Posted December 11, 200618 yr From the Saturday, December 9th, 2006 edition of the Celina Daily Standard Former Wal-Mart site still awaiting tenants Ohio is second with empty Wal-Mart buildings By Shelley Grieshop Photo: The former Wal-Mart building along Havemann Road isn't seeing much action these days since being abandoned 19 months ago when the new supercenter opened across the road. Seagulls from Grand Lake are the only visitors these days to the abandoned Wal-Mart building in Celina. Although Wal-Mart officials - specifically their own realty division - and Lakewood Village Shopping Center owner Austin Management are busy trying to market the nearly 69,000-square foot building, it remains empty. For more info, click link http://www.dailystandard.com/archive/story_single.php?rec_id=1606
December 11, 200618 yr My Wal-Mart boycott just reached two years in November. I may never impact Wal-Mart's bottom line but they won't be getting my business again and this is just another reason.
December 11, 200618 yr but this also points out what should happen BEFORE the wal-marts, or any other big box is built. - initial construction that allows for easier subdivision later in a building's life (zoned HVAC, electrical, plumbing, etc.); - tear-down clauses after a certain period. - incentives (or disincentives) to re-use or expand existing structures (or not relocate). - other mitigating activities (i don't know what they are). as it is now, wal-mart is still paying leases and taxes, so they can basically do what they want, absent some other sort of enforcement mechanism defined by local code. in the end, this is really no different than a local bank merging and then deciding it doesn't need duplicate spaces downtown, so they abandon their building. still own it or lease it and pay taxes, but no one is using it. plus, as long as it is not being used, it can be written off for tax purposes.
December 11, 200618 yr Here are some statistics from February of this year from sprawl-busters.com... Wal-Mart discount stores are slowly disappearing. Over the past 5 years, Wal-Mart has shut down 35.3 million square feet of discount stores. Since 1999, Sprawl-Busters has monitored Wal-Mart’s abandoned stores. These are stores the company leaves behind to build bigger stores—what the company likes to call “dark stores.” Last year, for example, we reported that Wal-Mart had 356 dead stores, with 26.69 million square feet of empty space on the market. At that time, 31% of these dead stores were over 100,000 s.f. As of February, 2006, Wal-Mart Realty is still sitting on a colossal amount of dead air. A total of 310 stores in 38 states are on the list of “available buildings”, a total of 24.39 million square feet, or roughly 508 football fields of empty stores. The top ten states in 2006 with empty Wal-Mart’s are as follows: Texas, 31 Tennessee, 26 Ohio, 19 Georgia, 17 Illinois, 17 Iowa, 14 Louisiana, 12 Kentucky, 11 Michigan, 11 North Carolina, 11 In the “million square foot” club of states carrying more than a million square feet of empty Wal-Marts, are the following 6 states: Georgia, 1.32 million; Illinois, 1.4 million; Michigan, 1.23 million; Ohio, 1.62 million; Tennessee, 1.8 million; and Texas, 2.3 million. Last year, states with over a million square feet of empty space included Texas, Georgia, Tennessee, North Carolina, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Missouri, and Michigan. In 2006, Illinois and Ohio are new on the million square foot list, while Arkansas, Louisiana, North Carolina, and Oklahoma have dropped below a million. In 2006, a total of 91 stores (29%) are over 100,000 s.f. Most of these dead stores are former discount stores that Wal-Mart replaced with a larger format supercenter. What you can do: According to the company’s SEC filings, between 2000 and 2005, Wal-Mart closed down a net of 35.305 million square feet of discount stores. In terms of discount store count, in 2005, Wal-Mart had 1,353 discount stores, or 448 fewer discount stores than the retailer had in 2000. The company’s number of discount stores began rolling backwards around 1995. In the past 5 years, Wal-Mart has closed the equivalent of 735 football fields worth of discount stores. http://www.sprawl-busters.com/search.php?readstory=2265 And from walmartwatch.com.... According to the company, Wal-Mart is the "largest owner and manager of retail space in the country." But not all that land is for working, thriving supercenters. Wal-Mart has shed hundreds of stores to move onto bigger facilities. Most of these relocations have been in towns where Wal-Mart shuts down a discount store to open up a larger supercenter a few miles, or even blocks, away. "As (Wal-Mart) rolls out new supercenter prototypes," the company explains, "it must also find uses for existing relocated stores after they are closed." Although the company claims that in 1998 it sold or leased 10 million square feet of what it calls "once-occupied" stores, the February, 1999 list of "available buildings" from Wal-Mart Realty reveals that the amount of buildings on the market at that time was closer to 20 million square feet of empty stores. As these stores sit dormant, they continue to generate polluted runoff, poisoning rivers and lakes. Based on Wal-Mart’s own list, here are some statistics on these empty stores that might surprise you: Wal-Mart listed 333 empty buildings as of February, 1999. These buildings are spread across 31 states. A total of 20.66 million s.f. of empty stores were on the market Only 17% (58) of these stores are owned by Wal-Mart, 83% (275) are leased Estimating that Wal-Mart has roughly 2,850 U.S. stores open, these additional 333 empty stores meant that 10.5% of the units Wal-Mart owns or leases were "available". 15 states had 10 or more empty Wal-Mart stores The average size of empty Wal-Marts was 62,057s.f.--larger than most other retail buildings in a small community. 52 of the empty stores (16%) were larger than 100,000 s.f, with some as large as 134,000 s.f. 54 stores (16%) on the February list were marked "new" Wal-Mart stores and parking lots already occupy roughly 75,000 acres in the U.S. and the company plans to nearly double its footprint over the next 10 years. Many of these new stores will be built on undeveloped land, even though the U.S. is overrun with thousands of vacant malls, shopping centers, and big-box stores. [institute for Local Self-Reliance, 7/21/05] The symptoms of retail saturation are everywhere: We have more than 4,000 abandoned shopping malls in America. We have more shopping centers than high schools. We have 20 square feet of retail space for every man, woman and child in America, up from 14.7 s.f. per person in 1986, compared with 2 s.f. per person in Britain. http://walmartwatch.com/battlemart/go/cat/community_impact
December 11, 200618 yr But what of the storied Winesburg location? http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28396
August 28, 200915 yr Currently, Walmart Realty's website lists 12 vacant stores for lease and 2 for sale in Ohio. One store, Forest Park, is still partially occupied by Walmart; they opened a Supercenter there just a few years ago, but only occupy half the space they originally did upon opening.
