Originally Posted by JustJess

Drug prices are out of control, and this is a much needed step in the right direction to start being more reasonable on the costs. People need their medications, and you shouldn't be able to charge such ridiculous amounts just because they'll pay, since they need them to, oh, LIVE. .

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

A friend of mine's wife manages pharmacists for Target. Trust me, no "big box retailer" is cutting wages or benefits for pharmacists. They are far too hard to come by, especially ones willing to work outside of traditional 9-5 hours. Pharmacists are so hard to come by that senior ones can pretty much make their own schedule at Target.

Originally Posted by kutulu

Except that it isn't, really. This affects the prices of generic drugs, not name brand drugs. Lower prices for generic drugs is great but it doens't help someone that needs a name brand drug (which is sold for less in other countries).



Well that is good to hear.

Originally Posted by filtherton

That's great. I hope they find a way to deny most of their workers overtime pay and benefits next.

Originally Posted by aceventura3

...Actually, the "mom and pop's" started the trend. They either hire part-timers or limit the hours of employees to below the threashold for benefits.

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Do you not see the difference between small businesses struggling to survive and a company making in the neighborhood of $10 billion/yr. in profits, willing to ignore the law and write off fines as the cost of doing business?

I am all for capitalism and making a buck, but when you have a long and undistinguished record of OSHA violations, child labor and other labor law violations, immigration violations, environmental violations, sexual and race harrassment suits, etc., you wont get my business.

The Wal-Marting of America may be good for the pocket book, but they are a long way from beng a good corporate citizen, if there is such a thing, and they certainly are not good for the vibrancy of a community.

Originally Posted by Paradise Lost

Half the things said here have no actual bearing on the drug selling itself.
I for one see this as a decent thing. Although, it's kind of two edged. First, you can have prescription and OTC name-brand drugs starting to be sold for less, or a sudden loss of some name-brand drugs from the market. Research money doesn't appear, and while it's obvious some drugs are way too damn expensive, you have to pay all the people for at or for the pharmaceutical companies something, plus, I'm sure the things that go into the pill aren't cheap either. And as most of you probably already know, the people who 'work for' Wal-Mart, hardly have this kind of luxury - unless of course these generic drugs are still being produced inside the US, I'd almost assume they have to be.

And on a side note, I know the actual Mom & Pop restaurant I work for would, on occasion, make Wal-Mart look good in dealing with employees (they're not bad people, they just employ terrible practices.) Wal-Mart's hardly the only company that's skirted or completely broke the law when it's come to labour laws. This still doesn't have any bearing on whether or not the drug program they're introducing is a bad thing or not.

Originally Posted by dc_dux

When Wal-Mart comes into a community at the prevailing wage rate, rather than driving wages and benefits down, in part through illegal anti-union practices and other illegal employment practices too numerous to mention, I will applaud their efforts. Until then, I am not that impressed.

Originally Posted by stevo

What illegal anti-union practices might these be? just wondering because I didn't know it was illegal to be anti union

Originally Posted by ubertuber

For all of the bad things about their employment practices, Wal-Mart is pretty amazing in the logistical and supply process realm - and that's where a lot of their low prices are coming from. It's not all from the nasty things you see in the news.

Originally Posted by ubertuber

For all of the bad things about their employment practices, Wal-Mart is pretty amazing in the logistical and supply process realm - and that's where a lot of their low prices are coming from. It's not all from the nasty things you see in the news.

Originally Posted by NY Times

September 22, 2006
News Analysis
Relief for Some but Maybe Not Many in Wal-Mart Plan for $4 Generic Drugs
By MICHAEL BARBARO and REED ABELSON

At first glance, Wal-Mart’s plan to sharply cut the cost of generic drugs, to $4, seems like a signal event in American health care. It could make scores of treatments affordable to the uninsured, reduce the burden on Medicaid and bring competitive pricing to the pharmacy industry.

Even company critics have praised the plan, conceding that it represents a case of the giant retailer using its size and ability to wring out costs to improve the lives of regular Americans.

But a close examination of the program, with details confirmed by the company yesterday, suggests that its impact could be blunted by several factors.

