# The incredible nerve of Walmart **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 19, 2013, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-incredible-nerve-of-walmart/674220 "2013-11-19T01:01:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2013, 3:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-incredible-nerve-of-walmart/674220/221 "2013-11-21T03:24:00Z")
> [@Deeg](#): > > Then explain why you care more about your neighbor than the guy on the other side of the world. To me, a Chinese person is just as worthy of a job as an American. Do you care about your sister, brother, father, or mother more than you care about the guy who lives on the other side of town who you will never meet, whose existence doesn’t affect you in any way? I don’t like smelling the urine of homeless people. I don’t like being hit up for cash by panhandlers. I don’t like the ugliness of housing projects. I don’t like the crime that’s associated with poverty. I don’t like the idea of under-educated children growing up to be hapless adults who’ll cost me extra in taxes and headaches. Hell yeah, I care more about what’s happening around me than I care what’s happening in China. Do you really think I’m unusual in this regard? And are you actually pretending that you don’t feel the same way? ---
**Author:** ![Hellestal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3ab097/32.png) [@Hellestal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hellestal)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2013, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-incredible-nerve-of-walmart/674220/222 "2013-11-21T04:27:08Z")
> [@monstro](#): > > Do you care about your sister, brother, father, or mother more than you care about the guy who lives on the other side of town who you will never meet, whose existence doesn’t affect you in any way? To step in myself to answer this question: On an emotional level, of course. Naturally. I care about my in-group more on a visceral level. My emotions are stirred by my own tribe in ways that they aren’t stirred by people I’ve never met. But I don’t claim it’s morally right for me to be so. The morally right thing would be to value everyone equally. Putting our in-group first is human, but that doesn’t make it right. The great evils of humanity have all been based on the tendency to undervalue others to the point of dehumanization. In contrast, the great-souled people of history, the ones we admire most, were those who decided to value the Other with their actions just as much as they value themselves. Even great people have more natural fellow-feeling with their own family (their own tribe, their own race, their own in-group), but when they choose to act, they try to act for the betterment of all. They’re not going to cry as hard at the death of ten thousand Chinese as they would at the pain of their own hangnail, but if given a chance, a free hand to make their own choice, they’ll still make the decision to value those anonymous foreigners equally with themselves. Because it’s the right thing to do. You explicitly value yourself and your tribe over others, and then you attack others so: > [@monstro](#): > > It’s immoral. But we can see that you don’t care for a morality that treats everyone equally. Not a big deal. I don’t claim to live up to my own morality either. I’m not a particularly good person. But I’m also not going to lambast a group I don’t like for being immoral, while in the next breath state that it’s natural for me to favor myself and my own in-group because it’s “common sense” to do so. I support trade. I support the process, in which Wal-Mart for all its faults has played some part, that has led to the biggest anti-poverty campaign in the history of the world. This isn’t a particularly noble position on my part. I possess skills that can’t be so easily outsourced. It’s a painless position for me to take. But there it is. The logic holds. Even though I lack the empathy of a perfect saint, even though my instinct is to favor my own team, I’d still like to make the sorts of decisions that help the most people, that make the biggest difference in the most people’s lives regardless of where they live, especially when those decisions actually fucking matter. Less than noble. Painless. Extremely convenient. But still the right decision. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2013, 5:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-incredible-nerve-of-walmart/674220/223 "2013-11-21T05:52:03Z")
I think a lot of people are confused about why corporations exist. They exist to make money for the investors and/or owners. They do not exist in order to create jobs. Any business worth it’s salt tries to eliminate as many jobs as it can, often by automation. Now, few businesses can be 100% successful in this, and so they pretty much always hire people. But only because they have to. Walmart stays in business because they provide products to people who want them. If they don’t provide products that people want, then they go out of business. But in all of this discussion what I find incomprehensible is: If person A provides person B with a job, then person A is responsible for person B’s welfare. If person C does not provide person B with a job, the person C is not responsible for anything. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2013, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-incredible-nerve-of-walmart/674220/224 "2013-11-21T06:24:52Z")
> [@Pleonast](#): > > Walmart pays poorly and its customer service is poor. That seems to mean that the pay is commensurate with the value of the labor. WalMart had half a trillion in reveveue and $16 billion in profit last year. Since all that money was generated by its employees, that’s pretty good evidence they’re doing a good job for WalMart, isn’t it? That $16 billion, by the way, is the difference between the actual value of what they do, and what they’re paid. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2013, 6:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-incredible-nerve-of-walmart/674220/225 "2013-11-21T06:32:45Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > But in all of this discussion what I find incomprehensible is: > > If person A provides person B with a job, then person A is responsible for person B’s welfare. > > If person C does not provide person B with a job, the person C is not responsible for anything. If you figure it out, please share the answer. I am similarly baffled. ---
