Re: Ah Larry!

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Totalswimm) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> Walmart goes to great lengths and stretches -- or breaks -- the law to
> avoid paying its employees a living wage. The result? While the Walton family
> grows ever wealthier, US taxpayers bear the true cost of their greed by having
> to supplement the wages of Walmart employees with various forms of public
> subsidies -- food stamps, health care, etc.
> And you can see how those effects are spread by their appetite for boundless
> expansion. The grocery workers strike in California reflects the fact that
> Walmart's entry into that market marks the end of the possibility for those who
> work in supermarkets to enjoy a lower-middle-class lifestyle. Albertson's,
> Ralph's etc feel they need to push their employees into the "working poor"
> category as well, in order to remain "competitive."
> And when those workers are forced to rely on various forms of social welfare,
> who will bear the cost? Not the Walton family. (Except indirectly through taxes
> that the current administration is committed to minimizing.)
> Thus my antipathy to Walmart.


First, to imply that WalMart got to be a dominant as they are simply
by underpaying people is a gross oversimplification. There are several
methods for 'winning' in business - one of them is to be more
productive than your competitors (think of this as 'technique' - same
analogy applies in swimming, doesn't it?). No company on earth is more
productive in the retail sector than WalMart. They've invested
billions of dollars to get product to customers for less cost than
anybody else. Only a small part of this expense involves people.
There's far more money to be saved in reducing supply-chain costs -
which they do like no other. Therefore, blaming them for being more
productive than their competitors is like blamming Ian Thorpe for
breaking world records because he's more efficient in the water......

More importantly - there are other ways to compete with the WalMart's
of the world than simply on selling at a lower price. How about
offering better customer service? How about finding better, more
convenient locations? How about doing a better job of training
employees? How about selling unique products? There are an infinite
number of ways to compete - and win - against these guys....but
Albertson's and Ralph's management apparently have decided not to do
so. Shame on them.... BTW - I'll bet Albertson's and Ralph's
management team haven't given themselves a pay cut....easy to find
out....go to SEC.GOV...if so, I'd boycott those bastards...or at least
send letters to their Board of Directors demanding they hire a new
management team.

Being smart,working hard, and performing better than your competition
shouldn't be crime in business anymore than it should be a crime in
the pool.

BTW, if you are interested, here's a 1999 study titled "Distinctive
Competencies and Competitive Advantage: A Study of Small Independent
Retailers". It articulates much the same wrt to how small retailers
can win against the giants. 
http://www.usasbe.org/knowledge/proceedings/1999/love.pdf