Wal-Mart and more L4

[Nick Arnett]

On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 9:44 PM, Dan M <dsummersminet at comcast.net> wrote:

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


(As a further aside, think of "we" as "the human race" rather than "we," the
Irish, who would be the sellers of their own children -- which is exactly on
point.)

I'm interpreting everything your wrote about ethics as agreement that it
isn't simply a cost-benefit analysis.  Right?

>
> 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.


You're not speaking to the point.  If I had postulated that cost-cutting is
bad, then your arguments would be appropriate.  Cost-cutting is not bad.
Economic efficiency is not bad.  But bad methods can be used to cut costs
and improve efficiency.  My objection is their aggressiveness in achieving
their efficiency -- pushing wages too low too fast, paying women less than
men, hiring illegals, cutting benefits, busting unions, abandoning vendors
the moment somebody makes a cheaper version, etc.

Perhaps all of this will add up to a better economy in the end, but where's
the end and what about the effects of the transition?  Rapidly abandoning a
vendor because there's a cheaper version available is certainly good
economics, but it is not good for people.  May I simply call it heartless or
is having a heart not acceptable in a discussion of business?  Where does
the idea of treating people decently fit into this discussion?


>  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.


This clearly is debatable.  And it ignores Wal-Mart's objection to expansion
of Medicaid, which is the only health care available to many of its
workers.  Research clearly shows that when Wal-Mart enters a market, more
people end up on Medicaid, especially children.  That bit of economic
efficiency is costing everybody money.  It certainly isn't free market
economics when the state subsidizes a corporation.

>
> 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


I didn't respond to your Buckley reference about getting down in the mud
with the little people, but now I will.  I started to write about my
upbringing and everything I have done to stay connected with and respond to
the least-served here and abroad... but it sounded too much like a brag
sheet.  I'll just say this -- please stop painting yourself as down in the
dirt with ordinary people and me as a rich snob.  It's way off base and has
no place in this discussion.

Nick

-- 
Nick Arnett
narnett at mccmedia.com
Messages: 408-904-7198