Walmart pioneered many concepts which applied to other companies, even non-retail companies could make America a much better nation.
The problems arise when old man Walton lost control of the company shortly before his death. David Glass has been a one man destruction machine.
Here are some examples. Walton when he ran Walmart prided himself on providing American products. Today you'd be lucky to find a single item made in the US on Walmart shelves.
Walmart was origionally targeted at rural areas to provide the kind of shopping that was until then only availible in urban areas. Walmart suceeded in this. It brought good prices and wide variety to under served areas. This was often at the cost of the mom and pop stores in the area, though many have adapted to serve special niches rather than try to compete with Walmart as a mass retailer.
What has happened since is that Walmart has become an 800 lb gorilla. It is forcing major chains out of business. It is killing variety. If you do not get stocked in Walmart you almost cannot stay in biz today. Walmart knows that and places sometimes unreasonable demands on manufacturers. This has led to basically the extinction of products not made by the 3 big Corporate conglomorates. It has also forced many jobs overseas. What you can buy is becoming more and more limited and your options to buy something else disapeering as Walmart wipes out competition. What if for example Walmart says it won't stock your favorite brand of deoderant? Well you change brands because that brand Walmart blacklisted is gone.
I did an IT contract at Walmart in the mid 90s during the transistion period from Sam Walton to David Glass. There are many wealthy Walmart employees who've done low level jobs for Walmart for many years. Sam Walton rewarded his employees and the fanatical loyalty to the company was a culture shock to me. I've never seen more devoted employees. The reason was Walmart took care of it's people. Newer employees were bitter because they missed out. Glass stopped all those programs. Walmart soon became known as a sweat shop.
Walmart is a danger to the US economy from several respects right now. The first is how many jobs it's forcing overseas. The second is that so much American wealth is now tied up in Walmart. If Walmart were to move to another country it'd have a significant effect on the US economy. Anybody with that kind of power to do damage will eventually use that as leverage to gain favorable concessions from the host nation. So the lack of competition is a blackmail gun pointed at our heads that WILL be used sooner or later. The loss of manufacturering and IT jobs has reduced many to working for retailers. Walmart being the primary retailer. So instead of past part time grannies, housewives out ot make a suppliment income more and more Walmart employees are people who need that job to make a living. Walmart like other retailers is going to pay the least possible to it's employees. People are an expense to a company like Walmart. One reason they have been pioneers in automating the retail biz. Much of their shipping is already automated. The self checkout lanes are another example. The second an economical autostocking system comes out it will be in use. In short Walmarts of 10 years from now are likely to be run completely by a handful of people. With the current trends Walmart will be about %75 of our retail jobs. In short there will not be many retail jobs 10 years from now for Americans. With grocery and dept stores gone there will be only Walmart.
2007-01-15 01:15:15
·
answer #1
·
answered by draciron 7
·
3⤊
1⤋
Good question! Wal Mart has monopolized the retail market considerably, and I realize many retailers cannot stay in busy or make a profit as long a the Wal Marts exist. As far as I'm concerned, every Sunday, one stop does it all! I always get my groceries there, pet supplies, and over the counter medication, and I like some of their clothes as well. If there is something I need that they don't have, or something special I am looking for, the Internet helps a great deal, and sometimes even the mall. I would say everything in life has its good points and bad points. I just feel that the Wal Mart employees should be treated fairly in benefits and pay as well.
2007-01-15 05:04:08
·
answer #2
·
answered by autumn wolf 4
·
2⤊
0⤋
Wal-Mart has hurt more than helped. They are an example of a "generic America". All communities look the same now - from California to Washington DC. Sure, I like the convenienceand the pricing, but Wal-Mart is a big bully. They force workers to work for a substandard wage, bad hours, poor benefits and to accept part-time positions so that they don't have to provide insurance. They bully manufacturers into lower prices so that THEY can make a profit by selling for less to the consumer. There is the obvious bullying of small and family-run businesses out of an area by Wal-Mart, which I think hurts people the most. There is no real feeling of being somewhere new because Wal-Mart is an example of large stores and restaurants that are now in every single community in the country - making us all look the same. There are no more regional differences throughout the country and I think that's really sad. Remember in the 70's when you could go to another town and it would be completely different - not anymore.