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2013, 6:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-incredible-nerve-of-walmart/674220/226 "2013-11-21T06:34:55Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I think a lot of people are confused about why corporations exist. They exist to make money for the investors and/or owners. They do not exist in order to create jobs. Any business worth it’s salt tries to eliminate as many jobs as it can, often by automation. Now, few businesses can be 100% successful in this, and so they pretty much always hire people. But only because they have to. > > Walmart stays in business because they provide products to people who want them. If they don’t provide products that people want, then they go out of business. > > But in all of this discussion what I find incomprehensible is: > > If person A provides person B with a job, then person A is responsible for person B’s welfare. > > If person C does not provide person B with a job, the person C is not responsible for anything. If over a million person B’s are making you a billionaire through their labor, then yes you ought to treat them well and not take advantage of them just because you know their only alternatives are even worse than you. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2013, 6:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-incredible-nerve-of-walmart/674220/227 "2013-11-21T06:35:04Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > That $16 billion, by the way, is the difference between the actual value of what they do, and what they’re paid. That’s what Marx and Engels said. Both of you are ignoring the investment of the providers of capital, without which there would be no jobs. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2013, 6:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-incredible-nerve-of-walmart/674220/228 "2013-11-21T06:46:26Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I think a lot of people are confused about why corporations exist. They exist to make money for the investors and/or owners. They do not exist in order to create jobs. Any business worth it’s salt tries to eliminate as many jobs as it can, often by automation. Now, few businesses can be 100% successful in this, and so they pretty much always hire people. But only because they have to. > > Walmart stays in business because they provide products to people who want them. If they don’t provide products that people want, then they go out of business. > > But in all of this discussion what I find incomprehensible is: > > If person A provides person B with a job, then person A is responsible for person B’s welfare. > > If person C does not provide person B with a job, the person C is not responsible for anything. That’s because you have it backwards. It’s workers, doing work, that provide profits for the owners of corporations. (Along with food, clothing, and everything else you rely on to live your comfortable life.) But you’re right that its not WalMart in particular that’s the problem. They’re just doing what corporations do: maximizing the amount of value they can transfer from employees to owners, by paying as little as possible while getting as much work from them as they can. Without corporations, how could we have multi-billionaires? And how could the country struggle along without them? The problem is not WalMart itself, but legislators, who are comfortable with 7-8% unemployment, and which is what drives wages down. If unemployment were lower, the least they could pay would be more than it is now, ---
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2013, 7:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-incredible-nerve-of-walmart/674220/229 "2013-11-21T07:16:24Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > That’s what Marx and Engels said. Both of you are ignoring the investment of the providers of capital, without which there would be no jobs. Where did the capital come from? ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2013, 7:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-incredible-nerve-of-walmart/674220/230 "2013-11-21T07:31:44Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > That’s what Marx and Engels said. Both of you are ignoring the investment of the providers of capital, without which there would be no jobs. I’m not sure what you mean by “providers of capital”. If you mean deciding to build a store _here_ instead of _there_, or _this_ kind of store rather than \*that \* kind, that is a job. If you mean deciding to lend, or otherwise provide money to a company, again, that’s a job. Or do you just mean money? Because you have to be careful about confusing money with rich people. Money and rich people are not the same thing. in fact, poor people can have more money without rich people having less of it. Moreover, some people argue we’d have a healthier, more productive economy if wealth were more evenly distributed. Certainly, if we had fewer unemployed people, that would mean we’d collectively be better off, because there would be more people making more stuff. It might be bad for a small handful of people, if their companies were less profitable, because they they had to pay their workers a little more. But the vast majority of people would be better off. Hell, maybe even the rich would be better off, since more people might buy more shit, if they had more money to buy shit with. But the gap between the rich and the poor would shrink, meaning the rich would be _relatively_ worse off. Since rich and poor are relative terms to begin with, that would be bad for rich people. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2013, 8:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-incredible-nerve-of-walmart/674220/231 "2013-11-21T08:36:40Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I think a lot of people are confused about why corporations exist. They exist to make money for the investors and/or owners. They do not exist in order to create jobs. Any business worth it’s salt tries to eliminate as many jobs as it can, often by automation. Now, few businesses can be 100% successful in this, and so they pretty much always hire people. But only because they have to. Damn right. That’s why the claim that cutting taxes on the rich or on corporation is going to produce more jobs is such total bullshit. For the most part if a corporation thinks the optimal strategy, short term, is cutting jobs they will. > [@](#): > > Walmart stays in business because they provide products to people who want them. If they don’t provide products that people want, then they go out of business. > > But in all of this discussion what I find incomprehensible is: > > If person A provides person B with a job, then person A is responsible for person B’s welfare. > > If person C does not provide person B with a job, the person C is not responsible for anything. You’re missing one thing. Corporations and workers are in a symbiotic relationship. Corporations pay workers who buy the products of corporations. Despite the dream of decades Chinese people are not buying a lot of their stuff. Robots won’t either. I’m sure WalMart thinks that if they cut prices and wages more than anyo0ne else they’ll get a competitive advantage. But of course everyone does, and then they start worrying about the lower income people who are their customer base not having money to buy their stuff. And they’ve screwed themselves. WalMart ain’t the hot growth company it used to be. They can’t increase wages even if they wanted to, since someone else would undercut them. That’s why government is important. If it siphoned money from the pockets of those who aren’t doing anything more useful with it than running up the Dow, and paid it to the unemployed for needed work, maybe they’d have money to buy stuff at WalMart in the long term. Really just the same thing that led to the crash - each company had to stuff in the short term that was disastrous in the long term. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2013, 8:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-incredible-nerve-of-walmart/674220/232 "2013-11-21T08:39:49Z")
> [@bldysabba](#): > > This is an excellent post. I’d like to add that while you correctly identify part of the reason for stagnating wages at the low-skill end of the spectrum (i.e automation and rising productivity) you’ve ignored another huge one - the rise of manufacturing in Asia, particularly China. Hundreds of millions of people have been added to the effective workforce at the lower end of the spectrum. And what many Americans ignore in their lamentations is that for the most part, these hundreds of millions of people are better off for it. So while the average American worker may not be particularly better off in terms of income now than he/she was 40 years ago (although I would contest that it’s not so clear cut in terms of quality of life) the average worker around the world is. And people who truly care for other people, not just other Americans, ought to be celebrating this. So, lack of skills was the cause of the significant growth of unemployment in a matter of months? How did all these useless people have jobs in 2007? Maybe, just maybe, the drop in money for consumption had (and has) something to do with it. ---
**Author:** ![bldysabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ecccb3/32.png) [@bldysabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bldysabba)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2013, 9:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-incredible-nerve-of-walmart/674220/233 "2013-11-21T09:29:54Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > So, lack of skills was the cause of the significant growth of unemployment in a matter of months? How did all these useless people have jobs in 2007? Maybe, just maybe, the drop in money for consumption had (and has) something to do with it. Are you responding to someone else while quoting me? I’m trying to point out one of the reasons for the constant refrain I see on the board - that wages have been stagnant for the American lower and lower middle class for the last few decades, while the rich have gotten richer. The reason is that there is simply more competition at the lower end of the spectrum because many many people around the world who were _even_ lower on the spectrum are now competing with them. I have said nothing about increased unemployment from 2007 onwards. (Although there are papers that argue that the recession too is in fact a correction because of this) Link - [http://www.eclac.org/noticias/paginas/3/35143/w15404.pdf](http://www.eclac.org/noticias/paginas/3/35143/w15404.pdf) > [@](#): > > Globalization has brought a sharp increase in the developed world’s labor supply. Labor in developing countries – countries with vast pools of underemployed people – can now more easily augment labor in the developed world, without having to relocate, in ways not thought possible only a few decades ago. We argue that the large increase in the developed world’s labor supply, triggered by geo-political events and technological innovations, is the major underlying cause of the global macro economic imbalances that led to the great recession. The inability of existing institutions in the US and the rest of the world to cope with this shock set the stage for the great recession: The inability of emerging economies to absorb savings through domestic investment and consumption due to inadequate national financial markets and difficulties in enforcing financial contracts; the currency controls motivated by immediate national objectives; and the inability of the US economy to adjust to the perverse incentives caused by huge money inflows leading to a breakdown of checks and balances at various financial institutions. The financial crisis in the US was but the first acute symptom that had to be treated. A sustainable recovery will only occur when the natural flow of capital from developed to developing nations is restored. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2013, 9:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-incredible-nerve-of-walmart/674220/234 "2013-11-21T09:39:02Z")
I think most of you are debating past each other. One group points out that WalMart has no legal or moral duty to treat its employees better. Indeed it has a fiduciary duty to its stockholders (whether they be the Waltons, richest family in the world, or the average Doper with 11.7 shares of WMT in his 401k) to maximize profits. This group might even be suggesting that without the “efficiencies” of companies like WalMart, the American economy would fall even further behind. The other group laments the plight of the American underemployed and low-paid workers. Once upon a time we had labor unions and pro-people governments who would coerce corporations to raise wages and benefits. Woody Guthrie sang songs. _Both sides’ views are valid._ It would be well for Dopers here to ignore thread title, acknowledge that both sides are right, and to _focus on solution_. As I