Wal-Mart signifies all that is wrong in America

Well that must be millions becuase millions step into that store and millions always will.

I wonder if you have bothered to read any of the articles I presented? I cannot believe anyone would continue to advocate for Wal-Mart after reading it. But just because I was busy this morning doesn't mean I have run out of answers for you.

Thomas said...


Economies of scale are good. I do, in fact, shop at some large stores, stores that I believe play fair. What I don't like about Wal-Mart is that they don't create any markets of their own. They don't supply any goods to the people who produce their goods. In addition, because Wal-Mart is so huge, so unbelievably wealthy they can give loads of money to politicians. Despite being so big, they don't play with a level playing field.

Just as we wouldn't want a professional soccer player to play against a U-21, we don't want a gigantic international company coming to our small towns, especially with no referee. Unfortunately, many small town councils used to be (are not quite so willing anymore) to give Wal-Mart huge tax and building incentives to come in... things they would never offer to a small company.

If Economies of Scale were always the best thing, than I assume you believe that eventually the world should be taken over by one great nation. There would be no reason to have a lot of little governments, correct? For example, the United States should take over Canada and Mexico so that the economy of running those small countries can be more effectively handled. In fact, there are many international corporations which now have larger budgets than some small nations. Maybe they should just buy them outright?
____________
Thomas said:


I suppose that would be the end of the problem except for the loss of people's livelihoods in the meantime. Store-owners who are bankrupted may be able to start up a new store, assuming they can get financing and have the spirit to start again. Since you are from Germany, I assume you understand how a people's spirit can be broken.

In the meantime, why should a thriving community be subjected to that? What exactly is the point to allowing Wal-Mart to come in and ruin a community's economy other than providing an international company with even more money and power?

__________________
Thomas said:


Certainly, joblessness is a huge problem, one which our government has tried in many ways to cover up. I assume you do not understand that in the United States the unemployment figures do not describe how many people are actually out of work. Unemployment figures refer to people who have had a job in the last 24 months and are currently looking for a new one. That change was made from unemployment based on how many people are not actually working which provides a truer, if less palatable figure. Any town, anywhere in the United States with a 5% unemployment rate has at least double that percentage of people who aren't working but would if they thought there were a job, any job, even a crap job like they offer at Wal-Mart.

These are some of the worst, the most menial jobs available. As I think I mentioned, Wal-Mart employs many people... over a million... yet not one is in a labor union. Wal-Mart employers are labor-union busters. I believe very strongly in labor unions and I assume you do not. It is much easier to scoff at labor unions when you have job tenure and state-provided medical services.

A healthy economy is one where goods are both produced and consumed at a fairly even level. Wal-Mart makes a mockery of that. Nothing at a Wal-Mart is made in the community where it is sold. All of the profits from Wal-Mart leave the community to be given to Wal-Mart investors. They pay very high dividends.

Anyone who shops at a Wal-Mart is screwing their own community.

People who shop at Wal-Mart probably have very little sense of community, or at least very little sense of shared interests with their neighbors.

I saw an article on Grover Nordquist recently, the head of the anti-tax army that has the Bush Admin dancing its tune these past few years. He said something along the lines that his ideal American worked from home, home-schooled his kids, and provided for his own health care (somehow). No need for gov't services, in other words--and no need for community, either.

That ideal guy probably shops at Wal-Mart.

So, none of you protesters ever shop at Walmart?

That is correct.

Yup.

First of all, thanks for taking the time for such a comprehensive answer. Second, yes, I did read the articles you presented, and for the sake of this argument, I will assume that they are 100% correct. Third, I am not necessarily advocating for Wal-Mart. I am advocating against bashing strawmen, and against the subtle implication that you can't be a good person unless you participate in the bashing.

Why do I believe Wal-Mart is (mostly) a strawman? Because here in Germany, whe don't have Wal-Mart the company. (They have recently started to expand into Germany, but they aren't getting anywhere) But even so, we do have Wal-Mart the phenomenon. In Germany, it was the incumbent companies that replaced well-trained with cheap labor, replaced domestic products with cheap imports, and squeezed the last cent out of their suppliers.

This observation makes me very confident in my belief that the recent developments in American retailing don't reflect the actions of a single company. What they do reflect is a combination of cheap transport, the computerization of logistics, and freer global trade. If Wal-Mart goes bankrupt tomorrow, these changes won't go away, even if you want them to. And I don't want them to, because while they benefit American capitalists and Third World workers at the expense of First World workers, they are a change for the better if all things are considered.


The same could be said about car companies in the 1910s. They didn't create a new market, just muscled into the existing, thriving transportation market based on horse-technology, and crushed the competition of horse breeders, horse traders, and coach manufacturers. Just go to your library and read the New York Times of 1920. I bet you will find lots of complaints very similar to yours about the ruthless global Ford company destroying the transportation market.


I don't understand this complaint. Shell doesn't supply any goods to the people who produce their oil either. Chiquita doesn't supply any goods to the South Americans who grow their bananas. Why single out Wal-Mart? And why isn't it good enough to just give them money?


That's interesting. How is the law different for Wal-Mart than for Seven-Eleven, Safeway, K-Mart, etc? How are these other retailers uncapable of bribing politicians?


But "we" want to shop there, work there, and sell our stuff there, as judged by "our" decision to do that. To be honest , I don't understand the point of your comparison with the soccer teams. As I understand it, the purpose of an economy is to allocate resources to their most productive use -- not to preserve inefficient businesses just because they're small.


You assume wrongly. I believe that there are negligible economies of scale in government above the size of, say, a county. If I had absolute power to reform the United states, I'd abolish the federal government and the state governments and rely on migration of people and capital to keep the county governments honest. But that is a matter for another thread.


Actually, the spirit of the German people was never more enthusiastic than in the years after World War II, when they seized the opportunity to rebuild their country. You can ask Walter if you think I'm making this up.


The point is to increase the efficiency of the community's retail sector -- value for money -- as measured by the preferences people reveal in their buying, selling, and working decisions.


I do understand that, but even if I didn't, this would be irrelevant to the point I was making -- which is that unemployment, however measured, is not Wal-Mart's fault. As things stand today, unskilled American workers are in a shitty situation, and Wal-Mart is helping them make the best of it. Take away Wal-Mart, and they're still in that shitty situation. The solution is not to get rid of Wal-Mart, but to get rid of the situation -- probably by investing more in community colleges and the like so people can improve their skills.


You assume correctly. And while it is true that I have job tenure and state provided medical services, that doesn't necesserily mean that you are right and I am wrong.


Do I understand you correctly -- before Wal-Mart came to your town, your community grew its own bananas, produced its own coffee machines, and issued its own credit cards? Then Wal-Mart came to town, and suddenly all the coffee came from Brazil, all the coffe machines were imported from Thailand, and all the credit cards came from Citybank in New York? What I'm trying to say is: So what if stuff enters the community and money leaves it, as long as the prices are right?

I hate Wall Mart because of several reasons (socially conservative company, franchising makes for less cultural identity, damn crowded so I'll never shop there...) but please pay attention to what Thomas is saying. He's speaking sooth.

I am surprised, Thomas, that you assumed I was speaking of the Germans as those whose spirits had been broken. The people I was referring to were the Jewish people.

I am not speaking of strawmen, I was speaking of a specific company and they damage they do. I am not going to argue every point with you, Thomas. You may have the time to go through my message, sentence by sentence and cut it to ribbons based on economic theory. I don't. I don't say people are bad if they go to Wal-Mart, I say they are short-sighted and foolish.

If all things were considered, then everyone would have what they need. I am a member of my community and when I see it being bashed, I stand up for it. You may casually brush off the First World Workers... I see them as my neighbors, wondering how they'll pay for dental care, wondering how their children will manage.


(Craven, do you think I'm not paying attention?)


Two-thirds of all costs associated with retail is labor, not the value of the goods. Wal-Mart has moved ahead while stepping on the backs of its workers. The company pays them the lowest wages in the industry and provides the worst benefits. They fight off their retail-clerks attempts at unionizing. Employees cannot even speak to the media without permission from corporate headquarters.

Wal-Mart is bad to its employees, bad to the communities they purport to serve and, imo, bad for consumers. They are good for their investors, who are, if I may say, a damned heartless bunch. Wal-Mart is, I believe you said, a flash in the pan. They're doing a lot of damage while they're flashing. Why should we let them? I am not. I vote with my pocketbook and I will continue to advise people to do the same.

