Indignation for Hire

The Las Vegas Weekly chats with six people protesting outside of a Wal-Mart. Turns out, none of them actually work there:

They're not union members; they're temp workers employed through Allied Forces/Labor Express by the union -- United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW). They're making $6 an hour, with no benefits; it's 104 F, and they're protesting the working conditions inside the new Wal-Mart grocery store.

"It don't make no sense, does it?" says James Greer, the line foreman and the only one who pulls down $8 an hour, as he ambles down the sidewalk, picket sign on shoulder, sweaty hat over sweaty gray hair, spitting sunflower seeds. "We're sacrificing for the people who work in there, and they don't even know it."

Via Liberteaser.

Comments

Hakluyt | September 13, 2005, 8:56am | #

Pretty soon the UFCW will have to outsource to India. :)

Rich Ard | September 13, 2005, 8:57am | #

If the union can afford to hire picke-temps, isn't that a sign that their members' money might be in the wrong pockets?

Mr. Nice Guy | September 13, 2005, 8:58am | #

Actually, I think it's pretty libertarian to be a hired protester. Like a mercenary.

Hell, I would have a ball raising hell outside a Walmart.

"Hey fatsos! Stop buying all that cheap, ugly, slave-labor clothing! Walmarts stink! They all smell like rotting plastic and old people! You don't need those super-size bags of pork rinds! For christ's sake, join a gym!"

I just wish they paid better.

joe | September 13, 2005, 9:05am | #

There must not be very many stories about Wal Mart's labor problems. This is certainly the first one I've even seen mentioned on Hit and Run.

Phil | September 13, 2005, 9:13am | #

You know, joe, if there are topics you're that eager to see discussed -- Wal-Mart's labor problems, recycling v. landfilling, etc. -- you can always start your own blog. It's free. I'll even help you.

Jennifer | September 13, 2005, 9:15am | #

Phil, in Joe's defense, I can see why he'd raise an eyebrow over the fact that for all the sleazy labor practices Wal-Mart's indulged in, the first time the company gets mentioned is in a way that casts its opponents in an unsavory light.

Phil | September 13, 2005, 9:23am | #

Oh, sure, I agree, Jennifer. (Although they have mentioned Wal-Mart, a lot, usually in the context of property-rights and zoning cases.) He just often complains about what Reason writers don't write about. Well, this is America, dude -- grab your platform, and start shouting! I'd read a blog by joe. Wouldn't you?

Number 6 | September 13, 2005, 9:23am | #

No, no, Jennifer. Because Wal-Mart is an organization run by mighty, square-jawed, clear-eyed capitalist prime movers. Anything they do is just and moral, because the market allows it. Just try to thing of them as Nietzschean ubermenchen; what they do is right precisely because they do it.

Number 6 | September 13, 2005, 9:25am | #

I really should start proofreading these posts. Sorry for the unprovoked assault on the language contained in the above post.

jf | September 13, 2005, 9:25am | #

Googling Walmart, union, and joe together on reason.com/hitandrun returns 76 matches.

I really should do some real work.

thoreau | September 13, 2005, 9:26am | #

Forget the contentious underlying issues and sit back and laugh at the irony.

Jammer | September 13, 2005, 9:32am | #

Jennifer,

The first time? A quick Google of Reason shows no less than 418 Wal-Mart references. I'll admit that I did not look them all over to see if they came to praise or bury Wal-Mart but I'd be surprised if there were not some criticism in there somewhere.

Dave W. | September 13, 2005, 9:33am | #

the first one I've even seen mentioned on Hit and Run

I want to see how they will handle the religious arbitration issue that is big here in Ontario, Canada right now. Will they choose the private-ordering side or the Jennifer-type side?

Mr. Nice Guy | September 13, 2005, 9:38am | #

I honestly think joe should start a blog and attract as many modern liberals as he can. And then open it up to H&R posters.

It would be a great battleground.

Mike Kole | September 13, 2005, 9:41am | #

If only Wal-Mart were worth defending every time. They are the good guy for bringing products at lower prices while being the villain who uses the power of eminent domain to steal land from the very people they sell to.

Wal-Mart, Democrats & Republicans, and a broken clock- all correct at least two times a day.

Jennifer | September 13, 2005, 9:43am | #

Will they choose the private-ordering side or the Jennifer-type side

Beats the hell out of me. I don't even know what the two sides are.

Hakluyt | September 13, 2005, 9:44am | #

I've considered starting a blog. :)

Dave W. | September 13, 2005, 9:45am | #

link

(/threadjack)

Jesse Walker | September 13, 2005, 9:47am | #

Dave: I can't speak for my colleagues, but I've already chosen the private-ordering side (which could well be Jennifer's side as well). A blog post is in the works.

Hakluyt | September 13, 2005, 9:48am | #

Jennifer,

Its kind of like the old McDLT made by McDonald's. :)

Isaac Bartram | September 13, 2005, 9:49am | #

Dave W.

I just saw a story somewhere that the Premier had rejected setting up sharia courts. He is, in fact, planning to outlaw all religious based arbitration. One Law for all Ontarians or somesuch.

Jennifer | September 13, 2005, 9:50am | #

Jammer--

Oh, I know full well Wal-Mart has been mentioned here before, but I don't recall any previous Hit and Run posts specifically dedicated to it. (Probably because the problems of Wal-Mart's vile treatment of employees is NOT a problem that can be magically solved by the invisible hand of the market. Though I do my part--I can't even remember the last time I set foot in one of those stores.)

Isaac Bartram | September 13, 2005, 9:52am | #

Damn, you found it.

I'm not surprized the Jews are pissed.

MP | September 13, 2005, 9:53am | #

rant/

One thing that has always disturbed me about Wal-Mart coverage is how the actions of individual store managers are assumed to be directly the result of directives from Bentonville. The head-office openly disavows knowledge of many individual store indiscretions, and usually takes corrective action. Evidence is rarely given to back up assumptions of head-office shenanigans.

/rant

Hakluyt | September 13, 2005, 9:59am | #

BTW, Hit n' Run takes suggestions.

mobile | September 13, 2005, 10:02am | #

Jennifer,

Did you read the article? What, exactly, is so vile about the treatment of Wal-mart employees
(besides being forced to interact with people who shop at Wal-mart)? In your reponse, please compare the lives of Wal-mart employees with similar folks who live in a parallel universe that does not have Wal-marts.

Mr. Nice Guy | September 13, 2005, 10:07am | #

mobile:

C'mon. Have you actually seen Walmart employees that looked genuinely happy?

