Wal-Mart: the Scourge of the Retail Industry

[emaidel]

I hate Wal-Mart. I refuse to shop there. And, I hope they go out of business, and the sooner the better.

That's pretty nasty stuff, but I have a sound basis for my seemingly narrow-minded opinion of this retail giant. Please read through the following scenario, and then realize, as I will explain at the end, that it's not as far-fetched as it seems.

Let's assume that I've done a great deal of research, and have designed a radically-new automatic coffee maker that I call, "Ed's Coffee Pot." Ed's Coffee Pot has a series of unique, patented designs that allow it, at a retail price of $99.95, to outperform all others at, or above that price point, and as such is a "value" at that price.

I print out a price sheet and the dealer cost for my coffee pot is $75. Most retailers aren't satisfied with only a $25 profit, so I structure a series of different programs and promotions, and offer prompt-payment discounts, all of which results in a bottom-line price (to the dealer who pays me on time, and takes advantage of my "specials") of $50.

Now that dealers can double their money, Ed's Coffee Pot is an attractive purchase, and it goes on to be a huge success. As I can't possibly sell my coffee pot to all the thousands of independent retailers across the country by myself, I hire a series of manufacturer's representatives (reps) to sell it for me, and pay them a 5% commission to do so. And, all of this was planned for from the start so that I could afford to have dealers pay me $50 and to pay 5% commission on top of that. I'm hugely successful with this item, and sell 15,000 of them a month, generating significant, profitable volume for me.

The success of my coffee pot doesn't go unnoticed, and Wal-Mart calls me up and "invites" me to their facitilty to discuss a "unique business opportunity." As Wal-mart's no dummy, they've done their homework, and know what dealers are paying for this coffee pot, and that I also pay rep firms a 5% commission. Wal-mart flatly refuses to do business with manufacturer's reps (this is a known fact) and wants that commission deducted from the purchase price. Ultimately, they tell me that they will pay me $35 for my coffee pot, and not a penny more.

But they save the best for last: they'll buy 15,000 of them a week. Now, I have quite a decision to make: do I walk away from the opportunity to quadruple my buiness by selling Wal-Mart, or do I say, "No."

Ultimately, I agree to Wal-Mart's proposal, and in order to meet the increased production needs, expand my manufacturing facility and staff to keep up with the demand. In the meantime, Wal-Mart sells my coffee pot for $69.95 - $30 less than anyone has sold it before. Consequently, my existing dealer base all tell me to essentially, "go take a hike," since they can't afford to match Wal-Mart's price, and I'm stuck with only one customer: Wal-Mart.

Then the worst happens: my cost of goods goes up as a result of factors entirely out of my control (rising petroleum prices, which affect the cost of plastics), and a variety of other possibilties. I have no choice but to advise Wal-Mart that I can no longer afford to sell them my coffee pot for $35, and have to raise its price to them to $45, or I'll have to go out of business. Wal-Mart flatly refuses to pay the price increase, and I'm stuck with no one to sell my coffee pot to, as my original dealer base of independent retailers has walked away from me for doing busines with "the devil," and doesn't trust me any more.

As a result, I'm forced to declare bankruptcy, shut down my manufacturing facility, and put hundreds of workers out of work. If you think this is a ridiculous scenario, think again: this is precisely what happened to an Ohio-based manufacturing plant for Rubbermaid!

Add to that the fact that Wal-Mart employees are paid poorly, forced to work overtime again and again, and given truly lousy health benefits, while the top management of the organization wallows in money, and lots of it. Then there's Wal-Mart's deliberate intention of putting competing retailers out of busines, putting the employees of those retailers out of work, and then offering employment to those people at significantly reduced wages.

What a wonderul place Wal-Mart is.

[topspeed]

Certainly, if you don't want to shop at Walmart, for whatever reason, that is your perogative. I don't shop there, not because of their business practices, but because I can't stand going in there. It's like being in the middle of a cattle stampede.