Btw, if you think unions are a not a fair way for workers to survive in our society, then we'll never agree on this or likely anything else. You, Thomas, say you have a tenure and full medical benefits. There is no way that you can truly imagine what it is like to be adrift in this cut-throat economy. Neither can that Wal-Mart CEO who makes 1000 times what his regular employees make. He's out of touch, sure that he is fully entitled to every perk he has ever received.

And you don't find it a wee bit over the top to draw parallels between Wal-Mart and the Nazis like this? I do.

Good night!

-- Thomas

My post was made after reading Thomas' last post. I read your exchanged afterward. No, I think you are paying attention, but I guess I wish you'd pay more attention or at least understand what he is saying.

I can see a Wal Mart from where I live. I've never shopped there and never will because I hate Wal MArt.

But Thomas is right in that the overwhelming majority of the arguments used here are straw men.

There are a lot of legitimate complainst people can have against what I call the "plastifying" of American culture. By this I mean the trends in which everything is becoming big business and a franchise. Small store culture is erased and replaced by a "plastic" culture.

But also true is that often a few companies will serve as a lightning rod for thw whole group.

Common companies are McDonals, Starbucks and Wal Mart.

I have a long list of grievances against Wal Mart. I really don't like them. But Thomas is right in that the overwhelming majority of the arguments used here have little to do with Wal Mart.

I appreciate the effort Thomas is making to explain what Wal-Mart is and isn't, but I don't agree that it's unfair to blame Wal-Mart for exemplifying a phenomenon. In other words, Wal-Mart is not just a symbol. It has corporate policies and effects on the communities in which it has stores, and these are the issues that have some of us so bothered.

Just to choose one example, already cited in this thread: Locking night-shift workers inside the store. It's reasonable for someone to say: I refuse to patronize a store that treats its employees that way.

To me, that's the discussion here. Perhaps the title of this thread, having to do with Wal-Mart "signifying all that is wrong in America," could have been stated a little less strongly. Wal-Mart doesn't signify ALL that's wrong. Just some of it...

My point wasn't so much about unfairness towards Wal-Mart -- though I now realize I created this impression by calling Wal-Mart bashing a "foul". The problem with Wal-Mart bashing is that it makes people look for solutions in all the wrong places. If everything evil in the US job market is Wal-Mart's fault, the obvious solution is to get tough on it, make it go away, or at least make its business practices go away.

The goal behind this is laudable, but Wal-Mart is the symptom, not the disease. The disease is that America's education system isn't working well, especially not in the K12 schools and the community college area. That way, there's an abundance of low-skilled workers that can't compete in the job market except at low wages in crappy jobs. And again, the reason I know Wal-Mart is just the symptom is that we in Germany don't have Wal-Mart, but do have Wal-Mart's business practices. (In a milder form, because our schools suck a bit less than America's.)

Improving education in America is a hard, complex, slow, and messy process that will ultimately work. By contrast, bashing Wal-Mart is mostly political masturbation. It's easy, feels good, and gives you instant gratification, but it's ultimately fruitless. I like masturbation, and frequently engage in it myself. But politics is the wrong place for it.

Thomas, I like the way you put that. Very interesting point.

It was a sad day in the United States when so many trained, educated people found themselves with few jobs to be had. Many college-educated people in the United States are forced into taking low-level jobs. I heard a state senator on the radio last week saying the point is we don't need so many marine biologists, what we need are good service people.

The problem is that in the United States we have a lot of service-oriented jobs. We need people to be retail clerks. Investing in community colleges so that retail clerks can get out of being retail clerks is not the solution. The solution is to treat retail clerks like human beings.

A company, like Wal-Mart, that won't pay well, that won't give their employees full-time hours, that hires illegal immigrants to work, a company that won't allow unionizing of their work force is not treating their clerks like human beings. When Wal-Mart hires people but doesn't provide adequate money, health insurance and other benefits, WHO do you think pays?

The rest of us pay. The community pays. The tax-payers who support government-supported hospitals and clinics where poor people go, the tax-payers who support welfare, and food for dependent children, and all the other social services for the working poor. If those retail clerks were paid adequately, if they received adequate insurance, then they wouldn't be struggling and forced to use government services. The cost to the community is enormous.

