Snootycrats. Anti-Wal-Mart populism.

NRO ^ | August 25, 2006 6:51 AM | By Rich Lowry

[.cnI redruM]

Attention Wal-Mart shoppers: Democrats disapprove of your buying habits.

Democrats are fleshing out their domestic agenda with attacks on the company that brings you everyday low prices. The party is divided about how to address the threat of the insurgents and militias bedeviling us in Iraq, but is united by its response to the threat represented by extremely affordable retail goods and groceries. Appearing at Wal-Mart-bashing rallies has become practically mandatory for Democratic presidential aspirants, according to the New York Times.

The Democrats call their broadsides against the super-retailer “populist,” but it’s an odd populism that attacks a company that attracts more than 100 million customers a week with no-frills convenience and rock-bottom prices for everyday consumer goods. If Wal-Mart specialized in selling high-end wind-surfing gear, yes, it might be a juicy populist target. But detergent and toilet paper? Huey Long himself would be mystified at this choice of demagogy.

Attacking oil companies for allegedly price-gouging is unquestionably good (if grossly opportunistic) politics. What Wal-Mart perpetrates, however, is price-gouging in reverse. It sweats every inefficiency out of itself and its suppliers so it can pass those savings on to consumers. Attacking the company for that isn’t populist, it’s perverse. A mom struggling to make ends meet might be angry at spending another $2-a-gallon to fill up at the pump. She’s not going to be so exercised by getting a great deal on diapers.

Democratic Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware declared at a recent anti-Wal-Mart rally in Iowa, “I don’t see any indication that they care about the fate of middle-class people.” Who does Biden think is strolling the long aisles of the nation’s Wal-Marts? It’s not the malefactors of great wealth. Wal-Mart prices make the most difference for exactly those families spending the greatest portion of their budgets on the basics. One estimate is that Wal-Mart saves the average household as much as $2,300 a year. That’s nothing to big donors to the “Biden for President” campaign, but for most families, it’s real money.

Wal-Mart’s attackers say that its low prices come at the expense of its 1.3 million wage slaves who are denied decent pay and health benefits. But the wages and benefits offered by Wal-Mart are comparable to those of other retailers. The stumbling automaker General Motors has, in contrast, engaged in a long experiment in paying wages and benefits that are unsustainably high in its industry, and it hasn’t been a happy one. If retail-level wages and benefits are unconscionable in America, perhaps we should shutter the entire sector and ship it overseas. Then, of course, Democrats would complain about the loss of jobs.

Wal-Mart shouldn’t be romanticized. It doesn’t deliver low prices from the goodness of its heart, but because it’s a way to thrive in a competitive economy (nor does it pay relatively low wages out of malice). Its ruthless efficiency drives competitors out of business. This is painful, but there is no reason to believe that America was a better place when it bought retail products from Ames or Caldor, extinct discount chains that never developed a business model successful enough to be pilloried by politicians.

Why do Democrats target Wal-Mart? As in so much else in Democratic politics, from trade issues to the minimum wage, part of the answer is to follow the unions. When Wal-Mart began to sell groceries, it ran afoul of the unions that dominate supermarkets, and they have made Wal-Mart a hate-brand on the left. Something deeper is at work, as well. In Democratic politicians’ contempt for Wal-Mart, there is an element of snobbery. They have a distaste for such a down-market, lumpen-bourgeois operation where few of their voters shop (one poll found that 76 percent of weekly Wal-Mart shoppers are Bush voters), let alone anyone they socialize with.

The Democrats’ anti-Wal-Mart campaign ultimately represents a politically unappealing snooty-populism. Their rhetoric is with the common man, but their noses are in the air.

[CSM]

"...the factory outlet for Chinese Forced Labor, Inc."

Please name one manufacturer in China that uses forced labor.

[AFreeBird]

This thread needs something from Today's Toons. Compliments of Pookie...

LOL

[dangus]

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/intlrel/hfa45502.000/hfa45502_0.HTM

Besides, in any system where people cannot freely start their own business, they have no true right to not work for the business they do work for.

[CSM]

"MAY 22, 1997"

You obviously do not recognize progress when it is staring you in the face.

[LM_Guy]

You might have spent most of your money on Groceries which of course are not made in China but mostly made here in the USA.

The 70% number is just an estimate on manufactures products. Try reading other Walmart acticles, the chinese love Walmart. This is a pro-walmart article so you should enjoy it.

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=082206D

[LM_Guy]

Three samples from a pool 10s of thousands is not a valid statiscal model.

The 70% is a $$ based number not how number based #. You probably can find thousands of inexepnsive things from the USA. The 70% is an estimate from the Chineese themsleves based on the gross $$ sales to Walmart. Go look at something costing more than $2 bucks, say their electronics dept and tell me if you can find anything made in America. Probably 60-70% or more of the TVs, Steroes, Cameras, Home phones, Headphones etc., will be from China.

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=082206D

[LM_Guy]

It is an estimate from the Chineese themselves based on gross $$ sales to Walmart. I don;t think they are referring to % of the number of products.
Walmarts sales alot of food, which almost always comes from the USA.

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=082206D

[LM_Guy]

pretty funny !!

[Gabz]

You might have spent most of your money on Groceries which of course are not made in China but mostly made here in the USA.

Not this trip - the only groceries I bought were 4 cans of frozen juice concentrate.

I've never denied there are not numerous made in China products offerred for sale in WM.......however, they are no different than any other retailer.

I truly dislike shopping, so when I have to do such shopping as back-to-school, WM allows for one stop shopping, saving me time and money on the identical products I would have had to go to several diffrent retailers to purchase.

[.cnI redruM]

>>>>Go look at something costing more than $2 bucks, say their electronics dept and tell me if you can find anything made in America. Probably 60-70% or more of the TVs, Stereos, Cameras, Home phones, Headphones etc., will be from China


How would that make Wal-Mart different than Sears, Target or Radio Shack? Can you even name a major retailer of electronics that only sells American or even a majority of American products? Unless or until American firms make better electronic components than they currently manufacture and offer them for a more affordable price, you won't find them at any big box retailer, anywhere.

[LM_Guy]

I have read article that state is was Walmart that started the move of dumping its USA suppliers and purposely going to china to get new factories opened to make the exact same thing at half-the cost. When these USA companies go out of Bussiness, (Walmart is the 800lb Gorrila in retail) other companies have no choice but to buy from China to compete or even have a product to sell.

I have read several interesting articles on how Walmart went to China in the 90s in search of new Factories to make goods it once bought from USA suppliers.
Walmart was at the fore front in the charge to buy Chineese.

From a US Govt website article on trade with China (Walmart is not mentioned) -

Using a methodology that determines the number of jobs needed to produce exports and imports, the EPI study found that 1.5 million jobs were lost to lower-wage Chinese competition in the 14-year period between 1989 and 2003. During that time, the U.S. trade deficit with China rose twenty-fold, from $6.2 billion to $124 billion. It is expected to increase another 20 percent in 2004, to $150 billion.

"The assumptions we built our trade relationship with China on have proven to be a house of cards," Scott said. "Everyone knew we would lose jobs in labor-intensive industries like textiles and apparel, but we thought we could hold our own in the capital-intensive, high-tech arena. The numbers we're seeing now put the lie to that hope -- as China expands its share even in core industries such as autos and aerospace."

Scott's research found that the 1.5 million lost job opportunities over the course of 14 years were distributed throughout all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia, with employment losses of roughly 1.5 to 2.5 percent in the hardest-hit states.

[monday]

"They love Ikea, a successful EU story...."

Not really. To describe someones interior decorating style as "Ikea like" is a big put down among the fashionable liberal set. I realize they buy the stuff but they despise IKEA for exactly the same reasons other people like IKEA. It's cheap and stylish, which is not to say fashionable. It's too common to be fashionable, at least among the liberal set.

[Protagoras]

Leaders like Joe Biden are why Democrats never should be trusted with profssional responsibility.

He has a legion of like minded people right here on FR.

The "hate" Wal Mart brigade knows no political boundaries.

[.cnI redruM]

There's truth to that as well. It's just that the GOP has been smart enough to Buchananize their populists with pitchforks. On the right, these people sit around all day and compose posts to Free Republic. On the Left, the anti-business community elects its own the the Senate.

[CSM]

I was actually referring to the media. In my area, they basically ran a 3 day blitz around the grand opening. Ikea didn't need to spend any money on advertising. Quite the opposite of how that same media treats Wal Mart.

Your points are probably very valid when referencing the normal liberal elitist.