The plan, which is said to cover 300 drugs, includes only about 124 separate medicines in various dosages, like 12 versions of the popular antibiotic amoxicillin. It leaves out some popular drugs altogether, like the generic version of the cholesterol-lowering treatment Zocor.

And while uninsured people should benefit from the program, those with insurance may save only a dollar or so, making a trip to Wal-Mart not worth their while, analysts said. In Florida, where the program will have its debut, most people on Medicaid pay nothing and may have little incentive to shop around for cheaper prescription drugs.

“It is not as significant as it first seems, in our opinion,” said Joseph Agnese, an analyst at Standard & Poor’s, who expressed surprise at investors’ reaction to the Wal-Mart announcement, which sent shares of its competitors CVS and Walgreen down sharply yesterday.

As it has for dozens of consumer products, Wal-Mart reduced prices of generic prescription drugs by attacking the few remaining pockets of inefficiency in its operations. For example, it cut out third-party distributors that stood between the chain and drug manufacturers.

“There is a huge profit margin in the generics” for the middlemen like pharmacy benefit managers, the distributors and the pharmacies themselves, said Patricia Wilson of Associates & Wilson, a Rosemont, Pa., health care consulting firm. Wal-Mart appears to be taking some of those profits from the traditional middlemen to lower the prices it is charging for these generic drugs.

The company also introduced rapid, automated machines into its pharmacy distribution centers that had long relied on workers to fill orders. In doing so, Wal-Mart reduced the amount of time that costly drugs sat in warehouses, rather than on store shelves where they could create revenue. “It is not glamorous,” said Bill Simon, an executive vice president at Wal-Mart. “It’s pennies at a time.”

Wal-Mart said that by covering one-fifth of the generic drugs it prescribes at its more than 3,000 United States pharmacies, the new program would make it possible for thousands of people to buy drugs they either cannot afford or currently ration, sometimes by cutting pills in half, to cut costs.

Under the plan, which will begin in the Tampa, Fla., area — and the company says will eventually expand to the rest of the country beginning next year — the $4 fee charged by Wal-Mart will be paid by a combination of consumers, insurance companies and the federal government, depending on a person’s health coverage. On average, generic drugs are now sold at retail for $10 to $30 for a 30-day supply.

An insured customer will not pay more than $4, no matter what the co-payment is, the company said. Wal-Mart would bill the insurer for the difference if the co-payment was below $4. Customers whose co-payment is above $4 are unlikely to use insurance, but pay for the drug out of pocket. Where required, Medicaid users would still pay a small co-payment for a prescription drug, with the government billed the balance. In the past, Wal-Mart might have billed the government significantly more than $4 for a generic drug. “It’s a tremendous savings for state Medicaid,” said Mr. Simon, the Wal-Mart executive.

But Christa Calamas, secretary of the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration, said the state would probably save money only on those Medicaid consumers who already fill prescriptions at Wal-Mart. Since most Florida Medicaid users pay nothing for their prescriptions, they are likely to choose convenient pharmacy locations over lower prices, experts said.

Wal-Mart said it would not lose money on the low-cost generic drugs — and, in fact, several industry analysts predicted the company’s pharmacy business would benefit from the new plan. Unlike CVS or Walgreen, which rely on prescription sales for most of their revenues, Wal-Mart’s pharmacy business represents less than 10 percent of its total revenue and the company has identified it as an area that needs improvement.

By luring customers of all incomes into the store at least once a month to fill generic drug prescriptions, Wal-Mart could increase overall pharmacy and store sales, these analysts said.

Health care analysts were quick to point out that Wal-Mart has carefully chosen which drugs it will cover — 300 out of roughly 11,000 generic drugs available. Moreover, it is not offering some expensive drugs, like any of the cholesterol-lowering statins, at the $4 price. And some of the drugs covered, like generic ibuprofen, cost very little and may be currently available for less than $4. “They are not losing money on all these products,” said Ms. Wilson, the health care consultant.

But she praised Wal-Mart for bringing attention to the cost savings available from generic drugs, which are significantly less expensive than their branded counterparts. Wal-Mart could also introduce much greater competition to the marketplace by pushing the concept of discounts into what has traditionally been an inefficient market. “People will begin to compare prices,” she said.

