Saturday, June 05, 2004
More Walmart
In this post, I am responding to the comments offered by "San, Juan" about Walmart in this post.
The following is my attempt to summarize his points (other than the gratuitous praise for the site which is always appreciated, disagreements are also always appreciated):
Thesis: Walmart is the most evil company in the US.
Supporting Points
1. Walmart focuses on its bottom line
I disagree with the thesis and feel that none of the points offered have anything to do with either good or evil. Specifically, I fail to see how a focus on a bottom or line or insufficient regulation has anything to do with being evil (morally wrong) as they are completely amoral practices from my perspective. Perhaps San can clarify this point by giving his definition of evil. (Also, should San respond to this point or any of my subsequent points, I'll post it on the main page in its entirety in the interest of having a fair debate.) Further point 2.c) appears to be taking issue with a traditional moral (obscenity is bad) which is bewildering in light of the thesis. Note I think this decision is largely based on amoral grounds (attempting to best serve their target demographic).
Issues that don't fit into my point by point response:
I don't feel that the "major problems in modern day American society" are adequately defined in order to begin a response as to whether or not Walmart contributes to those problems (may I add, this assertion would be different from an assertion that Walmart is evil). Perhaps these could be better defined.
San implies that he thinks Jack Welch and Donald Trump are evil. Again I feel an explanation is needed. On microsoft, I think they have engaged in some monopolistic practices (though nowhere near as many as they've been accused of). In light of evilness, I am also confused as to how Microsoft is evil; in terms of contributing to some problems in America, then sure, though I would say that Microsoft created problems are minor.
Point by point response
The following are point-by-point responses to specific assertions as part of San's post. Note many of my responses have nothing to do with the thesis (as often I am uncertain as to how it relates to the evilness of Walmart) and instead focus on the ramifications of what San is implicitly proposing.
On point 1a “Taking advantage of their size by buying directly from manufactures”
How is this practice unique to Walmart (needed to make them the most evil)? Is San's concern for the middleman? Why is it desirable (morally or economically) to have middlemen? To me it only seems an unnecessary inefficiency. For instance, what value does a middleman or distributor add to any product?
On point 1b "pressuring vendors into providing goods at artificially low rates (i.e. better to make a penny on that bag of Jellybeans, then to have the Earth’s largest retailer distribute someone else’s beans)”
These are two different points that San is making. 1) Give us stuff for cheap (ala low prices for Cheerios) 2) We’ll make our own and sell it cheap (and call it Toasted Oats) or sell someone else's (ala Sanyo).
On 1), umm that’s what happens in a market and everyone (literally) is doing that. To Walmart’s credit they a) pass along the savings to their customers and b) help their suppliers streamline their processes. These two things are not commonly done by other retailers. (which make them more moral in my mind, not less moral)
On 2) All retailers and supermarkets do this. Sears has been doing it for years. Walk into Kroger and note the FMV brand. Wade's sells Rich Foods. K-mart and Target also push brands that they largely developed.
As evil has not been demonstrated -who is hurt by these practices, unless San is positing that competition itself is evil (which I think he does later) – I do not see how this supports the point that Walmart is evil. As every other major corporation engages in the same practices, I do not see how this makes Walmart especially evil.
Finally, I think both of these actions are good things as they increase productivity.
On 1c) Predatory Pricing
Predatory pricing, is the temporary decrease of prices to drive competitors out of business. I do not feel that a temporary lowering of prices has occured nor even been considered in San's comment. Once Walmart starts raising prices that were artificially lowered, I’ll concede the point, but Walmart hasn’t done this yet.
Further, the concept of predatory pricing is predicated on an established company absorbing a temporary loss which its competitor cannot absorb, forcing the competitor out of business. As San's arguments 1a) and 1b) point out, Walmart is turning a profit because it is keeping its costs so low – thus Walmart is not absorbing a temporary loss. In fact, what Walmart is doing is operating more efficiently than its competitors. It’s not predatory pricing, it’s a market working exactly as it supposed to – less efficient companies are penalized, more efficient companies are rewarded.