August 28, 200915 yr An empty walmart store. Humm....I think that's one for the "good thing" category. ;)
August 28, 200915 yr An empty walmart store. Humm....I think that's one for the "good thing" category. ;) Well...that depends. Often, the stores are going vacant because Walmart builds a larger store nearby.
August 28, 200915 yr An empty walmart store. Humm....I think that's one for the "good thing" category. ;) Well...that depends. Often, the stores are going vacant because Walmart builds a larger store nearby. I was being naughty. You had to read between the lines on that one. ;) I think all walmarts should be torn down. Who would be so tacky as to shop at a (gasp) Walmart. LOL It's sad that they have these big box stores then build an even bigger one near by. Why can't you expand at the current location...oh thats right...they are out in sprawl-ville, where anything goes.
August 28, 200915 yr ^Actually, the two biggest in Cleveland metro are at Steelyard Commons and Bedford Heights (not sprawlville).
August 28, 200915 yr ^Actually, the two biggest in Cleveland metro are at Steelyard Commons and Bedford Heights (not sprawlville). I'm not talking about city stores. What about the others? Without doing any research I feel confident in saying that the walmart locations that have closed and relocated to a larger space were out in sprawlville.
August 28, 200915 yr Wal*Mart (and other big boxes) are adept at moving to the next community as soon as their tax abatement expires from the previous one.
August 28, 200915 yr I have no problem with WalMart. I have no problem with capitalism. Do you have no problem with monarchy then? Because that is what unrestrained capitalism devolves to. EDIT: I may be a little extreme on this one. I'll defer to this better answer: Would unbridled capitalism and libertarianism lead to monarchy? In principle, yes; but what usually happens in practice is fascism, because ownership does not easily concentrate in a single individual's hands, but much more readily concentrates in the hands of a small, wealthy, idle, privileged, parasitic elite.
August 28, 200915 yr I have no problem with WalMart. I have no problem with capitalism. Except that Wal*Mart's success has been built on overwhelming markets both large and small. Not exactly the capitalist/free-market ideal.
August 28, 200915 yr I have no problem with WalMart. I have no problem with capitalism. Do you have no problem with monarchy then? Because that is what unrestrained capitalism devolves to. EDIT: I may be a little extreme on this one. I'll defer to this better answer: Would unbridled capitalism and libertarianism lead to monarchy? In principle, yes; but what usually happens in practice is fascism, because ownership does not easily concentrate in a single individual's hands, but much more readily concentrates in the hands of a small, wealthy, idle, privileged, parasitic elite. A Monarchy....Humm...Now how could be our Queen?
August 28, 200915 yr The only Walmart that I have ever seen expanded is in Autintown Oh, right outside of Y-town. Mostly I have seen where they build a new and bigger store across the street or a quarter mile down the road as the did on Rt 14 in Streetsboro. Edit: Of course Target did the same thing in Rocky River. I still miss the old smaller footprint target. I have to trek forever to get anything at the new one.
August 28, 200915 yr Meijers is still a corporation, which makes them evil. (If I understand correctly from reading UO posts.)
August 28, 200915 yr It seems to me that Meijer is much more responsible with their buildings. They often choose to re-model stores instead of just building a new. When they do build new, they usually demolish the old building and build on the same site. That has at least been the case in my experience with them. I am sure they do this more than Walmart, but Meijer just built 2 new stores in Columbus and 1 in Dayton, leaving the old stores to sit vacant.
August 28, 200915 yr It seems to me that Meijer is much more responsible with their buildings. They often choose to re-model stores instead of just building a new. When they do build new, they usually demolish the old building and build on the same site. That has at least been the case in my experience with them. I am sure they do this more than Walmart, but Meijer just built 2 new stores in Columbus and 1 in Dayton, leaving the old stores to sit vacant. Where are the new stores in Columbus? They just finished renovating their Westerville store. I suppose it all is based upon demographics and conditions of the building on a case by case basis. Often they rebuild in the instance where putting in a drive-thru pharmacy is not possible. They just moved out in these cases... "Meijer is closing its store on Harshman Road along with two others in the Columbus area, while opening three others — including one in Huber Heights. This spring, Meijer will open a store at 7150 Executive Blvd. in Huber Heights. Two other stores in the Columbus area — at 8300 Meijer Drive in Canal Winchester and at 2811 London-Groveport in Grove City — also are to open this year." http://www.urbanohio.com/forum2/index.php/topic,14949.0.html
August 28, 200915 yr This is disgraceful. I predicted this a looooong time ago. It is a simple fact that there are toooooo many of these in all the given areas...they end up cannibalizing each other. They don't care because their 'pin-the tail-on-the-donkey' approach to determining where to place these...and if their needed, is just that--A blind approach that says "Here!... This looks like a good place to put one"....then, when the blindfold is removed....we just stuck a Wal-Mart right on top of another! There is no market study that constitutes the absolute need for..how many?...over 100 Wal-Marts in an 88 County state! Some time ago, when I was working with some people in Salem, Ohio to curb the building of a Wal-Mart there....not far down from an historic district, I might add... We had a meeting that showed the map of Ohio...and it was thumb-tacked in every place that symbolized where a Wal-Mart existed, or was proposed. Around these tacks was a circle radius drawn that represented the customer base within 25 miles that Wal-Mart officials claimed was needed to support a store their size. They needed ALL that territory in order to remain open and thriving. Now here is the KICKER...this map had circle overlapping circle, overlapping circle..overlapping circle. Simply put, it was destiny for them to cannibalize their own stores...and this is EXACTLY what happened. They really took advantage of the home rule status in Ohio, lack of statewide comprehensive plan (somewhat proposed in the 70's but shot down) and the weak land use laws that were never designed to facilitate such an entity this size. Many businesses closed in their wake..and along with them went the jobs and taxes that such local/independent businesses were already contributing. Sadly, we cannot seem to see the collective power such independents have in the economy, and instead, we're often lured by the misguided concept that "more is better..bigger is better..cheaper is better...that sprawl is our benefactor..... and that 'this growth will save us' etc" Let's see...Where did that smiley face and saving 5 cents on Fruit-Of-the-Looms---while running all over town spending money on fuel to save the 5 cents on those cheap underwear, get us???....... Huge influx of cheap Chinese crap unlike we've never seen....along with is some nice bugs brought over on the boat such as the wonderful Emerald Ash Borer taking out native ash trees all the way up to Canada (costing millions in its own way)... Loss of middle supplier jobs when the smiley does his usual price bullying of "I'll buy from China if you don't give us the price we want!"...Loss of farm land (Ohio's biggest economy), loss of habitat/woodland buffer zones around cities, increased sprawl, increased need for spending on infrastructure due to their often big tax abatements....Dirtier water ways from all the parking lot runoff.... empty buildings which we struggle to fill...including their own big box buildings that sit empty....loss of independence in the economy to be self reliant...and not overly co-dependent on ONE entity to supply is with all we need, including retail jobs.......Great assistance in increasing obesity by offering their mile row after row of crap foods...More litter.....more noise....loss of retail jobs.... Oh, I could go on and on....But I ask...Was this worth it? The high cost of low price! Hope people like how their state will look in 15 years from this completely unnecessary glut of all these stores being built when there was nothing that constituted the need for this much...on every corner. Every time I pass one I feel the waistline grow, IQ drop..and the sudden urge to buy a trailer and start smoking!!!!! No, this is not only Wal-Mart, but they're the biggest...so I'll start with them. I will not set foot in one of these places... When it comes to factors like needing quality, service, and knowledge in certain purchases of certain products, I have learned too many times that there is no real bargain whatsoever...and that the local places will often bend over backwards for you. That to me and to avoid all the above is worth it to me to pay more if I have to. I have learned that in the long run,that usually.... the guy who always wants to spend the least...spends the most. This store and their whole company can kiss my Royal... I hate everything they stand for...and their PR propaganda is actually the opposite of all theyt claim to be! Yeah, right...clear 60 acres of woods to build a green building ..and then tell me "We're Going Green!" Its all B.S. Just like the movie "I Heart Huckabees!" Well, that's enough!
August 29, 200915 yr I have no problem with WalMart. I have no problem with capitalism. Do you have no problem with monarchy then? Because that is what unrestrained capitalism devolves to. EDIT: I may be a little extreme on this one. I'll defer to this better answer: Would unbridled capitalism and libertarianism lead to monarchy? In principle, yes; but what usually happens in practice is fascism, because ownership does not easily concentrate in a single individual's hands, but much more readily concentrates in the hands of a small, wealthy, idle, privileged, parasitic elite. A Monarchy....Humm...Now how could be our Queen? Yes, and she'd make a damn fine one. I know how very well and she is fit for the job...at least I think she's a she. But don't tell her I said that, since I wouldn't want to be on the Queen's bad side.
August 29, 200915 yr I have no problem with WalMart. I have no problem with capitalism. Do you have no problem with monarchy then? Because that is what unrestrained capitalism devolves to. EDIT: I may be a little extreme on this one. I'll defer to this better answer: Would unbridled capitalism and libertarianism lead to monarchy? In principle, yes; but what usually happens in practice is fascism, because ownership does not easily concentrate in a single individual's hands, but much more readily concentrates in the hands of a small, wealthy, idle, privileged, parasitic elite. A Monarchy....Humm...Now how could be our Queen? Yes, and she'd make a damn fine one. I know how very well and she is fit for the job...at least I think she's a she. But don't tell her I said that, since I wouldn't want to be on the Queen's bad side. Damn...I thought you kids would pick me. I'd be a fabulous Monarch. Can you imagine what the crown jewels & the palace would be like? :cool2:
August 29, 200915 yr Unregulated capitalism can become..and HAS become just as corrupt as any other economic system we in the USA have been condition to think is "EVIL" Good Night..and Good Luck!
August 29, 200915 yr Unregulated capitalism can become..and HAS become just as corrupt as any other economic system we in the USA have been condition to think is "EVIL" Good Night..and Good Luck! "Unregulated" capitalism?! I certainly hope this was an attempt at humor. Does <a href="http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html#page1">this</a> or <a href="http://codes.ohio.gov/oac">this</a> look like "unregulated capitalism" to you? As for the original topic: If Wal-Mart is still paying their leases and their taxes, yes, they have the right to keep their "dark" stores. However, given that they are a fairly rational, capitalist company, they're not going to want to keep those things on their books forever. Someone will find a use for them eventually, and the price will come down to what the market will bear. Wal-Mart's spokesperson in that article said basically as much, and I believe it, because it makes sense: they'd even be willing to sell or lease to a competitor. They're not doing the company any favors just sitting there. Personally, I shop at Wal-Mart on a fairly regular basis--probably at least one trip per month. I'm often forced to shop late at night, and the Wal-Mart Supercenter near me is open 24/7; almost nothing else in the Canton area is. There are some things I don't get from there, because they don't have what I want--produce and clothing, primarily. For just about everything else, though, I just don't get the hate. Also, while they apparently do at least sometimes leave an old store empty to build a new, larger one nearby, I know that the Wal-Mart nearest my parents' house--the one in the Crosscreek Center in Heath, OH--actually basically saved the shopping center it was in, buying up enough additional space that otherwise would likely have stood vacant to expand the regular Wal-Mart into a Supercenter.
August 30, 200915 yr Unregulated capitalism can become..and HAS become just as corrupt as any other economic system we in the USA have been condition to think is "EVIL" Good Night..and Good Luck! "Unregulated" capitalism?! I certainly hope this was an attempt at humor. Does <a href="http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html#page1">this</a> or <a href="http://codes.ohio.gov/oac">this</a> look like "unregulated capitalism" to you? As for the original topic: If Wal-Mart is still paying their leases and their taxes, yes, they have the right to keep their "dark" stores. However, given that they are a fairly rational, capitalist company, they're not going to want to keep those things on their books forever. Someone will find a use for them eventually, and the price will come down to what the market will bear. Wal-Mart's spokesperson in that article said basically as much, and I believe it, because it makes sense: they'd even be willing to sell or lease to a competitor. They're not doing the company any favors just sitting there. Personally, I shop at Wal-Mart on a fairly regular basis--probably at least one trip per month. I'm often forced to shop late at night, and the Wal-Mart Supercenter near me is open 24/7; almost nothing else in the Canton area is. There are some things I don't get from there, because they don't have what I want--produce and clothing, primarily. For just about everything else, though, I just don't get the hate. Also, while they apparently do at least sometimes leave an old store empty to build a new, larger one nearby, I know that the Wal-Mart nearest my parents' house--the one in the Crosscreek Center in Heath, OH--actually basically saved the shopping center it was in, buying up enough additional space that otherwise would likely have stood vacant to expand the regular Wal-Mart into a Supercenter. You keep telling yourself all that.... Whatever helps you sleep at night... Keep repeating... "They are my benefactor" Hey, that's swell by me. Still, we don't need one on every block until the retail market is saturated to the point where there is little choice of anyplace else after we see a domino effect of closings in their wake...and to the point where they even cannibalize themselves and leave communities with the burden of filling another huge empty box in an auto-centric sea of wasteland. I always thought a diverse economy breeds a stable one--instead of relying on this big entity to provide for all our needs as you somewhat were indicating to a point (how much you depend on them for this or that). Connect the dots how this costs your community. And no....the comment was not an attempt at humor.... but I was actually amused by yours. It was rooted in the notion that there are who some seem to think that we should just allow big business to do as they wish and all will fall into place.....let developers dictate local land use planning...