Wal-Mart and more L4

[Dan M]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: brin-l-bounces at mccmedia.com [mailto:brin-l-bounces at mccmedia.com] On
> Behalf Of Nick Arnett
> Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 4:30 PM
> To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion
> Subject: Re: Wal-Mart and more
> 
> On Feb 17, 2008 8:50 PM, Dan M <dsummersminet at comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > 3) Are you interested in discussing what I just quoted and will requote:
> >
> > " The third is a discussion of the case at hand: if we (as I think we
> do)
> > agree that improving the lives of the poorer among us at least _a_
> > worthwhile goal, has Wal-Mart done more to aid or more to harm those
> > lives."
> >
> 
> Reading down through the thread, I realized that no, I am not interested
> in discussing that question because it is free of any ethical
considerations.
> It is a "modest proposal" sort of argument.
> 
> Ethics is not simply a matter of calculating whether the good outweighs
> the bad.  There are some things that we simply don't do because they are
> wrong, even though logic might strongly suggest that their benefit
>outweighs the cost.  We don't eat our children to survive (an allusion to 
>"modest propsals," in case that wasn't clear).

(As an aside, it was English Gentlemen who ate the Irish Children...a bit
pedeantic....but rather important to the author's point.)

Among many schools of ethics over the years there are two that are being
intertwined here:  One is the categorical imperative: there are things we
must always do and there are things we must never do, simply because they
are right/wrong.  

The second is the consequentialist: the ethics of actions are determined by
the outcome of acting/not acting.  Even if the action or lack thereof is not
inherently immoral or moral, one can consider the morality by the
consequences.  There is nothing immoral about standing on a street corner
thinking about last night's ball game.  But, if a woman was being raped, it
would be immoral to do nothing, if it was possible to stop the action with
modest risk to oneself (at least call 911, right?)  

I tend to be a consequentialist.  I look at "love thy neighbor as theyself"
(which I think we agree as fundamental, and look at the results for my
neighbors of certain actions.

But, I recognize that one can push consequentialism into immorality.
Consequentialism was, after all, the excuse for the excesses of Communism.
The classic anti-consequentalism argument is the question of handing an
innocent man to be killed in order to keep a city safe. 

So there are problems with this argument....and it has to be balanced with
the "moral imperative" understanding of ethics, IMHO.  But, there are real
life examples of problems with limited and selected implementations of moral
imperatives.  For one, if one defines too many or too broad moral
imperatives: one finds oneself with no choice but to violate one or the
other.  For example, "protect the innocent" and "never do any harm" cannot
both be followed all the time.  Take a real life example of a crazed shooter
being hit with rifle fire by a police officer.

This doesn't mean that I think pacifism is wrong, a priori.  Rather, I'd
argue that a pacifist must admit that the cost of their inaction is that
innocence will suffer and die.  The categorical imperative can be so strong
as to require to pacifist to stand back in horror and watch an innocent die,
when they were in a position to let the innocent live. I think the proper
thing to do in that case, is use violence: I think a police force
(uncorrupt, unbiased, etc.) is valid...and I am acting morally when I vote
to help establish the existence of such a force.

As far as I can see, a pacifist would differ, but that's a point where
ethical people can have honest differences.  I'd only get upset if they
denied that there some of the consequences of their inaction were horrid.
I've met honest pacifists and I respected their views because they agreed
that innocence can die when a pacifistic stand is taken....but that they
still had to take that stance.

Now, back to Wal-Mart.  Looking at the last 20 years of Wal-Mart.....the
company philosophy seems evident to me.  I've read a wide range of analysis
of their techniques and the corporate culture of Wal-Mart was consistently
named as cutting prices by cutting costs. Corporations are all there to make
money, certainly.  But, they have different ways of doing it.  Some are the
tech leaders: high prices for the latest and the best.  Wal-Mart chose the
low price route to profit.  It's a low margin means, but can be very
successful.

Nationwide, Wal-Mart pays just under average for retail workers.  Here near
Houston, it pays a bit better than average.  So, exploiting the worker by
paying far less than the next guy for a worker does not seem to be the MO.
Indeed, as the reference I gave shows, Wal-Mart pays way under scale only in
those areas where scale is set by union to be far higher than it is in the
rest of the nation.

Wal-Mart also pushes its suppliers to lower prices.  That doesn't strike me
as unusual.....its just that with its clout its much better at it than a
small store.  But, lower vendor prices are not inherently bad.  Corporations
do not have a moral right to a certain profit margin.

So, I see no inherent categorical imperative that requires a moral person to
fight the expansion of Wal-Mart into a given area.  For the most part,
prices in the area fall more than wages. Since Wal-Mart shoppers are usually
the poorer people, Wal-Mart's lower prices have been the difference between
a family living over the poverty line and a family living under the poverty
line.

Now, it is pointed out, accurately, that Wal-Mart pays a wage that....in
many parts of the country, a family with two Wal-Mart employees cannot
afford a very good lifestyle.  Most places, a family of four with an income
of 35k/year are well above the poverty line, but probably fall among the
workers who would have trouble paying even the WalMart medical bills.  

