The Walmartization of America comes full circle

There’s been a minor scandal recently as some leaked Walmart executive e-mails talking about how atrocious the sales so far this year have been, historically bad.

I was reading up about it a bit and came across “A Scary Reality About Wal-Mart’s Customers: They’re Broke”

Now I don’t know much about economics beyond the basics. So my layman’s understanding may be naive and simply wrong, and I welcome people to correct me.

But what seems to have happened to me, is this:

A few decades ago, Walmart leads the charge in a new radical price above all else strategy. They cut their prices by buying the cheapest possible crap, from the cheapest possible source, using their muscle to force destructive cuts on their suppliers which forces them to cut their expenses, quality, and worker treatment as hard as possible just to stay competitive. Walmart saves money themselves by treating their workers badly, forcing unpaid overtime, cutting people’s hours just enough to avoid benefits, etc.

Walmart flourishes. The average US worker is still has a lot of money by global standards because they’ve probably got some decent jobs and decent pay. Combine their economic power with Walmart’s cut throat business practices that lead to low prices, which caters perfectly to the US consumer’s “price above all else” buying habits, and you get a hugely successful company that flourishes.

Other companies see the success Walmart has been having by screwing their workers as hard as possible, putting the vice on their suppliers, and exploiting the cheapest possible labor in the world, and so they follow suit.

Companies across the economy do this. Workers at thousands of companies are given fewer hours to get them below legal minimum number of hours to avoid paying them certain benefits as full time workers. People get fired and re-hired, or hired as independent contractors to avoid paying certain benefits to the workers. Businesses are gutted with no concern for long term health of the company, just enough to continuously try to boost quarterly reports and stock prices. Work is outsourced to cheaper countries at an incredible rate.

For a while, this works. People get screwed in little bits here and there, but our American attitude towards such people is that they must’ve done something to deserve it. We simply repeat the “the only obligation of a company is to turn a profit” mantra and happily watch as our economy cuts itself to death.

Eventually, the obvious happens. If you impoverish the average worker in a country by making sure his work is compensated as little as possible, they will grow poor enough that you can no longer sell your products to them. When this was just Walmart, and most people still had good jobs, it wasn’t something that could crush an economy. But when most companies are looking at any angle they can to increase their quarterly bottom line as much as possible, the entire workforce as a whole gets screwed. And an impoverished workforce can no longer be the consumers you need to drive your economy.

The interesting thing in all of this is that the US has not become poor. The US in terms of GDP is still fabulously rich. It’s just that the average person has it worse than they’ve had it in decades. The money is still all here - for now - but it’s sitting in the hands of a few people, and in idle corporate cash reserves.

The ultimate irony is that Walmart is in trouble because of the practices they pioneered.

So do we acknowledge at some point that this is a bad way to run an economy?

Ah, yes. The American worker getting screwed for decades isn’t the reason that they don’t have enough money to consume and drive the economy, it’s the $15 extra a week they pay in taxes.

As always, the answer is tax cuts.

Interesting hypothesis. Got any data to support it?

So, just to get this straight, the problem with America is Walmart and companies who Walmart uses as it’s supplies? And that this trend of screwing American workers is so pervasive that Walmart no longer has customers (which is surprising to me, since the two Walmarts in my area are always crowded, and this isn’t exactly a booming economic area here)? It’s not the shaky economy, or anything like that…it’s Walmart that’s the problem with the US and US workers? Is Walmart to blame for the current woes happening in the EU and China as well? I ask this in all seriousness, as they could be the root of all evil reading the OP. :eek:

I can only pitch in a single data point, but I have stopped shopping at Walmart like 8 years ago because I don’t like their labor practices. Of course, I’m lucky that I’m able to vote with my wallet in this way, but it effectively removes me from their “barometer”

The tricky thing with this one is that I’m not sure what one or two data points would sum it up. The wealth disparity numbers are easy and obvious, but they are indirectly related. Is there some sort of “companies taking care of their workers” data we could look at? Average length of employment? Incidence of reduction of hours? Ways to quantify firing and rehiring? How discretionary income ties to increased consumption levels?

Some of this stuff is so well established that I’m not sure it needs data. I mean, we all know 50 years ago the average person would work 1-3 jobs in their life, their company would be loyal to them as they would be to their company, and companies tended to have a longer term view towards the good of their company. Now we’ve got companies that cut to the bone just to meet stock price goals, people are expected to hold 10-30 jobs in their lifetimes, the ratio between executive/CEO and average worker pay has increased about 60x, and of course no one disputes the rise in outsourcing.

What sort of data do you think would best support or reject the idea?

According to this graph at Google Finance, Wal-Mart share prices are still higher than they were at any time from 2009 to 2012, and the current dip they’re experiencing doesn’t seem any more drastic than others that happened in 2009 and 2011.

I think there are a lot of problems with the Wal-Mart business model, and I think there’s a good case to be made in general that corporate-friendly labor and employment policies over recent decades have had some serious negative effects on the economic health of the middle class. But ISTM that trying to argue that one particular short-term blip in Wal-Mart’s profitability augurs some kind of major tectonic shift in the state of the economy is basically just silly.

You could start off by showing that the US has jumped the shark, with more workers now working temp type positions instead of full time. Another data point would be showing that US workers have fallen so far wrt salary that they can no longer afford to shop at Walmart. You’d need to tie this to Walmart and other companies associated with Walmart, or I suppose companies with similar practices and not to something as prosaic as, say, the continuing economic woes stemming from the housing crash and downturn in the economy since 2008. Also, you might want to show that the US consummer still WANTS to shop at Walmart, and that their theorectical downturn in sales doesn’t stem from the average US consumer not wanting to buy Walmart crap, and instead stems from their basic inability to buy anything even at Walmart.

Interesting. In my circle (which is decidedly middle class), Walmart is snarkily referred to as “the merchant of shame” and is avoided unless there is absolutely no other choice. This attitude comes from the knowledge of their horrible labor practices and that most of their goods are sub-par quality. I think we’re all tired of buying cheap plastic shyte that won’t last 6 months.

Senor Beef, in support of your theory, how are other discount retailers fairing? Target? I know JCPenny’s is not doing well, but they were floundering before this.

Yes, it was so radical and new that they were almost a century late to the party.

It’s such a fantastic and complex story that you’re going to to need all sorts of data to support it. All I can say is go line by line in your OP, and offer data that supports it.

How else could it be?

You’re not alone, and as a result companies like Target are doing very well. It’s because of this that the OP’s thesis is flawed, for example:

“Wal-Mart shoppers are the barometer of the U.S. consumer”

It’s true they used to be, and in my opinion what this is showing is Walmart’s inevitable decline. Market forces are actually at work, and people are voting with their wallets. All the things the OP described bothered enough people that Walmart is losing market share.

[QUOTE=SenorBeef]
The ultimate irony is that Walmart is in trouble because of the practices they pioneered.
[/QUOTE]

Which is how it should be. Other companies are offering other practices that consumers prefer.

[QUOTE=SenorBeef]
So do we acknowledge at some point that this is a bad way to run an economy?
[/QUOTE]

What’s the alternative? Should Walmart never have been allowed to start? Should the government have broken it up at some point? It is currently the largest US employer, should we declare it too big to fail and bail it out?

[QUOTE=SenorBeef]
As always, the answer is tax cuts.
[/QUOTE]

You do realize that those taxes were hitting the bottom earners right? And a very small increase in their taxes caused a massive shift in consumption.

Isn’t this what the whole Occupy movement was all about?

Walmart is the largest employer in the country. Over half of their workforce makes $10 an hour or less. They cut their workers hours just enough so that they don’t have to provide benefits. They actually teach their workers how to apply for welfare or food stamps.

These are well known facts.

I said this in my thread about min. wage but I think it bears repeating. Businesses such as Walmart have no moral compass. Their practices are targeted at profit above all else, including people and the earth we inhabit.

We the people are going to have to help ourselves. We have to get our priorities straight. IMO, they are Education, Environmental Protection, and Ending Poverty. These tasks are only going to be completed through social programs. Maximizing profit directly interferes with these goals, even though it’s obvious they are what’s most important in the long term.

People should be provided with access to food assistance, housing assistance, healthcare, education and quality skills training programs.

It’s not about competition anymore. It’s about cooperation.

Oh, please. Let’s not pretend that we’re all supposed to be intimately familiar with the pay scale of Walmart.

Provide a cite for that claim, and also provide a cite that it is out of the norm for the retail business. That’s the way it works in GD. You could be 100% correct, but your post is not your cite.

Payscale.com Wal Mart

Excuse me, it’s $10.11 an/hr or less.

“I pay low wages. I can take advantage of that. We’re going to be successful, but the basis is a very low-wage, low-benefit model of employment” - Sam Walton

That’s a strange way of admitting you were wrong about something you claimed was a “well known fact”. Maybe some humility going forward might be in order?

Also, your cite says this was the pay in 2006. Besides, without a comparison to what people make in similar jobs, that number is meaningless.

I think the OP’s point is that WalMart has become the norm for the retail business. Businesses either follow WalMart’s example or get driven under by businesses that do. So every surviving business ends up looking to cut its costs by cutting its wages.

But at the same time, every business also wants customers to buy its products. So they want people out there who get paid high wages and have money to spend.

Do I need to point out the problems this model has in long-term sustainability?

No. You just need to provide that a cite that it’s a reflection of reality. Please include an analysis of Target, the 2nd largest retailer in the US.

Hey, what do you know? A link with a quote from the link!