Wal-Mart has come under fierce attack for its employee health benefits; critics contend the benefits are too costly, given the typical Wal-Mart worker’s wages, and frequently force employees to rely on state programs or forgo coverage altogether. With the lower generic drug prices, which apply to its workers as well as customers, the company appears to be trying to address those concerns.

Still, critics say this plan does little to confront the high costs of health care for the uninsured, including Wal-Mart employees, since they still face the expense of going to a doctor to get a prescription, for example. While the plan is a good first step, “it is clearly as much a public relations effort as a substantive change,” said Ron Pollack, the executive director of Families USA, a Washington consumer group that has often criticized Wal-Mart’s health care offerings.

Wal-Mart’s chief executive, H. Lee Scott Jr., said that “competition and market forces have been absent from our health care system, and that has hurt working families tremendously.” The company, he added, is “excited to take the lead in doing what we do best — driving costs out of the system — and passing those savings to our customers and associates,” as Wal-Mart refers to its employees.

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Do you not see the difference between small businesses struggling to survive and a company making in the neighborhood of $10 billion/yr. in profits, willing to ignore the law and write off fines as the cost of doing business?

I am all for capitalism and making a buck, but when you have a long and undistinguished record of OSHA violations, child labor and other labor law violations, immigration violations, environmental violations, sexual and race harrassment suits, etc., you wont get my business.

Originally Posted by aceventura3

When you consider all employment related law, it is virtually impossible for an employer to be in compliance 100% of the time, no matter how big or small.

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Ace...when you can point to any other company - multi-national, national, or local - with a record of employment violations, environmental violations, and other violations that approach Wal-Mart's absymal record, we can continue this discussion.

Originally Posted by roachboy

sigh.

ace, we wet around about walmart already in another thread--the arguments against your position outlined there fully obtain here as well.
you choose for whatever reason to separate pricing from other factors that enable/condition it.
you do not provide any basis for making this separation, you simply assume that you can talk about walmart using an economics 101 type framework and have claims you make appear coherent.

well, if one does not accept your assumptions, then your conclusions dont make sense.

all that is happening here (again) is that you and other folk are talking byeach other because there is no agreement on how to look at something like walmart--whether the game rules are such that walmart's pricing can be understood to the exclusion of its distribution processes, its labour practices, its routine occupation of the bottom of the barrel in terms of wage levels, etc etc etc.

your position seems to be: anything goes.

but if that is your position, then i dont see the point of the thread because there is nothing to discuss. you think walmart is a dandy company. you think capitalism is chock full of dandy companies and that the social consequences of capitalist activity are like facts of nature.

i find that kind of position totally indefensable.
you dont.
i try to talk about how you get to your arguments.
you repeat the arguments.

what is there to discuss about that if you wont put the premises upon which you build your arguments up for discussion?

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Here are three Econ 101 questions that beg an answer.

1)Who does Walmart compete with, "mom an pop" or other large corporations?

2)Why do people work at Walmart if conditions are so bad?

3)If Walmart is a poor corporate citizen, why are communities allowing new stores to be built?

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Without going into the kind of detail that would put my job at risk, I'll back this point up by saying that there is some fantastic technology at work here, and Walmart is basically forcing all of their suppliers to adopt it if they want to continue doing business. I work with numerous companies that make things sold by Walmart, and they all have to include this technology with every shipment. It allows Walmart to track every shipment and purchase and stay ahead of demand so that stores never run out of hot items - unless it's the new Tickle Me Elmo.

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Who do you work for? Let's start there. You give me the name and I will research violations/lawsuits/etc. and post them.

Originally Posted by dc_dux

What a lame cop-out to avoid the facts about Walmart's record! :lol:

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

1. Walmart competes with both mom and pop, midsize, and other large coporations.

2. In some places walmart is the major employer and pays the most out of retail jobs.

3. There are places like NYC where Walmart is currently not welcome for many different reasons. The local community boards here are quite strong and can stop things like state liquor licenses to zoning code variances. People think that Walmart is far from New York City, but there is one in Secaucus, NJ just 3 miles from Midtown Manhattan.