(which is like putting loggers in charge of forest management) etc. That brings us unwanted or needed sprawl...and even a burning river! Communities did this with with Wal-Mart and their developers in basically homogenizing the entire retail landscape coast to coast. Like I said... you want to shop there fine...Knock yourself out. I can think of a myriad of other enterprises at which I would rather chose to spend my money to keep it local. I am healthier than 99.99% of the people who go there...so I must be doing something right...and I am living proof that the human race does not need a Wal-Mart on every corner. Your opinions are common of those who have never run a small family type business.....or of those just worried about saving that dime no matter the consequence....so I understand. There are those who don't care. I don't mean that insultingly, either. Personally, I don't want my state to look like a train wreck heap of empty big box stores to the point it makes headlines like OHIO LEADS NATION WITH EMPTY BOX STORES (Just more fodder for negative publicity on sites like Cleveland Dot Com) I would also not want to simply reassure myself that eventually they will be used for something. That's ridiculous. I have a better solution...adopt a better comprehensive land use plan for the state and avoid getting into the 'if we build it they will come' gamble. They are the most fought entity to keep out of communities coast to coast by efforts spearheaded by a lot of smart forward thinking people in very progressive communities. There are good reasons for this in such terms as sustaining and preserving a communities identity, local economy, and diversity...and character. I refuse to think they ALL have it wrong, and Ohio has it right. The market won't fix everything as comforting a thought it may be. Check out a little bit more about what is underneath the facade of their propaganda and you may better understand the 'hate' They are what they are...and the cheap price comes at a cost. I just don't want it to be my state's economic, social, and environmental integrity. I am not saying there is no place for them..... We just don't need one on every block...and I don't want Ohio to be their hapless experiment where they need no market study to prove the need for so many--and instead, just take a 'throw the cards into the air' approach where all the ones that land face up, will stay open...and all the ones that land face down will close. (cards representing a WM store) I think we deserve better. By the way, I don't know if you're aware...but a lot of the name brands such as appliances (particularly vacuum cleaners--I know because I have been in that business for several years) you see in these stores are actually a lower grade than the given company's superior grade they may sell to fair sized independent retailers. Yet, the deception is when they get you to think you're getting the same thing. So when it breaks and winds up clogging more landfills, and we replace it three more times...the bargain wasn't such a bargain afterall. We see a label of a name brand and think we're getting something great...and that is not always the case. Like that bumper sticker said....MALL WART-your source for cheap plastic crap!
August 30, 200915 yr Wow ... I could answer all that, but I think it would be a waste of my time. Some discussions just aren't worth having with some people. Besides, it's Sunday, and I've got some shopping to do. You know where.
August 30, 200915 yr ^ You're right...its not worth it... You are not going to get me to ignore the obvious. Say what you want... There are too many of these in Ohio...or we wouldn't be leading the nation in empty ones...or, where they have to keep promising growth for their shareholders...abandoning one store and building a 24/7 one across the street, where all kinds of nasty characters are attracted like flies to honey. I wonder if those who are so adamant in defending them, might work for them. Well, if so...its like U.S. basically said.. "Its hard to get someone to understand something when their paycheck depends upon them not understanding" (or something to that effect) Fooey on WM! They're poop.
August 30, 200915 yr "where all kinds of nasty characters are attracted like flies to honey" --> This is the larger problem I have with the spit-on-Wal-Mart crowd. Not just the vitriol directed against the store, but the vitriolic stereotyping of everyone who shops there. If you defend them, you must work for them. (Newsflash: I don't, nor am I a shareholder.) If you shop there, you must be a "nasty character," whatever that means. You can't reason with people like you. (Newsflash: I don't know if I'm a "nasty character by your definition, but I won't lose any sleep if it turns out I am. You don't sound like the kind of person I want making my shopping decisions for me, anyway.) I don't like seeing buildings stand empty, whether they're empty Wal-Marts or empty houses. However, if empty Wal-Marts are part of the growing pains of bringing in a larger commercial sector--which is exactly what happens when you replace a standard Wal-Mart with a 24/7 Supercenter--that's a positive, not a negative. I remain convinced that uses will eventually be found for the empty buildings left behind, too.
August 30, 200915 yr I have shopped at a walmart and I'm far from a nasty character. If I can shop at a walmart anyone can.
August 31, 200915 yr Something tells me Wal-Mart is going to outlive any of us ... or, if it doesn't, it'll likely be replaced by something even "worse," from the naysayers' point of view (likely better, from my own).
August 31, 200915 yr The clothing you buy there is made in horrid conditions in third-world countries. Sure, they have a job thanks to Walmart, but I choose not to be personally responsible for that. Here's a Dateline video on a Bangladeshi worker who makes sweatpants for Walmart, visits a one and when they ask a shopper what she thinks about paying a little more for that pair of sweatpants, well, it's sad.