Without this process, productivity gains are quite difficult to make (efficiency gains are effectively the same as a productivity gain) as inefficient practices continue. Without productivity gains, the only possible economic growth is from increased inputs (labor and materials). When economic growth is determined solely by increases in inputs, Malthusian, Club of Rome like predictions will be realized. Decrying businesses who make their primary focus gains in efficiencies in a world with an increasing population and finite resources is tantamount to advocating a Soylent Green world (my Toasted Oats are made from PEOPLE!). So from my perspective, Walmart is doing a very GOOD thing by keeping its costs down.
On 1d) Walmart's cost savings are a net bad thing for the economy
As San's argument cannot be neatly compressed into a single line, I'll give a longer description here. Walmart pays its employees too little and effectively causes its suppliers to do the same. Walmart's expansion puts other companies out of business. Due to secondary effects, the economy is then decreased as employment gains at Walmart cannot offset the losses elsewhere.
My response:
Paying its employees too little has zero effect on the economy (Consider if the same amount of "stuff" is being produced).
San's kinda macro, kinda micro economic analysis of secondary effects is flawed as it presumes that those displaced do not find other jobs and assumes that there has been some drop off in economic production. Presenting my counter argument in a Socratic like presentation (always dangerous in text, as the result is predicated on several steps, and without direct interaction, I can't catch misconceptions in the answers to the earlier questions which then damages the result, so I've supplied answers).
2. Lack of regulation (or lack of accountability which would be a better way of presenting the argument)
2a) Walmart is big.
So? Why does this matter? If they exerted monopolistic control over the market that would matter. But they don't.
b) As we're a democracy, the people should have control over Walmart.
(As an aside, I wonder if San knows that he is advocating the central point of National Socialism - private ownership, government control - and not democracy.1.) Indeed I believe it violates a central tenet of a well functioning democracy - limiting the tyranny of the majority.
Corporations have greater accountability than most governments. If you don’t like a practice, you can make your voice heard by not buying products there. Walmart, unless they employ you, has no control over you. Even in the employment case, you can quit at any time. Quitting from government control is much harder – you have to leave the country. BTW this is also why I am very much against a one world government, no matter what form it might take. I'll expand some more on these points in my latter point-by-point responses.
c) Walmart determines what it sells and won't sell what it deems "obscene." Walmart should not have this power.
On San's CD example, I think Jeremy did a good job responding (it’s called a market, more explicitly, it’s product differentiation). I would only strengthen the point by demonstrating the absurdity of attempting to deny Walmart the power of choosing what to sell.
Ultimately San is expressing a market preference for obscene material. Why Walmart should satisfy his preference I am unclear. Consider the following. Walmart sells DVDs. Why can’t I buy the DVD I made for the SDRForum at Walmart? I like wicker basket making. Why can’t I buy DVDs on wicker basket making at Walmart? At various times of the day, I have any one of 10 cajillion (that’s a metric unit) different preferences, why doesn’t Walmart stock enough DVDs to satisfy all of my preferences? Why doesn't Walmart sell every DVD ever made and stock them in store? Might there be practical considerations? Might Walmart be permitted to have its own preferences?
My hyperbolized point being, San's CD preference is just that, San's preference. If you feel the market that corresponds to your preference is being underserved, open up a store and it’ll do great. But forcing your preferences onto Walmart violate all sorts of GOOD principles including:
Property rights – it’s walmart’s store, they can sell what they want to on their property as long as that good/service isn't illegal otherwise in society (like you can’t buy anthrax from Walmart). If you can’t determine what you sell, in what sense do you own the store?
Limiting the tyranny of the majority – why should any entity in the minority have to do what someone else wants them to do for no other reason than to satisfy the majority’s preference? Think about how San's stance, admittedly in the least charitable light – though still an accurate depiction of the underlying dynamic – would be reflected in terms of civil rights and first amendment issues.
While San doesn’t want Walmart deciding what is obscene, why should San (or anyone else) get to to tell Walmart (and its patrons) what is obscene? Is this not an attempt to force a sense of morality onto Walmart and their patrons, deciding what is best for them? (Thason - here's another example contra Dan Savage, though San is not yet in a position of power so it does not make San a sinnercrat) Would it seem right if BET was forced to show Birth of a Nation, or SKG be forced to distribute the Protocolsof the Elders of Zion?
d) Walmart is a hypocrite because it purchases goods from companies that use cheap labor in Honduras.
