And in the meantime, all those lower income people who shop at Wal-mart should pay higher prices to support those workers? This somehow helps the poor?
Wal-Mart is one of the greatest benefactors of poor people we’ve seen in a long time. You should be cheering the fact that the largest corporation in America got that way through excelling at providing the poor and lower middle class with what they want in spectacular fashion.
Instead, some of you have to try to turn it into yet another dreary bit of class warfare.
Since “sweatshop” is an ill defined word, let’s concentrate on the “slave” part-- a term that is precisely defined. Give us a list of WalMart suppliers that are forced, due to pricing pressure, to use slave labor.
Not surprisingly, countries like China and companies like Walmart don’t generally discuss production practices…
It’s one thing to claim that there should be no limiting factors to the free market. If you believe in pure market capitalism, good for you. I think you’re (slightly) wrong, but won’t argue the point here.
The problem I have with most Free Marketeers is the intellectual dishonesty which basically demands complete market freedom on the capital side, but ignores (and frankly support) the reality that labor markets are not free. You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
It’s a much broader conversation, but there’s a pretty interesting multi-article Frontline analysis on Walmart and it’s effect on the US economy. Take a look if you’re interested:
I’m sorry, I guess I should have clarified. They don’t outright bribe, they just offer across-the-board campaign contributions and large “incentives.” I must have jumped the gun when I heard “Hey, if you let us build a WalMart here- no matter what your populace thinks about it- we’ll give you this nice chunk of cash.”
Of course, we all know what happens when a city council rejects a WalMart. They either try to cut the city council out of the picture, or they open a WalMart in a nearby town just long enough to destroy the local economy.
Kind of reminds me of those wonderful days of the Big Four.
In name only. Walmart is intimately involved in the production process. As far and away the largest retailer of consumer goods, they call the shots in the world-wide global manufacture of those consumer goods.
Even if it were true that Walmart was somehow uninvolved in the production of the goods they sell, how does that make their practice of buying products from suppliers that use slave labor any less reprehensible?
Since you’re such an authority, you’re saying you know that prisoners and indentured labor are used to produce the goods Walmart sells, right? Is this something of which you approve?
Yes, I know that already. They are able to use their clout as a retailer to pressure their suppliers to cut costs and provide a high level of service. Dell does the same thing. As a consumer, I don’t have a problem with that if it means lower prices.
I don’t agree with such a practice. Could you please provide some evidence where WalMart engages in using slave labor indirectly?
I do believe in this practice of Sam Walton’s:
“We’re not interested in charity here; we don’t believe in subsidizing substandard work or inefficiency…it good for our customers?’ If not, we went and made it overseas.”
Also from your link:
"In this strategy, Sam Walton was playing catch-up. Sears, Kmart, Target, and JCPenney all had established procurement networks in Asia long before Wal-Mart arrived. Wal-Mart’s decision to arrive unfashionably late was deliberate, according to the retired executive. “In going to Asia and then into China,” he said, “department stores always beat us.”
You said
[qoute=modernhamlet]
Not surprisingly, countries like China and companies like Walmart don’t generally discuss production practices…[/qoute]
to which your reply was:
[qoute=modernhamlet]
Argument from Authority. Good job not addressing my point.
[/qoute]
Well, I believe I did address your point. Walmart’s practices are in fact discussed in great detail by economists and business leaders. A great deal has been written on the subject, as evidenced by your own link.
[qoute=modernhamlet]
Modern economic realities have forced lower and lower-middle class Americans to buy on price alone. Quality and ethics play no role in the Walmart equation.
[/quote]
Did ancient economic realities allow the lower classes to buy higher quality for less money? If I can buy the same products for the same quality at a lower price, is that unethical?
OK, now you’re making an actual argument instead of just appealing to emotion.
But the article cited only makes some claims about general treatment of Chinese workers and associates that with WalMart because they buy stuff from China.
Chinese citizens don’t suffer (only) because they have low wage jobs. They suffer because they have an oppresive government. It’s unclear how these workers’ lives would be improved if WalMart stopped buying stuff from China. What would happen to them if WalMart disappeared tomorrow? WalMart is an easy target because it’s big, but that doesn’t it make the source of Chinese workers’ problems.
