I'm not knowledgeable enough to start a topic on Wal-Mart-ization, but I hope someone will, as I'm still in a quandary about the whole issue. Not long ago a link to a survey on Midway stores was posted on this site. Then came the Wal-Mart discussion, and I can understand Tim's concern that the it ranged far beyond St. Paul. Then Jackie offered some interesting comments on Wal-Mart and other huge chains and how they impact retail space and community. These are all inextricably related, and I urge someone to help us pursue it.
I'm struck by how impossible it is to buy American goods in just about any store, at whatever level. China, Malaysia, Brazil and Mexico are the countries that come to mind first as suppliers to even high-end companies. "Imported" used to mean something special and pricy; now it means they don't want to admit what 3rd world employees are being exploited to make unreasonably high profits for stockholders. And since most of us have a stake in those profits - either through a pension plan or personal investments in mutual funds or 401-ks, we can't be superior and reject the filthy profit motive. Midway is a microcosm illustrating all those relationships - poor neighborhood serving the immediate community and contiguous wealthier communities, low wages, cheap imported goods dominating the market and driving small retailers and craftspeople out of business. So the best we can do with a Mervyn's is CVS???? Is that the kind of answer we want for St. Paul? Realizing that Dennis is right about the general success of government-controlled business, I still think there's room for government regulations and careful decisions about financing. Please, can we keep discussing this somehow? I think there's a lot to sort out specific to St. Paul and how we want our city to develop over the next several decades. (BTW I'd welcome Hillary Care to what's happened now, and I have never felt the delicious freedom of being able to go across the street for a better offer. Union shackles gave us humane benefits that help everyone, union or not.) Gail O'Hare St. Paul ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 12:04:40 -0600 From: "Steve Nelson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [StPaul] Re: Wal-Mart script excerpt To: "Mike Fratto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: [email protected] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Mike Fratto Payne Phalen Wrote "However, if you provided them some of the facts Emily and Rene posted recently I think they would have to reconsider their responses. Especially, if they understood the community cost of Walmart's presence. That is the cost to taxpayers, non-profits, emergency health care and their own employees." So once again I propose that the state put forward a General Fund Reimbursement bill that would place a surcharge on all businesses that rely on the state to provide services to their employees that they refuse to pay for so they can pad their bottom line. Let's take the profit incentive for underpaying and/or underbenefitting employees out of the equation. And let's not limit it to strictly their employees but their effects on other businesses. If someone like Wal-Mart tries to pull a Rubbermaid in Minnesota--telling a company to fold their US plants and open up in China--the state will slap a surcharge on the Wal-Mart type business for state expenditures in retraining the employees who have been outsourced as well as for any welfare they need until they find an equivilant job to the one they had. Unless, of course, the Taxpayers League believes it is all right for the state to subsidize these corporations instead of taxing them to pay their own freight. Steven M Nelson Willard Hay http://citizenshipchronicles.blogspot.com/ Get UP! Get OUT! & GET INVOLVED!!! ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 12:31:23 -0600 From: "Dennis Tester" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [StPaul] Re: Wal-Mart script excerpt To: "Steve Nelson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Mike Fratto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: [email protected] Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=iso-8859-1; reply-type=response > So once again I propose that the state put forward a General Fund > Reimbursement bill that would place a surcharge on all businesses that > rely on the state to provide services to their employees that they refuse > to pay for so they can pad their bottom line. Let's take the profit > incentive for underpaying and/or underbenefitting employees out of the > equation. This is interesting, because even though the vast majority of people receive their medical coverage from their employer, for example, there's no law that says the employer must provide such a thing. It's done out of the kindness of their hearts (if you can believe that it has nothing to do with competition in the labor market). So if the U.S. Congress passes a universal health care bill, ala HillaryCare, whereby the people will have their medical expenses paid for by the government, that will let corporate america off the hook ... having the exact opposite affect that you want! And there's no "profit incentive" for underpaying and/or underbenefiting employees ... my previous employers found that out the hard way when I regularly left for better offers. You can always go across the street ... that is if you're free of union shackles. Then there's this: > If someone like Wal-Mart tries to pull a Rubbermaid in Minnesota--telling > a company to fold their US plants and open up in China--the state will > slap a surcharge on the Wal-Mart type business for state expenditures in > retraining the employees who have been outsourced as well as for any > welfare they need until they find an equivilant job to the one they had. Do you think this policy would ENcourage or DIScourage companies from opening up plants in the state in the first place? Having the government trying to dictate how a private enterprise will be run (via taxation, regulation and litigation), is the primary reason why they're going overseas in the first place, because I don't know what that is, but it ain't capitalism. Maybe the republican government should just own and operate all the businesses. Yeah, that's it. Dennis Tester Mac-Groveland ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 13:14:24 -0600 From: List Manager <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The Wal-Mart discussion has definitely drifted outside the scope of the St. Paul Issues Forum. Please, take it elsewhere - or I will be contacting you in private and if necessary issuing warnings. Once again, here is the address for our National Issues Forum. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mn-politics-national/ Wal-Mart is a topic for the St. Paul Issues Forum as long as we are talking about the SPECIFIC impact of Walmart in St. Paul, LOCAL policies that affect Wal-Mart, or LOCAL actions taken in regards to the Midway Walmart. Broad philosophical discussions about Wal-mart, how Wal-mart operates internationally, unions, or corporate responsibility - need to be taken elsewhere. NOTE: If anyone would like to organize a 1-2 week special discussion about Wal-Mart, Corporate Responsibility, or Unions - it might be an appropriate discussion for our new St. Paul Topics forum. Please, contact me off-line. Best wishes, Message: 4 Date: Fri, 31 Dec 2004 14:06:20 -0600 From: "Jackie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [StPaul] Walmart and retail space To: <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Hello everyone, Very interesting thread about Walmart. I lived in San Francisco for many years. One of the things out there was trying to keep the feel of a city wih stores that had eye level stores to keep a feeling of the community that it supported. The dot com boom really trashed a lot of this. I remember many years ago when the Gap came to the Haight Ashbury neighborhood and everyone began to shudder. There is some legislature out there about how much saturation an area can take from chains-pharmacies, coffee shops, clothing stores and other places that come in and wipe out the local businesses- especially the ones that have been there for many years. The real estate in SF is astronomical- the minute a chain- and I won't mention them- we all know who they are- came in, the real estate became prohibitive per square foot for a smaller business to move it. It also created a situation where many businesses that had been around for decades were pushed out by greedy (or to be more tactful- opportunistic) landlords. Your local independent coffee shop was pushed out by the one that is everywhere- and the corner property is lost to small businesses forever. It does not reverse. I see it happening here all over the place- a downtrodden area gets some artists or alternate living arrangements and in the next few years- boom- loft condos for a fortune. In some ways this improves an area- in others, it is just a business cycle. This is happening all over the country- there are no more "downtowns"- just boring malls with the same exact stores in every locale. In urban centers- Manhattan, San Francisco, Chicago- there is a suburbanization process going on. Between the coffee shops, home improvement boxes and large scale chains- it is the same as areas like ours. What happens when these stores that belong in malls die? What happens when malls die- www.deadmalls.com . Sometimes smaller scale stores open in areas that are run down or go upscale in areas where there is real estate to afford them. This is what parts of Grand Avenue are and other shopping areas in the Twin Cities. It is not WalMart, but kind of a "boutiquing" of shops- not basic stores, more for entertainment shopping. This goes on in large cities also- South Street Seaport and other areas that are just for tourists. Another change is how downtowns are not for the people that work or live there- they are for suburban entertainment-any major city has its area with sports bars for the weekend big city visitor to visit. I am curious to see how this will unfold in the next few years. Like someone said, this is all a cycle. My friend Lou and I walk around Manhattan and wonder how many Duane Reade drugstores, cell phone stores and Starbucks (one across the street from the other) even Manhattan can absorb. We think it is about real estate and no longer about goods- China manufactures for the world now. Tarriffs are about to be lifted on clothing and textiles that have been in place since the 70's- wonder how that will impact Target/WalMart/ Kmart etc---- wasn't it stated in the business sections that the Kmart-Sears merger was more about Sears real estate than goods and selling of them? I think it is just so sad that people do not have some sense of a downtown/shared community space besides a mall to congregate. I know we all share community with each other- it is just harder and harder. It is not nostalgia driven to me- it is just about smaller scale. I have no answers, I am not a business person, nor am I a fan of corporate giants. I am willing to spend a bit extra for the hardware store, drugstore, and other local businesses. It just isn't enough- quantity sales is what keeps businesses around and smaller places can not do it. I am curious about those WalMart holiday sales figures. I also wonder what happens to all the excess junk they do not sell- more fodder for another discussion. Have a good safe New Year, Jackie Midway Heights _____________________________________________ To Join: St. Paul Issues Forum Rules Discussion Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ____________________________________________ NEW ADDRESS FOR LIST: [email protected] To subscribe, modify subscription, or get your password - visit: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul Archive Address: http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/private/stpaul/