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

Without going into the kind of detail that would put my job at risk, I'll back this point up by saying that there is some fantastic technology at work here, and Walmart is basically forcing all of their suppliers to adopt it if they want to continue doing business. I work with numerous companies that make things sold by Walmart, and they all have to include this technology with every shipment. It allows Walmart to track every shipment and purchase and stay ahead of demand so that stores never run out of hot items - unless it's the new Tickle Me Elmo.

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I don't deny Walmart's troubles - my point is that their troubles are not unique. You say that you have worked in situations that are as bad or worse than those at Walmart. (uh....No, I didnt) I had no clue of your circumstance but I threw out a challenge and your response supports my view. You made a choice to work in the conditions where you took employment. You weighed the pros and cons and made a decision. Why don't you think Walmart employees capable of doing the same?

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Ace...you are delusional if you think my response supports your view. You clearly dont want to acknowledge the facts and prefer tossing out simplistic, unsupportable arguments that defy reality..

One thing I learned working in the Senate was when someone with an opposing political view becomes petutlant and obstinate, its impossible to have a reasoned and rational discussion.

Carrry on.

Originally Posted by aceventura3

You stated your first job was with the Senate where you worked long hours (perhaps there were minimum wage issues *wrong* , perhaps lack of proper breaks and lunch period *wrong*, perhaps no overtime compliance *wrong*, to name a few). Many Senate jobs are based on cronyism *wrong*. Sexual harassement is a chronic problem *wrong*, not too mention all the potential OSHA violations in cramped working quarters *wrong*, etc.


Worse has been said about me, my views and my approach to debate. I also know that Galileo was subject to worse, and was proved to be 100% correct.

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Galileo would be turning over in his grave at such intellectual dishonesty.

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Walmart did not invent the national chain store. Why didn't people hate Sears back in the days when they did the same thing Walmart is doing today? Why don't they hate McDonald's, etc?

Originally Posted by aceventura3

What happened to dc_dux, after calling be delusional, intellectually dishonest and wrong, wrong, wrong, I would think he would respond to data from an outside source that supported my argument. Just when it was getting to be fun, he leaves.

Originally Posted by roachboy

1. your argument about abusive labor practices appears to be "so what?"
your demonstration is effectively "everybody does this so who cares about it?"
this is a bizarre claim.
you could say the same thing about---o i dont know--murder. there are lots of murders, so who cares whether a particular outfit kills more people than others--people die all the time--so who cares?

this hardly seems like a rational response to criticisms of walmart's labor practices.

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I simply dont see how a further discussion of that has anything to do with Wamart's record.

Originally Posted by dc_dux

What facts?

Originally Posted by pan6467

Ask RubberMaid what Wal*Mart did to them.

RubberMaid was a very profitable company that paid their workers very well.

All of a sudden Wal*Mart decided to cut RubberMaid's prices without RubberMaid's consent.

When RubberMaid argued and said "no, we will not cut our prices".

Wal*Mart dropped RubberMaid products (as an example of what they can do to companies) put in the cheaper Sterilite products (by the way Wal*Mart owns a portion of). Sterilite and their subsidiaries (such as North Canton Plastics) hire from temp services then cut those employees before they are eligible for full time, or in NCP's case they only have 10 full time billets (which include the receptionist, the shop mechanics, the 3 officers and 3 shift supervisors). This way they do not have to pay things such as insurance, unemployment, workers comp. etc. They pay the temp service basically $8.50 per person and the temp service pays $6.50 per person.

So in essence you have destroyed well paying jobs for jobs that people cannot afford to live on, have no benefits (no vacation time, and you call in sick one time, you can lose your job). And yet, Neo-cons are okay with the movement backwards and believe this is ok.

That is what Wal*Mart produces, and the practices they execute.

Would a union help? Perhaps. But what is more important is for people to stand up and say, "enough, pay workers liveable wages. Stop the bullshit."

How anyone can defend these practices is beyond me.

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I posted facts in post 39. Cashiers in grocery stores earn on average $7.80 to $7.92. Walmart pays on average $7.92. If on average and if true, unionized employees earn 30% more, a union cashier makes $10.29/hour. The union cashier would make $21,415 per year if the person worked full- time, 40 hours per week. Pan says $20,000 is not a livable wage, seems like he should have a problem with an entire industry rather than a single company. Roachboy says Walmart hsa a monopolistic attitude, but a cashier can work for any company they want, even unionized companies and make more money, right? Well in some cases wrong. Walmart often hires people with little or no experience and trains them. After they get training and experience, then they can go to work anywhere they want. That is a good deal in my book.