It's probably better then not having any job at all. But that's the only positive thing I can say about it.

huh | September 13, 2005, 10:08am | #

Walmarts vile treatment of employees can't be solved by the labor market? Is this the opinion of the employees or just those feeling sorry for them?

alkali | September 13, 2005, 10:08am | #

The Las Vegas Weekly chats with six people protesting outside of a Wal-Mart. Turns out, none of them actually work there ...

Uh, yeah. That's how union organizing works. If actual Wal-Mart workers were to protest, they would be fired. (Firing protesting workers is illegal under federal labor law, but there is effectively no penalty for it, so that's what always happens.) Watch Norma Rae sometime and get yourself a clue.

Next in Hit & Run: the shocking discovery that Kool-Aid Man is not a magical talking pitcher but a guy in a suit.

thoreau | September 13, 2005, 10:11am | #

alkali-

He isn't?

Next you'll try to tell me that rich people don't actually stop and ask the guy in the next limo for Grey Poupon.

Jennifer | September 13, 2005, 10:11am | #

Mobile--

I'm actually expected to do some productive stuff at work today, so I don't have time to go into the full anti-Wal-Mart manifesto. But here's a few complaints:

Locking their employees in their stores overnight, with the risk of getting fired if they leave for any reason.

Paying such appallingly low wages that new employees are regularly given forms telling them how to apply for welfare benefits so they won't starve.

SERIOUS discrimination against women.

Regularly pulling stunts like giving an employee one or two hours a week less than full-time, to avoid paying what paltry benefits they DO make available.

Forcing employees to regularly work extra hours off the clock.

And many more.

And yes, I know the devout libertarian line: nobody needs worker protection laws, since the employees are always free to leave, and everybody knows that finding a job that pays enough to live is quite easy if you have the proper motivation, and poor people always get that way solely because they deserve it. However, I've never bought the devout libertarian line, and I have yet to see a real-world scenario where it works for the majority of people--epsecially in regards to Wal-Mart.

jimmy | September 13, 2005, 10:14am | #

jf,
Don't do it, do not do real work, hang in there, we can not let the terrorists win.

Rhywun | September 13, 2005, 10:14am | #

I've seen Wal-Mart mentioned quite a few times here, usually in the context of mentioning towns who don't want it; and the reaction here has always been pretty uniformly pro-Wal-Mart, because they sell cheap stuff, regardless of any transgressions they may or may not have committed.

Number 6 | September 13, 2005, 10:18am | #

Rhywun-Havn't you been paying attention? If the management can get away with action X, it's because the market allows X, and it is either morally neutral or good.

kl | September 13, 2005, 10:19am | #

Nice Guy,
Could it be that it's not Walmart that makes its employees not look happy, it's the unhappy folks of the world who end up working at Walmart cause everyone else has figured out they suck as employees.

joe | September 13, 2005, 10:20am | #

When Wal Mart immediately closed the first store ever to vote to form a union, it just demonstrated how happy their employees are.

Not only the employees in that store, either. Deploying the nuclear option demonstrates Wal Mart's confidence that employee relations in its other stores are in great shape, too.

Rhywun | September 13, 2005, 10:23am | #

Jennifer,

The devout libertarian line actually works pretty well, except when you're talking about the largest corporation on Earth.

kl,

I've worked for soulless retail megacorporations before - trust me, they make you unhappy. Jennifer's bit about working everyone 39 hours a week so they don't have to offer any of the perks of full-time really strikes a chord.

mobile | September 13, 2005, 10:24am | #

Well then it's a wonder that anyone would work there at all, much less 1.7 million of them. What do you suppose could make that many people work there? Maybe they are all too stupid to know any better. Or maybe they know they are being reamed but they are too passive or too lazy to do something about it? Good thing there are some smarter people with their hearts in the right place (you know, who can do things like hire people to stand outside in 104F for $6/hour) to stand up to these atrocities.

Jennifer | September 13, 2005, 10:26am | #

Mobile--
Or maybe there aren't any better options.

MP | September 13, 2005, 10:27am | #

Deploying the nuclear option demonstrates Wal Mart's confidence that employee relations in its other stores are in great shape, too.

Unionized employees will almost definitely increase the costs to Wal-Mart, directly impacting their ability to be competative in the marketplace. It is false to imply that because someone wants to be paid more implies they are dissatisfied. We all want to be paid more. You cannot assume that cost containment implies employee dissatisfaction.

neolib | September 13, 2005, 10:28am | #

can anyone who has ever actually shopped at walmart and asked for help honestly say their employees deserve a 'living' wage?

Mr. Nice Guy | September 13, 2005, 10:34am | #

To me, shopping at a Walmart v.s. a Target are as different as night and day.

At a Target, generally, management treats their employees better, employees are more enthusiastic to promote a clean and friendly environment, and customers have a happier shopping experience. It's positive.

At a Walmart - the opposite.

I think the big problem is consumer obsession with cheapness. Less expense does not always equate with good value. What's the point of buying a slave-labor pair of jeans if they're going to wear out in a year?

If they're going to force kids to go to school, at least they should teach them about objective consumption. I can think of a ton of crap this could replace.

Phil | September 13, 2005, 10:36am | #

Unionized employees will almost definitely increase the costs to Wal-Mart, directly impacting their ability to be competative in the marketplace

And? I mean, so what? Lots of things might increase the costs to Wal-Mart. Not receiving adequate workplace protection increases the costs to the members of the labor pool employed by Wal-Mart. And those are actual people, not fake people, like a corporation is.

I don't have much use for a union myself, but I've never understood why the same people who are fine with a bunch of corporate shareholders pooling their resources to achieve better results and spread risk are not also fine with a bunch of labor suppliers (i.e., workers) doing the same.

Number 6 | September 13, 2005, 10:37am | #

Neolib-Yes, I can.
I'm getting the sense that some here think that because folks work at Wal-Mart, they are troglodytes who don't deserve to be treated decently. And that's a point of view hewed to by assholes.

Jennifer | September 13, 2005, 10:37am | #

Unionized employees will almost definitely increase the costs to Wal-Mart, directly impacting their ability to be competative in the marketplace

Yeah, if Wal-Mart has to raise the price of its merchandise by a penny apiece, those bargain-hunting customers will say "Screw this--for these prices, I may as well shop at Nordstrom's."

And the thought of Wal-Mart accepting a half-percent decrease in profits is just immoral.

agentalbert | September 13, 2005, 10:38am | #

"Wal-Mart's vile treatment of employees..."???

Goodness, you'd think they were stacking people like sardines below deck and shipping them across the Atlantic rather than employing people who willing apply there and willingly keep showing up to work.

