Keith D. Milby :: blog

I was in Wal-Mart today picking up some last minute forgotten items. I noticed that the lights in the upright freezers lighting up. I thought it was just probably those wacky florescent lights acting up.

Turns out Wal-Mart has installed motion switches on the freezer lights to turn them off when no ones around, to come on when they are and to obviously conserve energy. Great idea and good for them.

Here is a link to see more of what Wal-Mart is doing for the environment.

This is on the heels of watching the two hour report on CNBC titled Age of Wal-Mart. I thought it gave a rather balanced report on the company from both sides. Those that oppose a success of Wal-Mart (communists, socialists and unions) and the views from insiders like the CEO and others.

Here is a link on more about Wal-Mart from Wal-Mart.

Yes job growth was twice what the expert analysts were predicting. I am beginning to wonder if these expert analysts are just making it up and phoning it in.

This is on the heels of better than expected GDP news for the month of October.

Source: Hiring strong despite housing woes

Wal-Mart continues to support the local communities it thrives in and the California Wildfires only add to that.

Red Cross Receives $250,000 From Wal-Mart to Assist With Southern California Wildfire Relief Efforts

I don’t appear to be the only one according to Rasmussen:

“Sixty-nine percent (69%) of Americans have a favorable opinion of Walmart, including 29% who have a very favorable opinion of the retail giant. A Rasmussen Reports survey of 1,000 adults found that 29% have an unfavorable opinion of the firm. Lower and middle income Americans are more likely to have a favorable opinion of Walmart than upper income Americans.”

…this is even better and proves what I suspected all along.

“The reviews are even better among those who have worked for Walmart (or have family members who have been employed by the firm). Among these workers, 79% have a favorable opinion of the company.”

From Reuters: New Wal-Mart poll finds more favorable attitudes

CHICAGO (Reuters) - About 70 percent of Americans think Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is good for consumers, according to a poll released on Wednesday by a Wal-Mart-backed group of community leaders.

Well this is in stark contrast to a poll provided by the union backed WakeUpWalMart.com poll taken by Zogby  found:

The poll found that 56 percent of American adults agreed with the statement - “Wal-Mart was bad for America. It may provide low prices, but these prices come with a high moral and economic cost.” In contrast, only 39 percent of American adults agreed with the opposing statement - “I believe Wal-Mart is good for America. It provides low prices and saves consumers money every day.”

This was later severely discredited along with Zogby by this Washington Times article.

Now granted, both of these interest groups are both backed by invested parties, looking out for their own best interest. That being said, we now have two sides of the story with the truth probably somewhere in the middle.

This new poll also found some other interesting data. From the Working Families for Wal-Mart: Poll Shows Union and Non-Union Americans Overwhelmingly Support Wal-Mart

Clear majorities of Americans support Wal-Mart and disagree with the Washington, D.C. union leadership-funded attacks. Specifically, the poll shows that of those surveyed:

• 71 percent of Americans believe Wal-Mart is good for consumers while 63 percent of union households hold the same belief;
• 58 percent of Americans and 54 percent of union households believe union leaders should make protecting union jobs a higher priority than attacking Wal-Mart;
• 60 percent of Americans say the campaign against Wal-Mart is not a good use of union dues and 44 percent of union households agree;
• 54 percent of Americans and 42 percent of union households believe the campaign against Wal-Mart makes labor union leaders less relevant to solving the economic challenges facing working families today.

I admit I am a capitalist and I am all for Wal-Mart. I shop Wal-Mart almost exclusively, put some big money down at the register in the month of December and felt good doing it. The associates, store, bargains, convenience and pop-corn shrimp, I like it all.

Lastly, one of the differences between this poll and the Zogby poll. From the same Reuters article, made by RT Strategies partner Thomas Riehle:

Riehle said his firm conducts monthly polls and invites industry or interest groups to in Washington to add a question or two at a cost of $1,000 each. He said he had no Wal-Mart conflicts to disclose.

I bet Zogby wishes he could have said that.

