Companies rebrand/change their logo all the time, where in the article does it provide data comparing the rate of change of company names in down times vs the good times?
This is just fitting a convenient 'depression 2.0' story to some logo redesigns; if this happened two years ago, the same redesigns would be interpreted entirely differently, perhaps it would be about 'increasing market share in a more globalized world'.
Lipstick on pigs. The most interesting one is the last one in the slideshow, Blackwater changed their name to Xe. It doesn't change the fact that they are mercenary soldiers.
They can spend millions of dollars making Wal-Mart's logo look friendlier, but when you walk in the store, it's plain to see that the actual company is just the same. This reminds me of Joel's "how many lies can you find a direct mail piece?"
The redesigned Walmarts are actually far more pleasant to shop in. It's been a while since I've been in one, so I forgot exactly what they changed. It was definitely less suffocating and the signs were prettier. Who needs good business practices when you have good typography?
In any case, I don't really buy into the whole "Walmart is pure evil" thing. It's cute how some enlightened cities do everything they can to prevent them from moving in so small businesses aren't hurt, then they wonder why their lower income residents are doing so poorly. I think independent retailers are great and I support them whenever I can, but they're clearly more expensive, and it's silly for the people who can afford to have a conscience to force that choice on those who can't.
Of particular interest is the section called "Muscling Manufacturers", which shows how the sheer scale of their operation gives them the power to force local manufacturing jobs overseas, effectively creating these "lower income residents" that natrius mentions above.
Scale is often a topic of discussion for hackers; to see how some of the same principles apply to a huge retail corporation is mind-blowing. Definitely worth a watch, imo.
I don't believe that the imaginary lines that humans tend to draw in the sand to separate people make a Chinese person less worthy of a job than an American.
It is in my best interest to keep jobs from leaving the country. Money tends to circulate locally, so we're decreasing the amount of wealth available here when we buy foreign goods. Losing American jobs also increases the costs of our social welfare programs.
However, since our social welfare programs are presumably better than China's, creating a Chinese job at the cost of an American job likely leaves the world better off if we assume that the increased taxes and decreased American income would result in a negligible decrease in well-being in comparison. I think that's a fair assumption.
The end result of this process is that people pay significantly less for the same value to their life, improves their standard of living. For some products, the quality tradeoff is worth it. For others, quality wins, and in those cases Wal-Mart has less leverage.
This is just fitting a convenient 'depression 2.0' story to some logo redesigns; if this happened two years ago, the same redesigns would be interpreted entirely differently, perhaps it would be about 'increasing market share in a more globalized world'.