That said, you can't blame Walmart for the above scenario. Why?
1) They didn't cause the price of petrol to increase
2) They didn't say they would pay for the increase in hard costs to the manufacturer
3) Legally, they only have to pay what they contracted to pay.
4) *Most Importantly* They didn't force the manufacturer to sign that very contract!

The manufacturer has to know going in that the contract terms are going to destroy any good will he has created with his reps. He consciously made the decision to do so in favor of the larger sales potential and marketing opportunities that WalMart provides. Remember, WalMart is in the business of providing goods at the absolute lowest costs to their clientele. They are not there to ensure profitability to their suppliers. That's the supplier's job. If they can't do it, where does that become WalMart or their customer's problem?

Whereas one can easily see this as ruthless, I'm sure Walmart's customers see it in an entirely different light. After all, do you think Walmart would absorb the additional $10 or pass it on to the consumer? One man's predatory practices is another's consumer protection.

Welcome to the wonderful world of business.

[emaidel]

We are clearly on different sides of the fence on this one, but I don't buy your argument. For one thing, Wal-Mart entices a manufacturer with an amount of business unattainable with existing distribution, and that's difficult for most manufacturers to turn down. I've been on the manufacturing side of the audio industry for over 30 years, and know how hard it is to tell Circuit City, or Best Buy that I don't want their business.

Retailers and manufacturers rarely enter into "contracts" with one another, unless a proprietary product is being built exclusively for that retailer. Otherwise, an "agreement" is usually all that's done, and no manufacturer in his right mind would ever enter into such an agreement with the clause, "there will never be any price increases. Ever." Just about every company I've ever worked for in my career has had a price increase at one time or another, and despite the initial dealer balking, all eventually paid the higher price, and raised their selling prices accordingly. In fact, whenever there was a price increase for any of the companies I worked for, the "suggested retail" went up accordingly, so that the dealer margin remained the same.

In the case of Rubbermaid, there were four items sold to Wal-Mart at razor-thin margins, but in huge quantities, dwarfing the previous manufacturing requirements for the business done with Rubbermaid by independent retailers. When the cost of the resins to manufacture the rubber in these four products went up, and Rubbermaid could no longer afford to sell them to Wal-Mart at the prevailing prices, Wal-Mart just decided on its own that it simply wouldn't pay the price increase. Like everyone else, all they had to do was raise the retail price to maintain the same margin, but Wal-Mart just flatly refused to budge, expecting to just weild its power and have Rubbermaid "eat" the price increase themselves. Wal-Mart didn't replace these items with some cheaper units from someone else - they just stopped buying them from Rubbermaid, and the Rubbermaid facility, all but totally dedicated to manufacturing these items in sufficient quantity for Wal-Mart's demands, shut down completely, and thousands of workers lost their jobs.

In the example I used with "Ed's Coffee Pot," Wal-Mart simply had to raise its selling price from $69.95 to $79.95, and they would have kept the same margin, and I could have continued to build those coffee pots. By refusing to pay the increased price, they just put me out of business instead. This isn't just "the world of business." This is the world of "doing business with Wal-Mart." And it stinks.

[Feanor]

.... This isn't just "the world of business." This is the world of "doing business with Wal-Mart." And it stinks.

"Monopsony" -- definition: situatution of a single buyer with many sellers; the opposite of monopoly. Although the Wal-Mart situation isn't quite a strict monopsony, the fact is that this retailer is so relatively large that they can deal differently and more severely than other buyers. Monopoly and monopsony aren't healthy situations, and if you deal with them, you deal with the devil.

[Feanor]

"Monopsony" -- definition: situatution of a single buyer with many sellers; the opposite of monopoly. Although the Wal-Mart situation isn't quite a strict monopsony, the fact is that this retailer is so relatively large that they can deal differently and more severely than other buyers. Monopoly and monopsony aren't healthy situations, and if you deal with them, you deal with the devil.

The defences of Wal-Mart I've heard so far miss the critical point, above.

