Comments (14)

• Jeff Lonsdale

• That show was somewhat biased, but I don't have a problem with the overall premise that there are government subsidies of different types taht Walmart is taking advantage of.

  As for the claim that Walmart might be making things harder on the state government by creating more people in need of state welfare - it does seem like walmart could be taking advantage of the fact that the supply of people willing to work for a certain wage is high due to government subsidies, and these people are indifferent about finding higher paying jobs when they won't get any more benefits because they would lose government assistance.

• Published: September 25, 2004 3:20 AM

• Anonymous Coward

• WalMart is behaving a way suited to its own best interests, as can be expected. If the government is doing something to ensure that WalMart's best interests are not necessarily those of the general population, the problem is not with WalMart, it's with what the government is doing. WalMart's not evil; government is evil.

• Published: September 25, 2004 6:30 AM

• David Heinrich

• I have to disagree with the anonymous statement above. I think I can best explain it by rephrasing the comment:

  People on welfare are behaving in a way suited to their own best interests, as can be expected. If the government [State] is doing something to ensure that their best interests are not necessarily those of the general population, the problem is not with people on welfare, it's with what the government [State] is doing. People on welfare are not evil; government is evil.

  While I do not disagree with any of the criticisms of the State -- it creates these perverse moral situations -- that still does not liberate individually acting immorally and against natural law from bearing in the moral responsibility of their actions. Whether or not the State makes it easy to steal from other people, you still should not do it. Likewise, the "reasoning" of the anonymous poster could have been used to excuse slaveholders of the past from the moral responsibility of their actions: after all, they were acting in their best interests, and it was only the States various laws socializing the costs of enforcing slavery that allowed them to continue doing so.

• Published: September 25, 2004 2:19 PM

• Paul D

• Very good points, David. Legality does not equal morality, and one can't place sole blame on the government for the immoral actions of a person or company.

  For Wal-Mart to subsidize its employees with taxpayer money in California is wrong. For Wal-Mart to collude with the government in the seizure of private property* is reprehensible. The people who participated in those decisions at Wal-Mart don't get to wash their hands of it just because the State allowed it.

  *References:
  This has happened in Denver (http://www.pushhamburger.com/wallmart.htm), Arvada CO (http://tinyurl.com/5mn3n), Clemson SC (http://tinyurl.com/4hdaw), and Alabaster AL (http://tinyurl.com/5ksup); perhaps elsewhere as well. A pattern of corporate banditry seems clear.

• Published: September 25, 2004 4:25 PM

• Anonymous Coward

• David: what you say is true, but the majority of people don't understand your view of morality. That's not to say that yours isn't the right one, but if people are brought up believing something is OK, and everything they see confirms that belief, it's hard to hold it against them when they act on it. So while I do agree that the "evil" behaviour of WalMart (and of welfare recipients) is, in fact, immoral, I can't say WalMart (or welfare recipients) are "evil" as long as they exist in the environment they do, without some evidence that they know their behaviour is evil. The fault is squarely on the government's shoulders.

• Published: September 26, 2004 4:35 AM

• Magnus Andersén

• Hello all.

  Wal-Mart could be considered to just trying to take some back what has been stolen from them by the state thru taxation etc.?
  They are probably still getting more stolen from them in taxes and such than they recieve back as benefits, right?
  I do not know much about the US corporate system so I might be wrong.

  Best, M.

• Published: September 26, 2004 9:35 PM

• Ike Hall

• Magnus,

  That's certainly one way of looking at it, and it's probably how most productive people look upon receiving government handouts: well, I'm just getting some of mine back. This attitude does in fact make sense in some rare instances, such as unemployment insurance. Far better, though, for the money not to be stolen by the government in the first place, especially for such schemes as those that increase moral hazard generally, such as unemployment insurance.

  As regards the private property stolen by the government to give to Wal-Mart, or any other private entity, I doubt the landowners feel that justice has been served.

