DC Cookie: Controversy Thursday: Sam Walton was an Evil Genius

Thursday, August 31, 2006

Controversy Thursday: Sam Walton was an Evil Genius

For years my coupon-cutting Grandma refused to shop at Wal-mart preaching the evils of an American behemoth, heartlessly devouring mom and pop shops like an obese hippopotamous. But when she realized her crusade was costing her precious pension dollars, she stubbornly converted.

Personally, I have never had a problem with Wal-mart. Perhaps because my finance-mind knows that big-business is vital to the economy; perhaps because I can always find the loopholes in studies like these (Wal-mart employees could be using more public welfare services because they have been educated to know they are available?); or perhaps because the entrancing low-low prices have forced me into an un-jaded, coma-like ignorance.

Regardless, you have to respect a company that single-handedly has the 19th largest GDP in the world (higher than Sweden). So what if a typical Wal-mart employee earns $18,000 and can't afford health insurance coverage? So what if Wal-mart employs illegal immigrants as janitors and steamrolls suffering independent businesses in non-cosmopolitan economic regions? So what if Wal-mart abuses international labour laws and refuses to hire unionized employees?

What do I care? Last week I saved $4 on a 32-pack of toilet paper...

54 Comments:

At August 31, 2006 11:14 AM, Anonymous said…

Ah, I'm still stuck in the "small is beautiful" model. I think economic diversity is better than the "efficiency" of juggernauts. To my way of thinking monopoly and oligopoly are not good. I'd rather deal with mom and pop, a business that reflects my locale and preferences. I would rather pay somewhat higher prices and have the money flow through many hands than ship it off directly to a megacorporation far away. I don't think Sam Walton was evil, I just don't shop in his stores.
At August 31, 2006 11:41 AM, Anonymous said…

I like Target better anyway. However I do prefer my designer labels produced on the sweat and tears of an 8 year-old who makes 40 cents a day so I can be cool and in fashion for 2 weeks. As an American it is what I've come to expect.
At August 31, 2006 12:21 PM, Anonymous said…

Cookie,

You might be interested in a series of posts Ezra Klein made about how Wal-Mart's economic model dominance has caused shockwaves throughout multiple industries, not just the service sector.

His essential argument is because they've set the bar so low, they are pushing industries of all stripes to cut costs and race to the bottom. Check it out: http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/2006/08/walmart_round_t.html

For myself, I stay away from Wal-Mart and big-box retailers as much as I can. Independent business is an endangered species in this country, and I don't want my money going to support a company with such abominable practices as Sam Walton's demon spawn.
At August 31, 2006 12:23 PM, Anonymous said…

That URL'S supposed to say "round_t.html." :)

&^%$!ing Blogger. :)

By the way, the code for this entry is "ilvprzi," which is deeply ironic, given the subject matter.
At August 31, 2006 2:10 PM, Michelle at Hey Love Designs said…

I'm not really a fan of Walmart. WIth the exception of one Walmart in this area, they are all hard to get into, things are all over the place, people are all over the place, and you can't get in and out within 5 minutes because you'll be in line for at least 10.

Plus it's like a whole other world. Even in fancy Kingstowne when I used to live there, it would be like you were stepping foot on another planet when you were at Walmart.
At August 31, 2006 2:26 PM, O-FACE said…

Interesting....I love Target..Walmart is very cancerous to local businesses. They stifle competition...They stifle mom and pop outfit....They stifle creative entrepeneurial types because they have to agree to their terms of business and lose creative control......I grew up in the midwest so I have first hand experience seeing what empty retail outlets in a downtown can do for entire city.....Walmart needs to be regulated I hate to say....
At August 31, 2006 3:05 PM, DC Cookie said…

If Wal-mart needs to be regulated, then do ExxonMobil, General Motors, McDonald's, Microsoft, etc. also need to be regulated?

Private business...
At August 31, 2006 4:04 PM, Carrie Broadshoulders said…

I'm with Cookie. Of course I'm vehemently against regulating private enterprise. Wal-Mart has done nothing illegal or immoral. It's business. If mom and pop can't find a way to survive, it isn't Wal-Mart's fault, its Mom and Pop's fault for not providing a product or service in a way that drives demand to their store. Blame the mini vans full of fat rednecks who think Wal-Mart is the Harrods of America and spend their money there. Wal-Mart has also put many grocery stores out of business as well with their Super Wal-Mart model. Then again there is something to be said for buying your groceries and a diamond ring in the same place. :) I rarely if ever shop at Wal-mart simply because they are full of ugly trashy people who have no sense of decorum or decency and act ignunt in public. I prefer the gay Target in Potomac Yards, though do everything I can to avoid driving to Virginia. Unfortunately that only leave me CVS to purchase my essentials in the District. And I hate CVS. It's a dilemma. But not one that's Wal-Mart's fault.
At August 31, 2006 4:30 PM, Anonymous said…

All businesses are regulated, from where they can incorporate to how big their buildings or offices can be. It's a misnomer to say that supporting business means you oppose regulation. :)

Believe me, I know--I'm a small businessman myself, and little old me has a lot more to worry about come tax time than your average salary dude. :)

Back to the point--the purpose of government is to protect its citizens, provide basic services, and build environments for individual success to thrive. It functions best as a watchdog when business gets too rapacious, and the problem is that the current administration runs its government like a business, albeit a failing one. :) So there's no check and balance, as it were.