How are labor practices of Honduras and the choice of which CDs to sell related (as implied by "practicing what they preach")? San has conflated different aspects of morality in his hypocrisy charge and again is imposing his morality onto Walmart.
Ignoring that point and focusing on what I think San meant (Walmart is unfairly exploting Hondurans), I have three points. 1) Even under San's criteria, I don’t see how this supports San's assertion that Walmart is especially evil (Nike, Target, Kmart, every supermarket that imports some food, virtually every retailer) 2) It’s not evil to provide a job, even a "bad" job, to someone in a place where an economy is underdeveloped, in fact it’s a good thing.
Continuing on 2), I’ve been debating this point with people approximately monthly for at least 10 or so years. So again attempting the folly of the Socratic method in text:
Corporations are inherently amoral, not moral. Thus labeling a corporation "evil" necessitates a high standard of proof which I feel was not provided by San. Calling a corporation the most evil corporation requires an even higher level of proof, which I feel San did not provide. For instance, why not Enron, or Tyco, or Worldcom, or BNP, or Russian companies working on Iran's reactors - for all of these I believe I can demonstrate malicious intent behind some of their actions.
Further, I feel that none of San's arguments demonstrate evil on the part of Walmart, and believe that the logical results of many of San's positions would be quite undesirable.
Footnotes
1. This is also one of the reasons why I believe, contrary to years of schooling, that the Nazis were a leftist party.
Comments(3) |
The following is my attempt to summarize his points (other than the gratuitous praise for the site which is always appreciated, disagreements are also always appreciated):
Thesis: Walmart is the most evil company in the US.
Supporting Points
1. Walmart focuses on its bottom line
a) Walmart buys goods directly from manufacturers2. Walmart is not sufficiently regulated
b) Walmart is willing to sell its own goods or others' to turn a bigger profit
c) Walmart engages in predatory pricing
d) Walmart's cost savings are a net bad thing for the economy
a) Walmart is big.Big picture response
b) As we're a democracy, the people should have control over Walmart.
c) Walmart determines what it sells and won't sell what it deems "obscene"
d) Walmart is a hypocrite because it purchases goods from companies that use cheap labor in Honduras.
I disagree with the thesis and feel that none of the points offered have anything to do with either good or evil. Specifically, I fail to see how a focus on a bottom or line or insufficient regulation has anything to do with being evil (morally wrong) as they are completely amoral practices from my perspective. Perhaps San can clarify this point by giving his definition of evil. (Also, should San respond to this point or any of my subsequent points, I'll post it on the main page in its entirety in the interest of having a fair debate.) Further point 2.c) appears to be taking issue with a traditional moral (obscenity is bad) which is bewildering in light of the thesis. Note I think this decision is largely based on amoral grounds (attempting to best serve their target demographic).
Issues that don't fit into my point by point response:
I don't feel that the "major problems in modern day American society" are adequately defined in order to begin a response as to whether or not Walmart contributes to those problems (may I add, this assertion would be different from an assertion that Walmart is evil). Perhaps these could be better defined.
San implies that he thinks Jack Welch and Donald Trump are evil. Again I feel an explanation is needed. On microsoft, I think they have engaged in some monopolistic practices (though nowhere near as many as they've been accused of). In light of evilness, I am also confused as to how Microsoft is evil; in terms of contributing to some problems in America, then sure, though I would say that Microsoft created problems are minor.
Point by point response
The following are point-by-point responses to specific assertions as part of San's post. Note many of my responses have nothing to do with the thesis (as often I am uncertain as to how it relates to the evilness of Walmart) and instead focus on the ramifications of what San is implicitly proposing.
On point 1a “Taking advantage of their size by buying directly from manufactures”
How is this practice unique to Walmart (needed to make them the most evil)? Is San's concern for the middleman? Why is it desirable (morally or economically) to have middlemen? To me it only seems an unnecessary inefficiency. For instance, what value does a middleman or distributor add to any product?