• Yes: Wal-Mart has a contract that the manufacturer signed "voluntarily", (to use the term loosely);
• Yes: Wal-Mart has a legal contract;
• Yes: Wal-Mart has the same, God-given right to earn a profit as anyone else;
• Yes: Wal-Mart is only seeking compeditive advantage which is a normal thing to do;
• Yes: Wal-Mart is in line with normal "business ethics", (to use another term loosely).

But no: dealing with Wal-Mart is not like dealing suppliers like other retailers on account of their size and prevalent market position. Competition is a good thing, (the "invisible hand" of Adam Smith), but competition is severely reduced on account of Wal-Mart being who they are. Remember your micro-economics: when a monopolist or monopsonist simply acts in their own best interest, (as if they were a compeditor), it is invariably bad for the public interest one way or another.

[topspeed]

We are clearly on different sides of the fence on this one, but I don't buy your argument. For one thing, Wal-Mart entices a manufacturer with an amount of business unattainable with existing distribution, and that's difficult for most manufacturers to turn down. I've been on the manufacturing side of the audio industry for over 30 years, and know how hard it is to tell Circuit City, or Best Buy that I don't want their business.

It is tough, I understand that. However, no one is holding a shotgun to your head to sign on the dotted line. It's not like Walmart suddenly created the concept of Purchasing Power. This has been going on forever. GM is notorious for killing their suppliers because they buy millions of parts, not thousands. Centex, the second largest home builder in the country, purchases their lumber by the trainload (instead of truckload) and is able to sell homes at lower prices than your local builder. Nothing new there.

Retailers and manufacturers rarely enter into "contracts" with one another, unless a proprietary product is being built exclusively for that retailer. Otherwise, an "agreement" is usually all that's done, and no manufacturer in his right mind would ever enter into such an agreement with the clause, "there will never be any price increases. Ever." Just about every company I've ever worked for in my career has had a price increase at one time or another, and despite the initial dealer balking, all eventually paid the higher price, and raised their selling prices accordingly. In fact, whenever there was a price increase for any of the companies I worked for, the "suggested retail" went up accordingly, so that the dealer margin remained the same.

Right, they passed it on to their customer. WalMart won't do that. They have the purchasing power to not have to. Besides, you can bet there are other suppliers lined up out the door if the one ahead of them fumbles the ball. It's called competition, and our entire economic system is based on it. You can't condemn them for protecting their image and customer base.

In the case of Rubbermaid, there were four items sold to Wal-Mart at razor-thin margins, but in huge quantities, dwarfing the previous manufacturing requirements for the business done with Rubbermaid by independent retailers. When the cost of the resins to manufacture the rubber in these four products went up, and Rubbermaid could no longer afford to sell them to Wal-Mart at the prevailing prices, Wal-Mart just decided on its own that it simply wouldn't pay the price increase. Like everyone else, all they had to do was raise the retail price to maintain the same margin, but Wal-Mart just flatly refused to budge, expecting to just weild its power and have Rubbermaid "eat" the price increase themselves. Wal-Mart didn't replace these items with some cheaper units from someone else - they just stopped buying them from Rubbermaid, and the Rubbermaid facility, all but totally dedicated to manufacturing these items in sufficient quantity for Wal-Mart's demands, shut down completely, and thousands of workers lost their jobs.

That's too bad. Seriously. The employees should storm the mansions of the moron CEO that signed the contract. He/She was the idiot that didn't build in enough cushion for changes in their cost structure. Blame them, don't blame WalMart.

In the example I used with "Ed's Coffee Pot," Wal-Mart simply had to raise its selling price from $69.95 to $79.95, and they would have kept the same margin, and I could have continued to build those coffee pots. By refusing to pay the increased price, they just put me out of business instead. This isn't just "the world of business." This is the world of "doing business with Wal-Mart." And it stinks.

Don't do business with them. Businessmen are big boys and know what they are getting into. If they can't handle the competition, get out.

