[Vision2020] Walmart
joekc at adelphia.net
joekc at adelphia.net
Fri Jan 13 04:44:26 PST 2006
OK, Donovan! Now you've done it. I don't mind you holding whatever views you hold but I do mind you thinking of yourself as the spokesperson for the poor. Have you ever been poor? I mean, trying-to-decide-whether-to-pay-for-heat-or-food poor? I lived below the poverty line from the age of 5 until I went to graduate school. Technically, I might have been below the line even then -- I made about $8000 as a TA -- but since I was making as much money as my mother received in child support payments from my father -- for six kids, no less -- I felt like I was the richest person in the world.
Wal-Mart offers minimum wage, part-time jobs with benefits that you have to purchase out of pocket. It might provide cheap goods for the poor and jobs for the poor -- helping especially to keep them poor -- but that does not translate into "helping the poor." It does not -- in my estimate -- compare to other chains like Safeway, Les Schwab, etc. all of whom will be driven from town once the Super Wal-Mart moves in.
Moreover, your claim that "Not allowing an expanded Wal-mart with more goods and services limits the selection of affordable goods and services available to the poorer members of our community" is questionable for several reasons.
First, we have a Wal-Mart and Pullman is scheduled to have a SWM, so there is no reason to think that the "poor" or anyone else will have a greater opportunity to buy cheap goods if a SWM moves to Moscow than if it doesn't. This point has been made.
Second, I already gave an argument to the effect that the so-called "free market" -- which allows Wal-Mart to produce low-priced goods and services by having products made in countries which not only do not have legitimate labor laws but don't even recognize the concept of a human right -- is more likely to lead to less choice than it is to lead to more choice. What the "free market" -- our supposed free market as opposed to some abstract, idealized model -- gets you is a choice between Wendy's or McDonald's, coke or pepsi. What the Palouse is headed for is a choice between the SWM in Pullman and the SWM in Moscow. That is what I believe and you have given me no reason to think otherwise.
So don't charge the anti-SWM folks with being insensitive to the poor. That is a false, offensive, rhetorical move, not a comment that is likely to encourage debate about the fate of Moscow's future. Instead, respond in a thoughtful manner to the arguments that the anti-SWM folks are giving. If in fact a SWM will make our lives better, help us to see how. Because, even though I attended a 2 1/2 hour meeting where three folks tried to argue for the economic benefits of a SWM, I still don't see it.
Or, if you'd rather, respond to some of my arguments and questions. For instance, the other day I argued that the so-called "free Market" is more likely to limit choice than it is to increase it. What is wrong with that argument?
If you don't like that question, answer another. Take your pick. Why is it that conservatives feel they have a right to invade countries which commit human rights violations yet see nothing wrong with trading with countries that are as bad or worse on this score? How is it that conservatives can argue that we should lower taxes since governments are much worse at handling our money than we are yet, in the same breathe, argue that the increased tax revenues that BOISE will receive were SWM to move into town are somehow a benefit to Moscow?
I know you're not a conservative but I thought you might know the answer to these questions because I really do want to know.
Best, Joe
---- Donovan Arnold <donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Keely,
>
> That you for your response. I am aware that people that oppose Wal-Mart do so not because of evil malcontent for the poor. They oppose it because they believe what they are doing is right. I am simply pointing out that their actions, or intended actions, to prevent an expanded Wal-Mart will harm the poor and middle classes of the community, the opposite of their intentions.
>
> Not allowing a new grocery store into the area keeps grocery prices high. Not allowing an expanded Wal-mart with more goods and services limits the selection of affordable goods and services available to the poorer members of our community.
>
> That is all good that you do not like big retail stores, you do not have to shop there. But what right do you have to block the building of one when it is not your land, your property, or money that is being used or exchanged? Do I get to limit the size of your house because it too big for me? Why should you limit the size of the store where I shop?
>
> Further, I do not agree with people's other assumptions about the Wal-Mart. It does not sell everything. It does not pay lower wages then its competitors. Wal-mart starts at $7 an hour, more than UI student jobs of $6 an hour, and that of the same as Safeway, Winco, and ShopKo of $7 an hour. That is the wage you get in Moscow. Minimum is $5.15 and Wal-Mart is fighting to raise the minimum wage. If people oppose a $7 starting wage, should they not oppose it everywhere, not just at Wally's World? Wal-Mart's health insurance is the same cost and benefits as UI health insurance, and better than my job. And the $70 a month wage it pays its employees overseas is higher than the wage a teacher or police office makes.