stated upthread I agree with Pleonast (and many European countries; some right-wing economists take a similar position) that a safety net – from public funds, not employers – should be provided for all U.S. residents. Free education is already available; there should be free healthcare and at least some minimal level of food and housing. (This sensible solution may be impractical with today’s irrational American politics. Thus it is correct for sentient Americans to seek minimum wage hikes and to protest the crackdowns on populist demonstrations.) The problems are clear. **XT** correctly points out that unskilled labor is an ever-diminishing portion of production value, so increasing inequality is inevitable result of market principles. But what’s the solution? Let’s start with you, **XT**. Do you have a solution for the problem you describe? What advice do you offer a low-wage worker who lacks the skill and intelligence to get a better job? Commit a crime if the standard of living in prison will be an improvement for him? ---
**Author:** ![drewtwo99](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/d07c76/32.png) [@drewtwo99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/drewtwo99)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2013, 11:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-incredible-nerve-of-walmart/674220/235 "2013-11-21T11:44:52Z")
You guys can blame rich people all you want but if penny pinching people didn’t shop at Walmart, all of this would be a non-issue. We have no one to blame for Walmart’s transgressions other than the people who shop at Walmart. If you don’t like what a business does, don’t shop there. It’s really that simple. Millions of people disagree with me, and with you, and so they do show their support for what Walmart is doing. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2013, 1:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-incredible-nerve-of-walmart/674220/236 "2013-11-21T13:48:48Z")
> [@LinusK](#): > > I’m not sure what you mean by “providers of capital”. If you mean deciding to build a store _here_ instead of _there_, or _this_ kind of store rather than \*that \* kind, that is a job. Building the store may be job(s), but providing the wherewhithall to do it is not. It is capital. How do you think the workers that built it got paid? Who paid for the land? Who bought the inventory? Try opening a store or factory sometime with no capital (or credit) to start it and no way to meet the first payroll or buy the raw materials, and see how many workers you can get. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2013, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-incredible-nerve-of-walmart/674220/237 "2013-11-21T15:46:16Z")
How irregular are hours for the typical Walmart employee? I did extremely well working 70 h/week, pulling in about $25k/year. But I suspect it is difficult for them to get a 2nd job. ---
**Author:** ![running\_coach](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/running_coach/32/15836_2.png) [@running\_coach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/running_coach)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2013, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-incredible-nerve-of-walmart/674220/238 "2013-11-21T15:55:14Z")
> [@Musicat](#): > > Building the store may be job(s), but providing the wherewhithall to do it is not. \*\* It is capital. How do you think the workers that built it got paid? Who paid for the land? Who bought the inventory?\*\* > > Try opening a store or factory sometime with no capital (or credit) to start it and no way to meet the first payroll or buy the raw materials, and see how many workers you can get. [In Sam’s case](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Walton), it was a $20,000 loan from his father-in-law. Twice. And it was a store that was already in place and stocked. > [@](#): > > In 1945, after leaving the military, Walton took over management of his first variety store at the age of 26. With the help of a $20,000 loan from his father-in-law, plus $5,000 he had saved from his time in the Army, Walton purchased a Ben Franklin variety store in Newport, Arkansas.[7] The store was a franchise of the Butler Brothers chain. \With a year left on the lease, but the store effectively sold, he, his wife Helen and his father managed to negotiate the purchase of a new location on the downtown square of Bentonville, Arkansas. Walton negotiated the purchase of a small store, and the title to the building, on the condition that he get a 99-year lease to expand into the shop next door. The owner of the shop next door refused 6 times, and Walton gave up on Bentonville when his father-in-law, without Sam’s knowledge, paid the shop owner a final visit and $20,000 to secure the lease. ---
**Author:** ![Deeg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/deeg/32/2955_2.png) [@Deeg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Deeg)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2013, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-incredible-nerve-of-walmart/674220/239 "2013-11-21T16:01:17Z")
> [@Hellestal](#): > > To step in myself to answer this question: On an emotional level, of course. Naturally. I care about my in-group more on a visceral level. My emotions are stirred by my own tribe in ways that they aren’t stirred by people I’ve never met. > > But I don’t claim it’s morally right for me to be so. The morally right thing would be to value everyone equally. Hellestal answered it better than I could. Thank you. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2013, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-incredible-nerve-of-walmart/674220/240 "2013-11-21T16:20:49Z")
> [@runner pat](#): > > [In Sam’s case](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Walton), it was a $20,000 loan from his father-in-law. Twice. And it was a store that was already in place and stocked. You realize that’s over a quarter of a million dollars in 2013 money, right? And that the purchasing power of that much money was even more than that large sum demonstrates? And he got that twice? That’s some serious money back then. And he was able to take that investment and turn it into one of the most powerful corporations in the world, employing literally millions. And making him a billionaire. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-incredible-nerve-of-walmart/674220.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-incredible-nerve-of-walmart/674220.md?page=13)