California tries to slam lid on big-boxed Wal-Mart

[Kevin]

California tries to slam lid on big-boxed Wal-Mart
By John Ritter, USA TODAY
BAY POINT, Calif. — Wal-Mart's relentless rollout of new stores has foundered in California like a beached whale. Two years ago, the world's biggest company announced aggressive plans to build 40 of its trademark "supercenters" in this lucrative market of 35 million consumers, the last untapped domestic prize for a global behemoth whose "always low prices" stretch from China to Brazil.

But not a single supercenter has opened in California, and Wal-Mart's (WMT) goal — a new one every two months — looks dubious. Nearly everywhere it turns, the Bentonville, Ark., retailer finds itself embroiled in lawsuits, politics and voter hostility toward its profitable blend of groceries and discount merchandise.

On Tuesday, voters in Inglewood, San Marcos and here in Contra Costa County will decide whether to prohibit "big-box" stores epitomized by Wal-Mart supercenters. Los Angeles, San Diego, Salinas and other cities are mulling similar bans. Lawsuits over Wal-Mart are pending in Alameda County, Bakersfield and Turlock.

Rest of the story here:
http://www.usatoday.com/money/indust...wal-mart_x.htm

[33girl]

Go Cali.

Apparently there's a law/resolution being bandied about that Wal-Mart would have to pay for a study showing that they will have a "positive impact" on the communities they want to come into - if not, they won't be allowed to enter.

I really hope they fall on their asses. Wal-Mart is the devil and it's destroyed my hometown and affected my college town in a really negative way.

[Lady Pi Phi]

Good for them!

CBC radio did a story about how there is a Wal-Mart in every town except for Guelph, Ontario (where I went to school). It's because Guelph doesn't want one there. I'm glad Guelph doesn't have one.

I'll admit that I shiop at Wal-Mart for a some things, but there is no need to have one on every corner.

[Kevin]

Here's what they did where I live (trimmed from same story):

"In 1997-2002, Wal-Mart blanketed Oklahoma City with seven supercenters and seven of its "neighborhood markets" that mimic stand-alone supermarkets. It added a Sam's Club warehouse store to three already in the metro area. Result: 30 competing supermarkets closed, according to Retail Forward."

There are a few good supermarkets left. But Wally-World is a hellhole on the weekends to shop in.

-- or even on weekdays.

[RACooper]

Originally posted by Lady Pi Phi
Good for them!

CBC radio did a story about how there is a Wal-Mart in every town except for Guelph, Ontario (where I went to school). It's because Guelph doesn't want one there. I'm glad Guelph doesn't have one.

I'll admit that I shiop at Wal-Mart for a some things, but there is no need to have one on every corner.

Yeah Wal-Mart is fighting the Jesuits in Guelph... they want to build on the edge of the retreat/cemetary on the north end of town...

I have to agree with 33girl, when the Wal-Mart set-up shop in Midland it destroyed most of the local businesses.... downtown is depressing to look at now. That's it's affect on a small town; and it pretty much does the same to neighbourhoods in bigger urban areas too... all I see on the local main street is dollar/discount stores now.

[Love_Spell_6]

Originally posted by RACooper
Yeah Wal-Mart is fighting the Jesuits in Guelph... they want to build on the edge of the retreat/cemetary on the north end of town...

I have to agree with 33girl, when the Wal-Mart set-up shop in Midland it destroyed most of the local businesses.... downtown is depressing to look at now. That's it's affect on a small town; and it pretty much does the same to neighbourhoods in bigger urban areas too... all I see on the local main street is dollar/discount stores now.

I think this situation is a catch 22. On one hand people definitely want convenience and want to pay the lowest prices, but on the other hand, folks complain about what it does to small businesses (and in some cases complain about outsourcing even when it means lower prices. We can't have it both ways

[Kevin]

Originally posted by Love_Spell_6
I think this situation is a catch 22. On one hand people definitely want convenience and want to pay the lowest prices, but on the other hand, folks complain about what it does to small businesses (and in some cases complain about outsourcing even when it means lower prices. We can't have it both ways

There's data out there that goes both ways on the larger problem which is -- Does Wal-Mart hurt local economies by bringing in lower prices and lower paying jobs or does it help to employ people that would otherwise be out of work and offer good deals to consumers?

Strangely, most of the studies that I've seen that suggest WallyWorld is a good thing for local economies have been conducted either directly by Wal-Mart or the University of Missouri (largely funded by Wal-Mart). Other studies (none of which I can cite or give direct links to) that I've heard of have shown that Wal-Mart basically trades a bunch of people making decent wages -- 30K+ per year for a lot more people that make around 18K per year. It definitely drives the little guys out of business. Like the article said, here in Oklahoma City, Wal Mart has put in 7 supercenters in our metro area as well as numerous "Neighborhood Markets" (just the groceries). Since then (either as a result of this or not) around 30 grocery stores in the area have closed.

Another thing that I'm not so hot on Wal-Mart for is that they have left a lot of abandoned regular-sized Wal-Marts around town when they've relocated to bigger and better things leaving prime real-estate in the town to sit there unused, further depressing the areas they are in.

