Anonymous wrote:
How many of the products on the shelves of WalMart are manufactured in the US versus in China?

PP again -- I found the answer -- it's something like 70%!!!

I don't have anything against China or the Chinese, but I can't help feeling like we are taking advantage of their lax environmental regulations, and their poor employment conditions, to get our stuff at a very cheap (to us) cost.

THe fact that if you ask the Chinese rank and file workers, they seem to like this situation, isn't exactly relevant.

If you had a slave and beat him to work 18 hours a day... then gave him better working conditions and said he only had to work 12 hours a day, he'd say he was doing better, wouldn't he? So you could say it was an improvement over the former situation -- but it still wouldn't make it right to benefit from slavery.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-11/29/content_395728.htm

The world's largest retailer, Wal-Mart Stores Inc, says its inventory of stock produced in China is expected to hit US$18 billion this year, keeping the annual growth rate of over 20 per cent consistent over two years.

(snip)

"If Wal-Mart were an individual economy, it would rank as China's eighth-biggest trading partner, ahead of Russia, Australia and Canada," Xu said.

Anonymous wrote:
Why don't you dislike the American companies who are out-sourcing these jobs to China, Mexico, and other places because this is taking away jobs from American citizens and also hurts our economy? You dislike the Chinese govt. but American companies negotiate their contracts with government officials. Do you think these companies don't want to pay the lowest possible hourly wage so their profit can be larger? Why aren't you boycotting the American companies who are also responsible for the treatment of Chinese workers?

I do dislike them! I boycott as much as I can. I think there should be serious disincentives to outsourcing to Chinese companie. We don't make ANYTHING here in the US anymore, practically, and I think that's scandalous. I buy American whenever I can.

Hell, we even import most of our apple juice from China. Did you know that? APPLE JUICE?!?!? Tell me we in the US can't grow apples???

How many of the products on the shelves of WalMart are manufactured in the US versus in China?

Anonymous wrote:
You make it sound like these factories are inflicted on them. In fact, they are the source of China's growth and the rising incomes in it. I think there is a misperception here. Yes, they get paid less than us but they are doing much better than under the old economy. Most of China was living in poverty, and these factory jobs give them a pretty good quality of life. They are sending money back home, buying houses. Wages and working conditions are going up.

http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2010/03/chinese_factory_workers_cash_i.html

Um, where to begin. Yes, the factories with their pollution are inflicted on the poorest of the Chinese. To say that they are doing better than under their old economy is debatable. More income but also much more pollution, pollution and toxins that we in the US don't want to deal with.

The deveoped world is sending out work to China to be manufactured there, because it is cheaper because in China there aren't nearly as many environmental regulations to worry about.

We are taking advantage of them, and it is mostly the ruling elite in China that is getting the benefit of this arrangement -- not the rank and file workers. Sure, hey get some more money, but they get a LOT of pollution.

That's not fair.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I thought we like to have it both ways. We want to pay low prices for goods but still like to point a finger at those who manufacturer these items and tell them to stop polluting the environment and exploiting their workers. This is partly how we got to be the economic powerhouse we are but when some other country wants to do it we say we don't like it because now realize their pollution is our pollution too.

I don't want to have it both ways, actually! I believe in paying a fair price for a product, considering the true cost of making the product -- paying the laborers a fair, living wage, and not exploiting them or the environment. If this means I consume fewer products, and have to reduce, reuse and recycle, then so be it. If we all as a society had to use and buy less, I think we'd be better off for it -- certainly in the developed world.

And I dislike the Chinese government not regulating pollution more, not because it is bad for MY world, but because it is bad for the Chinese. It's not fair to make them bear the brunt of our desire for lower costs. Is it?

Why don't you dislike the American companies who are out-sourcing these jobs to China, Mexico, and other places because this is taking away jobs from American citizens and also hurts our economy? You dislike the Chinese govt. but American companies negotiate their contracts with government officials. Do you think these companies don't want to pay the lowest possible hourly wage so their profit can be larger? Why aren't you boycotting the American companies who are also responsible for the treatment of Chinese workers?

