The Two Faces Of Wal-Mart
Interesting column in The Washington Post this morning by Steven Pearlstein, noting that "Wal-Mart is now the symbol for all that is good and bad in the hypercompetitive global marketplace, its impact rippling to every corner of the U.S. economy."
Among the issues raised by Pearlstein (which also seem to be on the minds of many industry observers, especially in the media):
"Wal-Mart's relentless drive to deliver low prices now directly saves American consumers $20 billion a year by one estimate -- and probably several times that sum once the indirect effect on competitors is factored in. "
"To win Wal-Mart's business, suppliers have been forced to close U.S. factories and source overseas, with millions of American jobs lost in the process. Wal-Mart alone accounts for 10 percent of all imports from China, and its shelves bear little trace of the "Buy America" philosophy of its founder."
"The ruthless efficiency of Wal-Mart's supply chain accounts for as much as a quarter of the economy's recent productivity gains..."
"Surely no sector has felt the "Wal-Mart effect" more than retailing. The retail giant now accounts for 35 percent of food sales, 30 percent of consumer staples, 25 percent of drug store products and 15 percent of magazines, books and apparel. Entire chambers of commerce have been wiped out with the arrival of a new "superstore," while "greeting customers at Wal-Mart" has replaced "hamburger flipping" in the national debate over wages and trade."
Pearlstein sums it up as follows:
"In a rather neat way, Wal-Mart presents the essential dilemma of modern global capitalism: how to capture most of its benefits while minimizing the unpleasant side effects."
"Too much innovation and consumer saving would be lost if government were to step in to prevent Wal-Mart from opening new stores or purchasing goods from overseas -- which, in effect, is what its opponents would like."
"At the same time, we know that, in the face of the market's ruthless search for efficiency and growth, there are other ways for a wealthy society to assure all workers a minimal standard of living."
"I'm talking about a minimum wage that would put a family with two full-time workers above the poverty line in high-cost metropolitan areas -- and no doubt put upward pressure on wages at places like Wal-Mart."
"Or how about requiring employers like Wal-Mart to provide all workers with affordable health insurance, including part-timers and recent hires."
"And what about labor laws effective enough to prevent companies such as Wal-Mart that instruct managers never to hire anyone who once belonged to a union, that routinely fire any employee seen talking to a union organizer and that fly in special teams whenever a store's employees score too high on a "union probability index."
"Yes, such measures would likely force Wal-Mart to raise the price of jeans and chicken wings by a nickel or two, slow its growth, and maybe even shave a fraction of a point off real GDP."
"But that's not the issue. The issue we ought to be debating is what is an acceptable price to pay to restore a measure of fairness, equality and economic security to Wal-Mart nation. That is fundamentally a political issue, not an economic one."
KC's View: Wal-Mart can pretend these issues are just public relations nuisances, but they're not."
"They are fundamental questions about how we live, work, and shop in America. They are questions about diversity of choice, about standards of living, and about the long-term relationship between management and labor."
Good column, with questions that should be answered.
very simple. If you don't like it don't shop there. End of story.
We shouldn't presume to take the choice away from Americans by making the government do something to stop WalMart.
BTW, those stores suck anway and I don't shop there. This is a free country (at least for now) But its just not right to force them to change.
We are feeling their effect now, as our parent company is looking to build plants overseas to supply them, I am sure in the not to distant future the place where I work will no longer exsist.
Wal-Mart employs over 1 million people. That means approx. 1 in every 250 Americans work for Wal-Mart. They have changed the retail climate in so many different demographic areas it is almost beyond belief.
Originally posted by Dave C
We shouldn't presume to take the choice away from Americans by making the government do something to stop WalMart.
I think he's referring to the FTC stepping in to prevent a monopoly...it happens.
A monopoly in a free-market economy is no longer a free market.
Originally posted by superdave013
It's not free if you land on Boardwalk! lol, I've got hotels, houses a Walmart and 2 stores on strike there!
Pass go and get your 200.00
I don't know what you're talking about...
...I never got past Candyland.
Originally posted by Havasu Hangin'
I think he's referring to the FTC stepping in to prevent a monopoly...it happens.
A monopoly in a free-market economy is no longer a free market.
I'm not so sure he is referring to that. It is sooooooooooo far from a monopoly at this point. A few examples, Target, Mervyns, Macys, Sears, Kohls, K-Mart, Fred Meyer, Albertsons, Ralphs, Vons, Stater Bros, Raleys, Food 4 Less, Costco, Home Depot, Lowes...get the point? They may be the largest but they are NO WHERE NEAR a monopoly, to suggest this is ridiculous.
Reading that article I felt like the guy just got done reading the Communist Manifesto. Spun like a web. Or he was writing that article on behalf of the AFL-CIO.
Wal Mart has found the formula, Like Dave C said, if you don't like Wal Mart, vote with your feet. Don't shop there. Nothing will send them a more clear message.
How much do you want to bet their business keeps growing? I bet it does
Originally posted by Dr. Eagle
A few examples, Target, Mervyns, Macys, Sears, Kohls, K-Mart, Fred Meyer, Albertsons, Ralphs, Vons, Stater Bros, Raleys, Food 4 Less, Costco, Home Depot, Lowes...get the point? They may be the largest but they are NO WHERE NEAR a monopoly, to suggest this is ridiculous.
Not so fast.
If you look at market share...chains have been broken up for less. Wal Mart has already been served with anti-monopoly lawsuits. They have a reputation of price-fixing to put the competition in an uncompetetive environment.
I guess Robinson-Patman doesn't apply to Wal Mart. Here's (http://www.lawmall.com/wal-mart/index.html) some reading for you.
To suggest that you understand the dynamics from one article is ridiculous.
I agree that there are some anti-trust issues here. But there are still many competitors in their market still.
it is impossible for a private company to have a monopoly it a free enterprise system unless it is created by government...eg. the edison company soCal gas company ect. The only reason walMart succedes is because is they are providing what their customers want!
this article is communist in its point of you. ...the only fundamental questions needed to be asked and answered is America going to remain land of the free or is it going to fall in on it self with government restrictions on business?
Ask youself this ...is it better for the country for walMart to operate like Montgomery Wards did and as Kmart did? When will the libs realize we are strong in business as acountry inspite of our governments intervention not as a result of it! If the rest of the competition can't compete get the hell out the race!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote