Wal-Mart Serves Humanity
The New York Times recently ran an interesting article on everyone’s favorite global retailing behemoth, Wal-Mart. It offers an interesting look at Wal-Mart's changing corporate culture (they're apparently beginning to wonder if they should pay off the barbarians at the gate), two stunning examples of economic illiteracy, one misrepresentation of a very heroic deed, and a lovely comparison of Sam Walton to Chairman Mao. [Full Article]
Comments (18)
The article keeps noting "It is in the interest of shareholders...".
Does this mean that if WalMart were privately held that they would then become the demon of which the NYT speaks? Obviously not.
It will be interesting after the credit bubble bursts to see how well WMT balanced the "next week" attention span of the shopper, and the "next quarter" span of the CNBC crowd.
Warren Buffet hasn't announced they would be a good fit for his longer term views, and I doubt John Templeton holds their stock.
If the majority of stockholders are actually of the "pump and dump" crowd, then it is in WMTs interest to play Enronesque games to boost the share price for the current quarter and keep it up until they collapse with the rest of the market. The stock price - short term - is not connected with the long term (decade long) health of the company.
Published: July 6, 2004 9:21 AM
The customer is always right. If a man can go to the pharmaceuticals and buy a personal lubricant, then he should be able to go to the section for magazines and buy porn. Now, if the sale of porn in a particular community is illegal, then obviously Wal-Mart couldn't sell porn. But if porn is legal in a given community, then Wal-Mart should sell porn--one-stop-shopping, right? Anyway, Wal-Mart could put the porn on the top shelf away from children. Wal-Mart could also sell porn that is packaged in a way that prevents men from browsing in fromt of children. Alcohol causes more physical injuries and violence in the home and among families than does porn, but such moral issues do not trouble Wal-Mart's management. Has anybody shopped at a Wal-Mart in Europe? and does Wal-Mart sell porn in their European stores where society is not as puritanical as here in the USA?
I wonder, however, if Wal-Mart would attempt to prohibit me from opening a porn shop next to or in the vicinity of Wal-Mart's superstore. Would Wal-Mart use its clout with the local government to prohibit me from opening such a store in a mall of small stores--camp-followers--that tend to open in the vicinity of one of Wal-Mart's stores. Perhaps it is a question of zoning-laws and the free market. Do zoning laws interfere with the free market and my use of a property?
Just yesterday, I was thinking of how I hadn't been to Wal-Mart in a couple of weeks in order to buy Atkins-friendly ice cream. And I concluded that I hadn't been to Wal-Mart to buy such ice cream, because I hadn't smoked a wonderful opium and pot joint in two weeks. Consequently, I hadn't had the munchies!
(I don't know if science and the mendacity, excuse me, the medical profession, or psychology profession have concluded with any certainty that pot can cause people to have the munchies.) Pot made me a good customer of Wal-Mart, because I was buying a lot of Atkins-friendly ice cream. (I wasn't smoking my opium and pot joints at Wal-Mart, o.k.! I wouldn't want to "send kids the wrong message"!) Now NORML published a report a few years ago that listed corporations that had given money to
the anti-pot lobby, lobbiests who lobby Congress to maintain the prohibition of pot. Consequently, Wal-Mart ilserves its many (?) customers who smoke opium and pot (Al Gore, too?) by aiding in the government's restrictions to the free market. Ludwig von Mises use to say no compromise. I think that Wal-Mart does compromise with the government with a relish.
Published: July 6, 2004 10:15 AM
Let's see if somebody makes a documentary called "A Day Without Wal-Mart", just to see what would happen.
Published: July 6, 2004 12:46 PM
And thus the confused Misesian idea about "consumer sovereignty" surfaces in a comment on the blog.
Rothbard clearly criticizes Mises's use of the phrase consumer sovereignty and claims that "individual sovereignty" is better. He's right.
If Wal-Mart has a policy against selling porn, then more power to them. There are two parties to every exchange: a buyer and a seller. And, just because the buyer wants something doesn't mean they can force the seller to provide it! Yet, that's what Luke implies when he says that Wal-Mart "should sell porn" if people want it.
Producers have no moral or legal responsibility to provide what consumers want. If a Christian owner of a bookstore decides not to sell porn because it will result in psychic losses (despite the monetary profit), then they should not sell porn. The same is true for anyone that believes that porn is destructive to good families, including Wal-Mart executives.
Published: July 6, 2004 12:55 PM
The customer is sovereign, both as an individual as well as en masse. When customers walk switch allegiance, even powerful businesses can be driven toward bankrupcy . . . . which was exactly what happened to the Chrysler Corp in the early 1980's. Here, America's 3rd lagest corporation needed a government bailout.
WalMart has already seen the writing on the wall re an impending bubble burst. They're even started putting one-dollar items (the same items as one finds in the dollar stores) on some of the shelves in the store closest to where I live. When the bubble bursts, many WalMart stores may actually remain operational. Who knows, they may even start trading in second-hand goods if a major recession occurs.
