(The original, incomplete post was not intended to be published.)
In a recent NY Times editorial, former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich took on what may be the true culture divide in this country - the economic divide, which is exemplified in the debate over whether large, efficient chain stores are a good thing or a bad thing. Too often, the arguments I hear people making against Walmart, Barnes and Noble, or Starbucks, sound out of touch with reality in one way or another, and the critics come off sounding like they just don't understand the basics of market economics.
Finally, here's someone making an argument for reforms, but with a grounded, common sense approach, that doesn't come off sounding holier-than-thou. The proposals he makes are certainly debatable, but I like the way he's trying to start a rational debate on the issue. Read the whole column, and then provide any commentary:
In the eyes of Wal-Mart's detractors, the Arkansas-based chain embodies the worst kind of economic exploitation: it pays its 1.2 million American workers an average of only $9.68 an hour, doesn't provide most of them with health insurance, keeps out unions, has a checkered history on labor law and turns main streets into ghost towns by sucking business away from small retailers.
But isn't Wal-Mart really being punished for our sins? After all, it's not as if Wal-Mart's founder, Sam Walton, and his successors created the world's largest retailer by putting a gun to our heads and forcing us to shop there.
Instead, Wal-Mart has lured customers with low prices. "We expect our suppliers to drive the costs out of the supply chain," a spokeswoman for Wal-Mart said. "It's good for us and good for them." . . .
. . . Meanwhile, many of us pressure companies to give us even better bargains. I look on the Internet to find the lowest price I can and buy airline tickets, books, merchandise from just about anywhere with a click of a mouse. Don't you?
. . . (O)ur debates about economic change take place between two warring camps: those who want the best consumer deals, and those who want to preserve jobs and communities much as they are. Instead of finding ways to soften the blows, compensate the losers or slow the pace of change - so the consumers in us can enjoy lower prices and better products without wreaking too much damage on us in our role as workers and citizens - we go to battle.
Article comments
1 - Aaman
He took on the real as in? Opposed the Brazilian currency?:)
Maybe he's going to be working for Walmart, in their labor/HR department.
Like Duct-Tape Ridge working for Home Depot
:)(Link to Reich article on NYT)
2 - Dave Nalle
I've observed in our area that although when Wal-Mart first came into the small towns the main street shops began to die, after a few years the trend reversed itself because of ex-urbanization and many of those main streets have now come back to life with chic boutiques, antique stores and other high-market stores which find a main street storefront desirable. The point being that you're always going to have change in the dynamic of a local environment, and sometimes the change seems worse than it ends up being in the long run.
Dave
3 - Yensid
I don't like the way you just pulled out parts of this article to place a spin on this debate. To read the ENTIRE article and the VERY good point he makes Click Here.
4 - Aaman
Excellent point, Dave - every time in the past that working populations have been displaced by changes in the business model, the dynamic nature of free markets and competition have ensured a general improvement and growth. There is no reason to believe it will be any different this time around.
Wal-Mart acts as a powerful disintermediator for the global economy. If it coupled this power with ethical corporate governance and social improvement focus, we could really have the beginnings of a new social management model, one where a large corporation takes on the responsibility for maintaining and improving local communities. At present, the local communities see not much benefit from the large corporations that come in to their midst, apart from increased real estate prices, parking and traffic hassles and job growth for some (although jobs tend to go to the able and flexible, irrespective of residential proximity)
5 - Harry Forbes
Your commentary reminded me that one can take different and inconsistent positions on such questions depending upon whether one is a producer or consumer.
Milton Firedman's old joke is apt; The 2 biggest enemies of a market economy are big business and college professors. The first because they want socialism for themselves and free markets for everyone else, and the latter because they want free markets for themselves, but socialism for everyone else.
6 - Thad
I think that Reich is really tapping into the biggest communication problem that the left has today. As soon as someone says they're "anti-globalization" or "anti-chain stores," they're immediately turning off a good 75% of this country. Most people are going to assume, off the bat, that "anti-globalization" or "anti-Walmart" protestors are inherently anti-business.
Some of the things these people are advocating aren't that extreme. But by framing their arguments into a "pro/anti" language, they're setting themselves up in a head-to-head battle against market economics, which is the basic organizing structure of Western, democratic societies.
Moreover, that argument comes across as elitist, and out of touch with American society. In Shreveport, Louisiana, the Barnes and Noble is the only place you can buy a godd**n copy of the Atlantic Monthly or Harper's!
7 - SFC SKI
Blaming Wal-Mart or chainstores for the death of all we hold dear and the exploitation of the working class, blah, blah, blah. Truth is, a Wal-mart hires more folks in a lot of communities than it puts out of work, and that has more to do with changings in Amrican habits and town and city government (mis)management than any labor practices. A good town council will try to get a Walmart put in in a place that will add to there commercial district, not detract from it, but that is not always the case. A good store with a community base can survive even in a town with a Wal-mart, but it is tougher, and the same arguments were made when shopping malls became more common 25 years ago.
