Why the war against Wal-Mart?

Oak Lawn (IL) Reporter ^ | 4/1/04 | Michael M. Bates

[Cooter]

2001.

[epow]

Go Target! (pronounced, Tarz-shay)

Target should go alright, into bankruptcy.

Target is Dayton-Hudson's discount store line, and Dayton-Hudson is principly owned by one of the most liberal Democrat families in the U.S. The current head of the clan is a liberal Democrat Senator from MN. Marshal Fields and Mervin's is also part of the Dayton-Hudson empire.

Dayton-Hudson is also a major contributor to ultra-liberal leftist organizations as well as Democrat candidates. I don't spend a dime in any of those stores, because a part of that dime would end up in the pockets of organizations and people who are enemies of everything I believe in.

[walden]

"Again, there seems to be some snobbery at work in all the Wal-Mart loathing. Is it because the stores provide decent goods at affordable prices to the great unwashed, thereby improving their living standards even to the point of having some of the same conveniences as their betters? "

YES, that plus the whole unbridled capitalism thing. And, elites despise it because it's where us proles go to shop. Make no mistake, the so-called "elites" THOROUGHLY despise the middle class.

[spectre]

"And it's going to get worse for the big boys, because Wal-Mart will soon be plastering the US with 40,000 sq-ft stores that are primarily grocery with added general goods (versus the primarily general goods with added grocery of its supercenters.)"

It's called The Neighborhood Market. One opened down the street from us, about 2 miles from Krogers. Picture a typical Grocery Store, with the general goods and private label brands that sell best at any Wal-Mart.

They haven't put Kroger out of business only because Kroger has a more sophisticated inventory, IMHO.

sw

[adiaireton8]

The problem with the "No one puts a gun to your head and makes you buy from Wal-Mart" mentality is that it ignores human nature, and the negative social effects of unchecked human nature. No one makes people buy crack cocaine or crystal meth, or solicit prostitutes, or pay money for human organs or poach every last bald eagle. But we as a society (at least those with sense in our heads) recognize that such practices are in some way detrimental to society, and hence must be restricted. Therefore, the "no one is forcing you to do it" defense is not an adequate defense of the existence of an institution or practice. That is one of the problems with libertarianism. So what is the cost to our society of the 'Wal-Martization' of America? Outsourcing of manufacturing jobs, displacement and elimination of smaller retail businesses, further distancing of the retailer and the consumer, further distancing of the employer and the employee, increased foreign trade deficit, decreased self-sufficiency, decreased local ecomonic diversity and stability, aesthetic gutting of small-town USA, monopolization of the local market, and the further depersonalization of the local economy, the individual employee and the individual consumer. Recognizing that these losses are real losses, and that they may outweigh the benefits that Wal-Mart provides, does not make one a liberal. Some things are not worth sacrificing so that prices can be cheaper, although this is not generally prima facie obvious to the ordinary individual. If everyone recognized prima facie which practices were harmful to society and invariably avoided them, libertarianism would work. But human nature is not like that. Think about the difference between Pottersville and Bedford Falls. Which had a better economy? Clearly Pottersville. Which was the better place to live? Bedford Falls. But only those individuals with a sufficient degree of virtue and sense recognize that; the rest think, "bring on the drugs and the prostitutes for whoever wants them". The society that maximizes efficiency or wealth is not necessarily the best overall society, since the goods sacrificed in order to achieve that efficiency and wealth may in some cases be worth more. Wal-Mart supporters tend to evaluate the effect of Wal-Mart only by counting dollars, and ignore the intangible social goods that Wal-Mart destroys.

[breakem]

I thought Target owned Mervyns. Is Target owned by D-H. By the way, the Mervyns stores are for sale.

[discostu]

It depends on the size of the town. Where my in-laws live in Alamogordo NM (you've driven through it... everybody has driven through it, nobody ever seems to stop though), WalMart put Albertons out of business. Of course when Albertsons showed up they put two smaller chains out of business. That's the natural life cycle. Big fish eat little fish, and the smaller the tank the more fewer fish it can maintain.

[peter the great]

I will buy your argument about it being the consumers who ultimately run businesses out of town, however, one of the reasons the I do not shop at Wal-Mart as much as I used to is the treatment that the illegal immigrant cleaners received at the hands of Wal-Mart, am I the only guy who remembers that?

[Chuckster]

I am so sick of hearing that old saw about Wal Mart or any other retailer "Running the little guys out of business"

No business can run a competitor out of business. Only the CUSTOMERS can do that by choosing to shop somewhere else. Customers will make that choice based on a number of factors: shopping environment, prices, product availability, convenience - any number of things.

As a 25 year veteran of the Retail Wars I have learned the keys to survival: Adapt, move or die.

I have several friends who have survived the opening of a Sports Authority, Comp USA or Wal Mart in the neighborhood. Most are now thriving from the increased traffic brought into the area by the bigger store. By sharpening their skills and refusing to attempt the impossible, compete on price, instead offering the levels of service and specialized niche marketing impossible for a big box retailer with low end marginal staff, most are doing far better now than before.

[WhiteyAppleseed]

I have some old Congressional Records from 1935. Congress was talking about the evils of the chain stores, Sears Roebuck and Montgomery Wards and what could be done to save society. They talked about legislation that would make it easier for businesses to band together and buy in bulk.

This morning, I was reading a section where they were debating the amount of money spent on defense with the usual arguments. Reading that, and knowing what was on the horizon for them, is sobering, more so when one realizes that the same kind of debates that were happening in May-June of 1935 are happening today--defense spending, tarifs, or the lack thereof, unions, chain stores.

[Piranha]

I think this is a pretty good reason to stay away from Wal-Mart (even if this article is from CNN):

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/03/walmart.lawsuit.ap/

[Il Duce]

"No one forces you to do it" is capitalism in its most pure sense. I think it is plainly clear that you are not a capitalist from your post. I will address this first.

The free market represents an objective theory of values. Each individual is free to evaluate and choose the best products for trade. Hence, the value of Wal-Mart (or any other product in a free market) is determined by the voluntary consent of those who are willing to trade with Wal-Mart the value or product of his work.

You, on the other hand, have abondoned this completely. Apparently, you want someone (the government, I suppose?) to say that Wal-Mart is bad, and then for that person (or, again, the government) to "fix" whatever is bad about Wal-Mart.

You gave a laundry list of things you think are "bad" about Wal-Mart. None stand up to rational thought.

"displacement and elimination of smaller retail businesses..."
Here I quote Nathaniel Branden, who has dealt with this objection earlier and better than I: A bromide commonly cited in this connection by capitalism's opponents is the story of the old corner grocer who is driven out of business by the big chain store. What is the clear implication of their protest? It is that the people who live in the neighborhood of the old corner grocer have to continue buying from him, even though a chain store could give them better service at lower prices and therby let them save money. Thus both the owners of the chain store and the people in the neighborhood are to be penalized--in order to protect the stagnation of the old grocer. By what right? If the grocer is unable to compete with teh chain store, then properly, he has no choice but to move elsewhere or go into another line of business or seek employment from the chain store. Capitalism, by its nature, entails a constant process of motion, of growth, of progress; no one has a vested right to a position if others can do it better than he can.

"Outsourcing of manufacturing jobs..."
Yawn. Why again is this a bad thing? I'll let you in on a little secret: countries benefit by trade. This is why 99% of economists, liberal or conservative, support free trade.
For further reference, please read the following, which is a crash course on the benefits of comparative advantage.
http://internationalecon.com/v1.0/ch40/40c000.html
Furthermore, a recent study by the McKinsey institute showed that for every dollar that goes overseas, $1.45 in value is created, with $1.12 coming back to the US.

"further distancing of the retailer and the consumer..."
I really don't even get this. Surely you're not implying that consumers have fewer choices and less value since Wal-Mart has come on the scene. Wal-Mart's initial strategy of entering small towns vastly increased the products available to consumers. Or do you mean "distancing" in some sort of vague philosophical sense? If so, maybe you can get to know your local Wal-Mart manager, and you will once again establish dharma.

"increased foreign trade deficit..."
I hate to bring up economics again, but this is outdated and misunderstood hand-wringing. For a useful refutation of myths of trade deficits, Milton Friedman's fine essay, "The Case For Free Trade," is excellent reading. It can be found here. http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/publications/digest/974/friedman.html

"decreased self-sufficiency..."
Again, yawn. Hardly even worth mentioning. US consumers are better off, foreigners are better off, the whole world is better off with trade--which you seem to lay all at the stoop of Wal-Mart.

"aesthetic gutting of small-town USA..."
I live in a town of 7,000 people. We have a Wal-Mart. My town is still nice. There are still shops on Main Street; we just rebuilt Stonewall Jackson's church after a nasty fire nearly claimed it. I walk out of my house at night, I walk down the street and see smiling faces and beautiful places (to steal a line from any Palmetto club card holders). Funny, life goes on when Wal-Mart comes into town. There isn't a ghost town with just a Wal-Mart and a huge parking lot. We like our town; people live here because it's a nice place, and we've managed to get along with a Wal-Mart now for sometime. I'm not sure how our souls are intact, but perhaps we are just very short in our cycle of reincarnations and will never attain nirvana or enjoy the release of moksha. Sigh...

"monopolization of the local market..."
So?

"further depersonalization of the local economy..."
See above. Discussed and refuted earlier. or, "Damn, with a Wal-Mart in town, I will never be able to become a bodhisattva."

"Some things are not worth sacrificing so that prices can be cheaper..."
So apparently you know better than the consumer? Consumers likes Wal-Mart, as evidenced by their perch atop the Fortune 500.

Anyway, I grow tired of this. In capitalism, the free market is the arbiter of justice and objective good or bad. You personally don't like Wal-Mart, so you think the government ought to somehow "fix" the problem of Wal-Mart. Sorry, pal, not how it works in free economy.

[annyokie]

Don't be silly. WalMart is a leader because they don't warehouse. They are a model of just-in-time selling.

[annyokie]

Lowe's sells groceries? Who knew?

[PokeyJoe]

anytime. happy to oblige.

[middie]

WalMart is a commercial pirate and an antisocial monster. To explain: The company exploits its most necessitous, lowest paid employees by forcing them to work off-the-clock, skip meal breaks, lock them in the stores over night and not allowing them to leave upon pain of job loss--so they can stock shelves --again, off-the-clock. The company has been found to be doing these things in several civil law suits in Oregon, Mass. Colorado, New Mexico and other stares--and several of the same type cases are pending in other states. Indeed, the latest hearing was in Maryland just last week.

It has grown to gargantuan size and can dictate to vendors the most oppressive terms such as not paying for the merchandise on store shelves until the specific item is purchased and paid for at the retail cash register. That sort of coercive consignment is unconscionable.

It muscles into heretofore residential neighborhoods by corrupting local officials and bringing costly lawsuits against individual homeowners and neighborhood association members who deign to appear at public forums and object to granting WarMart zoning variances and permits for building.

In sum, it is difficult to imagine a worse corporate citizen and robber baron company than WalMart. If saving a few cents is worth destruction of American competition, then shopping at WalMart is the thing to do. If anyone believes those phoney tv commercials about how beneficent WalMart is to their employees, then be wary when someone offers to sell you a used Yugo or Florida swamp land.

[adiaireton8]

"No one forces you to do it" is capitalism in its most pure sense. I think it is plainly clear that you are not a capitalist from your post. I will address this first.

False. Libertarians don't have a monopoly on capitalism. Nor is conservativism simply equivalent to libertarianism. If capitalism were “no one forces you to do anything”, then any state that required its citizens to register, serve in the military, or pay taxes would not be capitalistic. Any community that required its citizens to keep their lawns mowed would not be capitalistic.

The free market represents an objective theory of values. Each individual is free to evaluate and choose the best products for trade. Hence, the value of Wal-Mart (or any other product in a free market) is determined by the voluntary consent of those who are willing to trade with Wal-Mart the value or product of his work.

Let’s be careful and precise. The free market per se does not represent anything. In a free market, prices represent perceived value, not necessarily objective value. I can substantiate that by pointing out that when slaves were auctioned in colonial days, these dollar amounts were not the objective values of those persons. If you think that the objective value of something just is its perceived value as represented by its price in a free market economy, then that would explain why you think the objective value of Wal-Mart is represented by consumer demand for Wal-Mart in a free market economy. But if the perceived value is not necessarily the objective value, then your argument leading to this conclusion is not sound.

The rest of your comments are based on this conclusion, so I won’t address them individually. Although it does sound like you need to get some sleep.

[Il Duce]

If capitalism were “no one forces you to do anything”, then any state that required its citizens to register, serve in the military, or pay taxes would not be capitalistic.

This is all correct. I agree with you 100%. Are you sure you understand Capitalism? Capitalism follows discrete sets of rules, and if those rules are broken, a society is no longer capitalist. Capitalism has a monopoly on capitalism. You either are or you are not--there is not varying degrees.

The market value DOES represent the objective value. The value of something is merely what a willing buyer and a willing seller will exchange the good for. You mention slaves, but the value of those slaves were exactly the dollar amount for which they were being sold--just as the objective value of the labor of a person is the market price for his wages. While the slaves were unfortunately subjugated, their value was still the price for which they were being bought and sold. Nothing has intrinsic value. There is no other rational way to function.

[GOPJ]

Walmart's not running other grocery stores out of business. They offer more for less - and the free market calls the winner.

I actually do not like Walmart because they DO run other grocery stores out of business

[BlazingArizona]

WalMart is a commercial pirate and an antisocial monster. To explain: The company exploits its most necessitous, lowest paid employees by forcing them to work off-the-clock, skip meal breaks, lock them in the stores over night and not allowing them to leave upon pain of job loss--so they can stock shelves --again, off-the-clock. The company has been found to be doing these things in several civil law suits in Oregon, Mass. Colorado, New Mexico and other stares--and several of the same type cases are pending in other states. Indeed, the latest hearing was in Maryland just last week.

Let me counter this avalanche of socialist swill with a real-world example. Take the large Wal-Mart at 59th Ave. and Bell, Phoenix, AZ. It attracts vast numbers of shoppers. Right next to it is a whole row of new small shops (so much for the argument that Wal-Mart destroys small business!), representing merchandise that WM does not carry, or upscale extensions of WM's lines. One block over, a Sprouts organic supermarket with a vast array of fresh produce, fine wines, fresh baked goods, and bulk specialties (kaboom goes the argument that Wal-Mart emits secret brain-altering radiation that forces consumers to buy nothing but low-class grocery!). On the other side of Bell Road, a newly-built retail center filled with stores of every description. So where's this "shrinking of options" I keep hearing the Salon.com Soviet whine on about? Oh, and Wal-Mart hires a lot of people over 55. Where else have you seen that happening lately?

What I see is Wal-Mart bring people out to 59th and Bell, then other retailers big and small jumping on the opportunity, generating traffic of their own. A Wal-Mart is the coral reef of retailing; get one going on your neighborhood, a whole new retail ecology forms around it, and everyone wins. It's Galt's Gulch in brick and mortar.