Like Bill upthread, I'm willing to pay higher prices for better service and fostering local business in my community. There's a great deli in Woodley Park that doesn't have half the stuff the CVS across the street does, but I've known the family for ten years and they cut me deals on anything I ask for, always treat their customers with respect, and greet everyone with a smile and genuine interest.

That's worth more than saving a lousy $3 any day of the week. ;)
At August 31, 2006 4:33 PM, DC Cookie said…

But what about the old handicapped man who greets you at the Wal-mart door?

Other than that, I agree with paying an extra buck for phenomenal customer service. It's hard to find these days...
At August 31, 2006 5:26 PM, O-FACE said…

Microsoft is regulated...Gasoline is based on a franchise system, because you and I would never be able to afford to open one and meet the codes...McDonalds has stiff competition from everybody....Walmart on the other hand is a black hole that economically destroys small/midsize downtowns. Its the creative class/downtown that makes cities strong. Its like having weak abs, you then start to have back and leg problems because your core is weak. Same thang with urban economics...Your downtown is empty and your economy will suffer. No job base, no tax base, no revenues for the city... Why do you think all the Cities are relocating stadiums into downtowns??? Convention Centers, Housing???? I know you went to Hawvaard and your professors groomed you to follow the text book principals but sometimes you have to go with your gut feelings and mine tells me regulate those bastards.....
At August 31, 2006 5:35 PM, DC Cookie said…

I did not, in fact, go to Harvard. Lil Sis goes there. But my education was equally as reputable, so I'll let that slide.

Here is my question. You say "regulate," but what do you mean by that? It's a very broad term. If we're going to "regulate" Wal-mart, then in fairness every other company should be held to the same standards.

If people are complaining that Wal-mart pays unfairly low wages, then we should lobby the government to raise minimum wage. Businesses are goverened by law-makers' regulations. It shouldn't be Wal-mart that faces our scrutiny, but rather, the government institutions that provide Wal-mart a forum in which to exist.

That was far too much one-sidedness for this traditional fence-sitter. I'll go back to playing devil's advocate for the time being...
At August 31, 2006 5:50 PM, DC Cookie said…

Sean's link.

Brilliant.
At August 31, 2006 6:13 PM, O-FACE said…

I thought you went to Harvard..mad genius..lol...Capitalism is greed at its finest. America is slowly destroying its middle class creating a culture of barely making it and nobody seems to mind. Consumer Debt is at a all time high, College is ridiculously expensive, housing is ungodly priced and nobody thinks anything is wrong with it because of some slup says "Supply" "Demand" I'm not for socialism or communism but it pains me to know end to see Mexicans taking jobs and working for nothing with America left holding the bill or watching Walmart underpay its employee's and leave the state to pay the medical costs while at the same time lowering wages and standard of living for Americans...Its wrong, its greed, and it only hurts all of us in the end...Unless your Sam Waltons kids of course...
At August 31, 2006 6:30 PM, DC Cookie said…

Wal-mart is not paying any less than McDonald's. Minimum wage is set by the government - Wal-Mart is not "lowering" anything. If you think the wages are unjust, have a conversation with your state rep.

Remind me again what Wal-Mart has to do with consumer debt levels and housing prices?

Do me a quick favour and read the article that Sean linked to...just for kicks.
At August 31, 2006 8:53 PM, O-FACE said…

I didn't say anything about Walmart and housing prices being linked together...other than the fact that you can't possible pay on a mortgage in quality neighborhood with that salary.

