It is surprising then that they have time to take a class action suit against the credit card companies.

Posted by: JB on September 25, 2002 11:33 AM

 

Nauseating. Absolutely revolting. I guess I'm just naive, but I am completely horrified by this article. I don't like their grubby little stores, anyway, and now I have even less reason to stop by.

Posted by: Lydia on September 25, 2002 03:31 PM

 

I'm constantly amazed at many American's desire to "pull down" any person or organization that is succeeding. The amount of disincentives already burdening our working people in the form of the tax code just reinforces this mindset.

Not to say I promote illegal activities, so in those cases shine the light of truth on the wrongdoers and punish but I feel it's safe to say that Wal-Mart has done far more good than harm.

(Is is just me or does this site deal with bigger issues than Usability on a regular basis?)

Posted by: boysen on September 25, 2002 03:58 PM

 

boysen, WebWord deals with issues that WebWord readers care about. Over time I have found that we talk about things that are far beyond and outside of usability, although the focus is generally on usability. If I see a lot of comments about telephones, then I hunt down articles on telephones. If it seems that we haven't touched on an issue in a long time (e.g., blind readers) I might dig something up about that. Other times, I simply look for material that will allow people to communicate. Invariably, when I post links to usability articles, we talk about things like politics, language, and the weather. When I post links to articles on things like voting or leadership, we often end up talking about usability, human factors, and information architecture. We are a melting pot of usability. No, scratch that. We are a fruit bowl of usability. Or maybe just a bowl of fruits.

Posted by: John S. Rhodes on September 25, 2002 04:10 PM

 

I am a lychee

Posted by: JB on September 25, 2002 04:35 PM

 

My hometown successfully fought off that Big Box. To say we wanted to "pull down" the corporation because of its success is to demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the issues involved.

Posted by: Jack on September 25, 2002 06:56 PM

 

Boysen, I'm not sure what pattern behavior you have seen Americans exhibit in regards to wanting to see failure among companies that succeed, but it could probably be chalked up to the very basic drive of not wanting to see anything be too dominant. America is kind of based on an egalitarian society and we are naturally suspicious of anyone doing too well.

As for this Wal-Mart thing, why support a company that does this to their employees, customers, and community? I would not work for a company that would do this, so why should I shop there?

Wal-Mart squeezes out better stores in the name of "always low prices," and to hear that it is at the expense of the people they should be on their knees thanking is offensive.

Posted by: Lydia on September 25, 2002 07:07 PM

 

Wow.

You would think it would be hard for Wal-Mart to find employees given the stories that I've read. To me, (and I'm not trying to be overly confrontational) when I hear someone say something like, "we are naturally suspicious of anyone doing too well" it makes me thing that those individuals would rather be living in a more socialistic nation where the government assures a mediocre level of performance by all parties involved.

I'm not saying anyone on this site is a socialist. I'm saying that when we criticize an organiation for performing well in a capitalist society, we might as well criticize the Yankees for winning too many World Series.

Now, if they are breaking any laws then I hope that those parties will be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

Posted by: boysen on September 26, 2002 02:47 PM

 

I like to see competition, not dominance. That's why WalMart makes me (and others) nervous. That doesn't make me a socialist, quite the opposite. Competition keeps companies on their toes. Companies get lazy when they are the only game in town.

It's kind of a double-edged sword: people like mass-produced things on the cheap, but don't like the companies that sell the stuff.

As far as I know, this is not a POV that is exclusive to America, which is why your original comment of observing this trend among Americans so perplexed me.

I don't agree with the Yankees comparison - winning a slew of games doesn't affect my ability to choose where I will buy an indoor grill. We want to see one sports team win out over everyone else - that's the point - we don't want to see that happen with businesses selling consumer goods.

Posted by: Lydia on September 26, 2002 03:36 PM

 

when we criticize an organization for performing well in a capitalist society

boysen, I criticize corporations because they are anything but capitalist. They receive so many government subsidies (welfare), tax write-offs, and legislation bended in their favor that they are not playing by the same rules as you or I.

Posted by: Jack on September 26, 2002 04:46 PM

 

boysen: I'm not saying anyone on this site is a socialist. For your info I am a socialist.

You would think it would be hard for Wal-Mart to find employees..

Nickel and Dimed On (Not) Getting By in America by Barbara Ehrenreich, which does quite a good job of explaining why people have to take jobs like these ones.

Why are so many people hostile towards Wal-Mart?
I don't think they are anti-capitalists working for the overthrow of the new world order. I think that they are people who think their own community is more important than Wal-Marts profit figures.

Posted by: on September 27, 2002 06:44 AM

 

Oops, didn't mean to be anonymous.

Posted by: Mac on September 27, 2002 06:45 AM

 

Mac,

I was expecting you to chip in, so I was surprised that we got an anonymous socialist popping up! I too would consider myself a socialist. From some of the earlier contributions, it's apparent that for some people the word 'socialist' is an insult. I think this illustrates a divergence over what the word actually means between Europe and the USA. In Europe, many people view it as something to be proud of, illustrating a particular set of values. In the USA, it means something much harsher, like anti-capitalist subversive for example.

An interesting aside - Lydia said that America is an "egalitarian society and we are naturally suspicious of anyone doing too well". There was a TV documentary in the UK over the weekend which drew parallels between modern America and the Roman Empire. The comparison was put to a number of Americans, and the reaction was that, while it might be true, they didn't like to see themselves in this light because the USA was founded as a protest against imperialism. As Lydia said, ordinary Americans don't like to see anyone wielding over-mighty power, and yet they live in the most powerful country the world has ever known. How do you square that circle?

