Nathan Moore's Thoughts
The Left v. The Waltons
Mary Mancini explains why liberals detest Wal-Mart
Wal*Mart needs to balance their responsiblity to their shareholders with their responsiblity to their customers, their employees, and their country. Other corporations are able to do it and maintain good returns for their owners/shareholders and they can too – they simply choose not to.
Wal*Mart can still offer low prices that are attractive to low-income families AND be good corporate citizens. The two are not mutually exclusive. Doing so, however, may cut into their profits a bit. But really, how many billions of dollars does one family need?
The last sentence is the problematic underlying theme – the answer is “as much as they earn.” As for corporate priorities, shareholder profit is the first and primary. It is up to local communities and governments to keep Wal-Mart in line, if such an approach is deemed necessary. But to complain the Waltons make too much money is a non-starter. As for the complaints of worker treatment, most of those have been debunked (I have to get going to see a client, and will have to post the links later).
If a community doesn’t want a Wal-Mart, there’s this thing called zoning which can take care of the problem. Unfortunately for Wal-Mart opponents, a lot of communities desire a Wal-Mart. It’s good for the consumer, offers jobs, and increases property values.
December 1st, 2005 at 11:55 am
Well, this family’s bills were paid because a Walton had money to spend to hire my musband and some of his co-workers for several weeks this summer. It’s not as if these folks just put the money under their mattresses and it does no one any good.
It did seem a bit circular, though, to take that money and spend it at Sam’s.
December 1st, 2005 at 1:16 pm
There are many reason people dislike the Walmart corporation, one of the many reasons is that it is De Facto policy to have their employees use Medicaid and Welfare as supplements to their wages and benefits (something like 10K in Tennessee use TennCare). Perhaps if they worried more about taking care of their employees than padding their wallets, there wouldn’t be so much animosity towards the company.
I know the Republican line will be that the “left” is jealous of walmart or hates capitalism. But you don’t seem to see the same hatred towards similar companies like Costco that offer higher salaries, benefits, and cheaper prescription drugs. Eventually the free-market will win out, and the Walmart business plan of reduced pay/benefits in order to create lower prices will ultimately win out, because their employees can’t afford to shop anywhere else
December 1st, 2005 at 2:46 pm
Costco is union. Wal-mart is not. Unions give crap loads of money to people to go against Wal-Mart as punishment. Unions want Wal-Mart to go union so they can get more dues and more power.
When younger I worked at Meijer, a superstore company very similar to Wal-Mart but was union. While working for Meijer, I got an unexpected dollar an hour raise.
Why? Because of union? Because I was so damned talented?
No, because the Wal-Mart a mile down the road raised their wages, and the Meijer was afraid of a mass exodus of workers.
Most employees of Wal-mart are part-timers anyway. Unionizing Wal-mart would be like unionizing McDonalds. Pointless.
December 1st, 2005 at 2:52 pm
Only about 18% of the Costco workforce is unionized. Yet they all get great benefits, and the store is still profitable.
December 1st, 2005 at 3:24 pm
Costco’s unionization doesn’t make it a better employer, it’s just indicative of poorer management.
December 1st, 2005 at 4:49 pm
“De Facto policy to have their employees use Medicaid and Welfare as supplements to their wages and benefits (something like 10K in Tennessee use TennCare).”
Yeah, well WalMart employs something like 40,000 workers in TN, so 25% of their workers are TennCare enrollees. That’s the same as the state average – 1 in 4 Tennesseans are on TennCare. It says more about TennCare being too large than WalMart not paying employees enough.
December 1st, 2005 at 5:07 pm
My beef with Wal-Mart is coming from a supplier standpoint. I don’t think their de facto price controls are healthy for the larger U.S. Economy. I used to work for a company that made photo albums, baby books and paper plates. We used to make 10,000 SKUS in US factories that would be sold to mom and pop stores across the country at a 35-40% margin. Because of Big Box stores–Wal-Mart & Target leading the pack, that got scaled down to 1,800 SKUS all made in China. Approx. 200 of those skus went to Big Box stores, the rest went to Mom & Pops. More than 300 people lost jobs in manufacturing and management positions over the course of these events. Since the Big Box stores pay out margins of 12-24%, a company like mine has to exist on larger margins pulled from the independant seller. This means prices are even lower in a Wal-Mart than they are at Susie’s Gift Store–thus creating a monopoly situation in favour of Wal-Mart. It also means that a company like mine isn’t as diversified in its manufacturing, which means that the company has a more precarious existence. If people stop buying photo albums and that is 25% of your business you aren’t as crippled as when photo albums are 80% of your business.
I don’t care how much money the Walton family has, as long as it isn’t earned out of the hides of thousands of other Americans.
December 1st, 2005 at 5:08 pm
My point was to say that maybe they could lead by example, open up the vaults, and give a bit more to their employees so they could give more back to the community that made them what they are. Maybe this is a communist ideal, i dunno, it just seems like the right thing to do in a Christian nation.
As for Costco’s being unionized being indicative of poorer management? Perhaps its indicitive of a lack of union hostility which requires Walmart to close down stores that even consider unionization, and have paid staff whose job is solely to union bust.
December 1st, 2005 at 5:29 pm
Sean,
That is rather communist of you, sorta. Initially, corporations exist for their shareholders’ benefit, period. As for the consumers – they obtain a benefit from Wal-Mart in shopping variety and lower prices. Wal-Mart doesn’t “owe” the community anything. Providing goods and jobs in mass amounts is the payoff for the community. Besides, Wal-Mart gave nearly $170 million last year to charities and nonprofits. It’s not like they’re stingy.
Katherine makes a good point as far as some of Wal-Mart’s more draconian practices with suppliers. There are some anti-trust concerns, to be sure, but those concerns don’t tend to overlap with the standard liberal complaints about the company. The real issues unfortunately tend to get muddled with the faux issues.
N
December 1st, 2005 at 6:52 pm
“Costco’s unionization doesn’t make it a better employer, it’s just indicative of poorer management.”
huh??????????
so..every company that is unionized is poorly managed?
December 1st, 2005 at 6:54 pm
Unions are bad for the shareholders, who management works for – so yes, from that perspective an overwhelming union presence does compromise management. Of course, once your unionized, you work with what you’ve got.
N
March 11th, 2006 at 11:02 am
spuw8fz2M7cm Z52hqFdV6S8TM Zx0cPIE8qEqKrR
January 23rd, 2007 at 1:37 pm
sskizdre
June 22nd, 2007 at 5:37 am
Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! njjwyvquxgj