Originally Posted by pan6467

So in essence you have destroyed well paying jobs for jobs that people cannot afford to live on, have no benefits (no vacation time, and you call in sick one time, you can lose your job). And yet, Neo-cons are okay with the movement backwards and believe this is ok.

That is what Wal*Mart produces, and the practices they execute.

Would a union help? Perhaps. But what is more important is for people to stand up and say, "enough, pay workers liveable wages. Stop the bullshit."

How anyone can defend these practices is beyond me.

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

cut prices without their consent? one cannot cut prices and get goods without some sort of consent.

did they say, something along the lines of "this is the price we'd like to pay for your goods? if you cannot compete we'll find another company that can..."

seems fair to me in a capitalism based system.

Originally Posted by flstf

It's not Republicans or Democrats for that matter who are responsible for the downward trend in retail wages. It is because of the large number of people who endorse these policies by shopping there. The average shopper does not give a darn what the employees are paid, only where they can get items for the lowest price. People vote with their feet and seem to like Wal-Mart's prices and most would probably encourage them to lower wages even more if they could pay less for things.

Originally Posted by pan6467

What Wal*Mart did is basically told RubberMaid "This is what your product will sell for, and this is what we will pay." Hence, RubberMaid ending up out and Sterilite in.

This is all fact that I posted awhile ago in here with the newspaper story and I believe, interviews of RubberMaid officials linked.



True, that is why people need to truly be told and open their eyes to what is happening.

Also, when people are paid less they look for the cheaper prices because they have to out of necessity.

There is no reason on God's green Earth that people who work 40 hour weeks cannot be paid at least $35,000/yr. Perhaps, if we paid more, we wouldn't have to have both parents work, and thus we wouldn't be expecting the schools to babysit, teach morals and raise our kids.

Aw well, keep paying people shit, keep lowering prices and quality (and by lowering quality that means that you end up having to pay more in the long run because the product falls apart faster and then you need to buy a new one). Eventually, even Wal*Mart will be too expensive and people will go to Dollar Generals.

Yes, the inconsequential items are falling and will, but health insurance, medical care, utilities and so on will keep going up. And your dollar will buy less and less no matter how far down those non-essential prices fall.

Originally Posted by roachboy

i do not know the particulars of the rubbermaid case, but it sounds to me like walmart engaged in the retail version of dumping. walmart is able to absorb losses generated by predatory pricing of particular commodities and so is able to sell them at prices well below the cost of their production if they decide for whatever reason to target a particular competitor. the ability to absorb such losses are a scale effect. this situation would then be understandable as a conflict involving two very different types of organization, operating on two different scales.

Originally Posted by pan6467

When a non unionized company that had one of the best employee relationships in the country, never a layoff, is forced to sell and change it's labor practices not because the market couldn't support their price, but because the company that sold 20% of your product decides you need to cut your prices so that you lose money...... there are serious issues that need to be looked at.

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Perhaps Rubber Maid got complacent.

I don't know about you, but I am never going to feel sorry for a company generating anywhere close to $6 billion in sales with 30% gross profit margins.



http://ir.newellrubbermaid.com/relea...leaseID=205448

In fact after looking over the financials NWL may prove to be a good stock to invest in. Thanks for the tip.

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Sorry for continuing to show Rubber Maid may have had issues other than Walmart, but here is an excerpt for a Business Week article in 2003 on the merger.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine...4137_mz026.htm


These companies generated $262 million in net profit on $7.7 billion in sales. The company invested heavily in the Rubber Maid brand and the article suggests that Newell overpaid for the company. Rubber maid was a company on the decline before and after Walmart.

These facts suggest that Rubber Maid was complacent. A big fat happy corporation taking things for granted. As Jim Cramer says - "...pigs get slaughtered"

Originally Posted by pan6467

So where's the loyalty to the worker, to the company that you had no problem selling to begin with?

Now, you talk to me about Capitalism and letting the market set the price and blah blah blah..... but then you defend this type of business practice? The market had set the price and the product was moving, very well. The community, the worker and Rubbermaid were doing extremely well and Wal*Mart set out to destroy that. And they did.