Harry Valentine
Published: July 6, 2004 2:21 PM
Harry,
Consumer sovereignty exists in as far as consumers decide which businesses live and which die. Though, actually, a producer running a successful business is just as capable of shutting it down as consumers that don't like it. If he decides that he's bored of running it, he can shut it down. There are two parties to every exchange, and both are equally responsible for the exchange occurring.
The real problem comes when we take the de facto sovereignty of either consumer or producer and attach to it a moral or legal imperative. When we start making statements like "producers should provide what consumers want" or "producers must fulfill consumer desires", we are making ethical claims that, simply, are unfounded.
Can a business survive without consumers? No. But neither can a market survive without producers.
The beauty of the market is that it harmonizes the desires and resources of producers and consumers so that both end up as well off as possible, and neither is made the slave of the other.
Published: July 6, 2004 2:36 PM
Luke,
Even sticking to "the customer is always right," one can support Wal-Mart's decision not to offer porn. The porn consumer is not WalMart's only customer. Enough other customers may be offended, even allowing for the safety measures you noted, that WalMart will lose business on the whole by offering porn. WalMart can currently brand themselves as a family-friendly place where you don't have to worry about your child coming across anything unsavory. Even assuming WalMart execs are porn addicted opium smokers, it still may be in their financial best interests to maintain a family-friendly shopping environment.
As always, decisions concerning other people's money, either as a government regulator or an armchair analyst, are not as sound as decisions made with one's own money.
Published: July 6, 2004 2:54 PM
one thing about all these anti WM screeds that escapes me, is that NO ONE is forcing anyone to work there or shop there ! Some crusaders would have us stop working and shopping there. Those idealists need a better PR campaign then.
Published: July 6, 2004 5:51 PM
funny, all this talk about how righteous wal-mart is for not selling pornography yet the FAMILY FRIENDLY store sell guns and rifles. Pure hypocrisy!! Everything they stand for is BS. While they make billions in profits and preach family values, it screws over it's employees by discriminating against them (mostly women) and denying them benefits that god knows they can afford many times over. when you say that no one is forced to work there, you must be in la la land. only someone who is in the higher income bracket would make such a comment. its easy to screw over those with few options available to them! give me a break with how walmart is a victim.
Published: July 7, 2004 9:09 AM
Wow, Liz,
I was unaware of the terrible evils of Wal-Mart. I didn't know that they did something as terribly hypocritical as arming men so they can spend time with their sons going hunting while refusing to sell porn. Of course, maybe these guns aren't all used for hunting... Maybe some are used to protect families from intruders. Fact is, basically none will be used for crimes, because of how traceable legal gun sales are. I'll be honest, though. I don't own a gun. I plan on never owning a gun. Pacifists who don't like hunting have no reason to. But I don't fall into this silly argument that guns are "anti-family" just because accidents can happen that get people killed. Fact is, cars are even more anti-family by that standard, but you don't see anyone calling minivans "anti-family", now do you?
I was also unaware that Wal-Mart was conscripting workers draft-style. That's what force is, Liz. It's not just being the best option available. The way you talk, I'm not expecting the Wal-Mart Draft Police to knock down my door and drag me to employee training. But, that's not the way it works. To say it is is a touch bold. And that IS what you say when you claim that people are forced to work there.
Discrimination and denial of benefits... What do you mean precisely? How are women discriminated against? Paying them lower wages, despite mass opinion, isn't discrimination. It's just realizing market conditions. Example, please.
As far as denying benefits. I assume you don't mean "they offer benefits and then break their promises". As long as that's the case, there's no problem. If I "deny benefits" to my coworker because when he asks for money for his medical bills, what have I done wrong? Or, even better, if I "deny benefits" by just not offering them, then so what? What have I done wrong?
If you hate Wal-Mart, fine. Go somewhere else. Buy from other stores, and work someplace else. But don't make these ethical claims with no backing.
Published: July 7, 2004 10:21 AM
WM & guns: more guns, less crime. See John Lott's research.
WM & discrimination: WM is innocent until proven guilty, and "discrimination" is nearly impossible to prove, especially in a complex economy. What's more, a profit-driven company like WM would be neglecting its fiduciary duty to shareholders by discriminating. There is no coherent way that anyone can condemn WM for being "profit-driven" and "discriminating" at the same time.
WM and "force:" Force is coercion. Nothing more, nothing less. Just because someone doesn't have a lot of options doesn't mean they are "forced" to do anything. Unless WM is rounding people up and making them work at gunpoint, no "force" is involved.
Ad hominem attacks: childish name-calling, not "arguments" at all. Also demonstrably false: I'm nowhere near the top of the income distribution, and I would make "such a comment."
Most of the people who have written to me personally, even if they disagreed, have been cordial. That's the essence of civilized discourse. So let's keep the temper-tantrums and name-calling off the Blog comments and out of one another's email inboxes, hmm?
Published: July 7, 2004 10:25 AM
Calm down Liz, quit acting like a victim. No one is forced to work anywhere. We have the freedom to chose our employers based on our skillset, and likewise, employers have the freedome to choose their employees.