But the problem with oppression in China is that the international community has no way of ending it. How many western democracies have boycotts of Chinese goods? How many UN resolutions have been passed in order to pressure the Chinese government to stop oppressing its own people? Frankly, though, the best way to improve the lives of Chinese workers is for their economy to flourish so that a middle class can become big enough to push for change. Disengaging with China wouldn’t necessarily make things better for the Chinese-- that country could just as easily become a giant North Korea.
And this is precisely how the urban workers became so well off. There has been a see-saw effect in China the past couple decades as they attempt to modernize while maintaining control. The rural workers were the first to feel the effects of economic liberalization and fifteen years ago (or so) they were doing so well that the urban workers clamored for more economic freedom. The balance has tipped and, for the time being, the urban workers are higher. While an outside observer may (will) wish the changes in China could move (much) faster it has been impressive what they have managed without creating social chaos.
Cripes, now you people have me defending China. I hope you’re satisfied. :mad:
Like they say in Corporate Strategy class… you can either differentiate or be low cost.
The problem with most Mom & Pop stores is that they don’t realize this, not that Wal-Mart is inherently evil. If Mom & Pop changed their local clothing store into somewhere that sells suits and specialized clothing useful in that region that Wal-Mart doesn’t sell, then they’ll probably do fine.
But, if they try to sell the same Wranglers and Levis, they’re going to get crushed- Wal-Mart can probably sell some things cheaper than small-volume retailers can buy it for. This is because the small retailer may be buying lots of 25 pairs of jeans per month, while Wal-Mart is buying 250,000 per month. You better believe that companies will give crazy discounts to customers buying so much so often. Economies of scale are powerful things.
Think about it this way: Soap’s pretty easy to make, so you decide to make your own soapmaking business. Do you try to go mano-a-mano with P&G, Unilever and Dial and try to sell deodorant bath soap? Absolutely not. What you do is make all sorts of organic soaps and herbal soaps that have some differentiation from the average bar of Dove, Dial or Coast.
And as for the person claiming Wal-Mart is intimately involved in companies’ production practices… that’s just asinine. Yes, Wal-Mart demands certain standards and features of the products they buy. Yes, Wal-Mart demands certain prices and concessions from their suppliers. Guess what… none of that is unique to Wal-Mart or even new in the business world. The ONLY difference is the amount of clout that Wal-Mart wields. Where Wal-Mart really gets its competitive advantage is through its insanely efficient distribution system. In other words, if Wal-Mart and Target bought the same items at the same price from the same supplier, Wal-Mart’s distribution system allows them to do one of two things:
Sell the item cheaper than Target and maintain a similar margin, due to the savings from the superior distribution network.
Sell the item at the same price as Target and make a higher profit margin, again due to the savings from the superior distribution network.
As for those poor, put-upon Chinese workers… they’re being paid a wage that is probably considered fair in China, and if they or their government does not see fit to have better working standards or higher minimum wages, then I fail to see how it’s my problem, the US’s problem or even Wal-Mart’s problem, especially if Wal-Mart is just buying the products of some Chinese company. It’s the problem of the Chinese government and the Chinese people, ultimately.
But it’s like that old bumper sticker: “Hungry? Eat your import.”
Wal-Mart used to buy American, & it succeeded because it seemed like a good deal to the working man. I was a Wal-Mart fan as a kid because everything was discounted.
But then I realized: It’s this huge corporation, trying to be the retail monopoly, all sectors, in smaller towns. As such, it actually sucks a certain amount of money out of places which don’t have that much money to begin with. Places with Wal-Marts end up with lower prices, but also less money in the economy, & most importantly, a loss of capital to outsider hands. This can help to keep poor towns down in the Midwest & South. And if anybody deserves more disposable income, it’s those of us who need to be able to take vacations from the summer heat in the US Heartland, to someplace cooler, like Singapore.
And recently, they’ve let the push for lower & lower prices take them too far; products have become infamously shoddy, which gives the illusion of lower prices while actually costing their customers more. And by buying overseas, they are, yes, putting American money into poorer countries, good, but also, working against local self-sufficiency.
(Years ago, I had this great pair of shoes, which IIRC, I bought at Wal-Mart. They were just dressy enough, & comfortable. Then the soles wore out, so I took them to a cobbler. He said that because of the way they were made, he couldn’t repair them. I would just have to buy another. Yeah, like WM even carried them anymore. The uppers were perfect. The soles were shot. This has less to do with Wal-Mart specifically than the American manufacturing ethic, but the story seems to fit here.)