On point 1b "pressuring vendors into providing goods at artificially low rates (i.e. better to make a penny on that bag of Jellybeans, then to have the Earth’s largest retailer distribute someone else’s beans)”
These are two different points that San is making. 1) Give us stuff for cheap (ala low prices for Cheerios) 2) We’ll make our own and sell it cheap (and call it Toasted Oats) or sell someone else's (ala Sanyo).
On 1), umm that’s what happens in a market and everyone (literally) is doing that. To Walmart’s credit they a) pass along the savings to their customers and b) help their suppliers streamline their processes. These two things are not commonly done by other retailers. (which make them more moral in my mind, not less moral)
On 2) All retailers and supermarkets do this. Sears has been doing it for years. Walk into Kroger and note the FMV brand. Wade's sells Rich Foods. K-mart and Target also push brands that they largely developed.
As evil has not been demonstrated -who is hurt by these practices, unless San is positing that competition itself is evil (which I think he does later) – I do not see how this supports the point that Walmart is evil. As every other major corporation engages in the same practices, I do not see how this makes Walmart especially evil.
Finally, I think both of these actions are good things as they increase productivity.
On 1c) Predatory Pricing
Predatory pricing, is the temporary decrease of prices to drive competitors out of business. I do not feel that a temporary lowering of prices has occured nor even been considered in San's comment. Once Walmart starts raising prices that were artificially lowered, I’ll concede the point, but Walmart hasn’t done this yet.
Further, the concept of predatory pricing is predicated on an established company absorbing a temporary loss which its competitor cannot absorb, forcing the competitor out of business. As San's arguments 1a) and 1b) point out, Walmart is turning a profit because it is keeping its costs so low – thus Walmart is not absorbing a temporary loss. In fact, what Walmart is doing is operating more efficiently than its competitors. It’s not predatory pricing, it’s a market working exactly as it supposed to – less efficient companies are penalized, more efficient companies are rewarded.
Without this process, productivity gains are quite difficult to make (efficiency gains are effectively the same as a productivity gain) as inefficient practices continue. Without productivity gains, the only possible economic growth is from increased inputs (labor and materials). When economic growth is determined solely by increases in inputs, Malthusian, Club of Rome like predictions will be realized. Decrying businesses who make their primary focus gains in efficiencies in a world with an increasing population and finite resources is tantamount to advocating a Soylent Green world (my Toasted Oats are made from PEOPLE!). So from my perspective, Walmart is doing a very GOOD thing by keeping its costs down.
On 1d) Walmart's cost savings are a net bad thing for the economy
As San's argument cannot be neatly compressed into a single line, I'll give a longer description here. Walmart pays its employees too little and effectively causes its suppliers to do the same. Walmart's expansion puts other companies out of business. Due to secondary effects, the economy is then decreased as employment gains at Walmart cannot offset the losses elsewhere.
My response:
Paying its employees too little has zero effect on the economy (Consider if the same amount of "stuff" is being produced).
San's kinda macro, kinda micro economic analysis of secondary effects is flawed as it presumes that those displaced do not find other jobs and assumes that there has been some drop off in economic production. Presenting my counter argument in a Socratic like presentation (always dangerous in text, as the result is predicated on several steps, and without direct interaction, I can't catch misconceptions in the answers to the earlier questions which then damages the result, so I've supplied answers).
1) Do Walmart’s practices reduce the supply of “stuff?” in the economy (No, Walmart's just supplying it for cheaper. As to secondary effects, supply is still there, though demand at the original price may have decreased)Side note: there is a strong historical correlation between increasing productivity and improved economies and job quality. Why would this situation be any different?
2) Do Walmart’s practices reduce labor and other structural costs? (Yes)
3) Does increased productivity always lead to increased wealth within an economy? (Yes, more stuff, less input)
4) Are there effectively an infinite number of jobs in any economy? (Yes. Think of any task that you do during the day. There is some price>0 you are willing to pay to have someone else do that task for you. Similar analogies hold for production of goods.)