[emaidel]

[QUOTE=topspeed]

Right, they passed it on to their customer. WalMart won't do that. They have the purchasing power to not have to.

You say this as if someone (namely, the supplier) should swallow any and all price increases. Sorry, I don't now, never have, and never will agree.


Blame them, don't blame WalMart.

Oh, but I do.

I get the suspicion that you've never worked for a manufacturer. that's OK for sure, but I have, and know what it's like to deal with so-called "power retailers." Some make extraordinary demands, but accept the realities of the marketplace, such as occasional price increases. The fact that Wal-Mart doesn't is by no means a badge of honor for them. It's only a sign of their ruthlessness.

QUOTE]

[PAT.P]

Sorry guys but I shop at Wal-Mart and dont really care what anybody says.If other retailers cant compete with them and it's to hot in the kitchen ,,just get out.There many people that rely on them for employment and if on a budget a good place to save.Wal-Mart also help alot of charity.

[topspeed]

You say this as if someone (namely, the supplier) should swallow any and all price increases. Sorry, I don't now, never have, and never will agree.

That's fine, I'm not asking you to agree and you certainly are allowed to your opinion. Lemme ask you a question: Say the supplier figures out how to dramatically decrease his costs either through techology, new labor contracts, or whatever...is he now expected to reduce his price to Walmart so they can pass the savings along to their consumer? All other market factors being equal, how often do you think that would actually happen?

I get the suspicion that you've never worked for a manufacturer. that's OK for sure, but I have, and know what it's like to deal with so-called "power retailers." Some make extraordinary demands, but accept the realities of the marketplace, such as occasional price increases. The fact that Wal-Mart doesn't is by no means a badge of honor for them. It's only a sign of their ruthlessness.

I never said they were nice guys . I would only question the validity of applying Mom n' Pop idealism to big business.

[kexodusc]

There's a fine line between competitive business practices and extortion. Wal-Mart walks that line as well as anyone.

The unfortunate reality is that Wal-Mart can't be blamed for behaving as they do, protecting their margins by nickel and diming suppliers is their nature. I can't believe anyone in America, or the world for that matter, is still oblivious to how Wal-Mart operates. The manufacturers have a responsibility to themselves too. It's easy to blame Wal-mart for acting how they do, and they are ruthless, but that's the game they're in.

It's not all peaches and roses for Wal-Mart. Companies that size are absolutely dependant on profitability and sustainable growth. Wal-Mart has an added dynamic in that the business they are in is typically one of low-margins and low profitability. Being cheap and tough is the only option they have to survive. Wal-Mart isn't a charity. If they slip up, things can go sour really fast.

Funny thing is, a few decades back America was worried about K-Mart and the likes as well...As Topspeed pointed out, the world largest company, General Motors, is a notoriously ruthless partner to its suppliers. When competition gets fierce, that's always been their last stand. Aside from the lousy cars they've made the last 2 decades or so, their business model is similar to Wal-Marts in that they'll either make a lot of money or lose a lot of money. It forces them to use their size to squeeze the suppliers and the competition. Now they're on the verge of bankruptcy...it happens fast.

In the case of the small suppliers getting squeezed, well, eventually the market will wisen up, and Wal-Mart will realize nobody wants to do business with them...then they'll be forced to choose between being better partners with suppliers or lose a lot of products. I'm positive they'll have strong direct competition someday, too. No empire lasts forever.

[emaidel]

This has turned into an interesting "off-topic" thread with people on opposite sides of the fence, and no straddlers in the middle. With all that's said and done, I still refuse to shop at Wal-Mart, find their treatment of their suppliers inexcuseable, and am thoroughly disgusted at their claim for the "lowest prices" all the time, when that's just not so. Their employees are paid poorly, are often forced to work overtime and get lousy health benefits, yet the top execs are filthy rich.

