December 03, 2005
"Is Wal-Mart Good for America?"
The WSJ is running a piece in today's edition with that title.
Money quote:
"[T]here's no getting around the fact that somewhere out there, millions of people are spending billions of dollars on what Wal-Mart puts on its shelves. No one is making them do it. To the extent that mom-and-pop stores are threatened by Wal-Mart, it's because the same people who supposedly so value their Main Street hardware store find that Wal-Mart's selection, or prices, or parking lot--something about it--is preferable. Wal-Mart can't make mom and pop shut down the shop any more than it can make customers walk through the doors or pull out their wallets. You don't sell $300 billion a year worth of anything without doing something right."
They're not making all that much money. CitiBank posted five times the profits with one third the sales. But get this: lefty types cry foul when companies make a lot of money, e.g. Exxon-Mobil's recent record profits, and cry foul when companies fight to keep costs to consumers low, e.g. Wal-Mart. Conclusion? They want things to be free. They'll find good company in pre-schools everywhere, with people who share their level of economic insight.
It's nothing to do with money but the contempt that Wal-Mart has for the environment and people. Why are the only unionised Wal-Marts in the UK? Because its a profitable market and anti-unionist activities are illegal. Why did Wal-Mart close down a Canadian branch? Because the workers tried to join a union. Wal-Mart may well be good for America but like many American companies it is a disaster for the rest of the world.
Posted by: Brooks at December 3, 2005 12:59 PMI fail to see the argument there. I also fail to see how driving down prices is bad for the millions of people who choose, of their own volition, to shop there. I also fail to see how an average starting wage of around $10 is bad for people. I also fail to see how anti-union activities are a problem. Union activities are in the process of destroying two major American industries: airline transportation and automobile manufacturing.
You want to make an argument that deals with the facts of the case, you're more than welcome to, but I can get my talking-points more eloquently stated elsewhere.
Posted by: ryan at December 3, 2005 01:44 PMPeople don't like Wal-Mart because they are an excellent player in the free-market system. I don't like Wal-Mart when they try to get the local government to use the power of eminent domain to buy up property, but I think Wal-Mart is good for the United States. Wal-Mart brings in more jobs to a community and pays more than minimum wage. Do you really believe that a mom and pop shop could employ as many people can and still remain afloat? Now, don't get me wrong...I like small businesses and I try to frequent them as much as I can when it is possible. Now, hearing all this about "you can't support a family doing a job of gathering carts"..if you have a family to support and all of your skills boil down to you being a buggy catcher or a greeter at Wal-Mart that's not Wal-Mart's fault...that's the person's fault for being irresponsible.
Posted by: Nathan at December 3, 2005 03:25 PMWal-Mart isn't the real issue here; it’s the new corporate model. Part time job's with no benefits, less people to do more work, cutting corners everywhere to try and save a buck. Externalizing healthcare and making the state taxpayers foot the bill. I’ve known some people who've worked for Wal-mart and the never got an average starting wage of around $10,and I’d rather have a union meat-cutter grinding my hamburger the someone making minimum wage not caring what he puts in the meat
Wal-Mart has just instituted a new, low-cost health insurance program and has enrolled another 70,000 workers. It costs $23 a month for individuals and $65 a month for families. No benefits indeed.
The thing about an average starting wage is that, by definition, half of the people are going to make less than that average.
If you're willing to pay extra for a union employee, hell, it's your money. But apparently most other people aren't willing to do so.
Posted by: ryan at December 4, 2005 06:48 AMYes you are right about Wal-Mart being a monoploy. One among many supernationals actually. The last lights of freedom are dying out in this new century as other countries are vivacious and its people full of vision and hope. What the US was is gone. Now respect internationally has been lost as well.
There is control by force. Then there is control by information. The monopolistic interests are losing the latter because the lies are so obvious.
Se habla espanol? Perhaps hebrew? Arabic? Perhaps chinese? How long will it be before the kids look at "America" in the history pages as a once good place whom the world decided to make equal to the rest of the world?
Posted by: Todd at December 4, 2005 08:08 AMTodd: I don't seem to remember describing Wal-Mart as a monopoly. And they can't possibly be construed as such by any reasonable definition of the word. "One among many" doesn't really seem to go together with the word "monopoly". Ever heard of Home Depot? How about Target? Maybe Kohls? Or is Wal-Mart the only retailer in the world?
Ah, I see I've missed the point. This wasn't an argument, it was loosely related series of buzzwords and talking-points strung together in a pseudo-random fashion.
Posted by: ryan at December 4, 2005 08:28 AMWal-Mart has low prices because they exteriorize many of their costs by foisting them off on the public or their suppliers. Even if you don't shop at Wal-Mart if you are a Tennessee taxpayer you still subsidize their business.
Many people think is a moral issue instead of a business issue. There's more to retail than just low prices. Where would Jesus shop?
http://www.sullivan-county.com/id2/wal-mart/welfare.htm
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/77/walmart.html
http://www.laborresearch.org/print.php?id=391
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walmart
Folks I know who worked at Walmart liked it. Were they on Tenncare? Yup, and so were my college educated friends saddled with student loans and having babies. It was so easy to get on, so everyone did it.
So now Tenncare is culling its flocks, and Walmart is offering a health plan. Why is everyone complaining about that? Neither the state nor Walmart is responsible for a persons own health, yet they've decided to offer that benefit. How is that not a good thing?