Wal-Mart
Our friend David over at Greater Falls beat me to the punch on the whole Wal-Mart issue. Walgreens, Wal-Mart, if our planning board members cannot find their way to supporting economic development, they need to be replaced...now. Does anyone in this town have the backbone to stand up to the NIMBY's? Because we're going to have them on every project. Our boards, though, seem to give their objections inordinate weight. I can only conclude that their cowing to the pressure of the protesters is a lack of the courage of their convictions. Hey folks, didn't your parents ever tell you it is better to be "right" than "liked?"
Chairman Bronson's claim that language of the use code necessitated against Wal-Mart is disingenuous, and he merely used to to provide himself with cover for leading the charge against Wal-Mart. The code says: "The diverse retail economy is desirable in that it provides consumer choice and fosters competition." According to Bronson, "if the City Commission doesn't want the potential economic impact of big box stores to be considered then they need to remove that language."
Come on. I did not attend the meeting, but I guarantee you that no one presented any evidence that conclusively proves anything about Wal-Mart's effect on the "diverse retail economy." How do I know? None exists.
This was a cop out, pure and simple.
17 comments:
I know Bronson. He's a phony, self-styled "conservative" who supports limits on government power except when it is to be exercised by him. Like all liberals (and most RINO's) he just figures he's smarter than the rest of us.
How could a true conservative reconcile a belief in private property rights with the notion that, when deciding land use issues, one should consider the "economic effect" of one's use? Let's see, I want to build a store on my property, but it might adversely affect other stores, so Bronson and his ilk will say I can't?
Hello? Free market, anyone?
It's a sad statement to make to teh community. They need to be put on notice- We welcome growth! We want growth and it needs to start NOW!
Amen, GeeGuy -- when I read about the specific "language" that Bronson was referring to, I was absolutely baffled. I still don't understand how those words could produce his reaction and vote.
While you are all cheerleading for WalMart, especially you more conservative types, take into consideration that almost none of WalMart's jobs pay much more than minimum wage. What does that mean to us? What it means is we subsidize WalMart because its employees have no health insurance benefits, and what they do have, people making minimum wage can't afford, so they end up in the emergency room, or on Medicaid. Who pays for that? We do. Further, these folks are qualifying for food stamps and energy assistance. Who pays for this, we do. These are people with full time jobs!! Any company that can't pay its employees enough to live on, and the rest of us must then subsidize, I question whether it really provides an economic advantage to our community.
You're right Melody, because people without jobs usually have great health insurance and other benefits, don't they?
Also, you also apparently missed this comment from Wal-Mart employee, Anthony Ward: "The giant retailer is a good employer with better wages than many other local businesses," he said. "I was offered an entry-level job at a starting wage better than any other job I could find in town. My Wal-Mart dental insurance is better than the plans offered by the military or the bank where my wife works."
so let me get this right we don't need another wa-mart because they only pay base wage? and the health benfits are not so go? so why do why need any more bars or casinos? they only pay base wage(very few offer more) and they don't have health benfits. but oo thats right money form them goes stright to the city so that's ok. but wal-mart giving others stores a run for there money and giving great falls jobs would be worng. hmmmmmm i would rather have jobs with some benfits. and any way who says that you have to have them, isn't that the choice of the person working there. anf for them to decide if they are right for their family or not?
Couple misconceptions here, Keri. First, I don't know of any casinos that still pay minimum wage, and the ones I am familiar with all offer health insurance after the probationary period.
Also, the gaming taxes no longer go straight to the City after the passage of "the Big Bill."
My family of 5 spends about $200 a week in groceries. The same items purchased at Albertsons are at least $50 more. 52 weeks in the year times $50 is $2600 a year in savings. That is $2600 available for me to spend in a Casino, hairstyling for the wife or donate to Habitat for Humanity. Having a Wal-Mart available puts money in the pockets of those who need it most. There are more working poor shopping at Wal-Mart than CEO’s. Besides, Wal-Mart is already here. The second store’s biggest immediate effect on our community will be that of reducing sales at the first store; the next effect will be raising low skill wages by hiring up what few workers are available at that skill level thus forcing other employers to compete more for employees and lastly helping us east siders spend less on gas by not having to drive to the west side to shop.
The question the people against the second store should be answering is what are they for and how are they going to make it happen, being for something that has no possibility of happening does not count. It might be true that the world would be a better place without Wal-Mart and the world would probably be a better place without the internal combustion engine. I don’t think anybody reasonable would suggest the first step for getting rid of either should start in Great Falls.
My questions about WalMart are simply that, and while I appreciate the concept of gainful employment, and think its necessary for many who are not working and who ultimately end up in some kind of trouble, I am troubled by the corporate ethic. I hear all the positive statements about WalMart, I shop there too. I actually love WalMart because as one of the commentors said, its cheaper. But I do wonder about a company that engages in some of the reported tactics of WalMart. And I am not a unionist, and I am not an elitist, (in fact that one makes me laugh, my parents lived in a trailer in Black Eagle for 25 years). If indeed people are eligible for food stamps and Medicaid and are employed by any company, not just WalMart, then I think its a problem for all of us. My comments were meant to infuse another perspective into this discussion, and a quite civilized discussion it is. Thanks.