One might make the argument that "no one forced anyone to work there." That may be so, but when Wal-Mart enters a market, and puts other retailers in that market out of business, and then offers those out of work due to their stores having closed a new job, but at a much lower salary, I simply can't see any good to that. Wal-Mart claims they "have" to pay their people poorly in order to keep prices low. That's absolute B.S.! Their margins are as great, or much greater, than anyone else's.

Lastly, does anyone remember how Wal-Mart used to proudly proclaim, "Buy American!" all over the place, when just about everything in the stores at the time was made in Korea? (Today, it's China.)

[GMichael]

I'm on the fence but haven't posted till now. I've just been reading.

I worked at a large company for many years and have seen how we pushed the little guys around. At times, I was embarrassed. But I have also seen how much extra crap large companies must deal with. Taking a hard line is sometimes the difference between just making it and just failing. Sometimes, business sucks.

[shokhead]

Ma and Pa places are a thing of the past and thats the way it is. I dont have any problems with Walmart,Target,K-Mart. Nobody is forced to shop or work at any of those places.

[Woochifer]

Very interesting topic and a lot of very good responses. I've got a slightly different perspective because I've worked on environmental impact studies for proposed Wal-Mart projects. The angle that I've analyzed is the business and job losses that potentially occur when they come into a market. Basically, there is no one-size-fits-all answer because the economic conditions are different in every market.

But, the short of it is that if Wal-Mart enters a market where there are no existing discount stores along with a stable population base, then the impacts can be huge and cut across a wide range of economic sectors. In markets where existing discount stores already operate, then the impacts might be limited to those stores with less "collateral damage" to other stores. The impacts will also vary depending on the types of stores that exist in a community, the amount of spending that already leaves the community, population and income growth, and how well the existing stores are actually doing (i.e. if their profitability is already off the chart, then they might be able to sustain sales losses and still operate profitably).

Wal-Mart's impact on the retail sector has been enormous. In the early-90s, Sears was still the #1 retailer, yet Wal-Mart's current sales more than triple Sears' earlier sales.

Wal-Mart is a hot button because their business practices touch on so many different areas, and their influence has reached an unprecedented level among retailers. Emaidel already touched on the supplier relationships, and there's also their predatory pricing policies, their labor practices, their lobbying methods, etc.

Wal-Mart's corporate culture has always been about cost cutting and staying focused and frugal. But, ever since Sam Walton died, I think that this corporate edict has gotten to a new extreme. At least when Walton was still alive, he tried to work for U.S. companies and promote American-made products. All of that has gone by the wayside since Walton's death.

Someone else mentioned that Wal-Mart has gotten to their dominant position because we've allowed it to happen. To a degree that's true, but I think a huge part of this goes back to how local governments are funded. In most states, sales tax is the one revenue source that cities have the most control over.

Wal-Marts represent cash cows to cities because of the sales tax, and Wal-Mart knows this. In rural areas especially, they will pit one town against another. The argument is that if Wal-Mart comes to YOUR town, then at least YOUR town will get the tax revenue. Businesses and jobs will be lost in both communities no matter, so the issue is which town benefits and which one loses out. This gives Wal-Mart tremendous leverage in exacting subsidies and other inducements from local governments. IMO, this also results in atrocious developments that are inappropriately scaled and create a traffic nightmare. All you have to do is look at how much better the big box centers are in Oregon (a state with no sales tax) to see how big an effect this tax incentive has on the quality of development.

More recently, communities have begun resisting Wal-Mart. For one thing, Wal-Mart has already penetrated into most markets and at this point, they're largely adding stores to markets that they already serve. The recent flashpoint in California has been the proposals to add Wal-Mart Supercenters.

Up to this point, the Wal-Mart stores have not included grocery sections, but the more recent Supercenter proposals entail much larger stores with grocery sections, and this has run into resistance in many areas. Local governments are more emboldened to oppose these projects, not because of principle, but because groceries are nontaxable (in California at least) and approving these projects does not result in higher tax revenue for local government. In addition, most supermarkets in California are unionized, and this has brought out organized and well-funded opposition. And just a week ago, a city in the Bay Area, after rejecting a Wal-Mart proposal last year, has begun pursuing eminent domain on the land that Wal-Mart owns, which would force Wal-Mart to sell the land to the City at market cost.