The key to success is to get out into the store and listen to what the associates have to say. It's terribly important for everyone to get involved. Our best ideas come from clerks and stockboys.
- Sam Walton

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I thought we like to have it both ways. We want to pay low prices for goods but still like to point a finger at those who manufacturer these items and tell them to stop polluting the environment and exploiting their workers. This is partly how we got to be the economic powerhouse we are but when some other country wants to do it we say we don't like it because now realize their pollution is our pollution too.

I don't want to have it both ways, actually! I believe in paying a fair price for a product, considering the true cost of making the product -- paying the laborers a fair, living wage, and not exploiting them or the environment. If this means I consume fewer products, and have to reduce, reuse and recycle, then so be it. If we all as a society had to use and buy less, I think we'd be better off for it -- certainly in the developed world.

And I dislike the Chinese government not regulating pollution more, not because it is bad for MY world, but because it is bad for the Chinese. It's not fair to make them bear the brunt of our desire for lower costs. Is it?

You make it sound like these factories are inflicted on them. In fact, they are the source of China's growth and the rising incomes in it. I think there is a misperception here. Yes, they get paid less than us but they are doing much better than under the old economy. Most of China was living in poverty, and these factory jobs give them a pretty good quality of life. They are sending money back home, buying houses. Wages and working conditions are going up.

http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2010/03/chinese_factory_workers_cash_i.html

Anonymous wrote:
Thank you, Lady Bountiful, for sharing with us the fact that you don't have to shop at Wal-Mart, Safeway, Giant, or even Trade Joe's, because you have the money to endulge your luxurious and refined taste for food, clothing, toys. Pray do let us know where you shop at a farmer's market in winter so that we may all be pea green with envy.

Also -- I'm not Lady Bountiful, but there's no need to be "pea green with envy". Do you live in DC?

The Dupont Circle Farmers Market is open year round, and in the winter months they usually have the root vegetables, squashes, and some of the more wintery greens.

http://www.freshfarmmarket.org/markets/dupont_circle.html

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every single PP who complains about Wal-Mart being so terrible to employees, no insurance, whatever, shops there to get a bargain as well as shopping at Target. Do you really think if Wal-Mart has a particular toy, viedo game for 20% off what others are charging, they are going to pay the higher price. PPs are hypocrites.

Actually, I think a lot of them don't shop there because they can afford not to. Hence the single 50K a year mom reminding us of "real life." She had a good point.

I like to support local farmer's etc., but it is often more expensive for me to do that (shop at my local farmer's market). It's a luxury cause I can afford to support. We don't have a super high income (paltry compared to many on this board given the many "what is your HHI" posts I have read) but we make enough where we don't have to budget every food item, so I can pick up a few things at the farmer's market. If I had a stricter food budget, I wouldn't be able to justify supporting them.

A lot of people simply can't afford to take a stand against Wal-Mart.

Thank you, Lady Bountiful, for sharing with us the fact that you don't have to shop at Wal-Mart, Safeway, Giant, or even Trade Joe's, because you have the money to endulge your luxurious and refined taste for food, clothing, toys. Pray do let us know where you shop at a farmer's market in winter so that we may all be pea green with envy.

Smooth, PP! I like how you take comments agains WALMART and insert in Target, Safeway, Giant, and "Trade Joes".... stores we don't particularly have a beef with. Just WALMART, right now anyhow.

(In fact it was so smooth, I almost wonder if you aren't one of those social media communicators companies hire to steer discussion forums in the right direction... could that be? Just curious!)

The PP you were responding to isn't Lady Bountiful, she's just a woman who isn't desperately poor and feels she has enough cushion in her budget to be able to make decisions not based SOLELY on cheap price.