August 31, 200915 yr Keep in mind the Garfield Heights Walmart closed in part because of leaks from Methane Hills (the common name for Cityview), though I'm sure the openings in Bedford and Steelyard had something to do with it. I hate Walmart during the daytime. I've always said that if there's three lines and three people in each line, Target will open another register and Wallyworld will close one. However, I get out of work at midnight and the Chardon Walmart is right on the way home. It's usually empty, it's clean, and I can get in and out of there quickly. So now I go there a lot.
August 31, 200915 yr Wallmart is like department stores prior to the 1960's. You went to a department store to buy almost everything. Back in the day you had to go to Higbee's, May Co or Halle's (or fill in your local Department Store) to buy clothing, footwear, bedding, furniture, jewelry, beauty products, and housewares. Today, how many full service (not target, kmart, etc.) department stores sans Sears have an electronics section? Have a luggage department? Have a kitchen / home small appliance section? Name a department store where you can buy a sweater, vacuum cleaner, a blender, TV, and luggage? Toady 85% of department stores, only sell garments, jewelry, bedding and cosmetics. Many company's decided to build their own free standing stores/boutiques and expand their distribution channels. Then we became over saturated with department stores and boutiques selling almost the same items. Over the last 15 years, especially the last ten, we've watched major departments stores around the world absorbed. Domestically we're left with Bloomingdales, Macy's, Saks, Nordstorms, Neimans, Sears and Dillards. So what is the difference between Walmart of today and the department stores of yesteryear, outside of the obvious foreign connection?
August 31, 200915 yr Domestically we're left with Bloomingdales, Macy's, Saks, Nordstorms, Neimans, Sears,Dillards, and JCPenney. Also, Bon-Ton (Elder-Beerman/Carson Pirie/Parisian/etc.) mostly in northern states. Does Kohl's count? I bought my luggage and a couple kitchen appliances there.
August 31, 200915 yr Domestically we're left with Bloomingdales, Macy's, Saks, Nordstorms, Neimans, Sears,Dillards, and JCPenney. Also, Bon-Ton (Elder-Beerman/Carson Pirie/Parisian/etc.) mostly in northern states. Does Kohl's count? Thanks, I forgot about JCPenney. But Bon-Ton, Filenes, TJMaxx and Kohl's, etc. are not major department stores.
August 31, 200915 yr The clothing you buy there is made in horrid conditions in third-world countries. Sure, they have a job thanks to Walmart, but I choose not to be personally responsible for that. Here's a Dateline video on a Bangladeshi worker who makes sweatpants for Walmart, visits a one and when they ask a shopper what she thinks about paying a little more for that pair of sweatpants, well, it's sad. You have a pretty expansive concept of "personal responsibility." Money is fungible, and you really don't have that much personal influence on Wal-Mart's personnel and siting decisions ... and, more importantly, on the labor standards of undeveloped and underdeveloped countries. I think you can shop at Wal-Mart without feeling personally responsible for anything Wal-Mart does. Do you also refuse to fly on any airline flying Boeing airplanes because Boeing is the primary contractor for the USAF?
August 31, 200915 yr Domestically we're left with Bloomingdales, Macy's, Saks, Nordstorms, Neimans, Sears,Dillards, and JCPenney. Also, Bon-Ton (Elder-Beerman/Carson Pirie/Parisian/etc.) mostly in northern states. Does Kohl's count? I bought my luggage and a couple kitchen appliances there. I'd certainly count them. Can't see how you wouldn't. (After all, if they're not a "department store," what the heck are they?) However, there are still a lot of things you can't buy there, most notably consumable staples: toiletries, office supplies, cleaning supplies, food & drink, etc.
August 31, 200915 yr Domestically we're left with Bloomingdales, Macy's, Saks, Nordstorms, Neimans, Sears,Dillards, and JCPenney. Also, Bon-Ton (Elder-Beerman/Carson Pirie/Parisian/etc.) mostly in northern states. Does Kohl's count? I bought my luggage and a couple kitchen appliances there. I'd certainly count them. Can't see how you wouldn't. (After all, if they're not a "department store," what the heck are they?) However, there are still a lot of things you can't buy there, most notably consumable staples: toiletries, office supplies, cleaning supplies, food & drink, etc. Discount merchandisers. They are "department" stores but not in the traditional sense as with the Major Department stores. Like Airlines. Airlines are broken into the "majors" or "international air carriers" and "LCC's". Continental, United, American, BA, JAL and Air France are Major airlines and airlines like, JetBlue, Ryanair, AirTran, ATA, Frontier, Horizon, Midwest, Spirit, Sun Country & Easy Jet are Low Cost Carriers.
August 31, 200915 yr I don't shop at Wal*Mart because I have other options. The folks I worry about are the ones who have no other option but to shop at Wal*Mart.