Wal-mart appears to have little problem finding employees to man their stores. If WM's employment policies were as bad as the media depicts, WM would have a serious employee shortage. Current WM employees would be looking for another job. Please don't tell me they have no choice because they make minimum wage. In my neighborhood WM shopping center there is a Best Buy, Toys-R-Us, Party City, Shoe Pavilion, Ralph's, Michael's, Long's Drugs, Starbucks, Petco, and numerous smaller shops and restaurants. There are more than enough job opportunities for disgruntled WM workers.
WM is successful because the business decisions they make satisfies consumers. They resist any policy that would force them to raise their prices, including unionization.
I shop at WM simply for the low prices and massive selection. I do not expect Nordstroms-type service. I don't like battling the crowds and sometimes messy aisles but the low prices make up for the minor inconveniences. And even then, I usually can't find everything I need at WM so I head over to my local Target. There's always a choice.
Published: July 7, 2004 11:55 AM
I have never fully understood why people are so interested in forcing Wal-Mart to sell what they want it to sell. If Wal-Mart decided not to carry Michael Keaton movies it would be within their prerogative to do so. I am not convinced that just opening your doors to the public allows casual pundits to tell you what type of merchandise to carry. I lived in Birmingham a few years ago when an affiliate of the local TV station choose to make a stand against the show Ellen. This was the first show where she was going to "come out of the closet." While I do not pretend to know what the motive of the station was in being the only affiliate in the country to not air the show. I am still unaware of any legal reason that they are not allowed to restrict syndicate programming. I celebrated the exercise of their rights to make a decision like this for their small TV station.
Wal-Mart is open to attack from many sources. This may be a result of bad practices, or it maybe a result of being the dominate force in the market (everyone hates the big guy). I don't shop at Wal-Mart, because I prefer my local grocery store, or other specialty shops. I do however shop regularly at Sam's Club and am a proud member for the past 15 years. There is something essentially capitalistic (read American) about each experience at Sam's club. My family often boasts about the "deals" they have found on furniture, kitchen products, books, DVDs, and other items. I am unaware if they sell porn or not, I do know that they sell alcohol (In Missouri it is legal). I am very glad that they do this for the prices are quite reasonable. If they stopped selling these products for any reason they would loose that business, but I would still be a big fan of the store.
Mr. Carden correctly asserts that Wal-Mart has no need to carry items it deems unnecessary for business. They are making a business decision, they are not truly a "one-stop shop" if you need various specialty items (cars, canoes, high end stereo equipment, and until recently gas). Maybe Wal-Mart can sell more self-help books, if they are not adjacent to “busty lady� magazine. You may just have to get your porn some place else.
Published: July 7, 2004 1:02 PM
At least Wal-Mart is trying to make their merchandise affordable to the every day person. To me a the every day person is someone who has a job and works for a living. No matter what one thinks, Wal-Mart has forced others to be competive with pricing of products. Wal-Mart is my favorate store. So far as driving others out of business - none sense. God Bless Wal-Mart.
Published: July 7, 2004 7:17 PM
My sister once ran a bookstore in a small Southern town. One of the books she had on the shelf was "How Wal-Mart is Destroying America", the usual polemic about mom-and-pop stores drying up, etc. The problem was, she had opened the store after the Supercenter opened, so she really had no excuse. Stores that have survived have done it by specializing and by adding services that Wal-Mart can't give.
I personally try to avoid Wal-Mart (my local store is Always too crowded), except on the days when gotta-have-it DVDs are released.
Published: July 7, 2004 9:02 PM
From what I have heard, Wal-Mart has taken in a whopping one billion dollars in taxpayer-subsidized corporate welfare. That aside, otherwise I admire their efficiency. But there are so many other negatives. First, the way they treat their workers -- like in our local store. That is why I shop at Hy-Vee, which is worker-owned and operated. Also, Wal-Mart is on the "vanguard" of the surveillance state, RFID-chip future-shock paradigm. Their prescription drugs (bad enough) are being tracked with them already, and is there any mention of a way to disable those chips after purchase? My brother bought a CD from Wal-Mart, and since the label had been pasted over the "censored version" sticker, he was unable to enjoy Rob Zombie's music in its full phantasmagoric form. So he got a refund. Wouldn't that sticker action be considered an act of fraud or misrepresentation? I personally try to patronize local and small businesses because they are closer to the heart and soul of what business is supposed to be -- serving the individual consumer the best it can, and developing a personal relationship that helps keep the community together. I no longer shop at Wal-Mart, unless I can't find an item anywhere else. I guess I just don't like being called, "Hun" when I enter those pearly, camera-lined gates!!
Published: July 7, 2004 10:02 PM
Those here who would imply that it's a simple matter to "work elsewhere" or "shop elsewhere" are very literally ignorant of the most fundamental social workings. Learn, then comment.
Published: April 17, 2007 12:26 PM
Target, Family Dollar, Dollar General, K-Mart, Albertson's for general merchandise. Albertson's, Reasor's, Warehouse Market for groceries. Those are the ones in my city that I can think of off the top of my head. I could probably list a few more by looking through the phone book. And, of course, I'm not listing all the specialty places that exist for different niches (drug stores, book stores, auto parts, etc.).
In short, yes, I DO have a choice if I don't want to shop or work at Wal-Mart.
Published: April 17, 2007 2:29 PM