McDonalds-Restaurants in general sell low margin products but the same can't be said for Walmart...You should read up on Costco and how they structured the company and salary for employee's. Same catergory-Mass Merchandiser yet total different pay schedule and philosphy and still maintains strong growth.....Its just unnecessary greed...I'm guessing you must have Walmart shares in your investment portfolio....
At August 31, 2006 10:07 PM, Drunken Chud said…

cookie, i love wal-mart. i don't shop there cuz the two near me are DIIIIIRRRRRRRRTY. plus i prefer meijer. they are cleaner, and more familiar. but i do love wal mart and their tactics. i mean some of your countrymen, not sure which province, passed legislation specifically tailored to wal-mart to force them to let their employees organize. what'd wal-mart do? closed up shop. sorry bout your jobs, but, you knew the rules coming in, try to remember 'em on your way out. bet that minimum wage is lookin' good to them now. heh.

oh o-face... what kind of regulations would you impose? and to whom? i mean, wal-mart alone can't be scrutinized. and as far as local business being and competition being stifled... i don't buy it. we have a wal-mart, a meijer, a costco and a sam's club all within blocks of each other. those blocks are all lined with local business. the target and best buy and circuit city are all in the same area. in fact, all the local businesses thrive due to the traffic generated by these stores. also, my city does do one form of regulating, that i agree with simply because of the age of some businesses: they do not allow any big box store to sell liquor. we have a liquor store on almost every corner. most of them have been there for as long as i can remember. so in order to the keep the competition of liquor amongst the "mom and pops'" they restrict the sale of liquor. other than that, i see no reason to regulate. markets regulate themselves. too many people don't like wal-mart's practices, they stop buying. loss of profits always spurs change. besides, everything is cyclical. they can't stay on top forever, eventually they'll get too big. there's some economic law that something or other about returns... and diminishing of them. i don't remember.

and o-face, why does anyone deserve to afford a mortgage in a quality neighborhood? you buy where you can afford. no free lunches man. and if you want to afford it, then go to a trade school, get into an apprenticeship, find another job that pays better. same thing everyone else has been doing for... ever.
At August 31, 2006 10:27 PM, Anonymous said…

Nice topic -- right up my alley. Jeez...where do I begin?

(Caring for their employees): There is a fundamental flaw in ethics when a full-time Wal-Mart employee can't afford the basic health care Wal-Mart offers. Mal-Mart's panacea for this problem is to encourage their employees apply for state-funded health coverage. (Now I say "state-funded", but actually you and I end up fitting the bill through the taxes we pay -- $1.6 billion dollars nationally...) Nice.

(staunchly anti-union): Their training videos devote a huge section to promoting anti-union ideals. They even have "anti-union" cameras in their stores and spend $100,000 per year on an "anti-union hotline".

(The lies): Many of the products labelled "Made in America" are, in fact, made in China (Wal-Mart imported $18 billion from China alone in 2004...) Mexico, Central and South America -- in sweatshops, no less. The workers in the Chinese plants are forced to live in Mal-Mart sponsored dormitories where they are are forced to pay rent and utilities. Here's the kicker: Even if they choose NOT to live in the dorm, they're still charged for rent. When Wal-Mart inspectors come to inspect the plants these poor people work in, their managers teach their employees how to lie to the inspectors. If you lie well, you will be rewarded; if not, then you will be punished... Awesome.

(no overtime rule): Workers are expected to work off the clock or risk losing their jobs. On top of that, if they are on the clock and work OT, their managers go into the system and change their hours -- just to stay under budget for that pay period...

(Profits before safety): Wal-Mart only cares about the consumer while they're IN the store and that "care" ceases once they leave. It's been proven that those security cameras outside of the stores are unmanned (that's right, nobody is watching them...). Why are they unmmaned? -- because Mal-Mart doesn't want to pay minimum wage for someone to watch them... Roughly 60 violent crimes have taken place in Wal-Mart parking lots within the first 7 months of 2005. For an example.

(The sexism): Female Wal-Mart employees have been told that they, basically, worthless. If you're a black woman working at Wal-Mart, forget it -- you're not going anywhere.

Mal-Mart has also been charged with numerous Clean Water Act violations and have been forced to pay millions of dollars in fines -- $3.1 million for one fine: the most EVER for a privately-owned business. For more an explicit example of this, check out this site: Catawbar River Keeper Web Blog.

Basically, Wal-Mart treats it's workers like shit all so the Walton family can continue to make billions of dollars each year...

So, I ask: Is saving a few bucks on toilet paper really worth it?

Well, I could drone on and on about this, but if you're interested in doing more research on Mal-Mart and how they run their business, this is a pretty good book to read: Disinformation on Mal-Mart...or, if you don't have the patience to read all of those pages, then check out the DVD: Disinformation on Mal-Mart DVD.

