Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

The Man Who Said No to Wal-Mart 731

Charles Fishman, senior writer for Fast Company magazine has recently published a book entitled The Man Who Said No To Wal-mart. It's an excellent book (Yes, I've read it) that talks about the intersection of making good stuff, the commodization of products, and the changing world that we work in; not exactly high tech, but tech nonetheless.
Every year, thousands of executives venture to Bentonville, Arkansas, hoping to get their products onto the shelves of the world's biggest retailer. But Jim Wier wanted Wal-Mart to stop selling his Snapper mowers.What struck Jim Wier first, as he entered the Wal-Mart vice president's office, was the seating area for visitors. "It was just some lawn chairs that some other peddler had left behind as samples." The vice president's office was furnished with a folding lawn chair and a chaise lounge.

And so Wier, the CEO of lawn-equipment maker Simplicity, dressed in a suit, took a seat on the chaise lounge. "I sat forward, of course, with my legs off to the side. If you've ever sat in a lawn chair, well, they are lower than regular chairs. And I was on the chaise. It was a bit intimidating. It was uncomfortable, and it was going to be an uncomfortable meeting."

It was a Wal-Mart moment that couldn't be scripted, or perhaps even imagined. A vice president responsible for billions of dollars' worth of business in the largest company in history has his visitors sit in mismatched, cast-off lawn chairs that Wal-Mart quite likely never had to pay for.

The vice president had a bigger surprise for Wier, though. Wal-Mart not only wanted to keep selling his lawn mowers, it wanted to sell lots more of them. Wal-Mart wanted to sell mowers nose-to-nose against Home Depot and Lowe's.

"Usually," says Wier, "I don't perspire easily." But perched on the edge of his chaise, "I felt my arms getting drippy."

Wier took a breath and said, "Let me tell you why it doesn't work."

Tens of thousands of executives make the pilgrimage to northwest Arkansas every year to woo Wal-Mart, marshaling whatever arguments, data, samples, and pure persuasive power they have in the hope of an order for their products, or an increase in their current order. Almost no matter what you're selling, the gravitational force of Wal-Mart's 3,811 U.S. "doorways" is irresistible. Very few people fly into Northwest Arkansas Regional Airport thinking about telling Wal-Mart no, or no more.

In 2002, Jim Wier's company, Simplicity, was buying Snapper, a complementary company with a 50-year heritage of making high-quality residential and commercial lawn equipment. Wier had studied his new acquisition enough to conclude that continuing to sell Snapper mowers through Wal-Mart stores was, as he put it, "incompatible with our strategy. And I felt I owed them a visit to tell them why we weren't going to continue to sell to them."

Selling Snapper lawn mowers at Wal-Mart wasn't just incompatible with Snapper's future -- Wier thought it was hazardous to Snapper's health. Snapper is known in the outdoor-equipment business not for huge volume but for quality, reliability, durability. A well-maintained Snapper lawn mower will last decades; many customers buy the mowers as adults because their fathers used them when they were kids. But Snapper lawn mowers are not cheap, any more than a Viking range is cheap. The value isn't in the price, it's in the performance and the longevity.

You can buy a lawn mower at Wal-Mart for $99.96, and depending on the size and location of the store, there are slightly better models for every additional $20 bill you're willing to put down -- priced at $122, $138, $154, $163, and $188. That's six models of lawn mowers below $200. Mind you, in some Wal-Marts you literally cannot see what you are buying; there are no display models, just lawn mowers in huge cardboard boxes.

The least expensive Snapper lawn mower -- a 19-inch push mower with a 5.5-horsepower engine -- sells for $349.99 at full list price. Even finding it discounted to $299, you can buy two or three lawn mowers at Wal-Mart for the cost of a single Snapper.

If you know nothing about maintaining a mower, Wal-Mart has helped make that ignorance irrelevant: At even $138, the lawn mowers at Wal-Mart are cheap enough to be disposable. Use one for a season, and if you can't start it the next spring (Wal-Mart won't help you out with that), put it at the curb and buy another one. That kind of pricing changes not just the economics at the low end of the lawn-mower market, it changes expectations of customers throughout the market. Why would you buy a walk-behind mower from Snapper that costs $519? What could it possibly have to justify spending $300 or $400 more?

That's the question that motivated Jim Wier to stop doing business with Wal-Mart. Wier is too judicious to describe it this way, but he looked into a future of supplying lawn mowers and snow blowers to Wal-Mart and saw a whirlpool of lower prices, collapsing profitability, offshore manufacturing, and the gradual but irresistible corrosion of the very qualities for which Snapper was known. Jim Wier looked into the future and saw a death spiral.

Wier had two things going for him: First, he had another way to get his lawn mowers to customers -- a well-established network of independent lawn-equipment dealers that accounted for 80% of Snapper's sales. And Wier had the courage, the foresight, to take an unblinking view of where his Wal-Mart business was heading -- not in year 3, or year 4, but year 10.

Wier traveled to Bentonville with a firm grasp of the values of Snapper, the dynamics of the lawn-mower business, the needs of the dealers, the needs of the Snapper customer, and the needs of the Wal-Mart customer. He was not dazzled by the tens of millions of dollars' worth of lawn mowers Wal-Mart was already selling for Snapper; he was not deluded about his ability to beat Wal-Mart at its own game, to somehow resist the price pressure. He was not imagining that he could take the sales now and figure out the profits later.

Jim Wier believed that Snapper's health -- indeed, its very long-term survival -- required that it not do business with Wal-Mart.



Every Snapper lawn mower sold anywhere in the world comes from a factory in McDonough, Georgia, a small town 30 minutes southeast of Atlanta. Coils of raw steel arrive on flatbed trucks every day at the old, nondescript building; brand-new fire-engine-red lawn mowers leave every day, loaded in 18-wheelers. The facility looks undistinguished, but it is energetically trying to defy the conventional wisdom about manufacturing in the global economy.

The Snapper factory has had an invigorating decade. Ten years ago, it produced about 40 models of mowers, leaf blowers, and snow blowers; now it makes 145. Today, robots do the welding, lasers cut parts, and computers control the steel-stamping presses. Productivity is three times what it was 10 years ago, and the number of people working here, 650, is half what it was.

Indeed, the productivity of every factory worker is measured "every hour, every day, every month, every year," says Snapper president Shane Sumners, who walks the 10.5-acre factory floor with comfort and familiarity. "And everybody's performance is posted, publicly, every day for everyone to see." It's a lot like Wal-Mart -- which measures the number of items every checkout clerk scans every hour. Some of Snapper's dramatic productivity improvements, in fact, seem to come almost directly from the Wal-Mart playbook. These days, the Snapper factory operates in Wal-Mart time. It must, because it operates in Wal-Mart's ecosystem.

Ten years ago, at about the time Sumners came on board, Snapper had 52 regional distributors. It uses no distributors now -- the company runs four regional warehouses of its own and sells directly to 10,000 independent dealerships. Ten years ago, in part because of the complexity of the middleman distribution system, Snapper carried a huge quantity of inventory. It paid to manufacture and ship thousands of lawn mowers -- worth tens of millions of dollars -- without quite knowing when they would be sold. Now planners come up with an ideal level of inventory for every model, for every region of the country, based on things like historic demand and the weather. The goal is to make sure every customer can get the mower he wants -- while making absolutely the smallest number of lawn mowers.

Production at the Snapper factory is rescheduled every week, according to the pace at which mowers sell. A computer juggles work assignments and balances the various parts of the assembly line. The main manufacturing line for Snapper's entry-level walk-behind mowers -- with 28 people -- was recently charged with producing 265 lawn mowers in an eight-hour shift. The group hit the mark exactly. That's a new lawn mower, from loose parts to sealed box, every 109 seconds. "It's all a matter of seconds," says Sumners.

It's not hard to make a cheap lawn mower. A cheap lawn mower feels flimsy, sounds louder than it has to, and even when new, requires a mysterious, frustrating combination of choke, priming, and pulling to start. The cutting deck of a cheap mower is stamped from thin sheet metal. Making a high-quality lawn mower -- even in 109 seconds -- requires attention to detail and constant improvement, which seems surprising for a machine that doesn't evolve that much.

All Snapper machines, from the simplest walk-behind to the most elaborate riding mower, are painted one color: what Shane Sumners calls "Snapper red." In the factory, the finished chassis of riding mowers coast along slowly, dangling from an overhead conveyor as they approach a 20-foot-long pool of red paint. The conveyor track dips low, and the mowers glide down into the pool and completely disappear beneath the surface, then rise back up, gleaming red, before heading for a pass through a curing oven.

It's not quite as simple as dip and bake, however. Each mower is electrically grounded as it hangs from the overhead conveyor, and a slight positive electrical charge runs through the 16,000-gallon trench of paint. "So the paint is attracted to the metal and builds up on the parts and sticks very effectively and evenly," says Sumners. The process is monitored every hour -- from the speed of the conveyor and the temperature of the ovens to the pH of the paint -- along 115 parameters. "If you control the process," says Sumners, "you will get a good paint job."

Snapper technicians start every riding mower before it leaves the McDonough plant. At the "hot start" station, a man wearing ear protectors squirts gas into the fuel tank and oil into the crankcase, pulls the starter cord, and brings the machine to life. He runs through all the gears, checks speed, engine performance, the mounting of the seat. The engine is given just enough fuel for the "run in." If the mower passes all the tests, the man sucks the oil back out and sends the mower on to be boxed.

As Sumners watches, one of the riding mowers takes two pulls to start, then comes to life with a rough growl. In the blink of an eye, the technician shuts it down. "Did you hear how that sounded?" asks Sumners. "It's not right. That's a bad one." The mower is shunted off to be inspected and properly tuned if possible. "If we didn't," says Sumners, "that mower would have gone to a customer."

The Snapper factory started making riding mowers in 1951. It is unadorned and old, but it is old in the sense of solidity and use. There is nothing tired about it. More significant, there is nothing sentimental about it. This factory isn't here out of some misplaced sense of economic loyalty to U.S. manufacturing. It's here because it makes Snapper-quality lawn mowers at a competitive price.

Snapper's factory hums with discipline and focus and urgency. Even with no products at Wal-Mart, a company like Snapper has to compete psychologically, has to keep the price gap between the big-box lawn mowers and its lawn mowers rational. If it did not, its potential slice of the market would get smaller and smaller.

Sumners has to spur his factory on with the same tirelessness as if it were supplying Wal-Mart -- the efficiency of every factory worker measured every hour of every day -- because Wal-Mart sets the pace, even if you're not working for them.



Jim Wier is 62 years old, with a youthful twinkle, despite a thatch of white hair. He is a solidly built man who dresses casually. He is comfortable with himself. Wier, who until the summer of 2005 ran a group of lawn-equipment businesses that approach half a billion dollars a year in sales, is confident, direct, and unprepossessing. He mows his own lawn. "I don't want to hire a service," he says. "I still love to cut my grass."

Wier is much like Snapper's customers. "When we do surveys of our customers, they like to cut their grass. And they want a good piece of equipment to do it. We're designed to give you the best quality of cut. We have full rollers on the riding mowers, to give that nice striped look on your grass, like on the baseball fields. It makes you feel proud of the home you own. Proud of your lawn. The neighbors walk by, they say, 'Look how good the yard looks.' "

Wier doesn't really think that a $99 lawn mower from Wal-Mart and Snapper's lawn mowers are the same product any more than a cup of 50-cent vending-machine coffee is the same as a Starbucks nonfat venti latte. "We're not obsessed with volume," says Wier. "We're obsessed with having differentiated, high-end, quality products." Wier wants them sold -- he thinks they must be sold -- at a store where the staff is eager to explain the virtues of various models, where they understand the equipment, can teach customers how to use a mower, can service it when something goes wrong. Wier wants customers who want that kind of help -- customers who are unlikely to be happy buying a lawn mower at Wal-Mart, and who might connect a bum experience doing so not with Wal-Mart but with Snapper.

And so in October 2002, with a colleague, Wier kept an appointment with a merchandise vice president for Wal-Mart's outdoor-product category.

"The whole visit to Wal-Mart headquarters is a great experience," says Wier. It really is a pilgrimage to the center of the retail universe. "It's so crowded, you have to drive around, waiting for a parking space, you have to follow someone who is leaving, walking back to their car, and get their spot. Then you go inside this building, you register for your appointment, they give you a badge, and then you wait in the pews with the rest of the peddlers, the guy with the bras draped over his shoulder."

Normally, meetings between Wal-Mart buyers and people from supplier companies take place in the legendary meeting rooms just off the vendor lobby. These cubicles are simple to the point of barren -- a table and four chairs, and 30 minutes to make your case. "It's a little like going to see the principal, really," says Wier.

In this case, Wier says, both he and the Wal-Mart managers "had a feeling that this would be an important meeting." So Wier and his colleague were scheduled to visit the vice president in his office. Sitting on lawn chairs.

"The meeting started with the vice president of the category saying how it was clear that Lowe's was going to build their outdoor power-equipment business with the Cub Cadet brand, and how Home Depot was going to build theirs with John Deere," says Wier. "Wal-Mart wanted to build their outdoor power-equipment business around the Snapper brand. Were we prepared to go large?"

Talk about coming to the table with different agendas. Wier was in Bentonville to pull his mowers from Wal-Mart's stores. The vice president was offering a greater temptation: Let's join hands and go head-to-head against the home-improvement superstores.

Which is when Wier said no.

"As I look at the three years Snapper has been with you," he told the vice president, "every year the price has come down. Every year the content of the product has gone up. We're at a position where, first, it's still priced where it doesn't meet the needs of your clientele. For Wal-Mart, it's still too high-priced. I think you'd agree with that.

"Now, at the price I'm selling to you today, I'm not making any money on it. And if we do what you want next year, I'll lose money. I could do that and not go out of business. But we have this independent-dealer channel. And 80% of our business is over here with them. And I can't put them at a competitive disadvantage. If I do that, I lose everything. So this just isn't a compatible fit."

The Wal-Mart vice president responded with strategy and argument. Snapper is the sort of high-quality nameplate, like Levi Strauss, that Wal-Mart hopes can ultimately make it more Target-like. He suggested that Snapper find a lower-cost contract manufacturer. He suggested producing a separate, lesser-quality line with the Snapper nameplate just for Wal-Mart. Just like Levi did.

"My response was, we would take a look at that," says Wier. "The reason I gave that response was, it was a legitimate question. In my own mind, I knew where I'd go with that" -- no thanks -- "but at that kind of meeting you at least have to be willing to say, I'll investigate." And that was it. "The tone at the end was, We're not going forward as a supplier."

No lightning bolt struck. Except that Snapper instantly gave up almost 20% of its business. "But when we told the dealers that they would no longer find Snapper in Wal-Mart, they were very pleased with that decision. And I think we got most of that business back by winning the hearts of the dealers."

Snapper was successfully integrated into Simplicity, which in 2004 was itself bought by Briggs & Stratton, the company that makes many of the engines in Snapper and Simplicity mowers. Simplicity and Snapper operate as independent divisions, and Wier remained CEO of both until last summer, when he resigned to join the private equity firm Kohlberg & Co. In McDonough, business is strong. Shane Sumners plans to add a second assembly line for both walk-behind and riding mowers.

One serious hazard to Wier's strategy is that independent lawn-equipment dealers face all the same pressures that have killed, for instance, many independent hardware stores and toy stores. "That is a legitimate question and a legitimate concern," says Wier. "I think we have a part in that outcome. Can Snapper, as a major supplier, continue to supply [the independents] with great product, and a product different than you can buy at Wal-Mart?"

Wier says, "I'm probably pro-Wal-Mart. I'm certainly not anti-Wal-Mart. I believe Wal-Mart has done a great service to the country in many ways. They offer reasonably good product at very good prices, and they've streamlined the entire distribution system. And it may be that along the way, they've driven some people out of business who shouldn't have been driven out of business." Wier wasn't going to let that happen to Snapper.