Why are people under the impression their employees need to be paid more? Have any of you gone into a Wal-Mart and seen what they do? Is cashiering at Wal-Mart for some reason a more valuable skill than cashiering anywhere else? Or walking around, folding clothes and restocking shelves? These aren't the kinds of jobs that should be paid much more than minimum wage.

Hakluyt | September 13, 2005, 10:42am | #

Jennifer,

How much should non-salaried Wal-Mart employees be making?

Jennifer | September 13, 2005, 10:45am | #

For those who say that improved Wal-Mart paychecks will bankrupt the company--well, Target/Costco pay decent wages, and they're doing fine. In fact, the extra wages pretty much pay for themselves--since the employees are happier, they tend not to quit in droves the second hey find a similar job that pays a buck an hour more, and so Target and Costco don't have to spend a fortune constantly hiring and training new people. And the employees are happier, which makes them tend to be more committed to their jobs.

MP | September 13, 2005, 10:46am | #

I've never understood why the same people who are fine with a bunch of corporate shareholders pooling their resources to achieve better results and spread risk are not also fine with a bunch of labor suppliers (i.e., workers) doing the same.

I have no problem with Wal-Mart workers attempting to unionize. I also have no problem with Wal-Mart corporate attempting to resist this. But I refuse to cast this struggle as a battle of poor unfortunate schmucks vs. evil corporate Wal-Mart. In a free marketplace, every actor is attempting to maximize their standing.

Hakluyt | September 13, 2005, 10:48am | #

Jennifer,

Target and Costco (in my experience) are considerably more expensive than Wal-Mart.

Jennifer | September 13, 2005, 10:49am | #

Hakluyt--

How about, "Enough so that new employees don't routinely receive, in addition to their employee handbooks, forms to apply for welfare benefits so they can afford to stay alive?"

Some states are also getting ticked at Wal-Mart, because the money they're spending on welfare payments for Wal-Mart employees is (at least in some cases) MORE than the taxes Wal-Mart pays--especially in light of the sweet tax deals Wal-Mart routinely gets in exchange for "bringing jobs to a community."

ChicagoTom | September 13, 2005, 10:51am | #

can anyone who has ever actually shopped at walmart and asked for help honestly say their employees deserve a 'living' wage?

The Wal-Mart in Easton, PA. I was travelling there, and I needed a pair of socks that I had forgotten to pack, so I went to the Wal-Mart. I asked one of their employess (an old lady of about 60) for directions to the socks and not only did she walk me over to them, she went on to explain the differences between the socks and tell me which ones were on sale.

That was the last time I have been shopped at a Wal-Mart in about 5 years, so I dunno if its still the same.

crimethink | September 13, 2005, 10:57am | #

Jennifer,

Target/Costco pay decent wages, and they're doing fine. In fact, the extra wages pretty much pay for themselves--since the employees are happier, they tend not to quit in droves the second hey find a similar job that pays a buck an hour more, and so Target and Costco don't have to spend a fortune constantly hiring and training new people.

...in other words, the market will provide ample punishment to employers who mistreat their employees. The devout libertarian line may be more applicable than you admit...

Jennifer | September 13, 2005, 10:57am | #

Hakluyt--

In my experience, Target and Wal-Mart cost about the same. (Not counting Wal-Mart's loss-leader items.) If I buy ten items at Target, I MIGHT pay as much as twenty-five cents more, in total, than those same ten items at Wal-Mart--but also bear in mind that Target brand stuff tends to be better quality than Wal-Mart brand.

thoreau | September 13, 2005, 10:58am | #

Jennifer-

If what you're saying is representative of the ongoing situation rather than an isolated or temporary case then even libertarian purists should despise Walmart.

Ideally, of course, the protestors would carry signs saying "End the welfare state that enables a corporation to pay wages that are less than what would be paid in a free market." And the other side of the sign would say "Remove all regulations that impede other competing businesses while Walmart is exempt. A free market would result in the most just and efficient allocation of resources."

But, for some reason, those aren't very catchy slogans....

MP | September 13, 2005, 10:59am | #

How about, "Enough so that new employees don't routinely receive, in addition to their employee handbooks, forms to apply for welfare benefits so they can afford to stay alive?"

Informing people of the resources available to them is a good thing. Leveraging these resources to your advantage is also a good thing.

Jennifer | September 13, 2005, 11:00am | #

in other words, the market will provide ample punishment to employers who mistreat their employees. The devout libertarian line may be more applicable than you admit

If you ignore the large number of areas where Wal-Mart is literally the only game in town. And if you ignore the fact that, barring some monstrous terrorist attack or Black Plague II, the supply of low-skilled employees will ALWAYS be larger than the demand for low-skilled jobs. If the population were static--no new people being born, no old people dying--then MAYBE Wal-Mart might one day realize on its won that it needs to treat people better. But so far, treating them like disposable Kleenex seems to be working pretty well for Wal-Mart's bottom line.

ChicagoTom | September 13, 2005, 11:01am | #

Target and Costco (in my experience) are considerably more expensive than Wal-Mart.

Based on the the ads that I see in the papers and on TV, I don't think "considerably" more expensive is the correct adjective here. I think "slightly" would be more apt, and further, Target tends to have higher quality products (in general) that I think many consumers would be willing to pay slightly more.
Also, I think I remember reading somewhere that Wal-Mart isn't always the lowest prices. There are some 100 key products they they try and make sure they are the lowest price, but outside of those they vary like everyone else

CostCo I don't think can really be compared to Wal-Mart since you buy in bulk right? Wouldn't it be valid if you were comparing it to Sam's Club? And I haven't shopped at either so I don't know the difference.

Number 6 | September 13, 2005, 11:02am | #

MP- Of course people are working to maximize their advantage. However, when everyone does so with no regard for whom they may be shitting on, you move from a free market to a Hobbsian war. The solution is not, of course, law. It's equally clear that people can not be expected not to act like assholes. Given that, establishing some sort of power balance between workers and employees is a good idea.

Jennifer | September 13, 2005, 11:03am | #

Informing people of the resources available to them is a good thing. Leveraging these resources to your advantage is also a good thing.

So you have no problem with the fact that your tax dollars are, in effect, subsidizing Wal-Mart by enabling them to pay less-than-livable wages to entire populations?

crimethink | September 13, 2005, 11:03am | #

Here in Rochester, we have a Target and Wal-Mart right across from each other. I was looking for an item that was not at Wal-Mart, so I went to the Target for the very first time.

It was a miserable experience. Not so much a problem with the people there, but the atmosphere. For some reason, the combination of red and tan made me grow short of breath, to the point I could barely walk. Had I not escaped I may have curled up in the fetal position, wheezing and drooling amidst the sporting goods.