That is wrong, and I can see the argument that WalMart does not pay a living
wage....in those terms.  But, with few exceptions, retail doesn't pay a
living wage....especially in California.

Let me give a _very_ personal example.  My daughter is splitting a (roughly)
600 sq. ft two bedroom flat with a roommate.  She has a job she's lucky to
have at a local store.  But, she makes $9.50/hour.  She's a student, so she
uses that work to slightly decrease her increasing debt (as well as ours).
That flat costs her $1000/month for her share of the rent.  If she worked
full time there, she'd make about $19,000 per year.  With $10k/year going to
rent, even eating a lot of beans and cornbread....she'd have a hard time
making ends meet without loans.  Thank God that she's on our insurance
'cause she's certainly not going to be able to pay $600/month for insurance
with high deductibles). 

Back in the mid-west, things were different.  Her rent was $350 for a much
nicer place, (two bedroom/roommate again) and costs of everything were much
lower.  She could buy things at Walmart to help make ends meet. Thus, in a
place that accepted Walmart years ago, a person on a retail salary could do
much better than she can in California. Indeed, last night I had to drive to
Wal-Mart to buy something for her to help fix her glasses) because the local
shops didn't have it...but Wal-Mart did.  So, I just mailed a Wal-Mart care
package to my broke daughter.  


Look at the price numbers in the Kerry advisor analysis I gave 

http://www.americanprogress.org/kf/walmart_progressive.pdf

They are significant.  Since most of Wal-Mart shoppers are poor, the drop in
prices of 5%-15% are extremely significant.  Look in particular at Table 1.
from that report.  That cut in food prices is enormous....and often makes
the difference between a family being below and above the poverty line.

Looking at this, I consider the large protest against Wal-Mart.  I look at
it from a vastly different place, literally, than you live in.  I grew up in
the Mid-West where my family shopped at Target Store #3, and have lived in
Texas for years.  Even among my friends who are strong active living wage
advocates, shopping at Wal-Mart is common, and not considered bad.  Wal-Mart
is considered part of the environment, not something different to fight

When I went to San Francisco, I saw a very beautiful expensive area that was
way to pricy for me to consider living in (Teri will be taking a call and we
will move to follow that call).  It is a great place for rich people.  It is
built and set up for the rich.  

So, with a daughter who, by experience, knows what the going rate for
skilled retail work is (she's skilled enough to specialize in the trade of
her boss and to help her boss with her inventory, etc.) and the high prices
I see, I wonder why it's Wal-Mart that is getting all the flack.  If it is a
categorical imperative for Wal-Mart to pay a living wage, isn't it also a
categorical imperative for other stores to do the same.....but if they did,
they'd go bankrupt because their neighbors wouldn't.

In short, and this is too long so I'll make this point very short.....I
think a lot of the problem with Wal-Mart is that it is so _not_
California...at the very least, it is so _not_ Bay Area.  It is not
beautiful, it is not a boutique, it is not quaint.  It's real Arkansas, the
kinda place people who live in trailers shop at.  For the life of me, the
only workers who really would get hurt are the small fraction of grocery
workers who get fairly good union salaries.  I have sympathy for them....but
it wasn't Wal-Mart that started the end of Union America.  


I don't see Wal-Mart's corporate mentality as something inherently wrong.
Cutting costs is a good thing.  If every company cut costs in half and wages
in half, then things would be neutral.  But, Wal-Mart cuts costs more than
wages. Thus, if every company followed the same path, workers would have
better wages.

The solution seems simple to me.  Have rules that help workers that
_everybody_ has to follow.  Wal-Mart will adapt, unless they are one armed
man with a limp type rules).  There are several ways to handle this...and I
think we can find a lot of agreement on some sort of universal health care
for the US.  The rise in the minimum wage was good, IMHO.  I think folding
SS taxes into the general income tax would be a good thing...there are lots
of things.

But, I cannot accept Wal-Mart's mentality of "always the lowest prices,
always" as something that is inherently wrong.  Without a doubt, folks
pushed to follow that have done wrong things....but that doesn't make the
goal wrong.  Inefficient companies have also polluted, companies that
overcharge consumers are no more likely to treat the average worker better
(except for management) than companies that provide low prices.

So, I'd argue that Wal-Mart is the wrong target.  The main beneficiaries of
its corporate culture are lower income Americans who, in essence, saw their
pay raised by being able to shop at Wal-Mart. The problems Wal-Mart has
insuring, paying, and treating its retail workers are not unique to
Wal-Mart, they prevail (with rare exceptions) in the retail world.  The
solution to me is to accept that the foundational value of the core culture
of Wal-Mart as inherently good, while recognizing that the wrong thing can
be/often is done in trying to achieve good ends.  Don't stop the whole
process, address the means that are objectionable....but address them across
the board...not just with Wal-Mart.

Dan M.