Wier had determined to lead Snapper to focus on quality, and through quality, on cachet. Not every car is a Honda Accord or a Toyota Camry; there is more than enough business to support Audi and BMW and Lexus. And so it is with lawn mowers, Wier hoped. Still, perhaps the most remarkable thing is that the Wal-Mart effect is so pervasive that it sets the metabolism even of companies that purposefully do no business with Wal-Mart.

And the power and allure of Wal-Mart is such that even Jim Wier, the man who said no to Wal-Mart, a man who knows all the reasons why that was the right decision, has slivers of doubt.

"I could go to my grave, and my tombstone could say, 'Here lies the dumbest CEO ever to live. He chose not to sell to Wal-Mart.'"

Charles Fishman is a Fast Company senior writer and the author of, "The Wal-Mart Effect: How the World's Most Powerful Company Really Works -- And How It's Transforming the American Economy." See www.walmarteffectbook.com for more information.

From THE WAL-MART EFFECT by Charles Fishman. Reprinted by arrangement with The Penguin Press, a member of Penguin Group (USA), Inc. Copyright (c) Charles Fishman, 2006. Charles is a senior writer for Fast Company magazine.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Man Who Said No to Wal-Mart

Comments Filter:
  • by Hamster Lover ( 558288 ) * on Wednesday March 29, 2006 @03:11PM (#15019750) Journal
    The book by Charles Fishman is called [i]The Walmart Effect[/i] not [i]The Man Who Said No to Walmart[/i], which is the title of the Fast Company article that forms the basis for the Slashdot article.

    FYI

  • Kind of pointless (Score:5, Informative)

    by RedHatLinux ( 453603 ) on Wednesday March 29, 2006 @03:16PM (#15019802) Homepage
    There are far more interesting and important issues involving Wal-Mart than some guy not willing to sell his stuff to them, like Crazy Fat Chicks [blogspot.com]

    Also, check out this links.

    Hel-Mart [hel-mart.com]

    Sprawl Busters [sprawl-busters.com]

    PBS Store Wars- Facts About Wal-Mart [pbs.org]

    Wal-Mart Blows.com [walmart-blows.com]

    Wal-Mart Litigation Project [wal-martlitigation.com]

    Wal-Mart Movie [walmartmovie.com]

    Wal-Mart Sucks.org [walmartsucks.org]

    Wal-Mart Watch [walmartwatch.com]

    Wal-Mart vs Women [walmartvswomen.com]

  • by TheSystemHasFailed ( 963214 ) on Wednesday March 29, 2006 @03:17PM (#15019813)
    This is actually a word-for-word duplicate of the FC article here: http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/102/open_snapp er.html [fastcompany.com] It's ALSO from back in January. Hemos needs to wake up...
  • by syrion ( 744778 ) on Wednesday March 29, 2006 @03:29PM (#15019935)
    Snappers really are excellent mowers. I don't know that I'd buy a Snapper push-mower, just because push-mowers tend to get banged up since their job is basically to get the rough areas where a riding mower won't go, but their riding mowers are reliable and easy to maintain.
  • by shrapnull ( 780217 ) * on Wednesday March 29, 2006 @03:30PM (#15019944)
    Snapper had been acquired by Simplicity, just as Simplicity was acquired by Briggs & Stratton. This gives B&S all tiers of products: consumer, professional and commercial.

    Snapper may not be in the commodity stores, but that's not because they are a boutique item. It is an intentional attempt to maintain a reputation of dignity among professionals.

    From Simplicity Manufacturing's Website:

    On July 4, 2004, Briggs & Stratton Corporation acquired Simplicity Manufacturing and its companies Snapper, Ferris Industries and Giant-Vac. The purchase represents Briggs & Stratton's first attempt to serve the lawn and garden industry directly. Briggs & Stratton believes this acquisition will allow it to build closer relationships with its OEM and retail customers from an operational, sales and marketing standpoint.