I came across this the other day. Working Families
for Wal-Mart

From their web site:

Working Families for Wal-Mart are customers, business leaders,
activists, civic leaders, educators and many others with first-hand knowledge of Wal-Mart’s
positive contributions to communities.

I have no problem in saying that I am all for Wal-Mart. But, more importantly I am
a Capitalist. Therefore I am glad to see a site like this, that gives a different
and positive perspective on the good works that Wal-Mart is doing for the communities
they serve.

Now don’t get me wrong, I am sure there are some areas that Wal-Mart could be
doing better. But, I am also confidant that Wal-Mart is working to improve those areas
where possible.

From the Washington Times: Anti-Wal-Mart
agitprop

Inside a South Florida Wal-Mart last Thursday, union-sponsored protesters handed
out empty, gift-wrapped boxes to children and made them cry, according to multiple
witnesses — and it appears that the arrests of two of the protesters may have been
part of a grand strategy designed by Big Labor-backed WakeUpWalMart.com.

Yet despite internal WakeUpWalMart.com communication — obtained exclusively by
this columnist — indicating that the union-funded front instructed its protesters
to test police patience, the organization is now playing the race card since the two
protesters arrested (out of 15 total) are both black.

If at first you don’t succeed, play the race card. How typical!

WakeUpWalMart.com, for its part, stands by the claims of its protesters that no
boxes were given to children, but no one denies that empty, gift-wrapped boxes were
brought inside the store. The symbolism, it seems, is fairly obvious: Wal-Mart’s promises
on health care are, well, empty. Except to a kid. To a small child, such a stunt is
just mean.

Not only do Wal-Mart employees interviewed for this column seem credible, but
internal WakeUpWalMart.com communication obtained exclusively by this columnist indicates
that both giving “gifts” to children and tempting arrest might have been intentional.

In an internal WakeUpWalMart.com PowerPoint presentation that lays out a 10-part
timeline for attacking the retailer from late October through the end of the year,
the ninth step — which is supposed to take place between Dec. 14 and Dec. 19 — calls
for activists to place “Santa Claus in front of WMT stores with children asking for
health care and signs.” Beneath that, though, it reads: “they can’t arrest Santa –
and if they do, make sure the press is there.”

Organized protests, paid for by unions to give the impression that Wal-Mart is bad.
What is bad here are unions using front groups like WakeUpWalMart.com to try and strong-arm
Wal-Mart into doing business their way. This all sounds like tactics organized crime
outfits would use to extort businesses into paying protection money.

I hope these guys eventually get whats coming to them and I am not talking about
anything good either.

OK, so I am a big fan of Wal-Mart. Shoot me because I like to save money, like finding
everything I need in one place and enjoy the popcorn shrimp* a little too much.

After my post last
week about this bogus
survey and it being almost immediately
discredited, it was nice to see this
survey from Pew that practically debunked that one.

As shoppers flock to the stores for holiday gifts, some express mixed feelings about
the nation’s largest retailer. Nearly every American lives near enough a Wal-Mart
to shop there, and 84% say they have done so in the past year. Praise for the retailer’s
low prices, wide selection and convenience flow freely, and 81% of those with a Wal-Mart
nearby say it is a good place to shop.

Somewhat less glowing, however, are judgments about Wal-Mart’s effect on communities
and the nation as a whole, and a third of the public (34%) rates it a bad place to
work. Overall, 69% of those familiar with Wal-Mart have a favorable opinion
of the company. Still, 31% have an unfavorable view, which is a considerably
higher negative rating than is accorded to many other major corporations.

Read the whole thing for more interesting data.

Therefore, it is nice to see that I am not the only one that has a favorable opinion
of Wal-Mart. I knew this already of course because of the hundreds of people that
are always in the store with me. I only wish I could have the Wal-Mart all to myself.

_{*Popcorn Shrimp may not be available at your Wal-Mart, but they are at mine.}

Me: I think not. Wal-Mart should not bring it’s treasure to France unless France is
willing to give up it’s socialist ways.

I read this great
article by Charles Wheelan, Ph.D. in The Naked Economists.