I'm not going to blame anyone for shopping at WalMart if they have to do it because they are desperately poor. But people who aren't should be more socially responsible with their money. Those of us who aren't so poor can at least afford to support a better store, like COSTCO. At least they have a better reputation for treating workers faiirly.

In fact, I think I'm going to go join my nearest Costco tomorrow!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every single PP who complains about Wal-Mart being so terrible to employees, no insurance, whatever, shops there to get a bargain as well as shopping at Target. Do you really think if Wal-Mart has a particular toy, viedo game for 20% off what others are charging, they are going to pay the higher price. PPs are hypocrites.

Actually, I think a lot of them don't shop there because they can afford not to. Hence the single 50K a year mom reminding us of "real life." She had a good point.

I like to support local farmer's etc., but it is often more expensive for me to do that (shop at my local farmer's market). It's a luxury cause I can afford to support. We don't have a super high income (paltry compared to many on this board given the many "what is your HHI" posts I have read) but we make enough where we don't have to budget every food item, so I can pick up a few things at the farmer's market. If I had a stricter food budget, I wouldn't be able to justify supporting them.

A lot of people simply can't afford to take a stand against Wal-Mart.

Thank you, Lady Bountiful, for sharing with us the fact that you don't have to shop at Wal-Mart, Safeway, Giant, or even Trade Joe's, because you have the money to endulge your luxurious and refined taste for food, clothing, toys. Pray do let us know where you shop at a farmer's market in winter so that we may all be pea green with envy.

Anonymous wrote:
I thought we like to have it both ways. We want to pay low prices for goods but still like to point a finger at those who manufacturer these items and tell them to stop polluting the environment and exploiting their workers. This is partly how we got to be the economic powerhouse we are but when some other country wants to do it we say we don't like it because now realize their pollution is our pollution too.

I don't want to have it both ways, actually! I believe in paying a fair price for a product, considering the true cost of making the product -- paying the laborers a fair, living wage, and not exploiting them or the environment. If this means I consume fewer products, and have to reduce, reuse and recycle, then so be it. If we all as a society had to use and buy less, I think we'd be better off for it -- certainly in the developed world.

And I dislike the Chinese government not regulating pollution more, not because it is bad for MY world, but because it is bad for the Chinese. It's not fair to make them bear the brunt of our desire for lower costs. Is it?

Anonymous wrote:I don't know how much an Etch-a-sketch"should" sell for, or what the deal was with Walmart and Etch a sketch and China.

But I do know that the reason the Chinese can produce things so much more cheaply than we can here in the US is that they pay their workers much less and they don't have to worry about those crazy expensive environmental protection regulations.

They poison THEIR country so we here in the US can have the product much more cheaply.

Works for us, who gives a shit about them and the environment, , right?

Sometimes more than just a profit is at stake.

I thought we like to have it both ways. We want to pay low prices for goods but still like to point a finger at those who manufacturer these items and tell them to stop polluting the environment and exploiting their workers. This is partly how we got to be the economic powerhouse we are but when some other country wants to do it we say we don't like it because now realize their pollution is our pollution too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I haven't ever entered a Walmart because I read a blog post years ago by a woman who found a $9 crockpot for sale (not on sale) there, and subsequently wondered if her purchases there were in some way taking a little bit of humanity from a person (or several people) in the line of folks who made it possible for her to buy such a cheap item.

That something is cheap is not my first, or only, motivator to buy it. Besides, I try to shop locally, and there's not one in DC (that I'm aware of). Like another poster I can't stand hearing my friends who make $100K+ saying they "hate going there, but I save .50cents on toilet paper."

Of course capitalists love Walmart, they are the shareholders. The employees can't afford to be. And, unfortunately they don't understand how cannibalizing their actions are. The midwestern Etch-a-sketch town lost their jobs to the Chinese when Walmart demanded that they put the toy on the shelves for $9.99 (when they should be $24.99 with inflation) and so shop at (and are employed by) Walmart and, as a result, put the Mr. Potato Head town out of business. There you have a cycle.

