[Vision2020] Walmart

Donovan Arnold donovanjarnold2005 at yahoo.com
Fri Jan 13 09:17:28 PST 2006


    Joe,
           I enjoy having this discussion with you. However, I think it  is important we get on the same page and past the rhetoric. I wish to clarify  that I am not claming to be an elected leader or representative of the poor.  The reason that I can speak as to the effects of Wal-Mart on the poor is  because I am experiencing it. Second, if you made $8,000 as a TA you made more  than me. I made $6000 in 2001. But most importantly, you obviously missed my  first statement when I said, “I am aware that people that oppose Wal-Mart do so  not because of evil malcontent for the poor.”
           
  But this conversation is not about WHO is the most poor for  the longest period of time. This is about the factual impact of not having a Super  WM in Moscow.
           So first, before I answer your questions, I wish lay a few  facts on the table:
          You do not seem to understand the reality that WM has an exponential  benefit for the poor. So I will explain in simple mathematical terms.
           A three person family in Moscow netting $20K a year would have expenses  broken down like so:
          40% or $8000 on housing expenses
      50% or $16000 on groceries, clothing, and other items sold  by Wal-Mart
      10% or $2000 on all other expenses
       
      Assuming the traditional 15% saved on Wal-Mart goods (50% x 15%  = 7.5%). That would be a 7.5% increase in income for those making $20K a year. 
           Now assume a three person family netting $60,000 a year  broken down:
           
  33% or $20,000 on housing expenses
      30% or $18,000 on groceries, clothing, and other goods sold  at WM
      37% or $22200 on all other expenses
           Assuming the traditional 15% saved on WM goods (30% x 15%= 4.5%)
           Those making 60K a year or more who shop at Wal-Mart would  only save at most 4.5% of their total income. While those making 20K or less  save at least 7.5% of their income. 
           For those netting less than 20K, 7.5% or $1500 is a  significant sum. While 4.5% or less of someone’s income making 60K is more negligible.
           
  When we add in the 5% sales tax that is not paid on  groceries at a Pullman store, you can see an even greater incentive for the  poor to do their shopping over there, or at the very least, a reason for  Pullman students and residents never to come over here to Moscow. 
           
  You are asking the poorest members of our community to toss 7.5%-10%  of their limited income on the streets of Moscow  to their financial detriment and to the benefit of providing a subsidy to  stores that you prefer but cannot survive without government support over their  competitors. I am willing to bet, that the prevention of a Super WM being build  in Moscow will serve Pullman merchants more  greatly than Moscow  merchants. 
       
      Moving on to answer your false premised points:
       
      “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”
       
      Joe, are you aware that the goods made in China and shipped  to the Co-Op, Target ShopKo, Kmart, Sears, and all other stores in Moscow is  the SAME China that ships to Wal-Mart?  They  are the same factories, same working conditions, and same workers. And $70 a  month is not a livable wage in the US, but is more than what a teacher  or police officer makes in the country. WM offers cheaper prices because of HIGH  VOLUME and a more efficient system of distribution; not because it is the only  company to buy goods from China.  Wal-Mart sells all items cheaper, even the goods made here in the US. 
       
      What is unfortunate is that you do not bother to do research  on your own to validate claims made by unions, which make money off the absence  of WM. As a result you make FALSE, and biased statements such as:
       
      “Wal-Mart offers minimum wage, part-time jobs with benefits  that you have to purchase out of pocket.”
       
      Wal-Mart pays 40% more than minimum wage, starting, and an  average of 100% over minimum wage. Second, only half the jobs are part-time  because that is what the employee wants, college students cannot work 50 hours  a week while going to school. And many parents wish to spend some time with  their children. Retired persons are often unable or unwilling to handle a full  40 hours. People on disability or SSI will lose their benefits if they work  full-time. This group of people is the group that constitutes 50% of Wal-Mart  employees. I have worked since I was ten years old, and every job I have had  with the exception of one where I was a manger did I not have to pay extra for  medical. Many jobs now do not even offer medical or are reducing medical benefits  like vision and dental. 
       
      “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.’”
       
      Joe, how does Wal-Mart keep people poor? Are Wal-Mart  employees not able to leave the store and get another higher paying job  elsewhere at any time? According to you, any other job would be higher paying,  right? Why do they not apply at Jack in the Box or A&W? Are they being  chained down? Is WM holding their puppy hostage in the basement if they do not clock  in at the lower paying job the next day? There has got to be a logical reason  why Wal-Mart has employees if they are paying lower than everyone else, right?
       
      “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?”
       
      The problem is Joe, you are asking me to pay for your  preferences by paying a higher rate for mine. If it costs $6 to make a green  cup and $1 to make a blue cup, we can make the cost of all cups $3.5. The  problem is that people with less than $3.5 to spend on a cup do not get to  drink while the wealthier preference for the green cup gets subsidized by  everyone else. I say charge $1 for the blue cup and $6 for the green so more  people get to drink. If enough people have $6 to spend on a green cup and they  want to spend it on the green cup, then green cups will be made, if not, they  go the way of the Dodo bird. This same concept applies to everything. I do want  to pay $25 for toaster instead of $15 because you want the option of a shiny  one with four bread slots instead of a white one with two bread slots. I want toast,  which is the most important factor to me. 
       
      “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?”
       
      Conservatives point out increased tax revenue for two  reasons. Usually anything that taxes gains the support of many “tax and spend  liberals”, or at least reduces opposition. Second, the more sources for taxes a  community has, decreases the individual tax burden. 
       
      “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?”
       
      I do not think the US has ever invaded a country  because it violated human rights. There is usually another reason for the  invasion. The US trades with  countries like China  because it is in its best economic interest to do. Cutting off trade with China would eliminate millions of US jobs, cause  uncontrollable inflation, a depression, and bankrupt many US banks. But that  is just my suspicion of why they continue trade, it might be because they agree  with Chinese labor practices. :D
       
      Take Care,
       
      -DJA
       
    

joekc at adelphia.net wrote: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  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  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 

=== message truncated ===


		
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Photos – Showcase holiday pictures in hardcover
 Photo Books. You design it and we’ll bind it!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060113/2acc3149/attachment-0001.htm


More information about the Vision2020 mailing list