A person working full-time in the United States at minimum wage is not making enough money to buy a home. Many minimum wage employers won't even offer full-time hours, because then they are bound to provide adequate benefits. The problems of the United States becoming dependent on part-time, casual labor are huge. It may save money for Wal-Mart and allow them to give fat dividends to their investors, but somebody pays and many people are hurt.

Unionized retail clerks get a tiny bit more than minimum wage, but they also get employer-subsidized benefits for health & dental, vacations and pensions. Wal-Mart doesn't do that. They leave that to us to take up the slack.

McDonalds was mentioned as being just as bad. Yes, they have a horrible pay scale and no union, but if a McDonalds comes into town... they don't take over. You can still eat at home. Other restaurants will stay open.

Starbucks was also mentioned. Employees there get a lot of benefits, they get profit-sharing. Even though they aren't unionized, the workers are treated like human beings. Starbucks doesn't take over a town, there are alternatives to their coffee.

The only solution against a Wal-Mart is for people to refuse to buy from them. Refuse to go to that store. Vote with your pocketbooks. When they come into town, they will take over and your town will be the worse for it.




That sounds like a colonial town... sounds like a town that has been taken over by someone who doesn't care about the community. What kind of a viable community is it if there is no production and no investment? You may not care if the United States has viable communities. I do.

Thomas, you became incensed when I said you should be able to understand a people's spirit being broken. It is a shame that you take offense, yet casually brush off broken communities in my country. When money becomes all-important; then as long as money is made, it's OK. That's the end justifying the means. That's capitalism run amok.

If Wal-Mart moves out, those people will be able to start again, you said. For me, the damage to the human spirit is too high.

We will always have wealth among us. I don't have an argument with wealth or success. I freely contribute to it through my purchases. But wealth mixed with greed is ugly, and when it reaches a level where that combination knowingly, willingly breaks the human spirit for the sake of even more money... when that happens, there is no justification.

Wealth without greed is a hard find.

And just plain unamerican, by gawd!

You and I seem to have a serious mismatch in standards here. You may not like that Walmart is employing people at low wages, but it's just not in the same league as killing 6 million people. Not by a long shot. People may not like to be employed by Wal-Mart at low wages. But again, there's just no meaningful way of comparing this with having these people and their families murdered. If you think it's shameful of me to insist that this difference matters, that it's a shameful thing to insist that this comparison not be invoked lightly, this is shame I'm proud of. There's nothing I can do about it, or even want to.


No, it sounds like just about any town in any modern industrial nation. If you live in Washington state, you don't grow your own bananas and your own coffee, probably don't produce your own cars, and import your transistor radios from Japan. These goods enter your community, and part of your money leaves your community in exchange. It's called "division of labor", and it's a good thing. Don't take my word for it. Ask a few subsistence farmers what they think of self-reliance, as opposed to participating in the world economy. I bet that most of them would change jobs in an instance if given the chance. There's a reason that jobs in global company sweatshops are so much more popular. And there's a reason you hardly find any subsistance farmers any more, except a few adherents of religious cults (Amish, Hutterers etc.) and in desperately poor third world countries.

Who said anything about subsistence or self-reliance? I said I wanted viable communities.

And I did not bring up the Nazis... I said that I thought you might understand what happens when a people's spirit is broken. Apparently not.


You said a day or two ago...


As you know, it's not just American capitalists. Anyone can buy stock here... many foreigners do.

And who are these "First World workers" that you don't care about? They're my family, my neighbors, the people who live in my country. They are real people, Thomas, real people who are losing hope. It is not surprising to me that you don't care about them. There are very few in the entire world who care what happens to the people of the United States. We're a market and you want our money. If we went away in a puff of smoke, so what?

My purpose is not to argue with you. You say you're a tenured educator and that you enjoy baiting me. I'm sure you're good at it, but it is not that much fun for me because this is not just a little exercise in economics. While you are far away and encapsulated in a happy little world of your own, things are falling apart here. Some people see it. Some, like you, applaud and say it is "for the better."

My purpose here is to point out that we make choices with each purchase... choices that go beyond the color & the size & the price. Every single time I purchase something, I am making a choice. I wish people in the country would make more thoughtful, more considered choices.

Thomas,

I've thought about it overnight but I do not see how you connect education to Wal Mart. Can you elucidate?