> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Nick Arnett > Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 9:59 AM > To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion > Subject: Re: Wal-Mart > > 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. OK, so Wal-Mart is greedy if it tries to take market share, from say Federated Department Stores, by lowering its profit margin in order to make more sales. I have no argument with the idea that there is a downward force on prices in a competitive sales environment, but I think you are the first person that I recall calling responding to this pressure greedy. Am I being greedy when I find a way to be more efficient than a large corporation and make money by undercutting their prices while still making a living wage?
You also have argued that market forces don't drive prices, but backroom deals do. If Target, K-mart, and Walmart are all competing for the same customer, if one can lower their costs and pass it on to the consumer, why is that a bad thing? Are we morally oblidged to by from inefficient boutique stores? What about the folks who can't afford to do that? > And your point in stating the obvious? My point is that it is a good thing that Wal-Mart has driven a tremendous amount of bloat and inefficiencies out of the retail system since 1990. There are some economic analysis that indicates half of the increase in productivity during the '90s came from this process. Yet, Wal-Mart, for having done this, is considered the prime example of the dark side of the Force. I can't figure out why. Yes, Wal-Mart pays their employees a lot less than you or I make. But, so do small neighborhood shops. My daughter (who is now studying opera in San Francisco) works for one, and she makes just more than minimum wage. I worked retail back when I was a teenager both for local companies and big national corporations. The former doesn't pay more. > > > > 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. That was clearly the point of the writer of the article. But, picking out a few personal stories out of literally millions that prove one's point is good storytelling, but does not help us make an informed decision. The fact is that retail grocery clerks make about $9.00 per hour according to the bureau of labor statistics. It is true that there are a few pockets of union employees (particularly in California that pay far above the going rate.....and reflect that in their prices). So, those people would lose out if their store closes and they get a lower paying job at Wal Mart. But, Wal-Mart has been _extremely_ successful in competing in states where there were not strong retail unions that effectively kept wages up. My children worked retail for about $6.00-$7.00/hour in the very affluent Woodlands TX. They have successful by being far less wasteful. They have improved the American economy tremendously....creating a number of jobs. The problem with efficiency is that one cannot point to _the_ job that is created when things are cheaper. When people find their clothing, food, car, etc. bills are lower and they have money left over, there is not one single job that jumps out as the job created by the lower costs. > > > > > 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. Then, I am very confused. You said " when an organization becomes that big, it becomes easy for top management to abuse people at the far end of the supply chain " I thought a corollary to that is that it wasn't easy when the organization/supply chain is small....since becomes is a verb that indicates change. Look, I'm trying my hardest to parse your text accurately, but it seems that every time I try, I just get told I misparsed....without any further direction. > > > > 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. You talked about bullying vendors. I was mainly talking about their vendors...who are now mainly overseas. So, because there exists some companies that were inefficient and paid their employees over the prevailing national wage, then that was a good thing...because they treated their employees well....even if they wasted a lot of money elsewhere. > Bullying vendors at some point is like not tipping at a restaurant. I guess....but I recall the days when Teri was the chef in a fancy French restaurant and made $3.50 and hour and the waiter would make $25/hour with tips...even though she made the food they raved about. (Yes....I do tip all personal service, but I don't tip the produce guy at the grocery store....does anyone?) Anyways, when was the last time you tipped the company you bought a computer for, paying them $1600 when the list price was $1500? I'm not sure what the deal is. If vendors are not forced to sell to Wal-Mart, then I tend not to worry about them. They are mostly very big corporations who have a corporate decision to make regards price/profit opportunity. I don't doubt that companies that have poor cost control might very well pay workers more than those with strict cost control, but to first order, it's not a wage thing. > It > makes perfect sense from an economic standpoint, but it treats people as > robots, not human beings; Vendors are companies, and although human beings work for companies, they not human beings. Even when I sell my services as a vendor, I don't expect to make my case on my children needing college, but on what I can negotiate. It becomes problematic at the bottom, I agree, but Wal-Mart is the wrong target for this. They pay the going wage, on average, for store clerks. The fact that the going wage is a general concern, not one to that can be solved by boycotting Wal-Mart. The fact that Wal-Mart offers merchandise that poor people can afford, and forces other stores to do the same is a good thing. The drop in prices caused by the Wal-Mart effect is/was nationwide and had a profound impact on the lives of millions. Since Wal-Mart, with a few well publicized exceptions, has been shown to pay the going wage, it has had an extremely small effect on wages. In short, I'm arguing that the Wal-Mart effect has been the single largest force fighting the slipping of the economic standards of the lower half of income earners. I'm not arguing that there have been no negatives. I'm not arguing that Wal-Mart has not broken the law. I'm arguing that, if you add up all the plusses and the minuses, the net effect for poor people is significant and positive. It seems to me that, if one worries about the lack of health insurance, living wages, etc. one should attack the sources. >a means to an end rather than an end in themselves, if you like. Companies are a means, not an end. I certainly agree with that. That's why it's fine to push vendors....they are companies and if a company disappears and another one forms, that's OK. We don't need to be like the British and hold onto British Coal for dear life....it was fine to let it go. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