>
> The misinformation and slanted information presented about Wal-Mart is being funded by giant union organizations that are losing out to Wal-Mart because they over pay their workers causing food, clothing, and other products to be unaffordable for average Americans, so people buy foreign made goods.
>
> If a Moscow business cannot handle competition with Wal_Mart's cheap goods and lousy service, do we really want them in Moscow anyway? And how long before those businesses trying to compete with Wal-mart head on fold to ShopKo, Target, or the Internet anyway?
>
> Trying to protect the 19th century store model in the 21st century is like trying to protect the blacksmith's horse shoeing business by outlawing a Les Schwab. The blacksmith needs to learn to sell tires either cheaper, a different tire, or put them on better. But doing what he has been doing and relying on the community to outlaw his competition and modern equivalent is only going to help him for so long.
>
> Take Care,
>
> Donovan J Arnold
>
>
>
> keely emerinemix <kjajmix1 at msn.com> wrote: Donovan, no one is talking about closing the Wal-Mart that you already
> enjoy. It's here. Buy your stuff and be happy. The issue is a new Super
> Wal-Mart, one of a potential triumverate of Bentonville Beasts on the
> Palouse. That some of us argue that it's too much, and that some of us
> choose not to shop there, is not unreasonable, malicious, stupid or even
> physics-defying. I have a heartfelt concern for the economically
> disadvantaged, and you do as well. We demonstrate it in different ways, but
> I would no more accuse you of hating the poor because you welcome an entity
> that I think does them harm than I would accuse you of being a puppy-kicking
> Commie. Those of us who oppose a Supercenter aren't trying to close the
> Wal-Mart that's here, nor are we trying to force you to shop only at places
> we deem acceptable. We just think that Wal-Mart is not representative of
> the best social, economic, and community justice practices possible, and I
> wish it weren't so difficult for you to accept that people who disgree with
> you aren't inherently malicious.
>
> For the record, you're not a puppy-kicking Commie and neither am I. Fair
> enough?
>
> keely
>
>
>
>
> From: Donovan Arnold
> To: Bruce and Jean Livingston ,
> vision2020 at moscow.com, Jeff Harkins
> CC: jweber at ci.moscow.id.us, blambert at ci.moscow.id.us,
> nchaney at ci.moscow.id.us, john dickinson ,
> linda pall , bstout at ci.moscow.id.us
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Walmart
> Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 19:02:34 -0800 (PST)
>
> I for one am confused by Bruce's letter because it seems to defy
> physics, basic economics, not to mention fairness to the poor and average
> Moscow residents.
>
> For example,
>
> "We should do so by requiring Wal-Mart (or any such large retailer that
> wishes to come here) to cover all of its "external" costs, those costs that
> are more typically dumped on the community Wal-Mart "serves," such as the
> increased demands on police protection, water consumption, traffic and
> related infrastructure changes, sewer expenses, uninsured medical expenses
> (that will be borne by Gritman), lighting poluution, etc."
>
> First, isn't external costs why businesses pay property taxes? How do we
> assess this supposed traffic increase caused by a Wal-Mart? It would seem
> to me that two Wal-Marts (one being out of Moscow) instead of one would
> reduce traffic in Moscow because those in Pullman and the surrounding area
> would not come to town. But if it is "pulling traffic" to one side of town,
> is it not at the same time reducing traffic some place else? Or is there
> magically more cars? One stop shopping would also seem to reduce traffic.
> Should it not be equally rewarded for reducing traffic problems elsewhere
> and pollution?
>
> If Wal-Mart, or any other business, is responsible for who is put on
> Medicaid and Medicare, should it not also be rewarded for getting people
> off the programs or preventing them from going on?
>
> Another comment that baffles me is:
>
> "the community may be bearing other costs that are not factored into the
> simple buy-sell relationship with the consumers that you describe."
>
> Why would this statement not be true for any business?
>
> "Another angle that I have not seen discussed is on another of your
> favorite issues: consumer choice. I fear that a Super Wal-Mart will reduce
> that choice, not only by the gloom and doom tales of a shuttered Main
> Street, but by the simpler difference that Wal-Mart's preemptive, predatory
> opening of a Supercenter is seemingly designed to keep out other
> retailers."
>
> Why should poor Moscow residents be forced to pay for the same goods and
> services at a higher rate to secure a lower rate for increased choices of
> the wealthier residents? If wealthier residents what to pay high prices for
> greater selection, let them. But it is unfair to attempt to force poorer
> residents to pay for the personal preferences of the wealthier residents.
