoning employee health insurance, is actually increasing their investments, but in proactive health collaboration (PHC), rather than more sickness care expenditures. Instead of waiting and paying for employees (dependents and retirees) who get sick, thousands of employers are investing in making or keeping them healthy. In effect, if other countries are more competitive at least partly because their workers are healthier, we need to have healthier employees ourselves to compete. For even if employers manage to shift sickness care costs to somebody else, they will still suffer the consequences of their employees’ unhealthy lifestyles.

Recent studies have indicated that employers lose from two to five times as much as in sickness costs for the productivity losses caused by chronic illness. [R. Loeppke & M. Hymel “Good Health Is Good Business” JOEM 48:5 May 2006 533-537] In a study at Dow Chemical Co. some chronic conditions cost over $25,000 per employee suffering therefrom, with over 90 percent of these costs related to absenteeism and presenteeism, vs. only 10 percent due to healthcare costs. [S. Nicholson, et al. “How to Present The Business Case for Health Care Quality to Employers” Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 4:4 2005 209-218]

Of course, investing in PHCs--which require employers, insurers, governments and providers to collaborate with consumers and each other to promote and protect health--will cost employers more in the short run, since they are usually also paying for their employees’ reactive sickness care. But in the long run, the purpose and demonstrated success of PHCs are reductions in the incidence and prevalence of disease, or in the case of existing chronic conditions, in the crises, complications and worsening thereof, that create the need, demand and costs for reactive sickness care.

It has yet to be demonstrated precisely how much reactive sickness care demand by consumers and expenditures by insurers and employers can be reduced compared to the trends that payors dread and providers are counting on. But estimates have ranged from 20 to 30 percent for “semi-reactive” chronic disease management alone, to as high as 80 to 90 percent if all unhealthy behaviors can be eliminated. Just the lower estimates, if achieved, would greatly improve U.S. employers’ competitiveness and profitability even if they pay part of the costs for PHCs.

But the greater impact on employers would come from reduced losses in productivity due to absenteeism and presenteeism caused by illness. If 20 to 30 percent reductions in chronic illness healthcare expenditures were accompanied by equivalent reductions in productivity losses, employers’ gains in competitiveness or profitability could be many times what reduced healthcare expenditures alone would produce.

If employers reduce their investments in healthcare, that will damage healthcare providers by reducing the revenue they gain from these sources, while making them more dependent on less reliable and more costly methods to collect from consumers. If employers increase their investments, but in PHCs--and thereby succeed in reducing the incidence and prevalence of sickness and the healthcare needs of those with chronic illness--providers will also be damaged because of significantly reduced demand for their services.

But PHCs work best when providers cooperate in payors’ proactive initiatives, or when providers operate their own. When productivity losses are many times the costs of sickness care, then employers, unlike insurers, can afford to pay providers more than the foregone sickness care revenue might cost them. At a minimum, by engaging in PHCs, providers can gain some revenue to make up for the lost sickness care revenue they will lose, regardless of who is participating in PHCs, since the cost savings that make PHCs viable are sickness care revenue losses. By participating in PHCs, providers can at least share in this new “healthâ� �¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚ revenue.

Arguably, hospitals and physicians, long committed at least rhetorically to the health of their communities and patients, should be at the vanguard of proactive health. When they compete with vendors already in this market, they have advantages of patient trust and already established relationships in many cases. Their challenge is to figure out how to enter the growing proactive health market as key collaborators, even operators of their own effective solutions, while ensuring that their costs are low enough and payments high enough to make PHCs a viable business model, as well as a far better mission-serving one than is reactive sickness care.

That is by no means a simple challenge, of course. Providers have operated in a world of extreme levels of costs and charges for decades, relying on getting enough from paying customers to pay the costs for non-paying ones. Fortunately, payors, as well as the vendors they have hired for PHC programs, have demonstrated a wide range of low-cost alternatives to the in-person visits for which providers charge so much, though often receive so little. The way has already been made smoother, if providers choose to adopt and adapt PHC methods that will enable serving the broad market at competitive costs, while retaining advantages as trusted agents for their patients.

But the strategy for providers should clearly be to strive to develop and market PHCs with employers, rather than compete with vendors for commercial insurers’ business. Insurers have long viewed providers as a major part of the healthcare cost problem, and will have some difficulty accepting providers as part of the solution. Moreover, the amounts of money that employers stand to save through maintaining and improving the health of their employees is many times the amounts that commercial insurers can save.

Any and all revenue that providers can generate through PHCs with either commercial or government insurers is entirely forgone sickness care revenue. Providers will be “cannibalizingà ƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚ their sickness care revenue whenever they generate sickness care expense reductions for insurers. This may be a viable strategy for primary physicians, for example, including some specialists such as endocrinologists and cardiologists who often act as primary physicians for patients with diabetes or heart disease. But it will always involve a financial trade-off for hospitals and procedure-dependent specialists, though it will take decades for the full effects of PHCs to be felt by them.

With employers, providers engaged in or offering their own PHCs can optimize their financial results with significantly less sickness care revenue foregone compared to financial savings delivered to employers through productivity improvements. Only when the value of “healthâ� �¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚ is seen as including such productivity effects can providers optimize their own and employers’ financial health, while optimizing their patients’ health in the bargain.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott MacStravic, Ph.D., is semi-retired after a 35-year career as a hospital and health system executive, a professor and consultant on hospital planning, healthcare marketing and customer relationship management. He is the author of 10 books and more than 400 articles on these subjects. He may be reached at scottmacstra@earthlink.net.