Hakluyt | September 13, 2005, 11:04am | #

Jennifer,

Some states are also getting ticked at Wal-Mart, because the money they're spending on welfare payments for Wal-Mart employees is (at least in some cases) MORE than the taxes Wal-Mart pays...

You're referring to a highly dubious study out of California.

In my experience Target is far more expensive than Wal-Mart. You're not one of these people who goes apeshit about people shopping at wal-Mart, are you?

joe | September 13, 2005, 11:06am | #

"If you ignore the large number of areas where Wal-Mart is literally the only game in town."

And the fact that Wal Mart bases its business model around 1) going into areas without much competition and 2) putting the competition out of business.

Hakluyt | September 13, 2005, 11:08am | #

ChicagoTom,

Sam's Club and Costco both require a membership fee as well (I guess you can throw BJ's into the mix too).

crimethink,

Yeah, the Target color scheme sucks. Their grocery prices are inflated too and they have a shitty selection. I'd rather shop at Price Chopper or Kroger for food.

Jennifer | September 13, 2005, 11:08am | #

Hakluyt--
Actually, I was thinking more of Georgia than California.

joe | September 13, 2005, 11:09am | #

I just love ubercapitalists' outrage at the subject of union organizers.

It reminds me of my favorite passage in "The Fountainhead," in which Ms. Rand conveys the debased character of one such organizer by telling us that she had "the sort of hands that would drop things all over the kitchen."

MP | September 13, 2005, 11:10am | #

So you have no problem with the fact that your tax dollars are, in effect, subsidizing Wal-Mart by enabling them to pay less-than-livable wages to entire populations?

Your beef should be with the Welfare system, not with Wal-Mart. Do you fault farmers for accepting agricultural subsidies?

Hakluyt | September 13, 2005, 11:10am | #

joe,

And the fact that Wal Mart bases its business model around 1) going into areas without much competition and 2) putting the competition out of business.

Damn Wal-Mart and their success! Success cannot be tolerated!

Hakluyt | September 13, 2005, 11:12am | #

joe,

I just love ubercapitalists' outrage at the subject of union organizers.

Care to give us some examples of outrage on this thread?

joe | September 13, 2005, 11:13am | #

"Damn Wal-Mart and their success! Success cannot be tolerated!"

Yes, Hak, I hate them for their freedom.

Wal Mart's profitability being the only variable worth being considered, of course.

Hakluyt | September 13, 2005, 11:14am | #

MP,

Well, keep in mind that the "welfare form" claim is wholly unsubstantiated.

Phil | September 13, 2005, 11:14am | #

In my experience Target is far more expensive than Wal-Mart.

Tell you what, Gunnels -- at the strip center down the street from where I live, there's a Target and Wal-Mart almost next door to each other; the only thing in-between is an access road and JB Tire. You give me a list of 20-25 items you want comparison-shopped, and I'll compare for you.

crimethink | September 13, 2005, 11:15am | #

Jennifer,

Seriously, what is your solution to these alleged problems? You say Walmart doesn't pay its employees enough, then that WM pays through the nose for their turnover rate, and finally that employees can't leave because there aren't enough jobs out there for them.

You seem to be just complaining about life in general. For a person with no skills, their choices are pretty much an unpleasant, low-paying job or no job at all. This is the way it always has been, and no economic system can change that without destroying its economy.

Hakluyt | September 13, 2005, 11:16am | #

joe,

Here's a suggestion: if you don't like Wal-Mart, don't shop there. I'll continue to spend money there, not having a super-enlightened liberal soul and all.

MP | September 13, 2005, 11:16am | #

Well, keep in mind that the "welfare form" claim is wholly unsubstantiated.

So are most of Jennifer's claims. But even if it was, I wouldn't have an issue with it.

Hakluyt | September 13, 2005, 11:17am | #

Phil,

If you pay for my time, gas, etc. to get there, I'll do it. :)

Phil | September 13, 2005, 11:17am | #

Do you fault farmers for accepting agricultural subsidies?

Er . . . yes? Do you accept stolen goods when someone offers them to you, because, hey, you know, why not, right? The prior owner shouldn't have let them be stolen if he had a problem with it!

joe | September 13, 2005, 11:18am | #

"Care to give us some examples of outrage on this thread?"

The fact that it exists? That the existence and visibility of labor organizers is considered sufficiently worthy of condemnation as to justify an entry on a political blog?

Jennifer | September 13, 2005, 11:19am | #

keep in mind that the "welfare form" claim is wholly unsubstantiated.

Ahem. I suggest you read the following link before you embarrass yourself further:

http://www.alternet.org/story/23688/

The flag-waving company, based in Arkansas, has become the welfare queen of Georgia. There are 51,821 Wal-Mart employees -- or "associates" -- in the state, or 1.15 percent of the total civilian work force of about 4.5 million.

The funny thing is that, while Wal-Mart has 1.15 percent of Georgia's work force, in 2002, children of its employees made up more than 6 percent of all the kids covered by PeachCare, the state program that provides health care coverage to the children of the working poor.

Of a total of 166,000 children covered by PeachCare, 10,261 had a parent working for Wal-Mart in 2002. And Wal-Mart's numbers are way out of line when you bring other companies into the picture. The No. 2 company on the list, Publix, had only 734 children of employees on PeachCare. The average PeachCare recipient costs $1,274 a year. If you multiply that by Wal-Mart's 10,261, you get a total of more than $13 million in health care costs borne by Georgia taxpayers.

"That is a type of reverse welfare or corporate welfare," says former Gov. Roy Barnes, now an attorney in Marietta. "I provide insurance for my employees. Why shouldn't [Wal-Mart] be providing it?"

Hakluyt | September 13, 2005, 11:20am | #

Phil,

Is the solution then to run Wal-Mart out of business (which seems to be the ultimate agenda of anti-consumerism freaks) or to reform the welfare system?

Rhywun | September 13, 2005, 11:20am | #

Wal-Mart is successful because 1) the United States moved most of its manufacturing capability to China and other cheap-labor countries and 2) there is plentiful cheap oil to bring those cheap goods back here. The end of cheap oil, if it's coming, will be disastrous for Wal-Mart.

crimethink | September 13, 2005, 11:20am | #

Of course, the same people who complain about Wal-mart's alleged bad labor practices, also complain about corporations "exploiting" horrifically poor people in third world countries by paying them double or triple what they'd make otherwise.

joe | September 13, 2005, 11:20am | #

Haklyut, if you don't like union organizing, don't join one.