August 31, 200915 yr Just because Walmart operates within the broad legal parameters of our country does not mean that it is a desirable city resident. Even if you don't care about what their corporate model does to the built environment, to the carbon footprint of Americans, to the American workers who they prevent from unionizing or organizing for living wages, to the workers in developing countries who are being exploited for their cheap labor, you should care as a (presumably free-market) taxpayer. Central to Walmart's model is an emphasis on underpaying employees and minimizing benefits for full-time staff. It has been well-documented that the store trains workers to avail themselves of government benefit programs ... for subsidized energy, Medicaid, food stamps. I have absolutely no problem with people availing themselves of these resources when they are unable to secure work for any number of reasons; I do pause, however, when full-time workers at the nation's largest corporation are at a low enough income threshhold to tap into these same programs. One study conducted at University of California - Berkley found that California Walmart employees alone are annually collecting $86 million in public assistance. House Education and Workforce Committee research suggests that the average 200-employee Walmart costs taxpayers $400,000 in government assistance to their workers (a whopping $2,000 per employee!) (Source: Mother Jones, http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/01/america-195-week). None of this taxes into account any of the tax subsidies that the corporation itself receives, nor the public greenfield infrastructure expenditures (roads, electricity, etc.) for building these gigantic facilities in the middle of nowhere, only for them to abandon them when the next municipality's incentive comes along. If you want to be for free-market capitalism and minimal regulation in order to maximize productivity and economic output, while minimizing prices for consumers, I can agree to a point. But it seems as though we are in fact subsidizing a significant component of Walmart's EXTREMELY unsustainable model. For more information on why Walmart is hindering, not helping the United States and the world, please see: [url=http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2008/11/big-green-brother, http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2003/03/against-wal-mart, http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2007/12/woe-christmas-tree-wal-mart-buys-ornaments-chinese-sweatshop, http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2007/11/wal-mart-sues-brain-damaged-employee-reward-giving-her-health-insurance and http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2007/12/reason-4321-hate-wal-mart.
August 31, 200915 yr Central to Walmart's model is an emphasis on underpaying employees and minimizing benefits for full-time staff. It has been well-documented that the store trains workers to avail themselves of government benefit programs ... for subsidized energy, Medicaid, food stamps. I have absolutely no problem with people availing themselves of these resources when they are unable to secure work for any number of reasons; I do pause, however, when full-time workers at the nation's largest corporation are at a low enough income threshhold to tap into these same programs. One study conducted at University of California - Berkley found that California Walmart employees alone are annually collecting $86 million in public assistance. House Education and Workforce Committee research suggests that the average 200-employee Walmart costs taxpayers $400,000 in government assistance to their workers (a whopping $2,000 per employee!) (Source: Mother Jones, http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/01/america-195-week). None of this taxes into account any of the tax subsidies that the corporation itself receives, nor the public greenfield infrastructure expenditures (roads, electricity, etc.) for building these gigantic facilities in the middle of nowhere, only for them to abandon them when the next municipality's incentive comes along. Actually, central to Wal-Mart's business model is the most advanced logistics operation on the planet outside of the U.S. military. That, not their minimal labor costs, is the crown jewel of the corporation. Also, the entire line of argument based on how little Wal-Mart allegedly pays its workers is based on faulty economics. Wal-Mart cannot depress its wages beyond what the market will bear. Wal-Mart gives jobs to people who wouldn't otherwise have them. The difference isn't between $9/hr. and $20/hr; it's between $9/hr and unemployment. The fact that Wal-Mart also helps these people avail themselves of available public assistance is hardly reason to vilify either the company or the workers. If a retail worker has sufficient skill to find a better job than one at Wal-Mart, then more power to them. Saks Fifth Avenue does require a little bit more product literacy, and generally perceptibly more verbal ability. However, for workers with limited abilities in English and other skills critical to the retail trade, Wal-Mart is better than nothing. If you want to be for free-market capitalism and minimal regulation in order to maximize productivity and economic output, while minimizing prices for consumers, I can agree to a point. But it seems as though we are in fact subsidizing a significant component of Walmart's EXTREMELY unsustainable model. We have very different definitions of the term "sustainable," I think. Then again, in truth, I don't believe anything is sustainable in the long term, so I don't put a very large emphasis on trying to defend any practice as "sustainable," nor do I place great value on what the sustainability crowd thinks. Also, many of the links in your Wal-Mart hate-list are broken. [ETA: Never mind, figured it out--terminal commas were included in the links.] Hopefully my counter-links aren't: Rich Lowry debunks the anti-Wal-Mart crockumentary The High Cost of Low Prices, notes that Wal-Mart's wages are in line with industry averages, and that Wal-Mart actually profits less per employee than the industry average (simply making it up in volume): http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/lowry200512060818.asp Greg Kaza notes that Wal-Mart's employment effect is actually countercyclical, helping soften economic downturns, particularly among the poorest workers: http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_comment/kaza200512130857.asp Donald Luskin reminds us that even Paul Krugman, before he sold out to the rabid left, called Wal-Mart “the most significant American business success story of the late 20th century,” celebrating its application of “extensive computerization and a home-grown version of Japan’s ‘just in time’ inventory methods to revolutionize retailing.” http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/luskin200512220928.asp And Jonah Goldberg basically sums up my thoughts on the politics behind all this hysteria ... and no matter how much I look, I can only see politics behind the Wal-Mart bashing, not remotely sound economics, despite all the quantitative-looking gloss about public assistance rolls and so on. http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTA1ZTk4ZTEwNzRiYmEzZTBkZWE3YzFhOGVjNmFlNDQ= (Yes, all of these links are from National Review, and I'm guessing it's for the same reason that all of yours were from Mother Jones: the archive is among the easier ones to search. I could provide a much greater variety of sources were I actually inclined to spend a lot of time on this. Sadly, this time isn't billable.)