Posted by: Alan Fisher on September 27, 2002 07:35 AM

 

Alan,

RE: socialism. I can't say that I can fully embrace all the ideas of socialism (some, but not all) so I can't label myself that way. Sort of like how I don't call myself a vegetarian because I eat a lot of fish.

I'm not saying it, Socialism, a bad thing - I'm just saying that my desire for corporate competition disqualifies me as a socialist because I'm putting the emphasis on business rather than on human cooperation.

Many Americans, I would suspect, think socialism is just like communism. That has more to do with propaganda and not being properly informed than anything.

As for squaring US being the most powerful: well, of course the people with the monopoly don't mind when it's their advantage. (ha ha)

All kidding aside, I really don't have a better explanation than that. It's a good analogy, though, because you'll notice that America is very unpopular globally. Aside from the usual complaints about trying to force our dogma down the throats of others, some people don't like us simply because we're perceived as being on top.

I am constantly being told that I'm a lazy American, that I have no interest in anything outside my borders, etc. It's frustrating, because I was born here but I'm German and have a lot of family in Germany, and ironically I can't tell people this because you can almost see the word "Nazi" form in their minds. So, yes, I have outside interests, and no I won't deny that many American's don't.

Posted by: Lydia on September 27, 2002 12:48 PM

 

Again I say, "Wow." I never would expect this level of conversation of this kind of topic... very worthwhile.

We could go around on this topic for quite some time, agreeing and disagreeing on this or that. So I'll close my part on the discussion of Wal-Mart and what I percieve to be an ideology called Capitalization with Limitations.

People generally agree that a monopoly is a negative phenomenon, although it squarely fits within the general laws of Supply and Demand that support up Capitalism. But I think that Wal-Mart can only be characterized as a monopoly in somewhat less than a majority of their locations. (I don't have any numbers, just a hunch that it's less than 5%.)

This is a critical point because unlike the Electric companies of our recent history that were, in fact, monopolies, consumers can buy their juice, basketballs and mulch from other organizations.

So while I do sympathize with the plight of the Mom & Pop shops**, I do not think we should fault Wal-Mart for their desire to make larger and larger profits. That is, after all, their purpose.

If we only approve of organizations that are marginally successful and desire to put handicaps on organizations achieving even greater success, aren't we advocating the same kind of mindset that socialism promotes? (a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor)

My personal gripe with Socialism is that it is demotivating. While it's intent I concede is noble, in practice, history has shown the results to be far less than satisfactory.

**In a related note: I used to own a couple of retail stores in Hilton Head, SC that would be accurately designated Mom & Pop. I had to sell them due to incoming competition from national chains.

Posted by: boysen on September 27, 2002 01:43 PM

 

To call someone anti-American, indeed, to be anti-American, is not just racist, it's a failure of the imagination.

Good article on why anti-American isn't anti-Americans

Posted by: Mac on September 29, 2002 12:58 PM

 

I agree with the author about pre-labeling. The same strategy is used when labeling people as homophobes when they merely disagree.

But the war is not about "revenge." It's about "prevention" and has been stated clearly by the President from the very first week. It is his dissenters who try to speak for him who are saying that it is about revenge. I'm ashamed of the partisan politicians who are taking something so horrendous as 9/11 and playing politics with it.

This is a war on terrorism. Why? To prevent future terrorist acts. It's really that simple. Now if someone doesn't want to believe that, then no amount of evidence will convince them otherwise.

Comparing communism and capitalism in the final paragraph, as the author does, truly displays his personal bias.

But I would not expect a non-American to truly understand what it is to be an American. They can postulate. They can even ask Americans to describe their experiences. But in the end, only living on American soil, with the good and bad, will the person understand.

Maybe Mr. Roy has spent some time in American. If that time was spent in our nation's universities then I can see why he would feel the way he does.

Posted by: boysen on September 30, 2002 02:12 PM

 

boysen, thanks for the discussion. It's nice not to be told to 'go and live in Russia', although to be honest I haven't heard that for 10 years now. (There's a question, where should be told to go and live now?)

>> But I would not expect a non-American to truly understand what it is to be an American.
Would you expect Pres. Bush to understand the ordinary Iraqi people?

>> Comparing communism and capitalism in the final paragraph, as the author does, truly displays his personal bias.
Communists and Socialists would argue that: Capitalism is the most progressive economic system the world has ever seen. But it's worst aspects cannot be overcome by reform. All economists have compared the two systems at some point. If we can try and understand each others ideas then maybe we can find some common ground.

>> Maybe Mr. Roy has spent some time in America
Arundhati Roy - She says "a feminist is a woman who negotiates herself into a position where she has choices."

Posted by: Mac on September 30, 2002 03:08 PM

 

>There's a question, where should be told to go and live now?

I think on this one a lot. Especially for people living in America who do little more than "bash" things American. Destination of their own choosing, it matters little to me. I would like my neighbors to be fellow enjoyers of our nation.

>Would you expect Pres. Bush to understand the ordinary Iraqi people?

That's not the issue I'm concerned about, although it has a relationship. I'm more concerned about the safety of my own countrymen. That may not sound politically correct, but it's the primary job of our government.

Maybe the Iraqi people should rise up against a leader so obviously uncaring when it comes to humane treatement of his own citizens?

Saddam's track record, even if you attempt to give him the benefit of the doubt, still leaves him caught red-handed. Whether or not his current level of weapons is weak, troublesome or menacing, his intent is clear. That is the place where any reasonable person, reviewing the evidence would arrive. He needs to be stopped.

Not trying to sound defensive, but I'll anticipate your reply. I don't believe everything I read, rather I consider the source and read on. My opinion fluxuates with every new piece of evidence.

Posted by: on October 1, 2002 10:16 AM