Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bush-The Mastermind behind 9/11? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Skywatcher who wrote (6686)	5/30/2004 2:27:50 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20039

Class Warfare? Friday May 28, 10:18 am ET Wal-Mart: The chain rates high with those who need jobs and bargains. Its foes tend to be rivals, high-wage unions and folks who presume to speak for the poor. It's been a mixed week for the world's largest retailer. The Chicago City Council approved the first Wal-Mart in that city while it voted down plans for another. And in Vermont, a preservationist group declared Wal-Mart a threat to the entire state. ADVERTISEMENT As diverse as these cases seem, there's a pattern here. Not to sound too Marxist, but there's an element of class warfare in the Wal-Mart saga, with the chain in the role of working-class champion. That's not how Wal-Mart's union foes or their journalistic allies frame the story. Their refrain is that Wal-Mart makes working people poorer by underpricing unionized rivals, forcing those competitors to slash wages and benefits in order to stay in business. But this line of thought doesn't seem to work in places short on jobs or lacking easy access to life's necessities at reasonable prices. In fact, the poorest spots seem to welcome Wal-Mart the most. In Chicago, for instance, local pressure on aldermen won Wal-Mart the privilege to build a 150,000-square-foot store in what the Chicago Tribune described as a "poor, largely black and Hispanic neighborhood." On the other hand, Wal-Mart couldn't quite muster the votes to green light a store in a more affluent South Side neighborhood (described by the Tribune as "largely middle class"). Alderman Emma Mitts made the point Wednesday that fighting Wal-Mart was a luxury that her constituents could not afford. "Take a ride in my area and see what I am dealing with day in and day out," she said. "There's a lack of jobs and opportunity." In Vermont, the divide pits those who love the state's quaintness against those who find it expensive and inconvenient. On one side are those who, for commercial or aesthetic reasons, want to keep this picture-book state of small towns and quaint business districts as is. On the other are Vermonters who don't have their first homes in New York, who work regular jobs and try to make ends meet. Wal-Mart has hit it off with the regular folks and has four stores in Vermont - but maybe no more. This week the National Trust for Historic Preservation designated the entire state as one of the U.S.' 11 "most endangered historic places" because of Wal-Mart's expansion plans there. "A lot of small businesses just disappear in the face of a huge Wal-Mart," said the trust's president, Richard Moe. Maybe, but a tastefully sited new Wal-Mart would be welcomed by Vermonters who don't want to pay the costs of living in a museum of old-time retailing. biz.yahoo.com The champions of the poor and downtrodden screw their proteges again.