>
> "Among those benefits imposed on/extracted from any such new retailer
> ought to be: a living wage,"
>
> Enforcing higher minimum wages will result in inflation, hurting banks,
> social security recipients, and those living on fixed income or retired;
> societies most vulnerable. The better tactic, is to keep the cost of living
> and inflation low in Moscow for the basics of life, such as housing,
> groceries, medicine, clothing, and basic goods. The best way to accomplish
> this is through free competition in a capitalistic market, and reduced or
> no taxes on housing, groceries, medicine, clothing, and basic needed goods.
>
> It might be true that Wal-Mart is able to offer lower prices and access
> to goods and services to the poor and financially limited by passing costs
> on the taxpayer. But I say so what? Why shouldn't those that make 80K a
> year be paying a little more so a waitress can afford a DVD player to watch
> a Disney movie with her son? Or a poor woman able to buy a microwave to
> heat her tea at night? I say it is high time that those that make a great
> deal of money subsidize the lifestyle of the poorer and middle class rather
> than the other way around for a change.
>
> Bruce has his preferences for shopping. I have mine. My neighbor has
> hers. But what gives anybody else the right to force their shopping
> preferences on others? I do not like seafood, what gives me the right
> to prevent others from buying and enjoying it, or the right to prevent two
> law abiding citizens from engaging in a mutual transaction of property?
> Does the 14th amendment have no meaning inside the Moscow city limits?
>
> Take Care,
>
> Donovan J Arnold
>
>
> "Jeff,
>
> I agree with what you say about the simplicity of your cash register
> model -- consumers must want it because they are spending money there --
> but I think you are leaving something out.
>
> Sure, consumers may support Wal-Mart with their dollars, but the
> community may be bearing other costs that are not factored into the simple
> buy-sell relationship with the consumers that you describe. Local
> taxpayers have a different relationship with Wal-Mart, as does our local
> non-profit hospital and the citizens who have to navigate through the
> increased traffic generated by a Supercenter. The affected economic and
> other relationships of all community members, not just the shoppers, ought
> to be equally significant to our decision on whether and on what terms to
> recruit Wal-Mart.
>
> We ought to protect those other relationships through a Big Box
> ordinance. We should do so by requiring Wal-Mart (or any such large
> retailer that wishes to come here) to cover all of its "external" costs,
> those costs that are more typically dumped on the community Wal-Mart
> "serves," such as the increased demands on police protection, water
> consumption, traffic and related infrastructure changes, sewer expenses,
> uninsured medical expenses (that will be borne by Gritman), lighting
> poluution, etc.
>
> Nor are all retailers equal. The costs to the community of having a
> particular retailer are not the same.
>
> In Butch Alford's talk to the LEDC today, he answered a Walter Steed
> question, something about "Valley Vision" (Lewiston-Clarkson's equivalent
> to the LEDC) and its experience with (and the desirability/value of) big
> box retail to the community, by noting that all retailers are not the same
> and that Costco pays very well -- real living wages -- and is an extremely
> generous member of the Valley community. I believe he was pointedly
> distinguishing between Wal-Mart and Costco, in that instance, as two
> entirely different quality citizens. The "citizenship" factors of our
> corporate big box retailers are not measured merely by the transactions at
> the cash register. The various other factors that result from their entry
> in our community should all be part of the package of issues that our
> community considers and pursues, by requiring more from any big box
> retailer that seeks to open a new store in town than that they simply pay
> their property taxes.
>
> Now, I do not support drafting a law peculiar to Wal-Mart, even
> though I find its practices, as I understand them, offensive. But it seems
> to me that we as a community ought to write our laws in a way that we get
> retailers who are willing to meet our reasonable but high standards.
> Frankly, given the seeming desirability of our community, we ought to be
> able to extract some real benefit to the community in return for the right
> to locate here and saddle us with traffic congestion, etc. Among those
> benefits imposed on/extracted from any such new retailer ought to be: a
> living wage, for example; and substantially more green space in the 1000
> space parking lot to avoid polluting Paradise Creek while also enabling
> better water recharge of the limited aquifer; as well as architectural and
> lighting design standards; guarantees not to leave buildings vacant; etc.
> etc.
>
> Another angle that I have not seen discussed is on another of your
> favorite issues: consumer choice. I fear that a Super Wal-Mart will reduce
> that choice, not only by the gloom and doom tales of a shuttered Main
> Street, but by the simpler difference that Wal-Mart's preemptive, predatory
> opening of a Supercenter is seemingly designed to keep out other retailers.
>
> Isn't consumer choice enabled by doing our best to "hire", ok,
> attract, better citizen, retailing neighbors than Wal-Mart, an admittedly
> "naughty," law-violating, discriminatory corporate behemoth? We have a
> Wal-Mart. Isn't consumer choice greater if we retain the Wal-Mart we have
> and encourage a different choice to locate here? And if that new store,
> while offering a different product line, is a better citizen of the
> community and foists fewer external costs on the community, are we not
> better off? We have a relatively small population, and why wouldn't we
> want to encourage someone else in the retail industry who (unlike Wal-Mart,
> if the literature is true) is willing to pay living wages, if we choose to
> make that part of the ground rules to play here, for example?
>
> Everyone seems to assume that we will lose our Wal-Mart to Pullman,
> which I think is absurd. We already HAVE a Wal-Mart, which is a point
> that Steve Cooke left out of his presentation the other night at the MCA
> forum on the economic benefits of Wal-Mart. Apparently, the powers that be
> in Benton Arkansas are making so much money on their 90,000 sq. ft. store
> in Moscow, Idaho that they feel the upgrade to a 228,000 sq. ft. store here
> is a wise decision in their economic interest. I have to believe that if
> they decide not to meet our requirements under a Big Box ordinance, and
> therefore choose not to expand, that they will still retain their
> "grandfathered" and profitable current store, rather than abdicate the
> market.
>
> I encourage us all to think how best we might write a Big Box
> ordinance that will deal with the costs of these new stores which seemingly
> wish to locate here.
>
> And until we have a big box ordinance "with teeth" in place, unlike
> the emergency ordinance under which Wal-Mart seeks to play, I suggest to
> our City Council that you deny the necessary re-zone at this time, because
> it is not in our long term interest to allow such a significant new
> addition to our community under a vague, rushed, and temporary, "emergency
> big box ordinance" that Wal-Mart with its huge economic power can litigate
> to death until we cave to the expense of litigation and let it have its
> way. I think the existence of an unsatisfactory regulatory mechanism for
> the desired use, along with avoidance of litigation of an ambiguous
> emergency ordinance is reason enough to deny the re-zone.
>
> And frankly, I don't understand why we would cut-off from expansion
> our Alturas technology park. Alturas was built at our expense for the
> attraction of living wage jobs. Why should we limit its potential
> expansion and simultaneously hand that infrastructure to a new Big Box,
> especially one that is a less than stellar corporate citizen, when the
> obvious place for Big Box zoning in our community is along Hwy 95, to the
> south of town near JJ's?
>
> Bruce Livingston
>
>
>
> Bruce and Jean Livingston wrote:
> Jeff,
>
> I agree with what you say about the simplicity of your cash register
> model -- consumers must want it because they are spending money there --
> but I think you are leaving something out.
>
> Sure, consumers may support Wal-Mart with their dollars, but the
> community may be bearing other costs that are not factored into the simple
> buy-sell relationship with the consumers that you describe. Local
> taxpayers have a different relationship with Wal-Mart, as does our local
> non-profit hospital and the citizens who have to navigate through the
> increased traffic generated by a Supercenter. The affected economic and
> other relationships of all community members, not just the shoppers, ought
> to be equally significant to our decision on whether and on what terms to
> recruit Wal-Mart.
>
> We ought to protect those other relationships through a Big Box
> ordinance. We should do so by requiring Wal-Mart (or any such large
> retailer that wishes to come here) to cover all of its "external" costs,
> those costs that are more typically dumped on the community Wal-Mart
> "serves," such as the increased demands on police protection, water
> consumption, traffic and related infrastructure changes, sewer expenses,
> uninsured medical expenses (that will be borne by Gritman), lighting
> poluution, etc.
>
> Nor are all retailers equal. The costs to the community of having a
> particular retailer are not the same.
>
> In Butch Alford's talk to the LEDC today, he answered a Walter Steed
> question, something about "Valley Vision" (Lewiston-Clarkson's equivalent
> to the LEDC) and its experience with (and the desirability/value of) big
> box retail to the community, by noting that all retailers are not the same
> and that Costco pays very well -- real living wages -- and is an extremely
> generous member of the Valley community. I believe he was pointedly
> distinguishing between Wal-Mart and Costco, in that instance, as two
> entirely different quality citizens. The "citizenship" factors of our
> corporate big box retailers are not measured merely by the transactions at
> the cash register. The various other factors that result from their entry
> in our community should all be part of the package of issues that our
> community considers and pursues, by requiring more from any big box
> retailer that seeks to open a new store in town than that they simply pay
> their property taxes.