Cheers.
At September 01, 2006 2:35 AM, O-FACE said…

Chud, I'm just saying that considering your the largest employer in the frickin free world and you record billions in profits every quarter why not throw a bone back to a brother or two??? I understand your guys free market mentality and thats great but lets be real about something. Walmart is basically a working poor organization. The same mgmt philosophy is used by Nike,Dell, and god knows who else. I'm just saying that if Costco...a competitor of Cheapmart, can offer a meaningful wage and benefits and also increase sales/revenue then why can't Walmart????? Plus Chud, you of all people should understand what a decrepid downtown does for a city's finances/perception...errrr Detroit...
At September 01, 2006 2:36 AM, O-FACE said…

Chud, I'm just saying that considering your the largest employer in the frickin free world and you record billions in profits every quarter why not throw a bone back to a brother or two??? I understand your guys free market mentality and thats great but lets be real about something. Walmart is basically a working poor organization. The same mgmt philosophy is used by Nike,Dell, and god knows who else. I'm just saying that if Costco...a competitor of Cheapmart, can offer a meaningful wage and benefits and also increase sales/revenue then why can't Walmart????? Plus Chud, you of all people should understand what a decrepid downtown does for a city's finances/perception...errrr Detroit...Look at what cheap labor did to the auto industry in the 80's and 90's...
At September 01, 2006 4:19 AM, Drunken Chud said…

anon, all of those things you mention, aside from anything that causes fines, are all things every business has the right to do. you keep saying "poor workers" "woe is the worker"... there are other options for them. if there weren't people willing to fill the spots, they would be forced to change their practices.

as for the whole "we pay for the health care... 1.6 billion nationally..." tripe. we don't pay for shit. THEY HAVE THE 19TH LARGEST GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT IN THE WORLD! the amount they pay in taxes, covers the fucking states costs. just cuz you pay a pittance in taxes doesn't mean you come anywhere close to the tax base that is wal-mart.

o-face, first off, i wish to address your "cheap labor" implication at the end of your post. if you're referring to the shipping of job overseas, then i say look at the cause of that: greedy unions. if the big three went all sam walton on the UAW and said, "fuck all y'all makin' run at an operating loss due to labor overhead and benefits" then detroit wouldn't be where it's at. i have a low tolerance for unions. you work for your employer, your employer does not work for you. you hate your employer and want to be treated better? get another job.

and again, o-face, as far as throwing a bone back, i defer to my earlier ranting about tax base. that's a lot of bone. just for reference, the GDP of sweden (apparently less than that of Wal-Mart) for 2004 was $255.4 billion with a 3.6% growth rate. assuming, they only pay 1% in taxes nationally... pretty sure they cover any state programs... i know it's a semi flawed comparison, but it puts shit into perspective. and i am far to tired and drunk to be coherent. i will proof this in the morning (afternoon) and fix any flawed arguments.
At September 01, 2006 8:17 AM, Anonymous said…

...if they really pay that much in taxes then why can't they just offer their employees affordable health care to begin with? A company that large really should be able to swing that.
At September 01, 2006 9:00 AM, Phil said…

I prefer Target over Wal-Mart.
At September 01, 2006 9:08 AM, Anonymous said…

Suppose Cookie decides to boycott WalMart and go somewhere else to cough up the 4 extra dollars for her toilet paper (Again, I thought girls don't poop) ... Is this really going to prompt WalMart to "get right" and end the world's problems? If you're losing sleep over the world's injustices, you should actually shop at WalMart, and then subsequently donate whatever ROLLBACK! SAVINGS to a noble cause/ charity.

Why are we even discussing this?

Cookie, do they have WalMarts in Canada? If not, what's the equivelant?
At September 01, 2006 10:32 AM, Anonymous said…

Cookie,

I'd tell the old handicapped man that it's a crying fucking shame he has to be a trained monkey greeting people at Wal-Mart in order to survive. Then I'd bust my ass to get him a better job.

The way we treat our elderly and handicapped in this country is a crime that deserves an argument of its own. :)

Chud,

Unions gave us the 40-hour workweek, paid time off, medical leave, and so on. The crushing of unions has led us to the modern era where you're expected to work 60-80 hours a week for 40 hours pay, where you can be fired at any time for any (or no) reason, where you can spend thousands of dollars on training and education courses and still end up with no work, and where wages are contributing the lowest to total GDP since before I was born.

The game is stacked against you and it's a shame you can't or won't see it.

O-Face,

I heart you. :)
At September 01, 2006 11:40 AM, Anonymous said…

I was going to stay silent on the subject… but just couldn’t resist…

[in response to anon]

(Caring for their employees): Employers are under absolutely no obligation to provide healthcare. I recall working in the restaurant industry when younger… and they didn’t provide healthcare. When it came time to obtain healthcare for me and mine… I said to myself “hmm, I need to find a job that provides healthcare” Funny thing happened… I did.

(staunchly anti-union): Hell’s yeah, sign me up.
Unions:free enterprise::government:efficiency.

(The lies): Take it up with China and their authorities… As for the false advertisement... see "no overtime rule"

(no overtime rule): Sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen. Here’s my suggestion… File the Lawsuit. Class Action if need be. My guess is you’ll find that the situation you mention is very anecdotal.