Still, Wal-Mart does some things I like, like letting its employees buy stock. Unfortunately, this has allowed a lot of stock to flow into northwest Arkansas, for those who got in early.
So, if you like Wal-Mart, move to Bentonville, AR, & see where your money went. You may decide to stay, even.
OTOH, if you like the idea, start your own version, & let the corporate profits flow into southern Illinois or eastern Kentucky or wherever.
Last year, Wal-Mart made Forbes’ list of the 100 best companies to work for in America. It was the only mass market retailer to make the list.
Wal-Mart’s starting salaries for unskilled labor are just about double the minimum wage.
Wal-Mart has a policy of promoting from within, giving every stock boy and cashier a chance to rise as high in the company as their abilities and desire take them.
Wal-Mart has an above-average health plan for mass-market retailers, and other benefits.
I’m convinced that the vast amount of opposition to Wal-Mart comes from: 1) lefty distrust of any big company, 2) Lefty hatred of the sort of mass consumerism and suburban sprawl that Wal-Mart symbolizes, and 3) the fact that Wal-Mart employees are not unionized.
These three factors make Wal-Mart a target, so it gets protested, harassed, criticized, and sneered at by the left. Lost in the ideological battle is the fact that Wal-Mart is the largest employer in the U.S., and Wal-Mart’s incredible efficiency has helped keep inflation in check and that Wal-Mart alone is responsible for a good percentage of jobs created in the last five years, and a good percentage of total U.S. GDP growth.
Wal-Mart has been one of the big economic success stories of the past five difficult years, and it got that way by focusing on selling poor and lower-middle class people the things they need at lower prices and giving them ‘one-stop shopping’ which makes the lives of single mothers and people who don’t have cars much easier.
I personally dislike shopping at Wal-Mart. I hate the narrow aisles, the crowds, the assembly-line feel to shopping there. But I understand that these are the kinds of things that Wal-Mart has streamlined to keep costs down, and that people who are poor would gladly trade crowded aisles for lower prices. Since I can afford a bit more, I tend to shop elsewhere. And I understand that the fact that I don’t like shopping there does not translate into, “Wal-Mart is evil”
:eek:/ You’re pretty harsh there. I bet you’re “overpaid” yourself, considering whatever you do would be done cheaper & better in India. (Unless you translate Swedish into French while shoveling snow, or something.)
Ah, yes, but since the consumers will rush to Wal-Mart—for entirely rational reasons—of course, WM is the big account, & often seems indispensable. Years ago, I noticed even niche-market outfits (like, say, Wizards of the Coast, almost none of whose product would fit into Wal-Mart’s cultural image) trying to figure out how to take advantage of that big sales vector. A lot of manufacturers are going to retool how they do things in order to get that account. Wal-Mart’s power breeds power. That’s capitalism. And while maybe it isn’t grossly immoral, it’s a cause for concern (nice, subjective, self-interested capitalist concern) for anybody who makes his living selling things to Americans.
On the other hand, maybe it’s because I’m from old-time Wal-Mart country, but I don’t recognize this talk of filthy stores, browbeaten employees, & such. With the traffic that they get, it doesn’t seem inappropriately dirty to me. Then again, I’m not in them all that often.
I should point out that Wal-Mart is so big because they seem better in some ways than the alternatives. There are other discount stores, there are other chain stores. If you’re going to accept that retail paradigm, Wal-Mart looks like a good corporate citizen. And because they’re so attractive, they’ve become so successful that they command a huge chunk of the economy. Some people buy at Wal-Mart everything that they can buy at Wal-Mart, even if it would be better quality elsewhere.
The national problem is how the rest of us deal with this Goliath in the retail sector. It causes headaches for producers of goods.
The local problem is that any such chain store is a drain on local monies, & Wal-Mart, by taking over so many sectors while being so wonderful & good & cheap (from a consumer p.o.v.) is a more powerful drain, & harder to deal with for local government.
[quote=eleanorigby]
If Walmart can drive down the price of goods d/t its sheer sizie and clout–is that always beneficial to the entire market/economy?
[quote]
Are the wholesale prices that Wal Mart drives down available to other retailers? Or are smaller operations charged more to compensate, thus worsening their competative situation?
How about Finnish into Maltese while chugging a beer? If someone can buy the same service I provide for less than I charge, they’d be a fool not to take it.
I was just pointing out that there are two ways of looking at this, and bemoaning the loss of jobs or a reduction in pay isn’t necessarily the most useful angle.