5) Will any displaced workers be able to eventually find a new job? (Yes, according to 4 there are an infinite number of jobs)
6) When the displaced workers find new jobs, will the amount of “stuff” in the economy increase? (Yes, presuming their job is not “make-work,” their work will provide some good or service not previously provided, and by 1 everything else has held even)
7) Are job displacements due to increased efficiencies a good thing for an economy? (Yes)
2. Lack of regulation (or lack of accountability which would be a better way of presenting the argument)
2a) Walmart is big.
So? Why does this matter? If they exerted monopolistic control over the market that would matter. But they don't.
b) As we're a democracy, the people should have control over Walmart.
(As an aside, I wonder if San knows that he is advocating the central point of National Socialism - private ownership, government control - and not democracy.1.) Indeed I believe it violates a central tenet of a well functioning democracy - limiting the tyranny of the majority.
Corporations have greater accountability than most governments. If you don’t like a practice, you can make your voice heard by not buying products there. Walmart, unless they employ you, has no control over you. Even in the employment case, you can quit at any time. Quitting from government control is much harder – you have to leave the country. BTW this is also why I am very much against a one world government, no matter what form it might take. I'll expand some more on these points in my latter point-by-point responses.
c) Walmart determines what it sells and won't sell what it deems "obscene." Walmart should not have this power.
On San's CD example, I think Jeremy did a good job responding (it’s called a market, more explicitly, it’s product differentiation). I would only strengthen the point by demonstrating the absurdity of attempting to deny Walmart the power of choosing what to sell.
Ultimately San is expressing a market preference for obscene material. Why Walmart should satisfy his preference I am unclear. Consider the following. Walmart sells DVDs. Why can’t I buy the DVD I made for the SDRForum at Walmart? I like wicker basket making. Why can’t I buy DVDs on wicker basket making at Walmart? At various times of the day, I have any one of 10 cajillion (that’s a metric unit) different preferences, why doesn’t Walmart stock enough DVDs to satisfy all of my preferences? Why doesn't Walmart sell every DVD ever made and stock them in store? Might there be practical considerations? Might Walmart be permitted to have its own preferences?
My hyperbolized point being, San's CD preference is just that, San's preference. If you feel the market that corresponds to your preference is being underserved, open up a store and it’ll do great. But forcing your preferences onto Walmart violate all sorts of GOOD principles including:
Property rights – it’s walmart’s store, they can sell what they want to on their property as long as that good/service isn't illegal otherwise in society (like you can’t buy anthrax from Walmart). If you can’t determine what you sell, in what sense do you own the store?
Limiting the tyranny of the majority – why should any entity in the minority have to do what someone else wants them to do for no other reason than to satisfy the majority’s preference? Think about how San's stance, admittedly in the least charitable light – though still an accurate depiction of the underlying dynamic – would be reflected in terms of civil rights and first amendment issues.
While San doesn’t want Walmart deciding what is obscene, why should San (or anyone else) get to to tell Walmart (and its patrons) what is obscene? Is this not an attempt to force a sense of morality onto Walmart and their patrons, deciding what is best for them? (Thason - here's another example contra Dan Savage, though San is not yet in a position of power so it does not make San a sinnercrat) Would it seem right if BET was forced to show Birth of a Nation, or SKG be forced to distribute the Protocolsof the Elders of Zion?
d) Walmart is a hypocrite because it purchases goods from companies that use cheap labor in Honduras.
How are labor practices of Honduras and the choice of which CDs to sell related (as implied by "practicing what they preach")? San has conflated different aspects of morality in his hypocrisy charge and again is imposing his morality onto Walmart.
Ignoring that point and focusing on what I think San meant (Walmart is unfairly exploting Hondurans), I have three points. 1) Even under San's criteria, I don’t see how this supports San's assertion that Walmart is especially evil (Nike, Target, Kmart, every supermarket that imports some food, virtually every retailer) 2) It’s not evil to provide a job, even a "bad" job, to someone in a place where an economy is underdeveloped, in fact it’s a good thing.
Continuing on 2), I’ve been debating this point with people approximately monthly for at least 10 or so years. So again attempting the folly of the Socratic method in text:
1) How much should the Hondurans be paid?Summary
2) At what point does it cease to be profitable to perform the work in Honduras (as opposed to somewhere else)?