    "Simplicity is a solid company with several compelling brands, a strong position in the retail dealer channel for outdoor power product, and superior product development capabilities," said John S. Shiely, Briggs & Stratton's Chairman, CEO and President. "This acquisition is another step in our strategy to present an even more compelling value proposition to consumers of our products and superior returns to our shareholders," he said.

    Simplicity Manufacturing, Inc. Port Washington, WI

    In other words, they already had the cheap crap to sell (B&S Mowers), and didn't want to compete with themselves with higher priced models that could go to specialty home improvement stores where they would move more quickly.

  • by plankrwf ( 929870 ) on Wednesday March 29, 2006 @03:53PM (#15020122)
    To be completely accurate; the supermarket-chain (Albert Hein) subpoena'ed the 'cake'-maker after the latter declined to deliver its 'cakes' to the former.

     
    How the law is in particular I don't know (IANAL); in this case the two had done business with each other for many years; there might have been an ongoing contract for delivery.
    (To get an idea what it was all about: the 'cake' in question was part of a commonly used "basket" used for comparison of prices
    in different supermarket-chains. In this case, the 'cake'-maker felt that the supermarket-chain sold their product for a price
    under the cost price (and placed the product at a "low visibility" place) so that it...
    didn't cost too much while seeming to be cheaper at the "basket" comparison...)
  • Re:Obvious. (Score:4, Informative)

    by nelsonal ( 549144 ) on Wednesday March 29, 2006 @04:33PM (#15020454) Journal
    Actually they sort of did. During the great depression and into World War 2 they put a cap on salaries to promote full employment and later held it to allow the government to bid for talent. So those sneaky companies figured out that benefits were not covered in the compensation cap and offered benefits to attract better employees. The whole policy is misguided and flows from an earlier monkeying with the free market. Somehow automobile insurance companies are able to spread risk without selling to an entire company, city, or group. Why fundamentally is health insurance so different?
  • Re:Obvious. (Score:3, Informative)

    by Zordak ( 123132 ) on Wednesday March 29, 2006 @04:50PM (#15020601) Homepage Journal
    who then pay taxes on their capital gains that will go to support these very programs
    You sound like a socialist or at least somewhat radical sort (judging by your .sig), so I hate to fuel your fire, but here goes...

    The capital gains taxes these guys pay on their fat dividends do not pay for Social Security and Medicaid. There is a separate flat-rate SSM tax that everybody pays without deductions, exemptions or exclusions. It accounts for something like 2/3 of our annual federal budget. But that tax is paid only on wages. It does not apply to capital gains, which are taxed at a fairly reasonable 15%. This is why Google pays top executives $1 annual salaries. That means these guys contribute about 7.5 cents to the SSM program every year, and then pay 15% on their dividends. If they were paid large salaries, they would be in the highest tax bracket, and thus would pay something close to 40% plus the 7.5% SSM tax. Don't get me wrong, they're still paying more in taxes every year than you'll probably make in your lifetime, but they are not paying for Social Security and Medicaid. That burden is borne squarely by the working middle class. The SSM tax on salaries only is not new, but the 15% capital gains tax was, of course, one of the tax reforms passed by your good friend George W. Bush.

  • by MonkeyCookie ( 657433 ) on Wednesday March 29, 2006 @04:53PM (#15020638)
    Actually, yes. Target tends to attract more affluent customers who are willing to pay a bit more than the typical Wal-mart customer. Target does this by creating the perception that their products of higher quality, but still relatively cheap. (I have to admit that I certainly think that Target products, while not being of high quality, are on average better than what one finds at Wal-mart)

    I can certainly see the difference in customers where I live. At Wal-mart, most of the customers look like they emerged from a nearby crack house, whereas at Target the customers tend to be more of a mix of lower- and middle-class shoppers.
  • Re:Obvious. (Score:4, Informative)

    by Marxist Hacker 42 ( 638312 ) * <seebert42@gmail.com> on Wednesday March 29, 2006 @04:55PM (#15020648) Homepage Journal
    Y'know what's really bizarre about that? My dad told me that several years ago, Walmart was touting 'made in America' in many of their advertisements. I really can't say first hand, as I might've started college before I'd been in a Walmart. Now it's full of alot of very poor quality Chinese merchandise. I remember especially when they leaned on Hasbro, resulting in the GIJoe line being replaced with their 50 cent generics. They're great for dangerous fireworks stunts, but they might as well be made of playdough. So it goes with alot of what they carry.

