The milk likely comes from a US dairy. Transported by trucks with parts from around the world. Cows fed on feeds produced with equipment from around the world and supported with federal price supports. Cows milked with stainless steel manufactured in Japan. And the trail proceeds to all ends of the global system involving the exploitation of energy and resources–and the payment of workers, poor and rich.

What is your general proposal? That I make the purchase at the local convenience store? They don't sell organic milk. That I drive 20 extra miles and buy it at Target? That I don't buy it?

Why is Wal=mart a unique 'culprit?' Or am I the culprit for putting milk on the table for my children?

If you don't want the business to deliver the product that can deliver with great efficiency–what kind of business do you want?

Do you want everyone in New York City to have a cow on the rooftop that they milk and pasteurize the milk at home?

The milk likely comes from a US dairy. Transported by trucks with parts from around the world. Cows fed on feeds produced with equipment from around the world and supported with federal price supports. Cows milked with stainless steel manufactured in Japan. And the trail proceeds to all ends of the global system involving the exploitation of energy and resources–and the payment of workers, poor and rich.

What is your general proposal? That I make the purchase at the local convenience store? They don't sell organic milk. That I drive 20 extra miles and buy it at Target? That I don't buy it?

Why is Wal=mart a unique 'culprit?' Or am I the culprit for putting milk on the table for my children?

If you don't want the business to deliver the product that can deliver with great efficiency–what kind of business do you want?

Do you want everyone in New York City to have a cow on the rooftop that they milk and pasteurize the milk at home?

Nope. That's not the point at all. What would please me is if they stopped taking their profits at the expense of sweatshop workers in China, at the expense of their employees, at the expense of tax-payers, at the expense of their local communities, and at the expense of the environment. (And yes, these are all documented facts, not merely an alternative “narrative”.) I'm all for providing more affordable goods to poor people, but not if it has to come at the expense of even poorer people. Profits are fine, but not when they are taken from the common purse, at the expense of the common good, or through the exploitation of the “least of these.” (And again, I'm not speaking abstractly or “narratively”, this is based on hard facts.)

Nope. That's not the point at all. What would please me is if they stopped taking their profits at the expense of sweatshop workers in China, at the expense of their employees, at the expense of tax-payers, at the expense of their local communities, and at the expense of the environment. (And yes, these are all documented facts, not merely an alternative “narrative”.) I'm all for providing more affordable goods to poor people, but not if it has to come at the expense of even poorer people.

It surely would have been. The more cooperation and fewest amount of “strong-arming” (even legally), the better of society would be. The two Wal-Marts in my area have undergone renovation to become more “green.” Guess what? If they weren't so prosperous they couldn't afford to renovate and “go green.” But they had the capital to do so, and nobody forced them to do it by law. No government coercion. Public pressure perhaps, but that's a good thing.

As they should [make boatloads of money]. Long forgotten is the value of capital accumulation. Without it nobody could save, therefore nobody could invest, therefore no commercial progress could happen. Even if you're against all of these, and you want to soak the rich, you better hope they earn a lot of money because that means more for your welfare and “public service” projects (as if offering the community a low price for a product is not a public service!).

“I would love a different system. But right now I have to give credit to a business making friends with poor folks every day.”

We take it for granted that there are wealthy people in our nation, whereas most of us in the United States are in the top 5% of the world, and the top 1% of the world historically. Far too often the focus is on what “creates” poverty, when the question should be, “What creates wealth, and how do we stand aside and let the most number of people achieve such a thing?” We all started in poverty, not in wealth. Wealth is not the default position.

Be assured that Wal-mart was lobbying like crazy for re-zoning. I don't see Wal-mart's lobbying efforts (or those of local business groups, or homeowners, or environmental groups, or any of the other groups who made their views known to Council and tried to persuade in favour of their position) as unethical.

It's unfortunate that Wal-mart didn't take the opportunity to learn from the decision that many people would prefer that it 'adapt and do things more beneficial to the local and regional community' than merely selling products at cheap prices. That would have been progress.

I bought my home in 2001. A new WalMart went in by a regional mall that is 2 miles from my home. Other new restaurants and smaller strip malls and big boxes went in around it. In general, the surrounding area is low-middle income.

In 2009, the mall is closed, and 1,000,000+ s.f. of commercial retail stands vacant in this area. The WalMart is the lousiest Wal-Mart in the region.

It did not drive out the other business. The other businesses are chasing the higher incomes and the pathways laid down by developers, City and 'white flight.'

Theatres, big boxes, Kmart, half-million sf mall, restaurants, grocers, etc are all gone.

I can shop Wal-Mart–willing to follow a business model delivering goods/services a low-moderate income community needs and affords–or I can drive 12 miles to a more affluent area and pay higher prices (or shop at the nicer wal-mart there).

Day in and day out Wal-Mart employs and delivers legitimate products/services in poorer communities; and sells products manufactured in poorer countries. And they make boatloads of money.

I would love a different system. But right now I have to give credit to a business making friends with poor folks every day.

I understand the sentiment here. When Wal-Mart came into the area I grew up in (not where I am now), some people went out of business. But why is this always a bad thing? Not only does Wal-Mart take a while to build, they often have battles to fight, a “warning sign” for those small businesses to retool, rethink, restructure. It's called progress (I think I recall this blog—so I'm not saying this about you—labeling itself “progressive”). Those businesses will find ways to adapt and do things more beneficial to the local and regional community than something that can be done at a much less expensive way.

I'm not saying it's easy, or that people don't struggle through it. But life is about struggle, and hardships are actually a good thing for character, discipline, and stewardship when we take seriously the growing demands, needs, and efficiencies of life.

Wal-Mart is not a “saint” in everything. But I find their strong arming no less ethical than a local business lobbying the council to adopt protectionist laws to keep Wal-Mart out. Protectionism is, typically, a poor economic policy.

And yes, you're right, sometimes the reason behind it is somebody is being exploited. But that is not the de facto reason why prices fall.

The “true costs,” as you claim, can indeed go down for many reasons. If indeed that cost remains the same because somebody is paying the bill for my benefit (aka little children in a foreign country), then of course that is unethical.

I'll check it out at the library. I think I saw it there the other day. My only concern about this is that it's one group/person's narrative against another. I could certainly find another document or website or whatever “disproving” everything in that documentary. I'm not saying it's false, I'm just admitting that sometimes going off into a topic tends to simply raise more questions than answers. That's not a bad thing, it's just not the educational tract I'm on. But I'll give it some time.

Yes that makes sense

And perhaps you're familiar with the economic concept of “externalities”? When Wal-Mart offers lower-prices, they're never actually lower. All that happens is that the true costs are borne by someone other than the customer. Someone is paying the price for your savings. The question is who is paying it, and is it just for them to have to bear that burden for your sake?

But you are saying they have the moral right to do what they do, and I'm not buying that (no pun intended).

I still find it better to be employed at a low wage than unemployed.

You might want to talk about post-slavery sharecroppers about that if any were still alive.

Also, I still find it better to be employed at a low wage than unemployed.

That's the point — when Wal-Mart is the only entity that's actually hiring, which is the case in much of rural America, there's not much anyone can do.

Most people living 100 years ago would scramble to work at a Wal-Mart, let alone benefit from its low prices (which, by and large, had to do more with creative efficiency management, not exploiting workers).

You obviously haven't read the literature that's out there about Wal-Mart; it has actually been in court numerous times for doing just that.