[MJZiggy]

Isn't PHC just what an HMO was supposed to be? Keep everyone healthier so you don't have to pay their grand medical expenses when they get really sick from neglecting their health. It was a nice idea until the insurance companies decided they wanted to make a big profit from it.

[the_idle_threat]

hell ya!!! they've got a great price on ammo!! I can get a box of 100 shells for under 20 bucks!! I do however get some strange looks as i check out with 2 cases of ammo and 2 cases of beer :mrgreen:

Absolutely true---I buy all my ammo at Walmart. Only problem is, in the wake of the New Orleans disaster, the "urban" Walmarts are getting out of the guns and ammo business. Thus, no ammo at the Walmart on Milwaukee's north side. Now I gotta go to Waukesha or Menomonee Falls. :mad:

[Fosco33]

Check out the free videos at cnn.com regarding a woman in Utah shopping at Wal-Mart...

How do you not realize you're pregnant? Being serioius, how fat do you have to be? How could there not be any pain during delivery? Umm, that's just a really sick image. :shock:

I'll never understand some people...

[the_idle_threat]

Gore to address Wal-Mart executives

By MARCUS KABEL
AP Business Writer

Former Vice President Al Gore will take his campaign against global warming to Wal-Mart Stores Inc. next week, speaking at Wal-Mart headquarters to executives seeking to make the world's largest retailer more environmentally friendly, a company spokesman said Friday.

Gore will talk to a quarterly conference of Wal-Mart managers working on ways to implement Chief Executive Lee Scott's plans to make the retailer a leader in cutting emissions, energy use and solid waste and selling more environmentally friendly products.

Gore will speak about global warming, the subject of his recent documentary film, "An Inconvenient Truth," Wal-Mart spokesman Dan Fogleman said.

The daylong meeting Wednesday at Wal-Mart's Home Office in Bentonville, Ark., is a quarterly gathering of 14 individual groups it calls sustainability networks, which include Wal-Mart managers and outside experts.

Each network works on specific areas, such as logistics or food, to put into practice a broad environmental initiative launched by Scott last October.

In recent months, Wal-Mart has taken steps including doubling the number of organic food items in its stores, reducing fuel consumption by its fleet of 7,000 trucks and installing energy-saving light bulbs in stores.

Wal-Mart is taking the environmental offensive at a time when it is under attack from organized labor and other groups for its business practices, including employee pay and health benefits.

© 2006 The Associated Press.

[MJZiggy]

I read an interesting article the other day that says that Wal-Mart will begin offering organic foods, and if after that happens, organic foods suddenly become very popular, then Wal-Mart is likely to be given credit for making organics widely available (imagine how three major grocery stores introducing organic lines had nothing to do with it).

[Deputy Nutz]

Well, son of a bitch Walmart has finally done it. they have gone organic. they are going to have a whole organic food section.

Now I will have a reason to go.

[Fosco33]

Well, son of a bitch Walmart has finally done it. they have gone organic. they are going to have a whole organic food section.

Now I will have a reason to go.

:lol:

Good stuff... nutroll you can steal a hell of a lot of fresh lettuce - at least once!



Not that I condone theft as retailers build it into they're margins, but this is one interesting idea that Wal-Mart has put forth.... yes, I agree with this position it makes fiscal sense, uses Pareto principles and costs taxpayers less through policing.

Report: Wal-Mart loosens shoplifting policy

No. 1 retailer will only press charges if shoplifters take at least $25, in change to zero-tolerance policy.
July 13, 2006

http://money.cnn.com/2006/07/13/news/companies/walmart_shoplifters/index.htm?cnn=yes

[Zool]

Ridiculous. 80% of the items at Wal-Mart are below $25. I'm just gonna walk out with stuff. If they stop me, I will hand it back and be on my way.

[Partial]

On a tangent, when I worked at best buy they built several hundred thousand dollars into their budget for stolen shit. I remember at the end of the year every employee walked away with like a 600 dollar check because they were under the budget for stolen goods. It was awesome!!

[MJZiggy]

Nice that they gave it to you instead of calling it extra profit for the store.

[Fosco33]

On a tangent, when I worked at best buy they built several hundred thousand dollars into their budget for stolen shit. I remember at the end of the year every employee walked away with like a 600 dollar check because they were under the budget for stolen goods. It was awesome!!

This was a long discussed topic at Grainger Hall. I'm down for incentives for the loss control team for reducing cost - but, in theory, shouldn't this be passed on to the more honorable, paying customers?

It's kinda like a lot of social services, I end up paying more because a very few people don't want to fork it over.

Heck, if Wal-Mart could figure out a way to control their loss by even a half of a percentage point (0.005) - they could fund healthcare for their employees - earlier and at lower skilled levels. Instead, we all pay the standard 1.7% of sales and Wal-Mart makes it up by controlling supplier cost instead (and you should know my stance on that by now - oooh so slippery). :lol:

So, everyone stop stealing so we can keep more jobs in America. Wow, that sounds pretty funny. :razz:

[Zool]

On a tangent, when I worked at best buy they built several hundred thousand dollars into their budget for stolen shit. I remember at the end of the year every employee walked away with like a 600 dollar check because they were under the budget for stolen goods. It was awesome!!

Shrink control! I remember the videos. Im so glad I dont work there anymore.

[Deputy Nutz]

Stealing is wrong.