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

Again, I'm deferring to the fact that capitalism is alive and well. If I want to provide products for my customers at a particular amount, then that is what I will look for. Look at the dollar stores. They exist in all areas and countries (while not a dollar but the equivalent.)

Consumers don't want to spend alot on goods that they cannot tell the difference in quality. Period. Plain and simple.

Do you want to know OTHER companies that did this? Garment manufacturers in NYC all went out of business in the Garment district in the 90s. What caused it? The competition of lower wages via NAFTA.

What did designers say to the manufacturers? I want it at this price... if you can't provide it at this price, I'll take my business elsewhere. The company I worked for is barely eeking a living now when before they were a wonderful cash business that thrived in a recession economy in the early 90s.

Again, capitalistic society, capitalistic market forces.

It's just like the real estate market, buyer's market and seller's market. You hope that when your time comes that you are on the right side of the fence whichever that may be.

Originally Posted by pan6467

Rubbermaid WAS SELLING. WTF........ ok I own a store, I'm selling widgets made by company A and they are selling great. My customers don't complain about the price.... they're satisfied with the quality of the product and pay the price asked.

But I go and buy part of company A's competition, company B and promote them.

People still buy company A's product because it is superior and company B's product sits there unsold.

So I lower the price on company A's product to where they lose money and tell them to either accept it or be pulled. I know what the answer will be so I load up on company B.

I pull company A, load up on company B. Then since I own part of company B, I reap the rewards.

By pulling company A, I also know they have to raise their prices at my competitors stores also, thereby making me more suitable because I offer lower prices.

To say this is ok or this is how business is ran and be accepting of it, is suicidal to the economy.

Sooooooo if people couldn't tell the difference in quality, why did Rubbermaid with a higher price still outsell Sterilite, until Wal*Mart had to set a price and literally pull them off the shelves?????????

There is no way to defend this except for the "well the stock now is....."

or wellll noone notices quality they just look at price....... BULLSHIT, that was NOT the case. The people WERE BUYING it and leaving the cheaper product on the shelves.

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

So the garment center imploded on it's own as did Rubbermaid. NY historically had effective and efficient garment workers, union and non union.

Companies want profitability, public or private.

If people wanted rubbermaid products they could have easily bought them ELSEWHERE. People chose to not. It's quite simple. If I want a particular brand where I care about brand, that's what I look for.

Personally I don't like the Sterilite, I find it inferior in quality for my long term storage solutions which have the most finite space. But simple organizational boxes, the Sterilite is sufficient. At Target I see both products on the shelves and I buy what is my needs which is mostly about cost. When I've needed to replace the rubbermaid product I will replace it as such (I've had to do so already once for some reason which I don't remember.)

But again, I'm going to defer to the consumer and market forces.

Whole Foods has shut down cheaper markets around Union Square. Trader Joe's opened up not too far away and it may jeopardize another couple markets where the CHEAPER goods are located.

People vote with their wallets. Plain and simple.

Originally Posted by aceventura3

This is good for the next time I fail in a business venture - Blame my biggest customer.

What I find hard to believe is that the failed management at Rubber Maid has people actually believing that they failed because of Walmart. that is amazing PR, don't you agree?

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

You don't shop at Walmart do you? That's voting with your wallet.

I don't shop at Sears because of deceptive automotive practices unless there is a sale. Each time I've been there it's been a challenge if not difficult. Again, voting with my wallet.

No one forces a consumer to shop at Walmart.

You're making it sound like Rubbermaid doesn't sell at alternative locations like Ace Hardware, Costco, CVS, Home Depot, Kroger, Lowe's, Rite-Aid, True Value, Family Dollar, and Dollar General. According to their website they are carried at Sam's Club and Walmart.

You cater to a clientele, you try to guess what that clientele wants to buy and how much they want to pay for it. If one supplier cannot supply you goods at the cost you think your clientele will buy, then you find another.

Again, why is this wrong in a capitalistic society?

Originally Posted by pan6467

It would be fine, but the people had voted, had showed what they wanted and Wal*Mart made the decision to say "fuck what the people want."

