Posted by Dan Ewert : 12/17/2002 03:25:00 AM (Archive Link)
As some of you may know, I occasionally like to take a peek at TheNation.com to see how the liberal side sees life. Something I’ve noticed is that they have a real thing against Wal-Mart. By thing, I mean a vehement dislike bordering on visceral hate… probably somewhere in between. Here are a few examples:

This article discusses the attempts in a Long Island community to unionize the local Wal-Mart’s work force. They complain that the hours are bad, the pay is bad, and the health care is lousy. Oppressing the working man is one of the main ways Wally World keeps their prices famously low, they claim, therefore we must unionize! Attica, Attica! When I read this, I must ask myself… yeah, so what? They apparently don’t realize that they’re unskilled labor at a discount retailer. Just because Wal-Mart is the largest, most profitable, richest entity in the world and it’s also the planet’s biggest private employer doesn’t change the fact that the base level of its operations and profits is discount retail outlets with largely unskilled labor. Just because there’s a lot of workers and just because the company makes heaps of cash doesn’t mean that the employees are entitled to big salaries and the Mayo Clinic. I’m sure the Marxists out there will disagree but they can feel free to bask in the heady glow of the USSR… wait, I mean Yugoslavia… no, well they still have North Korea. Anyway, what you’re paid is commiserate with your skills and duties. About five years ago, I worked at an Office Depot as a summer job. I was a typical employee who stocked shelves, helped customers and peddled computers. I made a big $6 an hour and that’s what I deserved. While I may have had the skills for more, my position certainly didn’t demand it. Similarly, you can’t expect to get paid handsomely for jobs in which a large pool of talent can do the work. Salaries are a supply and demand situation. The fewer people there are who are qualified to do a particular job, the more they will be paid. The greater the number of qualified individuals, the lower the salary because the supply outpaces the demand. That’s economics for ya.

This next article concerns sexual discrimination at some Wal-Marts. There could very well be some truth to the accusations. The problem I have with this, though, is that Wal-Mart is a gigantic corporation. According to their website, the company’s numbers stack up thus, “As of August 31, 2002, the Company had 1,603 Wal-Mart stores, 1,179 Supercenters, 517 SAM'S CLUBS and 36 Neighborhood Markets in the United States. Internationally, the Company operated units in Argentina (11), Brazil (22), Canada (199), China (20), Germany (96), Korea (12), Mexico (578), Puerto Rico (18) and United Kingdom (256).” Let me do the math for you… that’s a total of 4,547 different stores and they employ over 1.3 million people. I’m absolutely certain there’s some sexual discrimination mixed in there. There’s probably also racial or other types. With that many stores and that many people, you’re going to have some dark spots. It’s positively irresponsible, though, to take those spots and say they reflect on the entire company. It’s like saying a brown dog is black because of three small spots on his back. Frankly, it’s absurd. Unless you can prove that such discrimination is endemic and fostered across the enterprise, you shouldn’t go flinging around wild accusations.

The same piece goes on to delve into the unionization issue again. I found one passage particularly amusing. It draws a connection between the poor folks who love Wal-Mart and the people who work there, saying the former should support the latter. Here it is, “In fact, Wal-Mart customers and workers have much in common: They are increasingly likely to be anybody in America. The working poor are even more likely than other Americans to shop at Wal-Mart, not necessarily because they find it a shopper's paradise--though of course some do--but because they need the discounts, or live in a remote area with few other options. (Many Wal-Mart workers say they began working at their local Wal-Mart because they shopped there; when they needed a job, they filled out its application, because Wal-Mart was already such a familiar part of their lives.) Through shoppers and "associates" alike, Wal-Mart is making billions from female poverty.” Here the author agrees that the poor like Wal-Mart because of its low prices. She then asserts that the poor should like unionization because they’re of the same salt of the earth as the employees. What she fails to mention is that unionization would drive salaries up to undeserved levels which would then drive up prices (not to mention price spikes from potential new inefficiencies) and those affordable goods that the poor love so much would become too expensive for them. So why should they support unionization? Sympathy is one thing, actual dollars is another.

And finally (although, not at all the last on the site) this article by Jim Hightower (the self-avowed grand master populist) talks about the valiant, self-sacrificing efforts by the common man to resist Wal-Marts moving into their communities. Grass roots campaigns run by local shop owners and sympathetic residents lobby against the big box in their neighborhood, county, and global hemisphere. Personally, I would never participate in such a campaign. I like Wal-Mart. It has almost everything I need in one store covering so much ground they should measure it in hectares and you can’t beat the prices. Why should I support a small business that is going to charge me more for less and has a smaller selection? Sure, there’s the quaint aspect, but if the store is so quaint and niche, then it should survive. If it doesn’t offer something Wal-Mart can’t, whether it be merchandise or ambience, then it should naturally go down the tubes. Additionally, a Wal-Mart can increase your tax base and draw surrounding customers to an area, increasing the economy. So I hardly have a problem with that. What I find odd, though, is the dichotomy between Wal-Mart being good or bad for the common man. On the one hand, the chain’s cheap prices are good for Joe Blow, as was noted above. On the other hand, it’s bad because it crushes local businesses. Make up your mind. One would think a business that appeals to the disadvantaged and destroys the overcharging bourgeoisie would be something The Nation would like, but I suppose not.

What it finally comes down is that Wal-Mart is huge, very rich, and employs a whole lot of unskilled lower to middle class people who don’t get paid in cougarans. For liberals, this is a sure sign of evil. No more information is needed to know it is a bad, bad company. As such, they will trip all over themselves to demonstrate why it is evil. In so doing, they will typically contradict themselves, exaggerate, and prevaricate. The usual.