Last month on the U.S. side of the Atlantic, Wal-Mart sponsored a series of academic
papers evaluating how its business practices affect the broader economy. The results
were not surprising, but the scale of the numbers was.

The good news: Wal-Mart does not merely save consumers money. It’s also responsible
for pushing down consumer prices in America by 3.1 percent. The bad news: Much of
the savings comes from paying employees as little as possible. Wal-Mart alone is responsible
for driving down American wages by 2.2 percent.

I have a problem with the “driving down American wages by 2.2 percent“, that
seems like a matter of interpretation to me. In a free and open economy, are wages
not set by the competitive job market? If you have to pay someone $15.00 to sweep
floors, because all floor sweepers in that particular market make $15.00, you kind
of have to pay that or go with dirty floors. Do you not?

Likewise if they only make $7.00 why would an employer pay more? Maybe this is
an issue of floor sweepers not being worth as much as they used to, like RPG programmers.
Could this be the cause of certain jobs being devalued?

The French alternative — admittedly oversimplified — is to require that firms
pay low-skilled workers more, whether their productivity justifies it or not. If an
employee adds $5.15 an hour worth of value to a firm, the government might require
the firm to pay him $10. As you can imagine, firms are not keen on paying someone
$10 an hour for $5.15 worth of work, not even in France. The best business decision
in that case is to hire no one at all.

That’s it exactly and something socialist don’t get. That is why the saying;
“Socialism - Where Everyone Is Equally As Miserable” is so applicable. They usually
end up doing more harm than good for those they are trying to help.

Capitalism - The cure for rampant socialism.

French policies compound the problem by making it hard to get rid of workers once
they’re hired. The result, to stick with the retailing theme of the column, is like
a department store that doesn’t allow returns. True, no merchandise will come back.
But consumers will be much more cautious about what they buy in the first place. Overall
sales may well be lower.

So it is with employees. Firms that can’t fire don’t hire.

That last sentence there is the reason why I think France does not deserve Wal-Mart.
People should not have a job as a human socialist right. They should have a job because
they deserve it and are willing to work hard to keep. If not, you’re fired, outta
here, get to stepping, we are no longer in need of your services.

It seems that the recent poll released by WakeUpWalMart.com was done by John Zogby
who has a dubius relationship with anti-Wal-Mart groups.

The other day we were led
to believe that the opinion of Wal-Mart has declined:

The poll found that 56 percent of American adults agreed with the statement -
“Wal-Mart was bad for America. It may provide low prices, but these prices come with
a high moral and economic cost.” In contrast, only 39 percent of American adults agreed
with the opposing statement - “I believe Wal-Mart is good for America. It provides
low prices and saves consumers money every day.”

Then today Joel Mawbry in the Washington Times reveals
the relationship that Zogby has with these anti-Wal-Mart organizations.

When the national press devoured a new union-sponsored poll released last week
by uber-pollster John Zogby claiming that a majority of Americans believe that “Wal-Mart
is bad for America,” not reported were serious ethical issues which call into question
the integrity of the much-ballyhooed survey.

Perhaps because Mr. Zogby has such a sterling reputation — which has enabled
him to snare contracts with several top media outlets, including Reuters, NBC, and
the Wall Street Journal — his findings were reported largely unchallenged.

But what no journalist would have known without digging is that Mr. Zogby cannot
be considered an objective third-party when it comes to Wal-Mart. Without the presumption
that the pollster was working solely to gauge scientifically the attitudes of the
public, the poll loses much of its luster and becomes just another cog in Big Labor’s
coordinated campaign against the retailer.

In recent years, Mr. Zogby has pocketed roughly $90,000 to serve as an expert
witness for individuals suing Wal-Mart, according to testimony he gave in a deposition
last year in an Arizona case. Nowhere is Mr. Zogby’s prior work on behalf of plaintiffs
mentioned in the press release announcing the poll results.

During a 45-minute phone interview for this column, Mr. Zogby willingly acknowledged
when asked about his work on behalf of the various plaintiffs. He repeatedly requested
that the column reflect his honesty, which shows that he understands the relevance
of his past work.