They owned the competition, they knew pulling Rubbermaid would make a market for their own product that they couldn't sell. It's manipulation.... not capitalism, not choice..... manipulation of the market.

Originally Posted by Cynthetiq

Because they said they won't carry a product that didn't match their business objectives? Walmart is not the sole supplier of Rubbermaid products and goods in any market.

Originally Posted by roachboy

if a state engaged in the practices walmart did in the context of pan's rubbermaid example, that state would be accused--rightfully--of dumping.
the premise of dumping regulations is that it is understood as a fundamentally unfair trade practice.
which means that there is at some level an assumption concerning fairness in trading that is built into the rules that shape capitalist activity.
the question of why the state can be guilty of dumping can be linked to that of scale: the state operates with resources that enable firms that benefit from them to engage in unfair forms of competition--like selling good below the cost of production.

walmart exploits its scale to absorb losses they might incurby selling rubbermaid goods below cost. because walmart is not a state apparatus, legally it is not dumping--but it is a good example of predatory pricing practices. which walmart is famous for.

are the only limits of capitalist activity what is illegal?
does the standard of fairness in trade apply only to states?
beyond that anything goes?
how is that functional?
how is that fair?

Originally Posted by roachboy

if a state engaged in the practices walmart did in the context of pan's rubbermaid example, that state would be accused--rightfully--of dumping.
the premise of dumping regulations is that it is understood as a fundamentally unfair trade practice.
which means that there is at some level an assumption concerning fairness in trading that is built into the rules that shape capitalist activity.
the question of why the state can be guilty of dumping can be linked to that of scale: the state operates with resources that enable firms that benefit from them to engage in unfair forms of competition--like selling good below the cost of production.

walmart exploits its scale to absorb losses they might incurby selling rubbermaid goods below cost. because walmart is not a state apparatus, legally it is not dumping--but it is a good example of predatory pricing practices. which walmart is famous for.

are the only limits of capitalist activity what is illegal?
does the standard of fairness in trade apply only to states?
beyond that anything goes?
how is that functional?
how is that fair?

Originally Posted by pan6467

What business objectives????? I own your competitor, I no longer need you. So instead of raising your price and making it unaffordable here, I'll lower your price force you to lose money..... then when that won't work pull you off my shelves and thus force you to raise your price everywhere else.

Then I come in with my little piss ant company (that competitor I bought) and say "put me on your shelves."

The fact is when they were pulled off Wal*Mart shelves they still sold..... until Wal*Mart sent in Sterilite at prices that were unreasonably low.

They manipulated the market.

They took a company that paid decent wages and destroyed it. plain and simple.

Originally Posted by Ustwo

A poor quality orthodontist about a mile from me has cut her fees to well below mine in an attempt to syphon business from me.

I wish the government would step in and get rid of this unfair competition.

Originally Posted by dc_dux

********

UStwo.....if her practice was larger than yours (e.g. she had a chain that dominated the orthodontist practice in your state) and she was pricing below cost ONLY at the one near you (making profit at her other locations) for the purpose of driving you out of business, then raising her prices again after you have been effectively removed from the market...

.... you might very well have a predatory pricing complaint.

Originally Posted by pan6467

What I fail to see is that you had a company Rubbermaid, selling at a price that the public set and yet it wasn't good enough for Wal*Mart.

Wal*Mart then pulls the product and sells only their own product?

So basically what you are saying is, "fuck the public, fuck the company because they have one of the best employee/employer relationships".

And yes, Rubbermaid's sales still were strong outside of Wal*Mart, but losing your biggest outlet and having to raise prices everywhere else is a hit that is hard to recover from.

Wal*Mart effectively destroyed Rubbermaid, their employees, a community and made a market for their own half assed made shit.

Originally Posted by dc_dux

UStwo.....if her practice was larger than yours (e.g. she had a chain that dominated the orthodontist practice in your state) and she was pricing below cost ONLY at the one near you (making profit at her other locations) for the purpose of driving you out of business, then raising her prices again after you have been effectively removed from the market...

.... you might very well have a predatory pricing complaint.

Originally Posted by Ustwo

While I don't LIKE that someone is trying to undercut me, shes married and has a husband who is a dentist, odds are they don't need the money directly like I would, its part of the free market. I in turn offer superior hours, service and have a better rapor with my patients, which off sets her lower prices.

Originally Posted by NY Times

October 19, 2006
Wal-Mart to Expand Discount Drug Plan
By THE NEW YORK TIMES

Wal-Mart Stores, which has begun selling generic versions of prescription drugs for $4 in Florida, will expand the program to more than a dozen states months ahead of schedule, people briefed on the matter said yesterday.

The company, the nation’s largest retailer, is expected to announce today that it will sell the discounted drugs in New York, Texas, Oregon, Arizona, Vermont and North Carolina, among other states, these people said.

Under the program, Wal-Mart will sell monthlong doses of about 150 separate medicines for $4.

On average, generic drugs cost between $10 and $30 for a 30-day prescription.

Wal-Mart originally said it would consider expanding the program beyond Florida after January, but in response to strong demand and a positive response from elected leaders, it has rushed to introduce it across the country.

Separately, Wal-Mart said it would immediately cut the prices of 100 popular toys more than two months before Christmas.

The price cuts — including discounts of more than $20 on products like an electronic doll called Amazing Amanda — represent the opening shot in the holiday toy price wars.

Originally Posted by filtherton

That's great. I hope they find a way to deny most of their workers overtime pay and benefits next.

Originally Posted by NCB

Companies arent in business to provide employees with benefits or overtime work.

Originally Posted by NCB

Companies arent in business to provide employees with benefits or overtime work.

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Why would people work for a company forcing them to do illegal stuff?

Why whouldn't they report that illegal stuff to an agency as soon as it starts?

Do employees have any responsibility to themselves and fellow employees?

If employee don't help police the work place in this day and age, who do they think will? Do they just sit around and wait for the proverbial "knight in shining armor"?

Oh, and before the attacks - My questions do not excuse illegal behavior. If Wal-Mart or anyone breaks the law, they should pay the price. But at what point do people stand up and stop being victims???

Originally Posted by aceventura3

Why would people work for a company forcing them to do illegal stuff?

Why whouldn't they report that illegal stuff to an agency as soon as it starts?

Do employees have any responsibility to themselves and fellow employees?

If employee don't help police the work place in this day and age, who do they think will? Do they just sit around and wait for the proverbial "knight in shining armor"?

Oh, and before the attacks - My questions do not excuse illegal behavior. If Wal-Mart or anyone breaks the law, they should pay the price. But at what point do people stand up and stop being victims???

Originally Posted by pan6467

I heard almost the exact same thing yesterday on the radio, "Companies are not in business to employ people." (2 guesses what right winged nut said it). I have never in my life heard anything so pathetic, so desparateto win an argument. I had to shake my head and laugh. Someone else must have listened to Limbaugh yesterday also but agreed with him.

Unless it is a one man company, where the person does everything from produce the raw material to making, marketing and selling the product, employees are needed. Since employees are needed in 99.99% of all companies, I quote that famed union buster Henry Ford.

Originally Posted by NCB

Yes, employees are needed, but the great thing about it is that they are free to work where they want and to negotiate a compensation package to thier liking.

Originally Posted by ubertuber

Ace, I'm confused by your point here. That these things happen is patently true. People don't report things for a variety of things, but mostly they're afraid of losing their jobs. Other times they do report things and regulatory agencies don't step in as they should.

Originally Posted by dc_dux

The question is why Walmart continues to violate the law in state after state.

Originally Posted by aceventura3

My questions are simple - you seem to want to make them more complicated. I just don't understand why people tolerate the things they put up with, my mind is different. If you screw with me once, you might get away with it, but not the "second time".

Originally Posted by filtherton

What if the people screwing you sign your checks, you've got a family to feed and there aren't any other jobs in your area?

Originally Posted by filtherton

Yeah, i was just talking to bill gates about taking over for him when he's done at microsoft. I told him, i said "Bill, when i start working here i want to be pulled around by software engineers in a golden chariot. Make it so." And he was all like "That's the great thing about the american marketplace, the people are free to work where they want with compensation packages they like."

Wait, no, that didn't happen. Because no one is free to work where they want for a compensation package they like. In reality, people take what they can get because having a really shitty job that you hate pays the bills the same way that a great one does.