August 31, 200915 yr We obviously come from substantially different political, economic and philosophical viewpoints, but I do appreciate that it seems you try to be pretty rational in your analysis. There were some interesting items in the sources you provide, although I think Walmart's self-reported average wage of $9 has been contested pretty frequently. I am willing to concede two points based on those articles: 1. That if progressives are arguing against Walmart's practices, they should be cognizant of any adverse impacts on low-income consumers ... particularly if the stat that 8 out of 10 Americans shop at a Walmart each year is accurate. 2. That if we are going to speak out against Walmart, we have to be prepared to do the same for other big-box retailers with approximately the same construction standards, labor practices and product purchase standards (i.e. whether they make purchases of goods produced in sweatshops). That means being willing to monitor and challenge practices at perennial favorite big box Target. I can't help it, I heart Target :) But their practices, on the whole, do not seem to be substantially different than Walmart, so it's probably unfair to let them escape from the blame Walmart gets, just as it's unfair for McDonald's to take the full blame for America's unhealthy diet or Starbucks to take the blame for the commodification of our neighborhood anchor locations. That being said, I still am not supportive of this business model. Even at $9/hour, a full-time worker who clocks 2,000 hours per year would not earn enough to lift a family of 3 above the 2009 poverty threshhold. Walmart is fulfilling its legal obligation by paying at or above the minimum wage, and they have no responsibility to make sure that they provide adequate funds to allow a household to be single-income, but refusal to offer a living wage does indeed have repercussions on taxpayers (even if these repercussions are less than they might be if the person was not working at all). I would welcome government financing of programs that afford workers in that kind of scenario workforce development and education opportunities. This could further incentivize people to take on a low-pay retail position and could buoy employee innovation and buy-in. Hell, I would even be willing to (cautiously) provide such a subsidy directly to a company like Walmart to develop their own workforce development program. Such a subsidy would be a fraction of the tax incentives and infrastructure expenses already offered to big boxes. Regardless, I am still of the opinion that we should be raising minimum standards for employers regarding treatment and payment of employees, as well as how they obtain their products. For instance, I have not yet seen a compelling argument for allowing the use of labor from 12-year-olds, often under the textbook elements of a "sweatshop".
August 31, 200915 yr I have substantially more respect for people who argue for raising the minimum wage across the board, even though I still disagree with it, than for people who single out Wal-Mart as some kind of uniquely bad actor. I go back and forth on the minimum wage myself. As an economic libertarian by inclination, I tend to disfavor it; however, given the realities of a mixed economy and the welfare state, a higher minimum wage (along with lower public assistance benefits) would strengthen the incentive for every able-bodied person to find productive work. In addition, technology has so enhanced worker productivity in this country over the past 25 years that, if you can't get more than $7.15/hr worth of value out of a worker, you're probably doing something wrong. An increase in the minimum wage wouldn't go that far to erode Wal-Mart's competitive advantage, however, because given the statistics in those articles, they already pay higher than the minimum wage, contrary to popular stereotypes. As far as treatment of employees goes, Wal-Mart is definitely not a complete innocent and I've never defended them as such. You don't have to believe Wal-Mart's a complete innocent to defend them against some of the vitriol that gets flung at them on this board and similar corners of the Internet. However, Wal-Mart has definitely been sued successfully in the past for its treatment of workers. (The most horrific recent example was last Black Friday, though I don't know if that came to litigation or an out-of-court settlement, actually.) Again, though, I think that people have a somewhat romanticized view of all of Wal-Mart's competitors, particularly in the discount sector. You mentioned Target, but I think there are even better examples: Save-a-Lot and Aldi, for example, are more serious competitors of Wal-Mart in that they compete more directly for similar demographics. None of them are angels. I think most Wal-Mart detractors have an even more romanticized view of these "mom and pop" stores that Wal-Mart supposedly drove under. Many of them didn't pay any better than Wal-Mart, nor treat their workers appreciably better, if at all. Don't forget, Wal-Mart passes most of its savings on to consumers by squeezing its suppliers, not its workers.
August 31, 200915 yr I was the second post in this thread in 2006. I am proud to say that I have not stepped foot in a Wal-Mart or Sam's store since 2004. I am going on 5 years strong with my boycott!
Create an account or sign in to comment