    When Sam was alive, he was a patriot. EVERYTHING Wal-Mart sold was "Made in America" and a good amount of it was "Made by Union", despite the fact he resisted unions in his own stores, he saw the value of high quality workmanship in union suppliers. But then he died- and since he died, Wal-Mart has been for PROFIT not QUALITY.
  • Re:Obvious. (Score:3, Informative)

    by aussersterne ( 212916 ) on Wednesday March 29, 2006 @05:27PM (#15020921) Homepage
    Yes and no. Those taxes are (theoretically) separate once they arrive in the feds' pockets. But they originate in personal wealth. Much of the middle class is now heavily invested because there is no social safety net and employers no longer provide pensions and banks can't keep up with inflation, much less exceed it.

    So for example a mom and pop put their nestegg at least in part in the retail sector. Then, true to American values, they shop at the cut-rate retailers they're invested in because a) the retailers are doing well (that's why they invested!) and b) they want to support their investment, and of course c) the retailer is doing well because their prices are so low or their prices are low because they're doing well, it's the same thing. So mom and pop shop there to "make their buck go as far as possible" and to support the shops they're invested in. It makes sense to them. Most of the other investors do the same, and this middle-class group whose retirement and savings are in the market is a sizable portion of the U.S. investment economy now.

    They are going to pay taxes on whatever their investments make for them, and they take these taxes as fair because their retail sector stocks are "making them money" and helping to grow their modest nestegg. But they are also paying into SSM through withholding, and the SSM program is likely to need to be bailed out any number of times from federal coffers anyway. So ultimately these people are inevitably subsidizing Wal-mart multiple times, once with their investment, again when their investments pay, and yet again when they pay in to SSM. Are these expenditures justified by the return that they do see, especially in context of a larger economy in which these same sectors exert heavy downward wage pressure, reduce job security for all, and the quality of goods is also dropping like a rock? No, it's not really making them richer overall. But they often fail to see the big picture.

    So my point was (and I suppose the I felt that getting into mechanics would muddy it), it makes no difference to the middle-class investor which tax is which. He pays his taxes and it's all just "taxes" to him, but he figures that it's offset by his growing investments. Unfortunately, the growth in investments is indirectly being supported by the very taxes that he pays, and in combination with downward wage/wealth pressure (the sucking sound delivering wealth to china) and lower quality goods (that ultimately demand more expenditure over time, not less, again, more sales for China) he is actually getting poorer despite the apparent rise in his nestegg's value, because the rest of his life (from taxes to long-term goods expenses to wages) is losing value at a faster rate than his return is gaining-- all wealth that is moving offshore.

    I have no ideological problem with wealth moving offshore, I think it's inevitable and probably fair, no reason the U.S. should have a standard of living that exceeds everyone else's. But too many free-market pro-neoliberal minds talk only about "return on investment" without placing that return in the context of the rest of the economy, in which any returns are offset by increased expenses and (and this may be the most important part) an increasing inability to turn back the clock or halt the slide as more and more communities, economies, businesses, personal budgets, and personal retirements come to rely on this sector. But you're right, I did run a couple of things together in my attempt to post quickly. My apologies.
  • by Greatmoose ( 896405 ) on Wednesday March 29, 2006 @05:32PM (#15020959) Journal
    Honda lawn mowers. I've got an 11 year old one and my dad's go a 17 year old one. Very nice machines (of course, they ARE Honda engines...)
  • by sirwired ( 27582 ) on Wednesday March 29, 2006 @06:05PM (#15021227)
    The deck on your $138 Murray special is made from much thinner steel, uses plastic bushings on the wheels, has a diapraghm-based carb, (which is an inferior design to the bowl-carbs used on better engines) uses cheaper paint, a smaller, less-powerful engine, poor mulching capability, and has a smaller fuel tank. It also has a weaker handle, and is a pain to adjust. Maintenance is messy and more difficult. On the other hand, it is a LOT lighter than a quality mower.