Which raises the question: If he implicitly concedes that his testifying for people
suing Wal-Mart is relevant, then why wasn’t that disclosure in the announcement of
the poll results?

I believe we might have somewhat of a conflict of interest here. When I first
read about this poll I had to think to myself, this can’t be right. The only way that
this could be right is that the majority of those polled had to be union workers with
agendas.

Unions hate Wal-Mart, because Wal-Mart pay people based on what they are worth for
the job they perform. Unions do not like that because unions want people making the
most money possible even if it is more than the market will bare for that position.
Wal-Mart pays competitive salaries. They have to if they expect to have people working
for them in any particular market. That is the way a free and open market works.

Unions work better in socialist economies like France and Canada. Everyone is
equally miserable, no more no less. Raise your hand if you would like to trade
economies with France or Canada. You might get paid more but you also have a greater
chance of being without a job.

This brings me to another great
article I read the other day but I am going to put that into another post.

The guys over at National Review have had interesting discussions about Wal-Mart today.
It start out with how Wal-Mart is helping with poor
families:

Daniel Drezner notes some
new studies documenting the economic benefits of Wal-Mart. Such findings should not
surprise NRO readers, but this might: Even the liberal Center for American Progress acknowledges that
Wal-Mart helps the poor, calling the discount retail giant a “progressive success
story.” I wonder what the Cleveland
anti-Wal-Mart crowd thinks of that.

Then they went on to discussing Wal-Mart on subsidies and it started
like this:

Professor Bainbridge makes
a “conservative case” against Wal-Mart. The argument he makes with which
I am symapthetic is that Wal-Mart (like many large companies) occasionally receives
subsidies from local governments. This is true — but I think Bainbridge overstates
the case.

Then it goes on from there. Go and read the rest here, here and here.

Excellent discussions as usual. When those guys get on to something, it can be a
very informative ride.

I found
this article by Rich Lowry “Fear
and Loathing Wal-Mart” to be a real history lesson on all of the unjustified
and unfair criticism Wal-Mart is experiencing at the moment.
It turns
out that in the retail business this is nothing new. As Rich points out here:
A
new paper from the Competitive Enterprise Institute details the long history of
resistance to retail advances. In the late 19th century, the advent of department
stores caused outrage. The same reaction met the rise of mail-order catalogs, which
were burned in public at the behest of local retailers. The rise of chain stores in
the 1920s also inflamed local merchants, who claimed that they threatened “the
future of the children.”
Hence the
next graph:
Now,
it’s Wal-Mart’s turn. Founder Sam Walton realized that by offering customers
discount prices he could make more profits based on increased volume. Hence, the Wal-Mart
revolution, and the movement against it that The High Cost celebrates.
Then there
is this:
The
first thing to know about low price is that it has a wonderfully low cost for Wal-Mart
customers, a category that includes 8 in 10 Americans a year. A study by Global Insight
— paid by Wal-Mart to study the company’s economic effects, but granted
independence — estimated that Wal-Mart lowered the consumer price index by 3.1
percent between 1985 and 2004, making for $263 billion in consumer savings by 2004.
In a widely cited report, Jason Furman of

Imagine
that, because I always shop at Wal-Mart I probably saved my family 25 percent on annual
food spending or in my case I was able to provide that much more food for my family.
That means I can splurge and buy Junior “Cheerios” instead of “Krusty
O’s”.
This seems
to be something that the left and the democrats in this country would be heralding
as a good thing. But because the left and the democrats are so tied to unions, special
interest groups and their own desire to keep their voting base (the poor, minorities,
and seniors) dependent on government and them, they criticize and try to destroy Wal-Mart.
This is wrong.
So I say
to the folks at Wal-Mart, do not cave to unions, do not give into harassment by local
city councils, do not surrender to your competition and keep up the good fight. For
every one critic you have, there are 100 more cheerleaders and you can certainly include
me as one of your biggest cheerleaders. A diehard capitalist to the very end and I
will continue to sing your praises as long as I have breath to do so.

