Well, what I initially began this topic to address was that Walmart is becoming so large that it is unfairly driving out other businesses, who can't possibly compete.
I think big stores and chains are generally a good thing. It provides jobs and stability in their given industry. But it becomes a problem when they are so large that they are unfairly driving out competitors who offer reasonable prices, but can't possibly match the low prices of Walmart.
The "toy wars" that have killed FAO Schwarz, and have badly wounded Toys-R-Us are a good example.
Another example is the Walmart Superstores that are now gutting the grocery industry.
When an industry is driving DOWN the standard of living of its employees and pushing jobs out of the U.S., then it has arguably ceased to be good for the economy and the country.
When these conditions existed 100 years ago, anti-trust laws were established. As the initial article in my opening post points out (while also giving a balanced perspective to the pro-Walmart position) the government attitude now, under both Clinton and G.W. Bush, is much more pro-trust.
I feel the same way about Microsoft. In a way Microsoft was good, because it created a very universally used Windows operating system. But after that, they abused their power and used their power and leverage to suppress competition. And as the PBS report makes clear, a lot of high-wage Microsoft jobs are now in India as well.
In a way, I think if U.S. companies didn't offshore their manufacturing and high-tech jobs, they might have lost the business anyway, and then some other nation would have the business instead of U.S. companies, so having offshore business might be the only alternative to losing the business altogether.
But I can't help thinking that if either the Clinton or Bush administrations had said we won't permit this, that those millions of jobs would still be in the U.S.
If you allow one company in an industry to use cheap foreign labor, then all its competitors end up having to do the same. If they lost the incentive to offshore business, with tarriffs or other penalties, then they might be more inclined to stick with American labor and not start a price war that forces all competing manufacturers to use third-world labor.
Something that should be enacted is a law that says if a company lays off American workers and takes thoose jobs overseas, they should be required to re-train laborers and high-tech workers so they can move to alternative in-demand jobs, instead of flipping burgers and stocking shelves at a fraction of their former wages.
I've seen documentaries about Europe's economy that show a greater investment in workers and industry, to insure when a major shift in industry occurs, their workforce isn't left to twist in the wind.
