On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 7:34 AM, Dan M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On > > Behalf Of Nick Arnett > > Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 11:28 PM > > To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion > > Subject: Wal-Mart > > > > We talked a while ago about Wal-Mart's virtues and lack thereof. I > > recently > > became acquainted with the father of one of the LA Times reports who > wrote > > a > > four-part series about Wal-Mart a few years ago, which won a Pulitzer > > Prize. > > > > Part one is here: > > http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/showcase/la-fi- > > walmart23nov23,1,1712351.story?ctrack=3&cset=true > > > > I was surprised when my new friend told me that apparently Wal-Mart > liked > > the series. This, despite that fact that I think the stories > essentially > > say that if all you care about is low prices, then Wal-mart is great. > If > > they liked the story, they apparently truly believe that nothing is more > > important than having the lowest prices. To me, that's just plain > greed, > > amoral greed. > > I'm confused here. Wouldn't they make more money if their prices were > higher?
Um... basic economics. They attract customers with low prices. If they prices aren't low, customers go other places. They make less money. Surely you realize that there can be profit in low prices. > They would pay the same amount of money to their employees and > suppliers and have higher profits. The person buying at Walmart is the > person directly buying making money. Casual observance, as well as > economic > studies indicate that the average Wal-Mart shopper is not as up-scale as, > the average major department store shopper. Every dollar matters to them. And your point in stating the obvious? > > Slavery offers no choices to the people involved. If there are sweatshops > in China that force people to work in them, then I'd support actions, > including trade sanctions against China until that practice is stopped. > But, a job that offers an improvement in one's present standard of living > is > a different thing. You must have read the article differently. I thought it quite clearly demonstrated that the *overall *effect of Wal-Mart is to lower peoples' standard of living through its extreme pressure on its vendors. > > > It seems to me that when an organization becomes that big, it becomes > easy > > for top management to abuse people at the far end of the supply chain. > > So, you're argument is that small boutique stores treat their employees > well? No, that is not my argument. That is not the corollary of what I wrote. > > I've been fortunate to have two daughters from Zambia and we've had a > great > deal of transfer from personal experience. Also, we have Rita on this > list. > The "exploited" folks elsewhere in other countries see the job at a call > center or doing engineering at only 10k/year as a real step up for > themselves and their families. Did you actually read the article? Sure, those people have jobs... until Wal-Mart has bullied them or somebody else into paying even less, at which point the overall standard of living goes down again, not up. Bullying vendors at some point is like not tipping at a restaurant. It makes perfect sense from an economic standpoint, but it treats people as robots, not human beings; a means to an end rather than an end in themselves, if you like. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