Phil | September 13, 2005, 11:22am | #

Are there only two options?

joe | September 13, 2005, 11:24am | #

If I were defending crimethink's position, I'd try to change the subject, too.

"Is the solution then to run Wal-Mart out of business (which seems to be the ultimate agenda of anti-consumerism freaks)..."

I'm such an anti-consumerism freak, that I want Wal Mart to adopt the labor practices of the highly profitable stores, like Kohl's and Target, that I shop at.

C'mon, you two, you haven't even used the term "latte-sipping elitist" yet.

Hakluyt | September 13, 2005, 11:26am | #

Jennifer,

Yeah, asking for substantiation is always a form of embarressment. Not.

joe,

Gosh darn it! Can't have any commenting on unions!

mobile | September 13, 2005, 11:26am | #

joe, are you not familiar with the Wal-Mart effect? (And I mean that in a good way)

http://www.techcentralstation.com/041105B.html

MP | September 13, 2005, 11:26am | #

Er . . . yes? Do you accept stolen goods when someone offers them to you, because, hey, you know, why not, right? The prior owner shouldn't have let them be stolen if he had a problem with it!

Are you equating taxes with stolen property? Are you now an uber-libertoid?

Phil | September 13, 2005, 11:27am | #

No, crimethink, they complain about corporations outsourcing their labor to countries where they can use the local governments to provide the kind of coercion that they'd never be able to get away with here; and to places where the impoverished economy guarantees that they can lower costs by not being worried about little formalities like not dumping waste in the drinking water.

ralphus | September 13, 2005, 11:27am | #

"Probably because the problems of Wal-Mart's vile treatment of employees is NOT a problem that can be magically solved by the invisible hand of the market."

"For those who say that improved Wal-Mart paychecks will bankrupt the company--well, Target/Costco pay decent wages, and they're doing fine."

So the market solution would be to go get a job at Target.

"If you ignore the large number of areas where Wal-Mart is literally the only game in town."

So the market solution is to move.

Of course the better solution is to get a better education so you don't have to be a minimum wage slave. Get good grades and financial aid and go to college or trade school. If you're working at Wal-Mart or Target at the store level chances are you've made some pretty shitty decisions in your life.

thoreau | September 13, 2005, 11:27am | #

Use of ED, negotiating with local governments to get exemptions denied to other companies, and active encouragement of welfare in lieu of higher wages.

Yeah, there's so much for a libertarian to love here.

crimethink | September 13, 2005, 11:27am | #

Jennifer,

Where does that article confirm that welfare forms are handed out to new employees, as you asserted?

Also, the stats used in that article are misleading. The vast majority of any state's workforce are working in jobs that pay well above minimum wage, so any low-paying job is likely to have a higher representation in a working-welfare program than in the entire workforce.

Shawn Smith (in Las Vegas) | September 13, 2005, 11:28am | #

Mr. Nice Guy,

I actually just stopped by one of the Wal-Mart neighborhood markets, which is the only place I've seen picketers. They don't appear to picket either the Super Centers or the regular stores. The neighborhood market is really just a cheap full-sized grocery store, much like Albertsons, Smith's, Vons, or a full-service Food-4-Less. I doubt many of their products come from China, as it is mostly food. The prices are the same as the Wal-Mart SuperCenter, and I see no difference between the employees there and in any of the other supermarkets.

Phil | September 13, 2005, 11:29am | #

No, MP, I'm equating ag subsidies with stolen property. Please try to keep up with your own conversation.

Hakluyt | September 13, 2005, 11:30am | #

joe,

Only a megalomaniac would think that every comment refers to themselves. :)

...that I want Wal Mart to adopt the labor practices of the highly profitable stores, like Kohl's and Target, that I shop at.

Then do as I suggest and don't shop at Wal-Mart. :)

Haklyut, if you don't like union organizing, don't join one.

(a) Learn how to spell my nick. :)

(b) I haven't joined the ABA.

MP | September 13, 2005, 11:32am | #

No, MP, I'm equating ag subsidies with stolen property. Please try to keep up with your own conversation.

Agricultural subsidies are payments made by the Government to farmers. Those payments come from taxes. Sorry, I'm just not following your "stolen property" association.

Use of ED, negotiating with local governments to get exemptions denied to other companies, and active encouragement of welfare in lieu of higher wages.

The fact that Wal-Mart takes advantage of Public Choice theory is an indictment of Government, not Wal-Mart.

Hakluyt | September 13, 2005, 11:33am | #

thoreau,

No one is saying is that Wal-Mart is some paragon of libertarian values.

crimethink | September 13, 2005, 11:36am | #

thoreau,

So Walmart has ED powers now?

I apologize to joe for again changing the subject, but it's interesting to note that many of Walmart's dirty tricks required the assistance, or at least complicity, of government. And yet the solution offered usually takes the form of more government regulations.

Hakluyt | September 13, 2005, 11:36am | #

crimethink,

Your point is well taken. The quoted language contains diddly about the "forms" claim.

joe | September 13, 2005, 11:38am | #

"joe,

Gosh darn it! Can't have any commenting on unions!"

Actually, my complaint was about that lack of commentary on unions - specifically, that the Reasonoids decided that, of all of the Wal Mart/labor stories in the news, the only thing worth mentioning is that one store is being picketted by organizers. There are lies of omission, you know.

Native NYer | September 13, 2005, 11:38am | #

I’ve never shopped in a Wal Mart so I can’t comment on that store or its employees.

I worked summers during high school flipping burgers at the Bronx Zoo. I got minimum wage for 8 hours a day, whether I made and sold 50 or 500 burgers. If for some reason I had to work over 40 hours in a week, I got overtime.

My buddies at MickeyDs who also flipped burgers were told to punch out when it got slow, but they couldn’t leave, they had to hang in the break room and punch back in when it got busy again. I told these guys I could get them a job, but I guess they were too lazy, burnt, or afraid to try something new.

Maybe something similar is going on here?

Hakluyt | September 13, 2005, 11:39am | #

joe,

Well, the solution to what you consider a problem is simple; start your own blog. :) Either that or stop whining.

Jennifer | September 13, 2005, 11:39am | #

Wal-Mart Welfare:

Lieber was angry, too, that Wal-Mart's welfare dependence made it nearly impossible for responsible employers to compete with the retail giant. It was as if taxpayers were unknowingly funding a massive plunge to the bottom in wages and benefits--quite possibly their own. She held a press conference in July 2003, to expose Wal-Mart's welfare scam. The Wal-Mart documents--instructions explaining how to apply for food stamps, Medi-Cal (the state's healthcare assistance program) and other forms of welfare--were blown up on posterboard and displayed. The morning of the press conference, a Wal-Mart worker who wouldn't give her name for fear of being fired snuck into Lieber's office. "I just wanted to say, right on!" she told the assemblywoman.