I'm no big fan of Wal Mart, but where the hell else are you going to go when you need to buy a new DVD player at 2AM?

[Rudey]

Competition is only fair. Do I care that other business go out of business instead of competing? Not one bit. But what I do care about is Wallmart competing unfairly. For example they offer low wages with low benefits and then offer seminars to their employees on how to receive welfare benefits from the government. Essentially tax payers transfer assets to the government and the government transfers part of that capital to Wallmart.

-Rudey

[Kevin]

Originally posted by Rudey
Competition is only fair. Do I care that other business go out of business instead of competing? Not one bit. But what I do care about is Wallmart competing unfairly. For example they offer low wages with low benefits and then offer seminars to their employees on how to receive welfare benefits from the government. Essentially tax payers transfer assets to the government and the government transfers part of that capital to Wallmart.

-Rudey

That's what I'm talking about though. The only reason they can offer prices like that is because their overhead is so low. Their overhead is so low because their employees are not compensated at a rate high enough to even pay basic living expenses. I used to be a firm believer in a policy of a hands-off, laissez-faire attitude when it came to the economy.

More and more though, I'm starting to see where we might need to set a higher minimum wage. Blue collar folks are often finding that their options are basically limited to customer service, retail, etc. These jobs are often the kind that cannot be shipped overseas.

When these folks because of their low wage are becoming dependant on government welfare to make ends meet, I start to have a serious problem with their employers. Especially Wal-Mart, registered as an overseas corporation -- they don't even pay into the system except for maybe sales tax (I was at the Secretary of State's place a few weeks ago trying to find a process serving agent for Sam's when I saw this).

I don't think we should be rewarding people for lacking the drive, ambition, or raw material to not have anything better to do than stock shelves at Wal-Mart. I'm more interested in making sure that I don't have to end up footing the bill for them being bottom feeders.

[valkyrie]

Originally posted by Love_Spell_6
I think this situation is a catch 22. On one hand people definitely want convenience and want to pay the lowest prices, but on the other hand, folks complain about what it does to small businesses (and in some cases complain about outsourcing even when it means lower prices. We can't have it both ways

I agree with what you're saying, and that's why I do not shop at Wal-Mart. Even my broke ass would rather pay a little more for something than go to Wal-Mart. I haven't been to one in years, and now that I think about it, I should really get involved with trying to stop the one that's threatening to come to Denver.

[Kevin]

I should be fair -- I've been pretty critical of Wal-Mart in my posts thus far.

I did note that 30+ grocery stores closed after their massive expansion here in Oklahoma City. The ones that remained are actually pretty nice places that have been able to differentiate themselves from Wal-Mart and traditional groveries somehow.

You have some that have gone high quality, high service, some that have decided that they can actually be bigger and cheaper than Wal-Mart (there are two of those in town that are great to shop at) and then some that have decided on smaller selection, smaller stores and lower prices. It's done a lot to diversify the selection of grocery stores.

I know the article noted how many stores closed during that period, but I'd estimate that around 15-20 new stores opened.

So again, without some kind of unbiased and comprehensive study (or several of them), it's hard to know what the actual impact of a Wal Mart would be.

[33girl]

Originally posted by Rudey
Competition is only fair. Do I care that other business go out of business instead of competing? Not one bit. But what I do care about is Wallmart competing unfairly. For example they offer low wages with low benefits and then offer seminars to their employees on how to receive welfare benefits from the government. Essentially tax payers transfer assets to the government and the government transfers part of that capital to Wallmart.

-Rudey

Thanks Rudey - that's exactly what they mentioned in this news story I saw, that Walmart pays such crap wages that they have to use government benefits, so Walmart is in effect having the public support many of their employees.

[IowaStatePhiPsi]

Sounds like the people of California are a lot more organized than the people of Iowa.
I wish 1000 Friends of Iowa could organize a bit better in the next fight against Wal-Mart, sprawl-development or unwanted malls.

[Rudey]

Originally posted by 33girl
Thanks Rudey - that's exactly what they mentioned in this news story I saw, that Walmart pays such crap wages that they have to use government benefits, so Walmart is in effect having the public support many of their employees.

Well it's not just what they do - it's their intent that's important. Offering advice on how to get aid is intentionally asking for government subsidies to your business. It is exactly the kind of lawsuits they are lobbying so hard against to make sure don't occur.

All in all, it is a good business. It's slightly overvalued and the question is where are they going to find new ways to bring in money. They've already expanded pretty heavily into Mexico and China. In fact I think they are the largest retailers in both those countries.

-Rudey

[texas*princess]

Maybe Michael Moore should do a documentary on how WalMart is affecting local businesses

Seriously though, I used to LOVE WalMart.. and I do go to the WalMart across the street from where I work to buy small stuff, but usually only because it's convienent enough that I don't have to go out of my way to get there to get what I need.

The WalMart in the city I live in however takes forever to get to, and let's just say it's not a great atmosphere.

I'd much rather go across the street to the new Super Kroger.. or whatever they are called, because it is a much nicer, cleaner atmosphere.. even if I end up paying a little more.