3) If someone else is willing to do the job for less, why should they be denied the opportunity?
4) What would the Hondurans be doing if they did not have these jobs?
5) If these other jobs are preferable to the Walmart jobs, why aren’t they doing them now? (Reflect on how this is related to your answers to 1-4)
6) Do the Walmart jobs provide an improvement over prior economic conditions in Honduras?
7) Historically, has the introduction of low-paying manufacturing jobs served as a stepping stone to higher-paying jobs? In your answer, consider India in the 21st century, East Asia in the 20th century, the U.S. in the 19th century, Europe in 18th-19th centuries?
8) How have countries fared that were not so “exploited”? In your answer, consider most of Africa and South America.
9) In light of the answers to these questions, what does this imply about what would result from San’s implicit suggestion?
10) Is Walmart's use of Honduran labor a (relatively) valuable economic opportunity for the Hondurans that would not otherwise be there?
Corporations are inherently amoral, not moral. Thus labeling a corporation "evil" necessitates a high standard of proof which I feel was not provided by San. Calling a corporation the most evil corporation requires an even higher level of proof, which I feel San did not provide. For instance, why not Enron, or Tyco, or Worldcom, or BNP, or Russian companies working on Iran's reactors - for all of these I believe I can demonstrate malicious intent behind some of their actions.
Further, I feel that none of San's arguments demonstrate evil on the part of Walmart, and believe that the logical results of many of San's positions would be quite undesirable.
Footnotes
1. This is also one of the reasons why I believe, contrary to years of schooling, that the Nazis were a leftist party.
Comments(3) |
work there for one year, & u just might see the means for San's points. Maybe not all of them, but a great majority to say the least
posted by 
: 11:33 PM Link to comment
: 11:33 PM Link to comment
People point to Walmart and cry "anti-union".
Unions enable disfavored people to live satisfactorly without addressing their disfavor. This way their family's problems are never resolved. Without the union they would have to accept the heirarchy, their own inferiority.
Unions serve to empower.
Walmart is anti-union because they are good. They try to help people address and resolve their problems by creating an enviornment where there are fewer hurdles.
Media ridicule and lawsuits are creations to reinforce people's belief that Walmart is evil in a subsegment of the industry dominated by the middle and lower classes.
Low-cost disfavored Chinese labor is utilized by corporate america to maximize margins. They all do it. Only WalMart gets fingered because they are the ones who help, and those who seek to create confusion in the marketplace want to eliminate the vast middle class who have a real chance and instead stick with lower classes who may not work otherwise. So they dirty him up while allowing the others to appear clean.
The coining of the term "Uncle Sam" was a clue alluding to this::Sam Walton's WalMart is one of few saviors of the peasant class.
Unions enable disfavored people to live satisfactorly without addressing their disfavor. This way their family's problems are never resolved. Without the union they would have to accept the heirarchy, their own inferiority.
Unions serve to empower.
Walmart is anti-union because they are good. They try to help people address and resolve their problems by creating an enviornment where there are fewer hurdles.
Media ridicule and lawsuits are creations to reinforce people's belief that Walmart is evil in a subsegment of the industry dominated by the middle and lower classes.
Low-cost disfavored Chinese labor is utilized by corporate america to maximize margins. They all do it. Only WalMart gets fingered because they are the ones who help, and those who seek to create confusion in the marketplace want to eliminate the vast middle class who have a real chance and instead stick with lower classes who may not work otherwise. So they dirty him up while allowing the others to appear clean.
The coining of the term "Uncle Sam" was a clue alluding to this::Sam Walton's WalMart is one of few saviors of the peasant class.
posted by : 9:19 PM Link to comment
: 9:19 PM Link to comment
Make better and easier decisions.
How far you go in life depends on your being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak and strong. Because someday in life you will have been all of these.
Post a Comment
How far you go in life depends on your being tender with the young, compassionate with the aged, sympathetic with the striving and tolerant of the weak and strong. Because someday in life you will have been all of these.
posted by : 3:17 PM Link to comment
: 3:17 PM Link to comment 