Wal-Mart spokespeople have denied that the company encourages employees to collect public assistance, but the documents speak for themselves. They bear the Wal-Mart logo, and one is labeled "Wal-Mart: Instructions for Associates." Both documents instruct employees in procedures for applying to "Social Service Agencies." Most Wal-Mart workers I've interviewed had co-workers who worked full time for the company and received public assistance, and some had been in that situation themselves. Public assistance is very clearly part of the retailer's cost-cutting strategy. (It's ironic that a company so dependent on the public dole supports so many right-wing politicians who'd like to dismantle the welfare state.)

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050103/featherstone

Kwix | September 13, 2005, 11:41am | #

I have browsed this entire thread, but have yet to see input from a current or former WalMart Employee.

As one, I spent a year working in the Tire and Lube Express at our local WallyWorld and my wife spent 4 years in the Fabric Department, I have witnessed first hand the good, and bad, that Wal Mart can do.
Let's start with Corporate. Bentonville likes to run the show, from REFID tags in cartons to controlling the thermostats in the stores, they call the shots. This is very efficient, and very slow to react to local market changes. But that slow reaction only hurts the company by alienating customers from what they are seeking.

I worked in what is considered a very "good" store. Even then, I got tired of the daily indoctrination, from the "WalMart Cheer" to the hypocritical "Customer Satisfaction...Always!" mantra. Example, my wife worked late one day, a customer came into the fabric department five minutes before she was due to clock out. By WalMart's rules, she was to make sure the customer was completely happy, so 1 hour and 15 minutes later, when the lady had her fabric cut and was on her way to the register, my wife clocked out. Nothing big, the lady bought $75 worth of fabric for the $7 labor WalMart had to shell out, maybe a touch of overtime at the end of the week. My wife was chewed a new one for not "clocking out on time". She was given a written reprimand and threatened with firing if it happened again.
I witnessed long term employees (6 years plus) being fired for simple infractions so they could be replaced by newbies being paid $2 less an hour.
The inaction in regards to employee safety were, at times, appaling. We had a vehicle lift that would not lock. After repeated attempts to get management to repair it we finally refused to work under it. We were threatened with termination if we didn't get X number of vehicles completed in an hour, and that goal was impossible to meet without that lift.
I could go on, but to say that WalMart is completly blameless for it's treatment of employees is bogus. For these reasons, I will not shop at a WalMart, or subsidiary. That is how my dollar will control "the invisible hand of the market".

Hakluyt | September 13, 2005, 11:41am | #

Native NYer,

Working split shifts like that is typical in the restaurant industry. When I was a waiter, short order cook, prep cook, etc. I used to do it all the time.

Shawn Smith (in Las Vegas) | September 13, 2005, 11:42am | #

Oh, if it was only 104 F and he's bitching about the temperature, he's a wuss. I've seen the picketers out in 113 F. You have to remember, 105 in Las Vegas is like 90-95 F in a place with reasonable humidity.

mobile | September 13, 2005, 11:43am | #

So Jennifer's point is that Wal-Mart hires a lot of the people that are filling the welfare rolls and helps supplement their income? Sounds look good corporate citizenship to me.

Native NYer | September 13, 2005, 11:47am | #

I've never thought of MickeyDs as the "restaurant industry", more like a factory :)

My point was they could have had a job doing exactly the same thing for more money and they wouldn't take it. Sometimes it's hard to understand how other people make their decisions.

thoreau | September 13, 2005, 11:47am | #

Has Jennifer called for a coercive remedy here? I don't even think joe has.

If somebody cares to find a place in this thread where either of them calls for a coercive remedy, let me know. In fact, at least one (both?) has hinted support for ending coercive measures that bolster the practices that they despise.

If you don't care about what happens at Walmart then go ahead and shop there. But don't act as though it's some sort of libertarian heresy to criticize a company. Hell, even in Libertopia people will talk smack about companies that they don't like. "Don't shop there! The ammo sucks and the janitor doesn't always dust the shelves with the Ayn Rand novels!"

joe | September 13, 2005, 11:51am | #

"So Jennifer's point is that Wal-Mart hires a lot of the people that are filling the welfare rolls and helps supplement their income? Sounds look good corporate citizenship to me."

If they were already on the welfare rolls, why would Wal Mart give them information on how to sign up?

Nice try, though.

mediageek | September 13, 2005, 11:56am | #

You know, I spent a short stint working at Target once upon a time.

I've compared notes with a couple of people who've worked at Wal-Mart, and I have pretty much come to the conclusion that the differences are far more a matter of marketing than substance.

Working at Target was without a doubt the worst job I have ever had in my life. Hated every goddamned minute of it.

Rhywun | September 13, 2005, 11:57am | #

I, for one, am not blaming Wal-Mart for its ways. I blame America's insistence on the cheapest throwaway products available, even at the cost of local communities and commerce. And one does not need to be a "latte-sipping liberal" (which I am NOT, thank you very much) to believe that the rush to the bottom is not the highest goal of American commerce. As for the "Wal-Mart" effect, try locating it in such unglamorous, non-college towns as Waterloo or Batavia NY. You'll find a lot of boarded up buildings downtown, and a lot of people waiting for the bus to take them out to Wal-Mart. Some effect.

Hakluyt | September 13, 2005, 12:03pm | #

joe,

I'm curious, what were these folks doing before they were hired by Wal-Mart? Working as Fortune 500 CEOs?

thoreau,

I don't believe anyone stated that they called for such. So, what's your point exactly?

Rhywun | September 13, 2005, 12:08pm | #

I, for one, am not blaming Wal-Mart for its ways. I blame America's insistence on the cheapest throwaway products available, even at the cost of local communities and commerce. And one does not need to be a "latte-sipping liberal" (which I am NOT, thank you very much) to believe that the rush to the bottom is not the highest goal of American commerce. As for the "Wal-Mart" effect, try locating it in such unglamorous, non-college towns as Waterloo or Batavia NY. You'll find a lot of boarded up buildings downtown, and a lot of people waiting for the bus to take them out to Wal-Mart. Some effect.

Hakluyt | September 13, 2005, 12:08pm | #

joe,

I'm curious, what were these folks doing before they were hired by Wal-Mart? Working as Fortune 500 CEOs?

thoreau,

I don't believe anyone stated that they called for such. So, what's your point exactly?

