Wal-Mart giveth
I have mixed feelings about Wal-Mart. I hate shopping there, and avoid it wherever possible, because it is such an unpleasant experience. This is mostly a note on the aesthetics of Wal-Mart stores, from the lighting to the horrible smiley faces everywhere.
That said, I have a lot of respect for the Walton family. I’ve spent some time in the Arkansas region where they are from, and still reside, and have heard nothing but glowing reports about them from locals. They all drive old cars, wear plain clothes, and cop no attitude or arrogance with anybody. (The latter is most important, obviously; neither driving nice cars nor wearing beautiful clothing is a sin.)
My friend Chris Yeh, in a post about “the Wal-Mart safety net” points out one reason why the Waltons aren’t flashing any cash:
What [Wal-Mart] critics miss is that fact that Wal-Mart passes nearly all of the savings it squeezes out of its value chain straight to its customers, who are largely lower-income. Wal-Mart is the single greatest benefactor to the underprivileged in the country.
He’s got a great example on his side, one of many I have heard from people about the superb, low cost medical care they’ve received from Wal-Mart clinics. (Since at least the early 1990s, Wal-Mart has routinely been ordered by judges to increase its prices on certain medications, which is much worse than any snobbery directed Wal-Mart’s way by private citizens who are entitled to boycott as much as they like.)
I still don’t like shopping there.
Filed under: Life
While I’ve never shopped at Wal-Mart’s I’ve heard all the pros and cons. One of the biggest criticisms seem to be that similar to Henry Ford, who paid his workers enough they could afford to buy his cars,Wal-Mart’s is creating a class of lower paid workers who can only afford to shop at Wal-Mart’s.
I might be confusing WalMart with another chain, but aren’t they the ones who take a very hardline approach when it comes to censoring any magazines they sell - nothing with ‘orgasm’ on the cover, that kind of thing?
Bob: I’d love to see the proof behind that argument.
Jacq, I’m pretty sure that’s Wal-Mart. I can’t say I disapprove, mostly because it’s so embarrassing to be a kid with your parents in a store and have that kind of stuff on display.
Bob:
It may be that Wal-Mart is creating a class of workers who can only afford to shop at Wal-Mart, but what is the alternative?
Should Wal-Mart pay people more than they have to? If you think Wal-Mart makes too much money, the answer is to persuade the shareholders to donate their dividends and profits, not to ask Wal-Mart to double as an entitlement program.
Jacq:
Wal-Mart definitely pursues a Christian agenda, which includes censorship. But guess what? No one is forced to shop at Wal-Mart. If you object to their politics, don’t shop there.
I don’t agree with Wal-Mart’s political agenda, but I shop there anyways. Why? Because it’s cheaper.
Chris, I don’t shop at Wal-Mart, seeing as how I don’t live in the USA. I asked a simple question, and I’m fairly sure that I didn’t put any type of moral judgement on the comment I left, so I’m not sure what the deal is with getting a bit of attitude back for it.
If I did live in the USA I don’t think I’d shop at Wal-Mart, but that’s more to do with not being a fan of superstores (see also: Tesco). They tend to screw their suppliers over.
Screw their suppliers over? By… demanding the lowest prices they can get?
Welcome to competition, and its great benefits to everyone but the supplier company, in this case.
(Of course, the suppliers’ employees benefit from access to lower priced goods at retail…)