Why suburbs are bad for America

[skybear]

Originally Posted by kaitlyn142

But we are arguing what's good for America. How is a company that keeps people poor by systematically taking out their competition, paying employees less, denying healthcare coverage, and encouraging overspending (as we all know that generally, you pay more overall for a cheap product you replace 10 times than an expensive item that lasts for 25 years) good for America? Take the ad campaign about the cat loving their food less because it came from WalMart. People will think they are being smart getting the cheaper food, when in reality, the food has more fillers than what you would buy at a pet specialty store (okay, so all the petfood brands at Walmart are brands I wouldn't feed my cat anyway, but you get the point). This leads to increased health problems, spending more on food because it is less nutrient-dense so the pet eats more, and a shorter pet lifespan. This is especially true as WalMart actively targets a consumer base that is unable or unwilling to do the necessary research. Just because I want to eat pizza for dinner every night doesn't mean I should. It's not good for me.

Consider a moment our current economic crises and you'll notice that few corporations are concerned about what is good, fair, sustainable, or ethical. They only care about the bottom line. Companies like WalMart have gutted the very foundation of this country -- our manufacturing sector. Their practices across the board are indefensible but there are still plenty of "free market" globalization lovers out there who will blindly and vociferously defend these practices. Shareholders I suppose.

[Socal104]

I don't like Walmart, really hate shopping there. They are masters of making you think you are getting a deal when you really aren't. But somebody likes Walmart. In fact a ton of people like Walmart and they vote with their pocketbooks. The fact that Walmart is the #1 retailer in the world speaks volumes as to both the American consumer and their ability to operate a business model efficiently (and perhaps ruthlessly). If the majority of Americans wanted quality, there wouldn't be Walmart. But Americans are extremely shortsited on the whole and their need for instant gratification at minimum costs is expertly handled by Walmart.

But they are really good at what they do no matter how much I don't like them. They acceled where many retailers just like them failed. Does anyone remember Ames, Caldor, Woolworth, and a host of other similarly low priced lower quality stores? Walmart succeeded where they failed and their prize is huge revenues, profits, and hatred from many Americans. We nearly always hate our most successful companies. We hate Microsoft, especially at its peak. We hated Blockbuster in its heydey. We will one day hate Google as much as we did Microsoft. People hated IBM when it was king. When a company gets to be #1, it invariably uses that advantage to drive its revenues and profits further at the expense of someone.

Going into Walmart is an awful experience for me. Unhappy employees servicing seemingly unhappy customers with security cameras that would make a casino blush. I just don't do it unless its the only store in town. But it serves a consumer need and therefore it serves a purpose and in their case a huge purpose.

As far as the original part of this post and the suburbs. Again, consumer choice. People want big yards and big houses and they are willing to commute for that. Their choice and I don't think we should be in the business of telling people where they should live just because our preference is that we like living in the middle of a metropolis. I don't get the appeal of sitting in your car for an hour twice a day, but that's their choice and they can live with the consequences. If gas hits $10 a gallon, their consequences are quite severe. Whether people want to shop at Walmart or live in a 5,000 square foot mansion 40 miles away from their job, that's their choice.

Socal