    As a random side note, B&S ALSO owns Murray. Murray went bankrupt, owed B&S a lot of money, so B&S picked up the whole company on the cheap.

    SirWired
  • Re:Obvious. (Score:3, Informative)

    by Thangodin ( 177516 ) <elentar AT sympatico DOT ca> on Wednesday March 29, 2006 @06:17PM (#15021341) Homepage
    There are even more subtle and less known ways that they pick your pocket.

    One of Wal-Mart's main strategies (well documented, by the way) is to create a monopoly in a small town by opening two big stores, with concessions from the local government for ramps, zoning, etc. Both stores have a lease which stipulates that they may not be rented to another retail business for decades. Both run at extremely low prices, even lower than usual for Wal-Mart. Finally, all competition collapses, leaving only Wal-Mart for many goods.

    Then they close one of the two stores, forcing everyone to go across town to the other.

    Around the closed store, the commercial district looks like a bomb hit it, and in the middle is this huge, empty cavern, subsidized by local businesses and governments. But the economic impact has been so devastating that the commercial district cannot recover, and the local government is strapped because it's just sunk millions into a traffic system to feed an empty parking lot, and now it has no tax base in the area.

    Here's another one. Premium brands sell at Wal-Mart at a loss by supplementing their income with goods sold at higher prices by independents. But to try to stop the losses, they send their manufacturing offshore, and cut the quality of their items. So even if you don't shop at Wal-Mart, when you go to buy these items at an independent, you end up paying $80 for what is now really only worth $30. You have subsidized Wal-Mart, even though you have never set foot in one.

    And another: Wal-Mart employees make so little money that many of them, particularly those with families, are collecting welfare. Your taxes are subsidizing Wal-Mart. Did you vote for that?

    Any sufficiently large and powerful organization in a country becomes the defacto government of that country if the actual government is sufficiently weak, disorganized, or complicit with the organization. The difference, in a democracy, is that the actual government you can vote out. But how can you vote out a business when they can take your money whether you shop there or not?
  • by AaronStJ ( 182845 ) <AaronStJ AT gmail DOT com> on Wednesday March 29, 2006 @06:55PM (#15021635) Homepage
    From the summary:
    From THE WAL-MART EFFECT by Charles Fishman. Reprinted by arrangement with The Penguin Press, a member of Penguin Group (USA), Inc. Copyright (c) Charles Fishman, 2006. Charles is a senior writer for Fast Company magazine.


    Way to bitch about the summary, but not read it.
  • Re:Health insurance (Score:3, Informative)

    by booch ( 4157 ) <slashdot2010NO@SPAMcraigbuchek.com> on Wednesday March 29, 2006 @07:35PM (#15021938) Homepage
    The articles of incorporation for most companies will include a statement that their purpose is to make a profit. The executives and board members have a fiuciary duty to ensure that they do their best to meet the stated purposes of the company.

    If you have some evidence to the contrary, please present it.
  • Re:Obvious. (Score:2, Informative)

    by pafrusurewa ( 524731 ) on Wednesday March 29, 2006 @07:45PM (#15022019)

    The other side of the coin is that the low prices at Wal Mart are subsidized by the rest of us. For example, they don't provide proper health insurance to their employees which forces many of them to get government medical insurance assistance, otherwise known as Medicaid.

    Very true.

    Wal-Mart has been operating stores in Germany for a couple of years now. They still have to turn a profit there. This is partly because there are well-established discount supermarkets in Germany (you might even say they pioneered the concept -- think Aldi, which I think even has stores in the US). One other reason is that many of their tactics like firing employees for founding unions and having relationships with each other (believe it or not, they do this in the US) are just plain illegal in Germany and indeed most European countries. They did try though but they were successfully sued because of it.

    I think this is a great example of how Wal-Mart makes money by exploiting people.

Say "twenty-three-skiddoo" to logout.

Working...