Wal-Mart Chief Writes Off New York

Source: New York Times

Wal-Mart Chief Writes Off New York
By MICHAEL BARBARO and STEVEN GREENHOUSE
Published: March 28, 2007

Wal-Mart to New York: fuhgeddaboudit.

Frustrated by a bruising, and so far unsuccessful battle to open its first discount store in the nation’s largest city, Wal-Mart’s chief executive said yesterday, “I don’t care if we are ever here.”

H. Lee Scott Jr., the chief executive of the nation’s largest retailer, said that trying to conduct business in New York was so expensive — and exasperating — that “I don’t think it’s worth the effort.”

Mr. Scott’s remarks, delivered at a meeting with editors and reporters of The New York Times, amounted to a surprising admission of defeat, given the company’s vigorous efforts to crack into urban markets and expand beyond its suburban base in much of the country. In recent years, Wal-Mart has encountered stout resistance to its plans to enter America’s bigger cities, which stand as its last domestic frontier.

Much of the opposition to Wal-Mart in cities like New York is led by unions. Organized labor, fearing that the retailer’s low prices and modest wages will undercut unionized stores, have built anti-Wal-Mart alliances with Democratic members of city councils....

***

During the questioning, Mr. Scott repeatedly referred to New York, but after the meeting a Wal-Mart spokeswoman, Mona Williams, called to say that Mr. Scott was referring to only Manhattan, not the entire city....

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/28/business/28retail.html?hp

I wish Wal-Mart would have written us off too.

Oh, that's funny. Like we won't be getting a treat.

Now if only they'd give up on North America.

A little less plastic shit for you!

Target and K-Mart can make a buck here and get along with the neighbors. Go figure...

When they leave it is ugly. It seems I remember reading they are the country's largest vacant building owners.

some days about the "big box" retailers that have shut down stores and left the cinder block hulks with "For Sale" or "For Lease" signs on them. Who in (insert deity's) name needs that kind of space EXCEPT a big box retailer? We have at least ten abandoned, useless sites that I note regularly on our travels.

Which brings me to Wal Mart. They are just about to shut down their current store in one of the suburbs to move DOWN THE STREET about a mile - seriously. So now their previous, hulking, crappy store on the freeway exit will gather dust and rot if I don't miss my guess.

As to the OP: good on you, New York!

for a second, this points out a disturbing issue here. It appears that there are some folks who are using the legislative power of government to compete rather than their own efforts and value.

I have no problem with Union shops and retailers making a buck but those same retailers need to compete and not use the power of their local government to use legislation to keep a competing retailer out.

Hell, that retailer is on a *war* against unions. If it were up to me I'd target the Red Chinese Outlet Store directly with anything Constitutional that can knock them down a whole lot of pegs.

and then ask is this behavior is correct or does it actually create a non-competitive environment that actually harms consumers and costs them extra $$$?

intially undercut all local retailers prices until those retailers are driven out of business, then raise prices without fear of competition.

Wal Mart also tends to demand tax breaks and other "supplementals" from local government.

This is an encouraging trend in that the community has a say in whether or not they want to be subjected to Wal Mart. The people have spoken on this one! :hi: MKJ

the People have spoken a lot of times on a lot of issues and not all of them are the right or healthy thing to do.

:eyes:

WalMart is OK as well as the right or healthy thing to do.

Are you defending WalMart's anti-competitive policies and practices?
How about their discriminatory policies?

Or are you just trying out some debate club practice of throwing out straw man arguments to see if anyone falls for it?

anti-competitive behavior is anti-competitive behavior, whether it is by a private company or a government...I am sorry that you can't see that

Now, if one of the most predatory corporations in the world is actually kept at bay by one community, there are actually folks who bemoan the lack of competitive advantage that said corporation possesses.

Tough being regular folks, ain't it? :hi: MKJ

You do not like their monopolistic anti-union anti-women anti-American behavior
RIGHT? I am so glad you cleared that up.

Do you think corporate welfare is competition? Walmart gets large subsidies from local governments and uses them to drive local stores out of business. Check out http://www.alternet.org/workplace/27864 and http://www.wakeupwalmart.com/facts/ .

OK so you are against the monopolistic behavior of WalMart RIGHT?

yes, if they are convicted of violating the law to obtain a competitive advantage then they should pay the penalty. Do I think those penalties are harsh enough? the penalties should definitely hurt but not so much that you penalize a company for more than their transgression and the penalties should be applied equally and fairly.

Keeping Walmart out is keeping anti-competitive behaviour out.

So 2 wrongs make a right? remember, past behavior becomes a precedent and precedents can be invoked in ways far different than what was originally intended.

Do you think corporate welfare is competition?

yes and no. No: it is not "business to business" competion (in fact it is anti-competitive behavior: artifically lowering one businesses costs relative to another competiting business) but Yes: it is one location competing with a another location for the same finite resource, in this case the company's presence. It is a foolish move by governments (especially state and local ones) as many businesses would move there any ways (why the hell else would they be looking there unless there was some advantage for them to be there?) and/or the amount 'expended' is rarely recovered by the business' presence and job creation via increase in tax revenues (the increases get sucked up in infrastructure expenditures necessary to provide the new roads, schools, police and fire services etc). All that allows to happen is some dumb ass politician (usually a governor, mayor or county commisioner) and his/her cronies to get their picture in the paper or on TV with a big shit eating grin and the ability to face the voters at election time with the statement "I created X number of jobs (by mortgaging our futures which goes unsaid) so re-elect me".

tends to use unfair means (such as subsidies from the local government) to destroy local small businesses, takes advantage of government programs such as welfare and medicaid to avoid paying its workers a living wage with benefits, and furthermore depresses wages in the long run, why shouldn't a community do all it can too keep Walmart out? Why shouldn't unions do everything within their power to keep out a company that fights against unions and punishes workers who attempt to unionize? Is it anti-competitive behavior for communities to refuse to allow corporations to walk all over them?

When Walmart decided to open a store in Honolulu, there was a lot of community action to try to keep it out, but it was ultimately unsuccessful. I am glad New Yorkers were able to stand up to the Walmart monster. This is a good precedent: if enough communites manage to keep Walmart out, Walmart may eventually be forced to change its practices.

What don't you get about third-world products and sketchy working conditions to sell them here? Take your time - I am truly fascinated about what you will say next about the "free market" and how I should bow to it in my spare time and just suck up our race to the bottom as a good thing.

I keep wanting to recycle that old "Freedom isn't Free" bumper sticker these days. Mine is more along the lines of: "Free Markets Are Not Free unless You Have Billions to Advertise With." Of course that's rather long. But I still think it says something.

on edit: someone will gripe about my first characterization so I changed it.

Because Walmart has a nasty tendency to put lots of small businesses out of commission wherever they move in, depress local wages, and in general hurt the economy by decreasing the buying power of the consumers.

"Frontline" had a story a few years back about Walmart coming into Virginia. The people of the town didn't want it, and voted out the council members who supported it. As their last act before leaving, the departing councilpeople approved the plan for Walmart. Walmart spent a lot of money trying to influence the election.

Thing is, NYC has plenty of 99 cents stores and other real bargains - so UGLY CHEAP STUFF is not tempting us. The stuff in the 99c stores is usually better looking that K-mart's (I don't know Wal-Mart). So, price dumping policies in NYC - not so easy...

There are only a few around here but whenever I see one my skin crawls.

If I ever have the money, maybe I'll move to Manhattan!

My town !!!

:loveya::toast::loveya:

I love you NY! :loveya: