Attention, Wal-Mart critics

The Seattle Times ^ | November 30, 2005 | Michael Medved

[beaversmom]

IF you're among the 100 million Americans who shop at Wal-Mart weekly, it probably never occurred to you that you're supporting a malevolent institution described by critics as a new "Evil Empire." The retail colossus remains so popular and so powerful (its 1.2 million workers make it the nation's biggest private employer) that the persistent sniping about Wal-Mart's business practices inevitably sounds like irrelevant sour grapes.

Nevertheless, filmmaker Robert Greenwald has just unleashed a bitter documentary ("Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price") that has been shown in November in some 3,000 private homes, union halls and churches across the United States before its general DVD release. Produced with support from labor organizations (which resent their inability to unionize Wal-Mart), and endorsed by Hollywood comedian-activists Al Franken and Jeaneane Garofolo, Greenwald's film accuses the company of exploiting employees, despoiling the environment, destroying small businesses, and flooding the United States with sweatshop merchandise from abroad.

Neither Greenwald nor his backers expect to connect with an eager mass audience; it's safe to say more people will visit Wal-Mart stores in any single day than will watch the film over the next 10 years. In fact, all the angry debates over Sam Walton's legacy occupy an elitist, abstract atmosphere utterly disconnected from the real world of shopping and spending.

"Progressive" activists may hate Wal-Mart, but they must recognize that if the company closed tomorrow it would throw hundreds of thousands out of work and make the lives of millions of customers vastly less convenient.

Critics insist they don't want the retail giant to fail: They merely want better salaries and benefits for workers. But even the most rudimentary understanding of economics indicates that paying more for employees leads inevitably to higher prices, leading in turn to less business, less growth and fewer new jobs — particularly the entry-level jobs our economy so desperately needs.

If critics challenge Wal-Mart's business model as woefully misguided, they should be able to press rival companies to deploy their more enlightened notions, thereby displacing the Bentonville behemoth from its position of dominance.

At Arkansas headquarters, corporate leaders aren't exactly holding their breath, but they do seem annoyed by the latest attempt to discredit their brand name. Their public-relations firm has researched Greenwald's filmmaking background and focused new attention on his long-ago creative triumphs such as "Portrait of a Stripper" and "Beach Girls," along with Greenwald's one big budget film, "Xanadu" (which made the dishonor roll in my own 1986 bad-movies book, "Son of Golden Turkey Awards").

More recently, Greenwald has focused on unabashedly left-wing documentaries, including last year's "Outfoxed," an angry "exposé" of Fox News Channel — another profoundly profitable institution that has earned enthusiastic support from the American heartland.

In fact, a consistent contempt for ordinary Americans seems to connect both poles of Greenwald's career: In his earlier, populist "Portrait of a Stripper" phase, he attempted to connect with a mass audience by insulting its intelligence; in his more-recent work as a high-minded documentarian, he has portrayed the people as helpless boobs manipulated by evil corporations, and unable to make appropriate decisions about their own long-term welfare.

One of the sponsors of the new film's premiere, Liza Featherstone of The Nation magazine, begins one of her frequent diatribes against her least-favorite company by sniffing: "Wal-Mart is an unadorned eyesore surrounded by a parking lot, even its logo aggressively devoid of flourish." Of course, most middle-class shoppers will care far more about getting decent value for their money than a logo's flourish or a store's architectural amenities.

Intellectuals have always despised the "bourgeoisie" (In the '20s, H.L. Mencken ceaselessly derided the "boob-oisie") for its hard-headed practicality, refusing to recognize that most people simply don't have the luxury to look beyond narrow notions of self-interest and affordability.

It's true that thousands of (mostly well-heeled) liberals may find hours and dollars to sponsor showings of a new documentary looking down on Wal-Mart, but few of their fellow citizens have the inclination to join them. Most of us work too hard and save too little, struggling to pay credit-card minimums and hoping, some day, to finance braces for the kids.

In this context, it's still possible to walk into a vast, bustling sanctuary of a Wal-Mart store and feel dazzled by the startling array of products, reassured by the clockwork efficiency of the whole operation and, yes, unapologetically gratified by the low prices. Michael Medved hosts a nationally syndicated daily radio talk show, broadcast in Seattle on KTTH-AM (770), noon to 3 p.m.

[pageonetoo]

T'wit wrote:

Wal-Mart competes with socialist promises. But Wal-Mart delivers the goods, where socialism has always been empty.

The "great" Soviet Union had only one kind of soap in its stores, and it couldn't supply enough even of that one kind to keep people clean. Wal-Mart has whole aisles full of hand soaps, bath soaps, liquid soaps, sink detergents, laundry detergents, dishwasher detergents, shop cleaners and degreasers, and a profusion of other cleaning products. Of course the same is true with food, clothing, tools and other products. Wal-Mart delivers, socialism steals.

Socialism promises handouts to the needy, then never gives them more than a pittance. Wal-Mart hires the needy and the handicapped and trains them for a life of self-sufficiency and achievement. Welfare recipients can't feel good about themselves living on handouts. But Wal-Mart employees take pride in their work, so they feel great about themselves.

Sounds good enough to repeat... I am a frequent WalMart shopper. "Saving money" counts to me, too...

[AT7Saluki]

Anyone notice that it's not the employees complaining here? Rather, it seems to be a bunch of pointy-heads claiming to be moved by their plight.

[thebaron512]

Wal-Mart buying most of their stuff from china and how they cheat their employees from real full time work.

[backhoe]

I'll use your anecdote to illustrate my problem with FR/GOP-'conservativism' and the tension between capitalism and commercialism. 'Need an LED flashlight keyring'? For $20 plus fuel? What does 'is' mean indeed. Certainly WM fills this 'need'. I prefer a greater variety in measures of value than 'dollars' only. Heck, see the etymology of 'dollar'.

I'm not sure I follow you, but I'll press on anyway- a further example was that, six feet away, were keyring lights ( a different model ) by themselves- $1.97 each.

I thought the light/carabiner/penknife set was a useful combination, so I got one for myself. And, truth be told, the $1.97 light-only unit was certainly not as robust as that $20 unit I found a few years ago- but for the price difference, you could buy a couple, and if one broke or failed, it would be no great loss.

By contrast, the light in that light/carabiner/penknife set is machined from an aluminum tube, and is surprisingly sturdy. And bright.

[Hardastarboard]

even the most rudimentary understanding of economics indicates that paying more for employees leads inevitably to higher prices, leading in turn to less business, less growth and fewer new jobs

So many good points in this article. What Mr. Medved fails to realize (or more likely is to polite to point out), is that liberals are incapable of doing the most rudimentary economic analysis. Or, when their noses are rubbed in it, they just become outraged and sputter that the issue is too important to be subject to the rules of economics.

[Road Warrior ‘04]

Down goes the unions! Down goes the unions! (Parody of "Down goes Frazier"!)

[freekitty]

The amazing thing is that the libs goddess, Hitlery, has sat on(may still do so)Walmart's board and Booba has gained benefits from Walmart.

Crazy, isn't it? I don't think the libs realize; but if Hitlery wins, she will be so left out. That's the way people like her operate.

[T'wit]

Anyone notice that a lot of Wal-Mart employees would be considered unemployable elsewhere? Many are handicapped or seniors or health risks or "special," yet they earn a decent buck and get good benefits.

Again, this is competing with the Democrat Party. But the Democrats get their handouts by taxes (which is mere consumption and always fails in time) where Wal-Mart EARNS the payroll money. Wal_Mart increases wealth for all. Democrats steal and diminish us all.

[Alberta's Child]

Wal-Mart is so far from a "monopoly" that any discussion of the subject in this context is just plain silly. The most dominant retailer in U.S. history -- the Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company (A&P Supermarkets) -- only managed to attain a market share of something like 25% of the retail industry back at its peak in the 1930s and 1940s. A&P barely even exists these days, and no retailer has ever gotten close to that kind of market dominance since then.

[T'wit]

>> Wal-Mart buying most of their stuff from china

If China offers the best value for a given item, Wal-Mart would be failing its stockholders and customers if it did not get the items from China. It serves nobody's interest in buying from someone less efficient.

Adam Smith discussed the point at length in Wealth of Nations (1776), surely the primer of conservative economics. For instance, he said, it would be possible to produce very fine wine in Scotland from grapes grown under glass -- but it would be absurd because it would cost maybe twenty times as much as buying fine wines from sunnier lands like France and Portugal. The rule of the market is division of labor and specialization -- do what you do best and buy from others who do the same.

[T'wit]

>> Wal-Mart buying most of their stuff from china

If China offers the best value for a given item, Wal-Mart would be failing its stockholders and customers if it did not get the items from China. It serves nobody's interest in buying from someone less efficient.

Adam Smith discussed the point at length in Wealth of Nations (1776), surely the primer of conservative economics. For instance, he said, it would be possible to produce very fine wine in Scotland from grapes grown under glass -- but it would be absurd because it would cost maybe twenty times as much as buying fine wines from sunnier lands like France and Portugal. The rule of the market is division of labor and specialization -- do what you do best and buy from others who do the same.

[T'wit]

Drat the "timed out" message........

[Coldwater Creek]

The only problem that I have with Wal-Mart is that they do not provide ecough handicap spaces.

[Edit35]

Kmart has improved lately, and I find that I prefer going there because the lines are way, way shorter than WalMart.

Walmart's problem is not low wages, or any of those other left loonie "criticisms", it's that the company seems too cheap to hire enough employees to handle the looooong lines.

I can't count the number of times I've simply left my full shopping cart at the WalMart cashier line because I refuse to stand there 45 minutes just to buy cheap toilet paper.

[FunkyZero]

Walmart is not in the crosshairs in my daily purchasing. I tend to avoid ALL superstores. Target, Lowes, etc. I still shop at these places on occasion out of necessity or inability to find something at a local hardware store. My focus is on the origin of the product. I absolutely refuse to purchase chinese made products if at all possible at an nearly any cost, and I avoid most things not made in the US if I can afford to. This tends to exclude Walmart accross the board with the exception of groceries. When it comes to groceries, fighting the crowds for understaffed checkout lines is why I do not go to walmart or lowes.

[HighlyOpinionated]

The cheapness of Wal-Mart comes with a hefty price tag for all of the U.S. Here are a few facts (check out http://factchecker.purpleocean.org/ for more):

"Wal-Mart Wages" is not an expression for nothing. despite anecdotal evidence of one employee telling another how great Wal-Mart is within earshot of customers, Wal-Mart is an irresponsible employer. Wal-Mart boasts that 74% of its sales employees work full-time but this doesn't mean they are making good money. In 2001, Wal-Mart sales clerks made an average of $8.23 an hour ($13,861 a year). While $8.23 an hour doesn't sound like a bad wage for part-time work while you are getting through school, people who use that job as their full-time employment are in trouble: they make $800 below the federal poverty line for a family of three. Costco's workers make an average of $15.97 per hour; Sam's Club pays $11.52 per hour.

Wal-Mart does not give good benefits. Part-time Wal-Mart workers are not eligible for family medical coverage. They become eligible for individual coverage only after two years with the company (Dan Fogleman, Wal-Mart spokesperson, is the source). Overall, Wal-Mart covers 48 percent of its workers with company health insurance. Costco covers 82 percent of its workers. Also, Costco's workers are able to get health insurance in six months, they receive thousands more dollars in health and retirement plans from their employer and far more of Costco's employees are included in its 401(k) and profit-sharing plans. Wal-Mart pays 66 percent of the healthcare premiums for those happy few covered employees Costco pays 92 percent. Employee turnover is 6 percent for Costco. For Sam's Club, it's 21 percent. Wal-Mart's turnover is a whopping 50 percent.

Wal-Mart does not help cities and counties grow their economy. U.S. counties where Wal-Mart stores were built from 1987 to 1998 had higher poverty levels than anywhere else. Here in Huntington, Wal-Mart intentionally placed its new mega store just outside of Huntington so that it would not have to contribute to the tax-base of the city. What kind of neighbor is it being? Why doesn't it want to contribute to our economy? Because that would cost more money.

[kindred]

The leftist liberals, using the foolish democrats,unions, and money starved elitist trial lawyers, having destroyed and driven out so many corporations from America and destroyed so much American jobs(ironically,their own also), continue their assault against America's people and economic stability.
They want Wal-Marts money in their bureaucratic pockets and will stop at nothing to obtain it. The unions are the mafia today.

[HighlyOpinionated]

Anyone notice that it's not the employees complaining here?

There is a yahoo "The I hate WalMart Fan Club" egroup and it's made up of current and former WalMart employees along with others who don't want to see WalMart screw up our local economy (they bank their profits for 1 night, then transfer them to Bentonville -- that doesn't help the local economy one bit).

And of course, there's more, but one must not stick one's head in the sand, a la ostrich. One must look at the broadest picture. I for one do not trust these Arkansas 'businesses' -- WalMart, Perdue Chicken, Wm J Clinton & Company.

Shop Local, Shop Often.
http://www.walmartwatch.com
http://www.sprawl-busters.com
http://www.hel-mart.com
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/theihatewalmartfanclub/

[BlazingArizona]

At a certain point, however, the economic power of any company can become such that no viable competition exists any longer.. That is called a monopoly..

Not so! A monopoly exists when, and only when, government grants you special legal powers to lock out competition and forbid consumer choice.

The medical business is a monopoly. Wal-Mart is not.

[DesertSapper]

Capitalism in motion:

You hate WalMart -> don't purchase from or work for Walmart.

Simple.

I don't like ToysRUs for their staunch support of the push to have the Boy Scouts change their anti-homosexual hiring practices. Ditto for some charity groups - including the United Way. Thus - they receive NONE of my money.