City Council Votes
to Bar 24-Hour Wal-Mart

Well there they go again.

LIVONIA, Mich. - The
city council in this Detroit suburb voted unanimously to bar a planned Wal-Mart from
being open 24 hours a day. Developers of the proposed 204,000-square-foot store said
they were disappointed at the vote Wednesday night to limit store hours to 6 a.m.
to midnight. “We’ve worked for years to produce a plan that is satisfactory to the citizens
… officials and staff,” developer Robert Schostak said. “We’re back to square one.
It’s not done yet.”

>

This is absolutely unbelievable. The city of Livonia bans Wal-Mart from collecting
taxes for the city and the state. Do they not realize how many jobs they just eliminated?
Do they not realize the number of hours that potential employees will not be able
to work?

They have barred Wal-Mart from being open for 6 hours a day, that is 42 hours a week
and let’s be conservative and say they need 10 employees to work those hours, which
is 420 hours. Now go and multiple that by say 10 dollars an hour, which is $4,200
in wages that will not be realized and be left out of the pockets of people that probably
really need it.

I cannot even begin to determine how much lost revenue that this will be. Do you think
the folks that wanted or need something at say 2 o’clock in the morning are just going
to wait? Maybe, or they will go so where else that is open and buy it there. Say at
a convenience store where they will may a premium for the item. This certainly does
no favors for the poor does it?

So, good going there citizens of Livonia, you are only hurting yourselves.

It is so nice to read someone defending Wal-Mart against its critics. As
I have read on previous occasions, Wal-Mart is better than some on the progressive
side would have you believe. That is why it was nice to come across this
article in The Washington Post by Sebastian Mallaby

There’s a comic side to the anti-Wal-Mart campaign brewing in Maryland and across
the country. Only by summoning up the most naive view of corporate behavior can the
critics be shocked — shocked! — by the giant retailer’s machinations. Wal-Mart is
plotting to contain health costs! But isn’t that what every company does in the face
of medical inflation? Wal-Mart has a war room to defend its image! Well, yeah, it’s
up against a hostile campaign featuring billboards, newspaper ads and a critical documentary
movie. Wal-Mart aims to enrich shareholders and put rivals out of business! Hello?
What business doesn’t do that?>

I always like asking progressive/lefty/liberals, how’s that socialism experiment going
up in Canada?

We have been going to Wal-Mart regularly now for over 2 years, since our new son came
along. We typically go there 3 to 4 times a week. I like shopping at Wal-Mart because
I feel relatively comfortable with paying good prices on the essentials of life. As
for other items, you can actually pay higher prices at Wal-Mart. I still remember
paying 2 dollars more than I should have for the 3rd season of Married with Children.
I will not let that happen again.

You cannot argue with Wal-Mart’s success. I believe over-all they continue to do more
good for the communities they are in, than bad. Wal-Mart’s tremendous response to
those in the areas hit by Katrina proves the worth of the private sector. We should
not be absolutely dependent on government. The private sector and charities play their
part. Some have even suggested turning responsibilities over to companies like Wal-Mart
for responding to disaster relief. That may not be a bad idea.

Here in my area of Indiana I did not really notice an increase in prices at my local
Wal-Mart, but I did notice the deals were not as sweet as they were pre-Katrina. Fortunately,
they seem to be coming back. We even had shortages in some areas especially if the
manufactures where based in that area.

I for one think Wal-Mart deserves more credit for the good they do. Sure keep an eye
on them as you would any other business, but hey stop singling them out because they
just so happen to be the most successful.

Well if you thought that the IPO of Google was amazing. It seems that it is only getting
better.

Bloomberg has the story.

Google Inc. approached $100 billion in market value and analysts rushed to raise
their price estimates after the company’s results soared past the most optimistic
of expectations.

Analysts at three firms including Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. said the stock
may climb to $450 from today’s record close of $339.90. At that price, Google would
have a value more than double that of Yahoo! Inc. and vault into the top 20 largest
U.S. companies, worth more than Coca-Cola Co. and Wells Fargo & Co.