With the labor practices, Costco has often been held up as an example of how a discount retailer can operate profitably while paying higher wages and benefits. I believe that Costco's average hourly wage is almost double that of Wal-Mart, and their benefits are more generous. Costco's argument is that higher wages produce a more stable and higher quality workforce, which helps the bottomline. Less staff turnover = less training costs, better customer service, less recruitment costs, happier employees.

For me, I don't shop at Wal-Mart for any number of reasons (having dealt with their corporate lawyers is reason enough). Given that this is an audio/home theater board, I don't support Wal-Mart simply because they don't support widescreen DVDs or special edition issues, and have lobbied the studios to put out more movie-only pan & scan versions (i.e. make it cheaper and make it dumber). They eventually came around on widescreen (at least now they will buy some widescreen copies when a P&S version is available), but their mentality towards the studios is the same as any other supplier -- push the price lower no matter how it affects the quality of the disc release itself.

[emaidel]

Fantastic, and informative posting, Wooch. You put a different perspective on reasons not to shop at Wal-Mart, and some pretty good ones too.

Here in the Denver area, a recent plan for Wal-Mart to open yet another super center (not too far from three others) was nixed by all because of the environmental impact it would have had: not only would an existing strip mall (consisting of several, well-established small retailers) have been condemned to erect the superstructure, but a lake would have had to have been drained and filled to accommodate Wal-Mart's parking lot. Thank goodness it didn't happen.

Also, there have been mentions of other retailers in this thread, particularly Target. I routinely shop at a Super Target without hesitation. Salaries for their employees range from $3 to $4 more per hour than their Wal-Mart equivalents, and while not always the sharpest knives in the drawer, Target employees are considerably more intelligent and useful than the cretins who work at a nearby Wal-Mart Supercenter.

Target's prices in their supermarket on some, but not all, items are significantly less than at neighboring supermarkets, and this provides me with not an entirely new place for which to purchase all my groceries, but an additional place to do so. Sometimes their prices are amazingly low (Land 'o Lakes butter at $2.49 as compared to $4.99 in three supermarkets), and at other times, despite heavy in-store promotions, their prices are a lot higher, especially on Coke and Pepsi products.

Healthy competition is a good thing. Predatory business practices and ruthless treatment of suppliers and employees isn't.

[topspeed]

Nice post, Kex

[kexodusc]

I don't actually disagree with your assessment of the impact Walmart has on some retailers, and the bad things they do...they ain't no saint...that's for sure.
But the fact Wal-Mart is evil or not doesn't get businesses who made the mistake of exposing themselves to "Wal-Mart risk" off the hook either. They are at a minimum 50% responsible. In my opinion, the fact they weren't forced into a Wal-Mart deal, but rather tempted, puts that at least at 51% responsibility.
I feel those employees that lost their jobs should blame the decision makers more than Wal-Mart. Truth is, if it wasn't Wal-Mart it would have been someone else, and the mistake still would have been made with the same result.

Doesn't excuse Wal-Mart of their predatory tactics either...I think this lack of "exclusive responsibility" was the point/counterpoint most of us were trying to make with you. And I think you also agree with it if I'm not mistakend.

I don't have favorite speakers really, I like too many models. Though the past year, my favorite design has been the Focus Audio FS-788.
You?

[Feanor]

...
But the fact Wal-Mart is evil or not doesn't get businesses who made the mistake of exposing themselves to "Wal-Mart risk" off the hook either. They are at a minimum 50% responsible. In my opinion, the fact they weren't forced into a Wal-Mart deal, but rather tempted, puts that at least at 51% responsibility.
....

So perhaps Wal-Mart's deal is like Faust's deal with Satan. Who was to blame, Faust or the Devil? Did Faust think to outsmart the Devil? Is there any hope of redemption for Faust?

[emaidel]

I don't have favorite speakers really, I like too many models. Though the past year, my favorite design has been the Focus Audio FS-788.
You?

I haven't kept up with current models, but I still love my "Show Model" Dahlquist DQ-10's that I purchased direct from Dahlquist in 1977. The crossovers of my speakers incorporated mylar caps long before Dahlquist routinely inclulded them in standard production, and the speakers were somehow "tweaked" to outperform normal production units, as they were exclusively used in trade shows , and that's where I bought mine. Maybe that's why they sound so good.

I recently paid Regnar close to $300 to completely rebuild the woofers after Simply Speakers in Florida refoamed them, but did a sloppy job, resulting in audible distortion at certain frequencies which the folks at Simply Speakers sloughed off as me "exceeding the speaker's capability." The service manager at Regnar called me and gave me a long, and well-documented explanation of what was wrong with Simply speaker's work, and now, I feel as if having spent that $300 was well worth it. I supplement them with a Definitive Technology SP-15+ powered sub, which significantly outperforms my previous Dahlquist DQ-1W as it goes much deeper, and it's built-in crossover has a much sharper cutoff than the Dahlquist version (the active unit, not the passive one).

I'm sure there are better speakers available out there, but not at the price of the DQ-10. In fact, they even outperform my far costlier B&W 802F Specials.

[shokhead]

Does Walmart force any retailer to sell there product at Walmart?

[bobsticks]

Does Walmart force any retailer to sell there product at Walmart?

This weekend 60 Minutes will be releasing a report on a payroll audit done by the IRS on Walmart's foreign corp. Wal-Mex. Evidently, there are some paramilitary figures on the payroll including some former Narodnyi Kommissariat Vnutrennyhk Del officers. It alledges a campaign of threats and intimidation being carried in conjunction with full scale bribery of foreign dignitaries. Thus far, President Bush has been able to avoid comment or action on the situation as operations have originated from training facilities in Mexico and Venezuela. Moreover, the administration can largely spin it as largely a "problem for Mainland China" though "regrettably an issue of Chinese sovereignty".

[shokhead]

Huh???

[bobsticks]

Huh???

The only appropriate respose shokhead. I was exaggerating for effect, and for the record, I agree with your previous post. I fall into the camp of those that would suggest that perhaps, just perhaps, if we all took greater resposibility for our actions the world might be a bit better place.
" Ever dance with the devil in the pale moonlight?" Any supplier that gets into bed with Wal-Mart has to know that this outcome is possible. Any supplier that is not mindful of insulating itself against the effects of market/cost fluctuations while in service to Wallyworld is negligent to itself and toward its employees. It's not exactly like 3000 Wal-Marts popped up last week. Suppliers go into the deal knowing that they are playing in the big-boy league.
EFE successfully demonstrates that there is life sans Wal-Mart, and how grateful we should all be. Frankly, the fact that we can sit around here discussing $1000-$10,000 speaker systems leads me to believe that none of us fall into WM's target demographic anyway. Another cause for gratitude.

Cheers to y'all

[PAT.P]

Frankly, the fact that we can sit around here discussing $1000-$10,000 speaker systems leads me to believe that none of us fall into WM's target demographic anyway. Another cause for gratitude.

Cheers to y'all

Are you saying that only the lower income person shop at WalMart?You be surprise! Look in their parking lot and look at the cars some people drive .I'm sure glad there is one just a few blocks from where I live.

[Feanor]

Are you saying that only the lower income person shop at WalMart?You be surprise! Look in their parking lot and look at the cars some people drive .I'm sure glad there is one just a few blocks from where I live.

My closest is the one at Whiteoaks Mall. We shop there all the time, for certain things at least. Not that we're rich.


We used to live in Leaside in Toronto. One time, quite a few years ago, I saw Lord Kenneth Thompson in the Loblaws that was at Bayview and Moore Ave. At the time I guess he was only worth $5 billion or so. Guess the servants had the day off.

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2006/10/0ZB0.html