Those downtown stores that close down to be reborn as antique shops and boutiques? They make most of their trade on weekends, holidays, and vacation periods. Why did they die out in their original incarnation? Because Joe Sixpack wants to take his car to a place where he can actually park, and get his lawnmower, tacklebox, bass boat, 9mm ammo, case of beer, work clothes, dog food, and latest Stephen King novel, and chips and salsa all from one place, get in his car and go home or work or to a recreation area. His wife wants to be ableto get the back to school shopping and grocery shopping done without wrestling kids in and out of car seats and bouncing them in carriages up and down sidewalks in several small specialty stores. Neither of them want to drive down a narrow city street and drive around the block looking for parking.
Now, I have lived in Germany for about 10 years, and the Wal-Marts are doing well, but so are the small stores, Germany has a culture that supports, practically demands a large pedestrian only market district, a good combination of stores and cafes that people go to to practice shopping as recreation as well as support the city dwellers needs, but when they need to purchase alot of items, the schlep it from Wal-mart like a lot of others.
A positive trend in some US cities is the return to the European model of a carfree downtown shopping area abutting both commercial and residential districts.
8 - akfox
The fact is, Wal-Mart benefits everyone, whether they like it or not. If your little shop went out of business, it is because you could not compete. If you could not compete, it is because Wal-Mart sold the same (or similar) goods in a more convenient setting, at comparable quality, and at a much lower price. Also, and this is only my observation, everywhere I have been where there is a Wal-Mart, big or small town, downtown is booming. Wal-Mart sells furniture, but the furniture stores are still open. Wal-Mart sells clothing, but the clothing stores are still open. Wal-Mart sells groceries, but there are 3 other grocery stores in my town that are still managing to do well. If Wal-Mart is such a killer of small town economies, please explain to me how this is possible?
So what if they pay their average worker $9.68/hr and don't provide health insurance? Their average worker is a part time employee, usually a student or a bored housewife. Who gives medical benefits to part time workers? Those who do work full-time with Wal-Mart do indeed receive health benefits, and make more than the average. If people want to gripe about their job, perhaps they should pursue their next best alternative...or would that take too much effort? Perhaps they realize that Wal-Mart is their best alternative. Perhaps they should be grateful for the job Wal-Mart has provided for them.
But I don't expect that any time soon.
--Fox
9 - Richard Porter
Discussing the evils of Wal-Mart hold no water at all when you consider some facts.
Their pricing on products is not just a little better than your local stores, it is in a completely different world all together.
Wal-Mart hires a great deal of people with benefits. Does anyone have a problem with keeping people employed?
There will always be room for certain "niche" stores which have their loyal customers that do not care about price.
The same had been said before when stores like Caldors came, then came K-Mart, then Target, and now Wal-Mart, BJ's and Costco. There is plenty of room for everyone.
10 - Hal Pawluk
An important part of the Reich column was this:
Our "Faustian bargain" has lowered the quality of life in America.This will continue.
11 - Aaman
Until social, global equilibrium is established, perhaps?
12 - Richard Porter
Hal,
An interesting article appeared in today's NY post regarding the myths surrounding introducing Wal-Mart into neighborhoods. Hopefully this link will clear things up.
LINK TO NY POST ARTICLE
13 - Richard Porter
Actually that didn't go right. I'll post in a few mins, trying to figure out how to link this comment.
14 - Richard Porter
Here is the NY Post Article,thanks for the patience..
NYPOST article on Wal-Mart
15 - Hal Pawluk
Yes on the equilibrium.
But the way it's achieved is the way water seeks its own level - more developed countries will lose, in fact are losing, and lesser developed countries will gain.
Eventually this process will stop and all will start gaining, but there's no measure of when "eventually" will be, nor how deep the decline.
How long do you think the American quality of life will continue to decline?
16 - Aaman
I, for one, am glad that 'lesser developed', as you term them, countries will gain.(The preferred term is 'developing', I believe)
The pie will only get bigger, don't worry - despite the naysayers, global capitalism is a rising tide that will lift all boats, a few ebbs and troughs notwithstanding
17 - Thad
For the record, I have definitely seen small towns where the downtowns have been completely wiped out as a result of new chain stores. But I also agree with the point made earlier, which is that those districts often are revived with speciality/luxury shops - stores that succeed as "destinations" rather than selling on price or convenience (which Walmart will almost always win on).
It might be the case that this trend is more likely to happen in larger towns and cities, but it just not possible in really small towns. I don't know.