2007-01-15 04:30:09
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
I think this is a great question by the way, I see Walmart as a very malevolent force in retail domestically and globally. The goods and services that Walmart sells are subpar and they bully retailers into lowering their prices. When these retail prices are lowered, the manufacturers have to lower quality to meet expectations and the overall product suffers. The customers think they are getting great goods and servicese at a lower cost soon find out that the quality has been compromised but the cost is so low they keep going back. Walmart also has a track record of forcing its employees to pay for their own health-care and that's a joke because most employees don't make squat. Walmart has oodles of lawsuits ranging from the social to the financial, and personally I'm surprised they don't change their policies.
2007-01-15 00:51:55
·
answer #4
·
answered by jim 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
I think so. They introduced a lot of general business practices that have been followed by other corporations. They basically look out too much for their shareholders and not enough for their employees. I like Costco's business practices which in the past have been criticized because they treat their workers "too well". They give them a decent wage for today's standards... It's no wonder their employees are more enthusiastic about giving good service as opposed to the less than great "greeting" and service you get at Wal-Mart and Sam's Club.
2007-01-15 01:26:59
·
answer #5
·
answered by Pizicato 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
Wal-Mart has helped more people "stuck" in a cycle of poverty than has ALL of the assistance programs run by state and federal governments combined in the history of the United States.
So I'd say that they helped. Personally, I HATE shopping a Wal-Mart...but it's still easier and cheaper than dealing with any government agency.
2007-01-15 00:50:55
·
answer #6
·
answered by 4999_Basque 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
The best way for local shop owners to beat Walmart is to form a cooperative and consolidate their buying power, drive down their costs for product and employees, increase their revenue and create a more cultural atmosphere by utilizing old shopping malls. In the future I totally expect the SuperCenter to put up dividing walls and expand their floor space like a small indoor mall to provide a better cultural experience. That is how walmart has built its success by becoming the cultural standard for shopping Everything will adapt change or die
2016-05-24 05:11:15
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Wal-Mart empitomizes capitalist ideals.Buying and consuming more for less.
The problem with this concept is that in order to offer a product or range of products, at a lower price and in greater quantity, you have to lower the cost of production.
There are ways to lower cost of production. A company can employ less people to do a job that is too big for them, this way the product is still going out the door but cost to the manufacturer in wages is less - therefore he loses less and makes his money. These are commonly called 'sweat-shops'.
Another way of reducing production cost is to use inferior materials to produce the goods. Inferior material used in production creates an inferior product all around. So you might by buying a pair of mass produced dress shoes at Wal-Mart, compared to the hand-crafted Italian leather shoes at the local shoemakers - but you will replace the pair you bought at Wal-Mart 20 times before you replace the handmade quality leather shoes. So have you saved money in the end shopping at Wal-Mart?
These are just two examples of how companies like Wal-Mart have hurt 'global society'. Human greed determines that if you can by 10 pairs of cheap mass-produced shoes for the price of one really good pair, you've struck a bargain. The problem exists in the fact that in order to produce those cheap shoes, certain standards were lost along the way, whether it be the working conditions of the people who are running the machines in a foreign country, or whether you are putting your local shoemaker out of business, even though his product is superior to the Wal-Mart product.
Quality of product and quality of life have both been lost in greedy, consumerism of markets like Wal-Mart.
2007-01-15 01:24:14
·
answer #8
·
answered by quay_grl 5
·
1⤊
2⤋
Arguments can be made for both sides.
HELP: Lower prices so lower income people can afford the things they want and need; more jobs because WM employs many people; convenience, many things all in one place
HURT: Tends to put smaller businesses out of business; reduces competition (but those unemployed Mom & Pop workers can go work for WM, get bennies, and the merchandise is cheaper, so that's a "help")
2007-01-15 00:51:47
·
answer #9
·
answered by . 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
Wal-Mart-- a huge corporation secretly monopolizing the market.
2007-01-15 00:56:12
·
answer #10
·
answered by smeezleme 5
·
2⤊
0⤋