My Walmart post of yesterday generated a little heat, some of which originated from misunderstanding what I said. So lets clarify. I didnt vilify Walmart for booking $3.7 Billion net profit. I didnt vilify capitalism. I explicitly stated that I believe in capitalism. I didnt say that any other retailer was a comparative workers paradise. I didnt call for a boycott of Walmart, I only expressed, in the strongest terms I could find, that I was done doing business with Walmart. Now, lets address some of the objections to my post. 1. If Walmart is such a horrible place to work, why do people stay there for years? I never said it was horrible. The killing floors of Chicago slaughterhouses in the early years of the 20th century were horrible. You can read about them in Upton Sinclairs book The Jungle. There was no shortage of people willing to work in those slaughterhouses. That doesnt mean those deplorable conditions should have been tolerated by society. Now, Walmart isnt the killing floor. They are one of a number of retailers all trying to keep labor costs down. Labor costs are the single biggest factor in the price of goods sold. We want manufacturers, distributors, and retailers to keep labor costs down. Thats good capitalism, and good capitalism is good for society. But there are two ways to keep labor costs down. The first is to reward productivity and efficiency with money and opportunity, and whenever possible weed out less productive and efficient employees to make room for better workers. The second is to exploit desperation to hire people on the cheap, and leverage intimidation, manipulation, and fear to create a stable, low-cost workforce. There is nothing in the theory of Capitalism that mitigates against an enterprise practicing the second approach, but plenty of proof that companies that practice the first approach are more successful in the long run. It is well-documented that Walmart practices the second approach. But hey, cashiers arent being cut to pieces at the checkstand, so like I said, it isnt the slaughterhouses of Chicago. Nevertheless, I can take my business elsewhere, and since Walmart isnt really saving me any money as a consumer, I might as well. In theory, if enough people vote with their feet, Walmart will go out of business, which will leave room for better companies to fill the need. 2. What company doesnt exploit its employees? All enterprises exploit their employees, but some treat them decently while they do it. Exploit isnt really a bad word, but it has taken on a secondary usage, and that is the sense in which I used it in this Walmart discussion. Historically, exploit only meant to use something for benefit. A person who owns land on which oil is discovered profits by exploiting his mineral rights. The problem arises when someone demonstrates a tendency not to distinguish between the exploitation of things and the exploitation of people. So now, exploitation is used often as a synonym for taking advantage. 3. I see you wish for their business to fail. Thats your right. The Walton family will survive but what about all those people earning a (smaller then you believe fair) pay check now that wont have a job? I never specified what I believe is a fair wage for what can only be called unskilled labor, so dont jump to any conclusions about what I believe is fair. I protested Walmarts practice of lowest-common-denominator capitalism. History demonstrates that they will be punished in the marketplace for such practices. I hope it is sooner rather than later, and I will do all I can reasonably do to accomplish my part of their punishment. As for those left unemployed, Walmarts diminishing will mean the expansion of others, hopefully others that learn the lessons of history. 4. Not all places have the benefit of overpaying union based work forces. I didnt say anything about unions. But since it was brought up, Im a member of a union - not by choice, but by legislatvie requirement - and Im not overpaid. I am underpaid compared to the marketplace. But my employer treats me more fairly in ways unrelated to compensation and benefits than a private company would, so I make the choice to accept that. That said, I dont necessarily like the risks that Unions present. However, those risks arent any greater than the risks presented by unchecked employers. Unchecked, enterprises will inevitably behave as badly as humans do individually. They can be checked by competition, unions, government regulation, the market power of consumers, or some combination of these. If you dont like unions or government interference, then its up to you as a consumer to provide the necessary checks and balances. Hence my profane, two-word expression of the depth of my antipathy to Walmart. I wish I had more time to go on, but this is all I have time for today. And let me add that today I am also thankful for friends who will engage in spirited debate, even argument, with me. God bless Tim and Tami.
Posted on: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 18:52:27 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015