(Profits before safety): Not sure how many mom n pop’s have security features outside their store, but beside the point. The very example you mention flies in the face of your own argument... The Walmart in your link had a security company... and I think it's safe to assume that company was getting paid?

(The sexism): see “no overtime rule”

[Clean Water Act violations]: Not surprising. Most large organizations are targets of such investigations. Like you and many on this blog, certain governmental agencies feel that Wal-Mart is too big and would like Wal-Mart to "throw a brutha a bone"… the only difference is that the governmental agencies have the means by which to do that… thru these type of investigations.
At September 01, 2006 12:04 PM, Anonymous said…

O-Face...
Surely you realize the logical fallacies in your arguments. They are laughable if taken to their logical conclusion.

Such as "McDonalds-Restaurants in general sell low margin products but the same can't be said for Walmart"

Exactly what are you saying? "As long as your margins are low, you can grow to whatever size you want? However, if your margins are high, your revenue should be capped."
How capped? 1B a year, is that ok with you? Or should we lower it to 1M? What would we consider high margin? If something is marked up 20%, is that high enough margin for you?

I’m not a psychology man but what I think is happening here is your sense of entitlement kicking in. Especially with comments such as “why not throw a bone back to a brother or two???”

Re: “why can’t they be like other companies?” Because they don’t *have* to be. As mentioned, read this article if you haven’t already.
At September 01, 2006 12:07 PM, Anonymous said…

Not sure what happened to that article link
At September 01, 2006 12:16 PM, O-FACE said…

Chud....
You drunk bastard....The Unions didn't ruin the auto mfg's, it was inefficient and uneffective mgmt team at the big 3. They never accepted JIT principals until the Japanese started kicking their asses...They never listened to their consumer base which demanded fuel efficiency and a smaller quality car, and they never worked with the dealerships to make them happy. Prime example of arrogance and greed. Who suffered???? Flint??? Downtown????? Warren????
I already know that your gonna fire back with the pensions but that is meaningless if the big 3 could increase sales and expand capacity.....

I heart you 2 Martin---much love on the board...Have a great weekend you bastards. I got a hurricane to swim in.....
At September 01, 2006 12:24 PM, Anonymous said…

[in response to Ornac]

So it's safe to assume that you worked as a full-time employee in the resturant you slaved in? If so, then maybe you should've received a benefits package of some kind.

As for the lawsuits, Mal-Mart has been sued several times over. As was the case with the security link I'd provided, many of these suits have been settled out of court...

Obviously we can keep going back and forth on this issue and argue the fine points until we've lost our minds. What can't be argued, however, is Mal-Mart's lack of basic human ethics. They say that they care about their consumers and their employees, yet time and time again they've shown that the only thing they truly care about is making large sums of money -- by any means necessary.
At September 01, 2006 3:52 PM, Drunken Chud said…

as far as comparing costco to wal-mart, here's one for you: wal-mart health care covers 44% of its 1.3MILLION workers. bringing the total to around 572 thousand. costco covers 96% of their 118,000 strong workforce. wal-mart also has a 50% annual turnover rate. pretty sure what they're doing is called "hedging their bet". why invest in employees with no loyalty?

and yes, o-face, it was the unions that ruined it for everyobody. as martin so eloquently put it: "Unions gave us the 40-hour workweek, paid time off, medical leave, and so on. i have never had any of those benefits. i never understood how a company can afford to pay a worker for not working. the funny thing is, it's always the worker bees who want to unionize. the lazy workers. who have some uneducated sense of entitlement. upper management who clearly work MANY MANY more hours per week, usually to the detriment of their personal lives never seem to want to organize. huh, wonder why? THE COMPANY YOU WORK FOR, OWES YOU NOTHING BUT A PAY CHECK. period. don't like the pay? go to another company. this whole entitlement shit confounds me. i've never felt owed a damn thing. and i can't seem to figure out where this all comes from.

damn, i need some booze to sedate me a little, this post is waaay too scattered.
At September 01, 2006 4:59 PM, Drunken Chud said…

duly noted sean.
At September 01, 2006 5:03 PM, Bad at Life said…

I find it hard to resist the low prices at big box stores like Target, but what gets me about Walmart (and mcdonalds) is their reluctance to let workers unionize. They have closed stores rather than allow workers to unionize because they're afraid that more and more stores would fall prey to these vicious unions. I'm all for free markets, but in a free market system unions and collective bargaining are the mechanisms through which workers are able to demand fair treatment from large corporations.

...oh cookie, I'm so disapointed. I thought you Canadians were supposed to be socially conscious.
At September 02, 2006 4:10 AM, O-FACE said…

Chud---
I'm drunk as shit.....Yeee heeeee
Your Lions Suck.....Jeezus their awful...Tell Charles Rogers I said hi...

Ok dude you need to read Upton Sinclairs book "The Jungle" and you'll understand where all this entitlement comes from and why its important that people stand up. I just laugh at Americans in general because we contradict ourselves and the world is finally taking notice. We say treat people with human rights but we allow multi billion dollar corporations to skip health care benefits...we bitch about terrorism but do nothing about gang violence in the cities....we talk about values and god but don't give a shit about the working poor. I'm not a socialist or communist but i'm for social capitalism.....
At September 02, 2006 6:11 AM, O-FACE said…

Dam I can't sleep.....

Ornac--I'm saying that Mcdonalds produces meals that are low profit margin items and they recquire high volume to make substantial profit.
Walmart on the other hand sells clothes, guns, tv's, furniture, garden supplies, pharmacy (which is the most profitable dept in all stores). Its actually very rationale to understand them offering increased raises and benefits considering all this and its not about entitlement its about greedy investors and managment teams... Like I said go study Costco...
At September 02, 2006 10:26 AM, Anonymous said…

Chud,

You inadvertently provided an interesting insight with this paragraph:

i have never had any of those benefits. i never understood how a company can afford to pay a worker for not working. the funny thing is, it's always the worker bees who want to unionize. the lazy workers. who have some uneducated sense of entitlement. upper management who clearly work MANY MANY more hours per week, usually to the detriment of their personal lives never seem to want to organize.

Management does get shafted even more than unions do, but the white collar "I'm out for myself and fuck the rest of you" mentality permeates the system on every level. That's why you have stressed-out men and women who flaunt high salaries (Most of the time :)), multiple degrees, and invented responsibilities, while driving four hours a day back and forth to homes they barely spend any time in, can barely afford, and offer cursory acknowledgments to families they barely know.

Management doesn't organize because the work culture has shifted so thoroughly to an atomized, individualized mindset that when downsizing happens, they blame themselves, or illegal immigration, or gay rights, or whatever the "hate du jour" topic is. Read yourself some Barbara Ehrenreich. You'll be enlightened and horrified.

The working class remembers this. Not everyone wants to succeed in the same way others do. Some simply want to work 40 hours, go home, watch the game, and spend time with their loved ones. Nothing wrong with that at all. The high-flying CEO life isn't for everyone--hell, judging by the performance of CEO's like Ken Lay, half the guys who end up at the top shouldn't be there.

Unions offer protection and power to those who would not otherwise have it. I'm a writer--we're famously independent sorts, but we too have unions, because we get ass-raped for our value on a daily basis and it's a stronger statement for 50 or 500 people to speak up than it is one.

As I said before, you're getting shafted and you're empathising with the people who are doing it. That's some Stockholm Syndrome-level stuff.
At September 03, 2006 12:10 AM, Drunken Chud said…

bad- Unions are what force companies to look overseas for jobs. greedy employees who want to make more money and do less. let me ask you this: if you have a landscaper that comes to your house to cut your grass and landscape, and for this service we'll say they charge $50/week. now let's say that same guy finds out you make A LOT of money. now, he feels he should be able to charge you more and demands health benefits because you can afford it, and afterall he does tirelessly work on your lawn week in and week out. would you agree to his terms or find a new, cheaper landscaper? it's not so easy when it's your own money we're talking about.

0-face, charles rogers is a worthless piece of shit with the work ethic of a... well, a union worker.

and health care is not a human right. it's a service. one you must pay for.

martin... ... stockholm syndrome would apply if i were a captive to any job. i'm not. no one is. anyone can always find work. it's just a matter of how bad you want it. and i'm not getting shafted, cuz i am owed nothing. i am an employee. someone had the motivation and drive to create a business, which grew and grew, and now, they pay me to do the work they are not able or willing, as one man, to do. they owe me nothing except a pay check for the hours i work. nothing more nothing less. oh, and the tools to do said work. they want to give me health care? fine by me, that'd be nice, but i don't demand it. nor do i expect it. that's not stockholm, that's adulthood with a dash of sanity and realism thrown in.
At September 03, 2006 11:31 AM, Anonymous said…

Chud,

Actually, yes, I would pay him more if I could. Anyone that's going to bust their ass making my lawn look pretty just so I can impress my neighbors and not get hit with zoning code violations deserves to be paid decently, and if I could help them find benefits, I would as well.

Of course, if I really cared that much about it, I'd do it myself. I never ask anyone to do a job for me unless I am sure I can't do it. I've worked in the service sector and it sucks dick, so I tip and pay generously to anyone and everyone who provides services for me. Pizza delivery, cab drivers, housecleaners, you name it.

Americans have a strange cognitive dissonance when it comes to labor. We obssess over saving money at all costs and do everything we can to pay lowest prices, and in business terms, do everything we can to ensure maximum productivity from our workers with minimum wage growth. Yet when it comes to saving that capital, well, we really don't. The personal savings rate is at the lowest it's been since the Depression. Are people blowing all their money on luxuries and flufferies they can't afford--or are they, too, struggling to cover the basics, because the costs of all goods keep rising precipitiously?

Here're a few links to depressing real-world examples of the widening gap between rich and poor, due in no small part to workers losing the ability to make collective gains for themselves.

First, workers are losing any sort of traction they had in terms of economic gains: http://tinyurl.com/nteqv

BusinessWeek has a great overview of the nasty mortgage products people are using to buy homes, out of fear that they'll never own, and the financial misery that results: http://tinyurl.com/gkn4s

Economist's View has another good look at the one-two punch of wage depression and debt accumulation here: http://tinyurl.com/ezuvu

Here's a link to my own LJ detailing how Northwest Airlines tried to push some insulting manual on the merits of living poor on its workers, while their CEO earned $500 grand after steering the company into bankruptcy: http://tinyurl.com/kvljx

You will probably answer these charges with some boilerplate bromides about "living within one's means," "personal responsibility," etc. All that is true. But our strange obssessions drive us to demand the highest standard of living at the lowest possible cost, and our psychological needs to compete with others around us and prove we have status means we will do very stupid things to keep up with the Joneses.

And the financial and business world knows that. That's why credit is so easily obtainable, and marketed to people who aren't ready for it. That's why car dealers AND real estate agents prey on the emotions of the impulse buyer. That's why corporations use the fear of outsourcing to keep workers in line while stripping them of the pay and benefits they earned through their hard work. The game can be won, but it is very heavily rigged against you.

That's all I've got.
At September 03, 2006 2:56 PM, Anonymous said…

Your wasting time Martin...He's been raised on raw capitalism and conservative bullshit. Capitalism is fundamental exploitation divided by people willing to work and accept the lowest wage offered multiplied times greed. Seriousily why type all this stuff??? Who cares that productivity has increased 3 fold in the last 10 years while wages have been stagnant..Why question where the gains in that went??? So what that in SF housing is unaffordable and that you need to make 100 grand inorder to financial own on avg.....So what that its been calculated that the avg worker needs to make 70 grand on avg if he/she wants to adequately save on a 401k pension system....
Capitalism is just a acceptable Pyramid scheme that people buy into. If you wanna get whored and work for peanuts, listen to these guys. If you wanna be wealthy, learn the con game that is capitalism.....Vive Guerva..
At September 03, 2006 8:56 PM, Anonymous said…

Much of this conversation is proof that America should be requiring more than 2 months of Economics 101 to high school freshman.

First...

Who in their right mind believes that cost and value should be established by the profit or margin of an item? Cost is not a measure of intrinsic value. Because WM can make a 20% profit on guns does not mean that they should be redistributing that wealth, or that McD's is less evil because they only have a 1% margin (by the way stop looking at the margins of Burgers and Fries and start checking out the drinks).

So here you guys (and gals) go... econ 101...

The only standard of motivation is increased standard of living.

For standard of living to increase, wealth must be created. For wealth to be created, more goods must be produced. For more goods to be produced workers must work more efficiently and technology must increase. If working and tech are to lead to more production, production must be specialized. Specialized production is localized because of economies of scale. Specialized manufactures require distribution networks. High volume distribution points decrease transportation cost and increase item margin. Retail services that maximize volume of sale maximize margins. They also increase margins by force of purchasing power. The “price” of the item is not set by the cost to the store, but rather the demand of the market. In this case, WM sells that gun for $100 because the mom and pop sell it for $105. That the margin for WM is $20 while only $5 for the mom and pop is a measure of their improved business practice.

I’ve left out the discussion of specialization forcing marketing, but the result just reinforces the following conclusions.

So what does this tell us?

First, WM is not an aberration, but a natural progression of a specialized economy. No mom and pop can realistically hope to compete while dealing with either 1) 1000s of different manufacturers directly or 2) several different layers of distributors and aggregators that each incur a cost of distribution.

Second, to bring back the days of competition what we need is more companies that can compete with WM. As with all competition, bringing a Target across town will do more to improve the business practices at WM than any amount of Mom and Pop stores in between.

Third, business will always trend towards greater efficiency and profit. Until it’s true that unions and health care will increase the profits for WM, they will not be implemented. These two items have increased productivity in other environments and have faded out where they have not. The greatest flaw in comparing WM to other companies in terms of health care is a flaw in measuring the worker options. WM purposely hires the lowest denominator of employees. Service is routinely found to be a very small demand of the average WM shopper. If WM shoppers want better service in exchange for higher prices, WM will hire better workers, better workers will only work there if they are given health benefits, and the problem will self correct.

I get so tired of people with absolute no understanding how the free market works. We (the shoppers) decide how much health care WM workers will get. That’s ok if you don’t think they are being paid enough. You can find other options or open your own store. Only when a significant amount of people agree with you to the degree that they too are willing to pay higher prices will anything change.

- M
At September 04, 2006 4:57 PM, Drunken Chud said…

3c0n pwn3d!!!!
At September 04, 2006 9:29 PM, Anonymous said…

Anonymous 1,

I can never resist a good debate when it's laid before me, if only to remind me of just how terrible it is to duel with an unarmed opponent.

Anonymous 2,

The very last phrase of your diatribe is something I agree with:

Only when a significant amount of people agree with you to the degree that they too are willing to pay higher prices will anything change.

Thanks in no small part to the efforts of groups like Wal-Mart Watch, and debates like this, things ARE changing. The company didn't suddenly get all LGBT friendly out of nowhere, after all.

In a way, you actually prove my point. One man can make a difference, but many can make a difference far greater. That's why we have unions. :)

And about that whole wealth creation thing, check this map out: http://tinyurl.com/e5em4

How can wealth be created for anyone but a tiny segment of the population, when the vast majority's purchasing power is dying on the vine?

Econ 101 is all fine and dandy for wonks and Libertarians, but here in the real world, the market is anything but free, and it's a lot more complex than simple transactions.

That's as much as you get, because I usually don't spar with faceless droogs, and I think we've beaten this to death.
At September 04, 2006 11:29 PM, Drunken Chud said…

i'm unarmed? i'm not the one using clockwork orange phrases in a debate.
At September 05, 2006 2:17 AM, Anonymous said…

The economics of WM is one thing but take time to consider the psychological impact of doing business with WM.

By the time a shopper has negotiated traffic to get there, entered the store, dodged jean cut-off-wearing-mullet-headed-freaks , located that cheap roll of toilet paper, dodged more mullets to get to a checkout line, pay and leave, a shopper has significantly altered their entire perspective, and may have developed in the process a deep resentment of humanity in general.

Wal-mart, ( really creative name by the way ) is a waste of time. but that's what americans do best, in or in front of one box or another. waste time for some cheap bullshit in cubicles, at home in front of the tube... The whole process of Wal-mart sucks.
At September 05, 2006 1:40 PM, Drunken Chud said…

i went to my local wal-mart the other day and the greeter was a wheelchair bound guy with gang tats all over him. he didn't even look at me when i came in, just stared at the floor and muttered "welcome to wal-mart". it warmed me inside to know that he hates life very much right now. i have a low tolerance for "bangers" (not the british crap).
At September 05, 2006 1:41 PM, Phil said…

I'm going to buy a hammer at Wal-Mart, walk down the street to Mr. Cunningham's hardware store and smash him over the head with it.
At September 05, 2006 4:06 PM, Phil said…

True dat, Sean.

Not even former Atlanta mayor Andy Young's racial slurs and subsequent resignation from Wal-Mart's board can compete with DAC.
At September 06, 2006 3:13 AM, O-FACE said…

Phil--
His comments weren't racist at all. In fact he was quite honest about the situation...
At September 06, 2006 9:26 AM, Phil said…

(that's not how you stir up controversy, o-face!)
At September 06, 2006 12:13 PM, Anonymous said…

walmart has ruined the arts in america. hollywood, music, and everything else now caters to walmart, whose customers are the lower common denominator. that alone is the single reason why you should not shop there.
At September 06, 2006 3:10 PM, Drunken Chud said…

now sean, THAT'S how you stir up controversy. but, to be fair, FDR is the one who fucked everything up. the consipiracy goes much further back.

DAC!
At September 07, 2006 9:39 AM, Phil said…

FDR invented "corporate rock" - and, I think he wrote the treatment for "Pearl Harbor", that awful movie with Ben Affleck (obviously, it wasn't finished until many years later).
At September 09, 2006 6:49 PM, Anonymous said…

If it wasn't Wally Mart it would be K-Mart or some other Mart I think.

Perfume
At March 30, 2007 7:46 PM, Anonymous said…

piimznThis article is fantastic; the information you show us is very interesting and is really good written. It’s just great!! Do you want to know something more? Read it... Glass Bongs and Bong featuring Herbal Smoke, water bongs, bongs online head shop, Marijuana Alternative,glass water bongs, Hashish, Ganja, homemade bongs, Smokeshop, cannibis, legal smoking alternatives for herbal highs and aphrodisia. http://www.headshopinternational.com