>
> Now, I do not support drafting a law peculiar to Wal-Mart, even though
> I find its practices, as I understand them, offensive. But it seems to me
> that we as a community ought to write our laws in a way that we get
> retailers who are willing to meet our reasonable but high standards.
> Frankly, given the seeming desirability of our community, we ought to be
> able to extract some real benefit to the community in return for the right
> to locate here and saddle us with traffic congestion, etc. Among those
> benefits imposed on/extracted from any such new retailer ought to be: a
> living wage, for example; and substantially more green space in the 1000
> space parking lot to avoid polluting Paradise Creek while also enabling
> better water recharge of the limited aquifer; as well as architectural and
> lighting design standards; guarantees not to leave buildings vacant; etc.
> etc.
>
> Another angle that I have not seen discussed is on another of your
> favorite issues: consumer choice. I fear that a Super Wal-Mart will reduce
> that choice, not only by the gloom and doom tales of a shuttered Main
> Street, but by the simpler difference that Wal-Mart's preemptive, predatory
> opening of a Supercenter is seemingly designed to keep out other retailers.
>
> Isn't consumer choice enabled by doing our best to "hire", ok, attract,
> better citizen, retailing neighbors than Wal-Mart, an admittedly "naughty,"
> law-violating, discriminatory corporate behemoth? We have a Wal-Mart.
> Isn't consumer choice greater if we retain the Wal-Mart we have and
> encourage a different choice to locate here? And if that new store, while
> offering a different product line, is a better citizen of the community and
> foists fewer external costs on the community, are we not better off? We
> have a relatively small population, and why wouldn't we want to encourage
> someone else in the retail industry who (unlike Wal-Mart, if the literature
> is true) is willing to pay living wages, if we choose to make that part of
> the ground rules to play here, for example?
>
> Everyone seems to assume that we will lose our Wal-Mart to Pullman,
> which I think is absurd. We already HAVE a Wal-Mart, which is a point
> that Steve Cooke left out of his presentation the other night at the MCA
> forum on the economic benefits of Wal-Mart. Apparently, the powers that be
> in Benton Arkansas are making so much money on their 90,000 sq. ft. store
> in Moscow, Idaho that they feel the upgrade to a 228,000 sq. ft. store here
> is a wise decision in their economic interest. I have to believe that if
> they decide not to meet our requirements under a Big Box ordinance, and
> therefore choose not to expand, that they will still retain their
> "grandfathered" and profitable current store, rather than abdicate the
> market.
>
> I encourage us all to think how best we might write a Big Box ordinance
> that will deal with the costs of these new stores which seemingly wish to
> locate here.
>
> And until we have a big box ordinance "with teeth" in place, unlike the
> emergency ordinance under which Wal-Mart seeks to play, I suggest to our
> City Council that you deny the necessary re-zone at this time, because it
> is not in our long term interest to allow such a significant new addition
> to our community under a vague, rushed, and temporary, "emergency big box
> ordinance" that Wal-Mart with its huge economic power can litigate to death
> until we cave to the expense of litigation and let it have its way. I
> think the existence of an unsatisfactory regulatory mechanism for the
> desired use, along with avoidance of litigation of an ambiguous emergency
> ordinance is reason enough to deny the re-zone.
>
> And frankly, I don't understand why we would cut-off from expansion our
> Alturas technology park. Alturas was built at our expense for the
> attraction of living wage jobs. Why should we limit its potential
> expansion and simultaneously hand that infrastructure to a new Big Box,
> especially one that is a less than stellar corporate citizen, when the
> obvious place for Big Box zoning in our community is along Hwy 95, to the
> south of town near JJ's?
>
> Bruce Livingston
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jeff Harkins
> To: Shelly ; vision2020 at moscow.com
> Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 3:53 PM
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Walmart
>
>
> Phil, you have a very interesting view of the economics of
> retailing/merchandising.
>
> In a free-enterprise, free market economy, businesses survive or die by
> counting the votes (spell that dollars!) of their customers. The model is
> simple - if you don't like a store don't shop there. If enough customers
> shop at a store, it will do well - but you still don't have to go there.
> Obviously a lot of people shop at the Moscow Walmart - the store is quite
> successful, customers have voted with their dollars and Moscow seems to
> have survived the current Walmart Store. I have lived here almost 30 years
> now and the shopping in Moscow has never provided as much choice or
> diversity. Where is the devastation in this picture?
>
>
> === message truncated ===
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Photos – Showcase holiday pictures in hardcover
> Photo Books. You design it and we’ll bind it!
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list