Melody,
Great Falls has to send a signal it's pro-growth and pro-business. The town is not in a position to selectively pick and choose development based on whether the jobs are great paying or not so great paying. Great Falls has not grown since 1960. It's called sitting on your ass for 40 years. We can do better.
Let Walmart build, China needs more money,the U.S. needs to close more factories,we need more low paying jobs in this country, and the credit card customers "need" that big screen t.v. from China for cheap and on credit. Heck we should lobby Walmart to build a store on Gore Hill so those people that live there are closer to work and shopping.
I think Albertsons, Smiths, I.G.A the remaining County Market should all be converted to mini WalMarts. Just think of all the great jobs and cheap groceries. Great Falls would truly live up to the name "Great".
Melody, you make some great points about the immorality of socialism. Why should society expect me to pay someone else's healthcare via Medicaid? Here's a great article on why Wal-Mart is good for the economy.
http://www.fee.org/pdf/the-freeman/1005Semmens.pdf
There is one sentence in there that pretty much sums it all up, especially for you Melody...
"Ideologues who rant against Wal-
Mart do not understand economics."
Too true, too true....
Just think of one thing, Melody: Wal-Mart enables the poor to purchase more of a good than they could have before Wal-Mart's competition came to town. Just that point alone illustrates that free market capitalism helps everyone! It's not about giving some built-in advantage to the rich!
As Ludwig von Mises said, "Those fighting for free enterprise and free competition do not defend the interests of those rich today. They want a free hand left to unknown men who will be the entrepreneurs of tomorrow."
Here's a perfect of example of someone that refused to be enshackled by minimum wage and rose to success....
http://www.mtpolitics.net/archives/2206
"As Ludwig von Mises said, "Those fighting for free enterprise and free competition do not defend the interests of those rich today. They want a free hand left to unknown men who will be the entrepreneurs of tomorrow." "
If indeed this were the way things are, it would be different, however, "free market" is just another couple words for "screw the masses."
And regarding the immorality of socialism -- I hardly think that capitalism is moral.
While I am not a business owner or have large capital to infuse into my town, I think I understand economics enough to understand that WalMart and many, many other companies have moved their factories to places like China where the populace can be worked like slaves so that we can pay less by shopping at Walmart. I understand that when I call many, many companies for services, or to report a problem, who do I get but someone in INDIA (for God's sake). I understand that its called "outsourcing" and helps no one except the big capitalists who don't want to pay living wages to American workers.
Gman, your politics and mine are good examples of how and why this country is split 50/50 on these, and many other issues.
Name one country in the history of mankind that became an economic power based on the service sector. Wage growth in the U.S. continues to drop, manufacturing layoffs are reported every day (G.M, Ford, etc), savings rates are at an all time low, credit card debt is at an all time high. God forbid real estate values drops. The gap between rich and poor continues to grow. Yet outsourcing magically allows more efficent use of capital to create better paying jobs in the U.S.. Like what, greeter at Walmart? Why are dollar stores(the fastest growing retail segment) and Walmart so popular? Because people are getting richer?
Don't get me wrong, I believe companies have the right to make the decison to outsource. But we do not live a pure capitalistic world. There are times the government needs to step in and level the playing field. Is this one of those times? I don't know. There just seems to be some disturbing economic trends facing this country.
JSACDA, you seem to think that the U.S. doesn't manufacture anything anymore. Gosh, just think of all of the Japanese cars Americans assemble here -- not to mention BMWs. Also, when you say "service" jobs you immediately think of the Wal-Mart greeter. Why? There are service jobs that pay quite well.
You think like everyone else -- if we lose manufacturing jobs, nothing takes the place of those jobs. Wrong. Dell is a perfect example. Dell uses less expensive overseas labor, which allows them to sell their computers for less, which allows more consumers to purchase their computers, which increases profits, which is profit used to hire highly skilled and highly paid engineers, MBAs, marketing consultants, etc. Hey, there you go! Marketing consultants are in the service sector of the economy and, trust me, they make good money. So, not all service workers are greeters at Wal-Mart. And, what's wrong with working as a greeter at Wal-Mart, anyway?
Final note: you are only partially correct that the gov't should level the playing field in the free market. It does so only insofar as it prevents you from harming me via the rule of law (prevent physical harm, theft, fraud, misrepresentation, etc.). Beyond that, there is no "level playing field" in the free market nor should there be. The free market is about competion -- to wit, who can most cost effectively ulitize scarce resources to get the highest quality product to consumers at the lowest possible price. This arrangement ensures the most efficient use of capital and ultimately the prosperity of any nation's economy. Geez, just read Wal-Mart's slogan -- "Always low price. Always." It just oozes capitalism. And, what's so sinister about that?
Gman- you've fallen into the trap. The question is weather Great Falls should annex some property on the east side of tenth. The discussion snakes into “The gap between rich and poor continues to grow”. What does this have to do with Great Falls? I think this discussion has little to do with retail in Great Falls and everything to do with a pure hatred for Wal-Mart. All of the reasons to hate WM given have little to do with what’s best for Great Falls and more to do with some greater social agenda for changing the world. I think their goal for changing the world is fine, just don’t ask me to pay for it or try to effect world changes through Great Falls zoning regulations.
Your point is well taken Wolfpack, but the "feelings" against Wal-Mart are fueled by nothing but ignorance of the virtues of the free society, in particular the free economy.
Post a Comment