• Published: September 26, 2004 10:06 PM

• Francisco Torres

• Morality considerations notwithstanding, it would be really stupid for Walmart to avoid such incentives, because it would make the most financial sense. If I was the finance manager on Walmart and out of the goodness of my heart, and my sense of fairness, did not consider such incentives, I would get fired (and rightly so). Again, morality notwithstanding - shareholders are not concerned about the particular moral views of the company top officials, they are interested in getting the most out of their investment.

  So is Walmart being "immoral" or dishonest by accepting these tax breaks? Of course not! They are simply being LOGICAL. If there is one party to blame, it is the goverment for playing with stolen money, not Walmart.

• Published: September 27, 2004 10:12 AM

• Paul D

• "Morality considerations notwithstanding..."

  Well, OBVIOUSLY if you don't consider morality, stealing money and property is advantageous to the one doing it. "Morality notwithstanding, stealing from people is a great idea," is not exactly an inspiring argument on behalf of Wal-mart.

• Published: September 27, 2004 1:12 PM

• Francisco Torres

• "Morality notwithstanding, stealing from people is a great idea," is not exactly an inspiring argument on behalf of Wal-mart.

  How long do you think Wal-mart would be in business if people realized the company is "stealing"? Paul, Wal-mart is not stealing from anybody, the goverment is. Some posters above argue that Wal-mart indulges in immoral or unethical behaviour whenever accepting these incentives, but it is not up to Wal-mart to redeem the world or to give the non plus ultra image of morality or ethical rectitude; it is to supply goods at the best price possible.

  The ethical issues rest squarely on the shoulders of those who give the incentives with stolen money AND on the shoulders of those citizens who meekly allow this. Wal-mart is simply following the best financial sense.

  If you watched the video (available through the link) you must have seen that it is not only Wal-mart who accepts tax breaks from State or local goverments, but also industrial manufacturers like Toyota and Honda... Are these stealing money also? Should they stand up in their moral high-horse and not accept these tax breaks? What if THEIR competitors accept the breaks instead? That is what I mean by making the most financial sense, moral issues notwithstanding.

• Published: September 28, 2004 10:32 AM

• Dr. Mark Thornton

• Wal-Mart's job is to make money for its shareholders. It is a reflection of America, particularly low-income America. It didn't create these subsidy policies (aka economic development policies), it didn't create welfare policy and labor regulations, and it didn't create working conditions in China. These are some of the many things that Wal-Mart must deal with on the road to making profits. It that regard I think it is appropriate to conclude that it has been a success and that we all have benefitted from Wal-Mart, even the snobs who turn their noses up at the mention of Wal-Mart.

• Published: September 28, 2004 11:07 AM

• Lisa Casanova

• If the argument that Wal-Mart takes advantage of the fact that welfare systems are available in order to pay low wages to their employees has any validity (which I don't believe it does), wouldn't this same criticism apply to any business operating in the U.S.? Every state has public assistance of some kind for people who say they cannot afford everything from health care to a roof over their head to food for their kids. It's available everywhere to everyone, not just employees of Wal-Mart. Doesn't that mean that theoretically, every employer "costs" the community they're in if any of their employees collect any kind of public assistance because they say wages from their employer don't cover their needs? I would be interested if anyone has ever tried to examine how the availability of public assistance might distort wage rates and labor markets.

• Published: September 28, 2004 2:13 PM

• Paul D

• "Paul, Wal-mart is not stealing from anybody, the goverment is."

  While I conceed that accepting tax-payers' money indirectly through the state may be a grey area, eminent domain isn't.

  What do you call it when Wal-Mart convinces a city council to seize private property, and then gleefully moves in and builds a Supercenter or a parking lot?

  I didn't kill him, Your Honor! The bullet from my gun did.

• Published: September 28, 2004 2:44 PM

• Francisco Torres

• "What do you call it when Wal-Mart convinces a city council to seize private property, and then gleefully moves in and builds a Supercenter or a parking lot?"

  If Wal-mart convinces a city council to take a property by force, then I call it stealing, Paul, and I do not condone it. Most of the time, however, it is city councils who INVITE companies to settle in a city by offering somebody else's property. The lousy rat here is goverment, again.

  
  

• Published: September 29, 2004 9:16 AM