I already give a significant amount of tax dollars to Walmart without shopping there. Like the first poster said, I support the employees ER visits, WIC visits, school lunches for their children, etc. I didn't know this, on top of everything else, until I watched this documentary: Walmart: The High cost of Low Price http://www.walmartmovie.com/

This is such flawed logic. In the 1870's, a kilogram of flour cost 2.06 oz of silver. In current dollars, that is $32/kg, or $14.60 per pound. The cost of a Bendix washing machine in 1947 was $249.50. In today's dollars that is $2370.

Do you think that you should be paying those prices? Of course not. Any industry learns to produce goods faster and cheaper and better over time. So when you say the price "should" be $24.99 with inflation, you are effectively saying that it is wrong to get better at producing things.

I don't know how much an Etch-a-sketch"should" sell for, or what the deal was with Walmart and Etch a sketch and China.

But I do know that the reason the Chinese can produce things so much more cheaply than we can here in the US is that they pay their workers much less and they don't have to worry about those crazy expensive environmental protection regulations.

They poison THEIR country so we here in the US can have the product much more cheaply.

Works for us, who gives a shit about them and the environment, , right?

Sometimes more than just a profit is at stake.

Anonymous wrote:http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/

dear Lord. I must burn my eyes.

Anonymous wrote:Except that they have medical and dental. And they have a number of other insurance and financial benefits available. I do not know the full tuition benefits, but I know they have at least two scholarship programs for employees. One is based on financial need, and the other on academic merit.

Really, why does everyone keep insisting that Walmart does not have benefits when they plainly do? It's on their benefits page:
http://walmartstores.com/Careers/7750.aspx

Hmmmmm... a few things left out of that nice looking list of benefits - like the 6 month waiting period for FULL TIME employees before they can purchase health insurance, and the 12 month waiting period of part-time employees. Since job turnover at Wal-Mart is high, there are a LOT of employees who never have to be covered.

(I used to work part time for UPS. What a great company. I worked 4 hours a day, and they provided health insurance benefits starting the first week I got paid.)

From Walmart Watch, dated 2009:

http://action.walmartwatch.com/page/-/Fact%20Sheets/2009%20health%20care%20fact%20sheet_040709.pdf


More of the Same: Wal-Mart’s 2009 Health Care Fails To Deliver for Associates

The release of the Susan Chambers memo in the fall of 2005 put Wal-Mart on the defensive regarding Wal-Mart’s benefits strategy. Finally, critics and consumers alike had a firsthand look into the internal decisionmaking process of Wal-Mart’s leadership – and the results were appalling.

Shockingly, Wal-Mart admitted “Wal-Mart’s critics can easily exploit some aspects of our benefits offering to make their case; in other words, our critics are correct in some of their observations. Specifically, our coverage is expensive for low-income families, and Wal-Mart has a significant percentage of associates and their children on public assistance.”1

Despite widespread criticism of the strategy outlined in the memo and Wal-Mart’s denial of plans to implement such a strategy, Wal-Mart has continued to follow Susan Chambers’ advice. Wal-Mart’s 2009 health care offering is part of a tactic to reframe the public’s perception about the company’s health care offering and make changes that appear to make the plans more affordable and accessible. To more fully comprehend the strategy behind Wal-Mart’s newest health care offering, it should be viewed through the lens of the Chambers memo.
Although the plan may be a small step up over its previous efforts, the retailer still has a long way to go.

The Susan Chambers Health Care Equation: More Part Time Workers + High Turnover = Fewer Employees Reaching Health Care Eligibility

Wal-Mart’s refusal to disclose details regarding the premiums employees must pay for the various health care plans does not reveal the true cost to the average employee. In addition, the complexity of Wal-Mart’s offering makes it nearly impossible to discern employee co-pays.


(more at link)