Curious | September 13, 2005, 12:08pm | #

I thought unlinking the Chinese yuan from the US dollar would increase prices of imports and solve the problem of Wal mart?

ralphus | September 13, 2005, 12:10pm | #

thoreau,

I realize they are not suggesting any coercive remedies. I'm just sick of all the wha-wha-wha about Wal-Mart. If you don't like it don't shop there or work there. Problem solved.

If you're working there it's by choice or rather lack of smart choices. My wife comes from a poor family of five children. Three worked their way through college. One went to trade school. They are all doing well.

One got a GED and knocked up a girl he'd known for a week. Guess where he works?

Kwix | September 13, 2005, 12:12pm | #

thoreau,
"Don't shop there! The ammo sucks and the janitor doesn't always dust the shelves with the Ayn Rand novels!"

This just made my day!

But you are absolutely correct. Lambasting a company for it's faults is not only a very acceptable practice, but should be condoned to expose egregious wrongs.

Government subsidies, ED, and tarrifed/restricted (sp?) international trade have all aided in the rise of the "big box" stores. The only way I see to undo this web is to "normalize" the economic forces by reverting to a true "hands off" policy. Then, it wouldn't matter if the shirt was made in China or Nebraska, because on a global market it would sell for roughly the same price.

Curious | September 13, 2005, 12:13pm | #

I thought unlinking the Chinese yuan from the US dollar would increase prices of imports and solve the problem of Wal mart?

Number 6 | September 13, 2005, 12:15pm | #

The point, Hakluyt, is that it seems as though there are two strands of thought here. One holds that corporations ought to act ethically and treat their employees as human beings, not resources to be exploited. The second holds that the only moral obligation of a company is to make money for its sharholders.

mobile | September 13, 2005, 12:17pm | #

[try #2]
So Jennifer's point is that a Wal-Mart is a major employer of the poorest, lowest-skilled members of the community who are eligible for welfare benefits although they may or may not already be on the welfare rolls? Sounds look good corporate citizenship to me.
[/try #2]

MP | September 13, 2005, 12:18pm | #

In fact, at least one (both?) has hinted support for ending coercive measures that bolster the practices that they despise.

It's hard to hear someone complaining about an issue without anticipating the "something must be done" comment. But you are correct in that, particularly on this forum, we should give everyone the benefit of the doubt until they open the gates.

However, note that Jennifer's comment at 10:11 AM put her squarely in the "something must be done" camp.

Hakluyt | September 13, 2005, 12:19pm | #

Number 6,

Well, having several standards in society doesn't seem like a problem to me. Wow, diversity of thought and the freedom to express that thought, imagine that. :)

ralphus | September 13, 2005, 12:19pm | #

thoreau,

I realize they are not suggesting any coercive remedies. I'm just sick of all the wha-wha-wha about Wal-Mart. If you don't like it don't shop there or work there. Problem solved.

If you're working there it's by choice or rather lack of smart choices. My wife comes from a poor family of five children. Three worked their way through college. One went to trade school. They are all doing well.

One got a GED and knocked up a girl he'd known for a week. Guess where he works?

thoreau | September 13, 2005, 12:21pm | #

To Tim Cavanaugh-

This would be a good time to plug subscriptions to the print edition, seeing as how there's a nice debate over the responsibilities of a corporation in that issue.

Funniest part of the article is when a highly successful entrepreneur and CEO of a massive company is accused by another CEO of being no better than Ralph Nader. And he comes back by pointing out some embarassing numbers from the other CEO's performance.

joe | September 13, 2005, 12:22pm | #

"I'm curious, what were these folks doing before they were hired by Wal-Mart?"

Why, sitting on the corner drinking cheap wine out of paper bags, of course. When they weren't asleep at 2 in the afternoon.

What were the people who get much better treatment at highly-profitable Cosco and Target doing before they were hired? Who the hell cares?

"If you don't like it don't shop there or work there. Problem solved." If the "problem" is that you have to see people getting screwed over, I suppose that would solve it. If you define the problem as people getting screwed over, whether you are present of not, then the problem remains.

Phil | September 13, 2005, 12:22pm | #

No one is saying is that Wal-Mart is some paragon of libertarian values.

Debatable. I think perhaps crimethink is pretty close, and so is mobile.

MP: You seem to be stuck in a "Socrates is a cat" loop, so I'll leave it to you to figure out how I can believe that ag subs are stolen property without believing that all taxes are stolen property.

thoreau | September 13, 2005, 12:23pm | #

It's hard to hear someone complaining about an issue without anticipating the "something must be done" comment.

Jumping to conclusions about a person's politics based on one or two statements doesn't work on a libertarian forum. We tend not to fit the neat molds.

ralphus | September 13, 2005, 12:23pm | #

Sorry for the multiple posts.

thoreau | September 13, 2005, 12:24pm | #

I was criticizing Jennifer for heresy at 9:50AM:

(Probably because the problems of Wal-Mart's vile treatment of employees is NOT a problem that can be magically solved by the invisible hand of the market ...)

I'm not a "the good is the enemy of the perfect" kind of libertarian, but sometimes I feel like I need to advance the argument that people in free societies have the right to pursue their own happiness and the responsibility for the consequences of their actions and the direction of their lives, and this applies to Wal-Mart employees in free societies, too.

mobile. | September 13, 2005, 12:25pm | #

Eek! That last comment was from me (mobile), to thoreau.
Not from thoreau.

thoreau | September 13, 2005, 12:26pm | #

Um, that wasn't me at 12:24 pm.

Jennifer | September 13, 2005, 12:27pm | #

note that Jennifer's comment at 10:11 AM put her squarely in the "something must be done" camp.

Yeah, complain about companies raising "corporate welfare" to new levels or using "lock-in" policies that are basically equivalent to unlawful imprisonment, and the next thing you know you're calling for Communism Redux.

Hakluyt | September 13, 2005, 12:28pm | #

Well, joe, it matters because of your previous comment. Please put two and two together.

If you define the problem as people getting screwed over...

Now you've slipped over into "equality of outcomes" Stalinist mode.

Rhywun | September 13, 2005, 12:30pm | #

what were these folks doing before they were hired by Wal-Mart?

Manufacturing stuff, I think. But we don't do much of that anymore.

ralphus | September 13, 2005, 12:32pm | #

joe,

But it is not my problem. If you're working at Wal-Mart chances are at some point you screwed youself - like my brother-in-law did.

Evan Williams | September 13, 2005, 12:35pm | #

Rhywun:

I, for one, am not blaming Wal-Mart for its ways. I blame America's insistence on the cheapest throwaway products available, even at the cost of local communities and commerce.

Ah, ignorance of economics is so much fun, isn't it!?

Yes, blame the people for wanting inexpensive stuff. The convenient, undefendable, "American People". The bastards! How dare they want to shop at WalMart, and get stuff for cheap 24/7, instead of going down to the local shop and getting the same thing, for more money, and only being able to shop there between 9am and 6pm. Jeez, the savages!

The "cheap throwaway" items, as you call them, that I get at WalMart is also available at smaller, local stores...it's just more expensive, and harder to get due to their hours. There are still niches to be filled by the stuff that WalMart doesn't carry (and that list is pretty huge!).

I find it extraordinarily selfish and self-rightous to lambast poor folks, who are on a tight budget, for buying a $5 plastic lawn chair at WalMart, instead of paying $50 for a handcrafted one down at Old Joe's Antiques on Main Street. Blather on about our "insistence on cheap throwaway crap" all you want, but the fact is, with affluence comes the desire (and opportunity) to move beyond WalMart, and patronize the stores who form the community. But when you're on a budget, when you don't have money to spend on the expensive shit on Main Street, then WalMart helps you survive.

joe | September 13, 2005, 12:35pm | #

"Now you've slipped over into "equality of outcomes" Stalinist mode."

I win! I win! Yahoooooooo!

poco | September 13, 2005, 12:41pm | #

M'geek: the workers at my local Target often seem kinda disgruntled; once I heard them muttering complaints to each other, but didn't catch what it was about. The shelves and hangers are often a mess, too. The garden people seem a little older, more pleasant and more helpful.

thoreau | September 13, 2005, 1:41pm | #

I apologize if this double posts. I added a new comment at the end anyway.
So, has anybody formulated a Godwin-equivalent for references to Stalin and the Commies? I've certainly triggered that one a few times.

Godwin said that the probability approaches 1 as the # of posts approaches infinity. In continuous mathematics we would say that the set of exceptions has zero measure (lower dimension). In the case of a discrete variable (like # of posts) we'd say that the # of exceptions scales as 1/N, where N is the # of posts.

This is a quantifiable criterion. I wonder if anybody has ever written a paper on it and tested the quantitative prediction that the # of exceptions scales as 1/N. It would imply some universal tendency in human behavior when given the possibility of communicating (and spitting venom) anonymously.

Actually, as I think about it, the probability of an exception could decrease less rapidly than 1/N. The set of exceptions could have a "fractal" structure to it. Or the probability could decrease more rapidly than 1/N. It could decrease as a power law. Or an exponential. Did Godwin ever do a test of this?

MP | September 13, 2005, 1:41pm | #

Yeah, complain about companies raising "corporate welfare" to new levels or using "lock-in" policies that are basically equivalent to unlawful imprisonment, and the next thing you know you're calling for Communism Redux.

Your statements regarding worker protection laws clearly have you leaning towards "something must be done" regarding Wal-Mart business practices. How did I misinterpret you?

Rhywun | September 13, 2005, 1:48pm | #

Evan Williams,

Give me a break. I've been poor and out on the street in my life - don't even try to pigeonhole me as "elitist". And guess what? Main Street had cheap stuff, once upon a time, before Wal-Mart put it out of business. I'd like to know where your obvious appreciation for the goal of selling stuff at the absolute cheapest price ends, if it does at all. Contributing to China's approaching ecological disaster isn't it. Furthering America's dependence on not-so-cheap-anymore oil isn't it either. The loss of local businesses that care about their communities obviously isn't it. Is there nothing immoral that is done in the pursuit of the lowest prices?

Mr. Nice Guy | September 13, 2005, 1:50pm | #

t:

Statistics..make..my..brain..hurt..

That was the one "hell" course in my Econ major. And it was even more hellish given my idiocy in math coupled with frequent hangovers.

Mention it not when there are loaded weapons involved. ;)

Jennifer | September 13, 2005, 1:57pm | #

Your statements regarding worker protection laws clearly have you leaning towards "something must be done" regarding Wal-Mart business practices. How did I misinterpret you?

Well, for starters, I didn't make any actual suggestions for laws concerning Wal-Mart, in this case. But hell, I'll come right out and say it--locking employees in stores overnight, or making them clock out and then CONTINUE to work without pay, should be illegal. If it isn't already.

joe | September 13, 2005, 2:02pm | #

Evan, before you go around accusing people of not understanding basic economics, perhaps you'd care to explain why the "outsource/cheap goods/weak labor protection" policies you like so much have failed so miserably to raise wages (which haven't budged for 4/5 of the populace in three decades), and left so many people in the position where they can only buy the $5 plastic chairs.

Evan Williams | September 13, 2005, 2:09pm | #

Rhywun:

Give me a break. I've been poor and out on the street in my life - don't even try to pigeonhole me as "elitist".

I never said anything about you being an elitist; I just don't think it's valid to criticize people for valuing low prices and easy access over the more ephemeral "local market community".

Main Street had cheap stuff, once upon a time, before Wal-Mart put it out of business.

I'm not knocking Main Street---I love main street! I'm simply saying that it's economically ignorant to whine about WalMart "putting them out of business". Yes, just like, if you own a shop on one side of town, and I open up a similar shop, but offer things at lower prices, and better selection, and better business hours, then I'll put you out of business. I'm simply sick of the economic irrationality that comes from people's emotional abhorrance of the Wally World culture.

"I'd like to know where your obvious appreciation for the goal of selling stuff at the absolute cheapest price ends, if it does at all."

I'm not going to get into a black-hole teleology marathon with you. "Why" questions of teleology have plagued us throughout our philosophical history as a people. For example, you ask me, why am I sawing this board. I answer, to build a door for my house. You ask why I want a door, I answer, to keep my house safe from intruders. You ask why I want to keep my house safe from intruders, I answer, so I can sleep well at night. You ask why I want to sleep well at night. In the end, aside from Darwinian implications, the only way to end such a debate is to invoke ye olde "because that's god's will".

As such, I could sit here and debate the teleology of economic implications with you until my fingers fall off, but I won't---it will just suffice to say that paying less and/or getting more is a good thing.

Contributing to China's approaching ecological disaster isn't it. Furthering America's dependence on not-so-cheap-anymore oil isn't it either. The loss of local businesses that care about their communities obviously isn't it. Is there nothing immoral that is done in the pursuit of the lowest prices?

Of course there are immoral things that can be done in the pursuit of low prices. Stealing, hurting, killing, forced slavery, subsidies, ED landgrabs, etc. But, no, I'm sorry, but, it's not immoral to shop at Wal*Mart because