Nightshade wrote:I'm thinking in terms of the big picture. The choice of shoveling cheap crap to the lower classes and perpetuating low wages versus sacrificing some degree of profits in order to buy from domestic suppliers and keep local economies going.
Consumer demand for quality products at the lowest prices may seem like an entirely self-interested enterprise (and perhaps it is), but regardless of intent it drives improved manufacturing processes. Any compromise for the concern of locals, paying more when cheaper adequately made products would suffice, reduces the incentive to produce better cheaper products.
I'm talking about stopping the flood of US production jobs being outsourced to exploit cheap foreign labor markets.
Outsourcing is slowing on it's own as demand for foreign labour has forced salaries upward. Clearly they've benefitted tremendously overseas, while a fairly significant number of Americans have been more than inconvenienced as they've lost their jobs at home. They of course never joined the ranks of the permanently unemployed, or even underemployed. They found replacement jobs and moved on with their lives, and yes sometimes those were lower paying jobs. Not ideal, but all other concievable practically implementable alternatives are no better.
I see Wal-Mart doing nothing but ensuring they continue to have a customer base, and doing so in a most insidious fashion. If you look at Wal-Mart's sales demographics, they're very similar to that of their workforce for the most part. By paying low wages, and providing next to no benefits but still selling horribly shitty cheap foreign goods, they allow people to feel as though they're experiencing some modicum of success in the form of inexpensive material goods. Said goods don't last very long at all, as they're made as cheaply as possible. So what happens when your Pocket Fisherman breaks? Well, you're poor as shit, so you go to Wal-Mart and buy another one.
The mostly chinese made products sold in Walmart have improved in quality substantially over time, while remaining competitively priced.
Also, they've insinuated themselves into just about every single town and city in the US. People have very limited choices when it comes to buying durable goods, and as such, it's difficult to avoid buying from places like Wal-Mart, especially when you don't make a lot of scratch.
Their choices aren't limited, their incomes are, and sometimes personal disdain for a company must be put aside so one can get the most out of their dollar in terms of goods and services.
Look, I understand that it's a free market economy, but I think that Wal-Mart's abuses it due to their position. Microsoft's done the same thing. The key difference there being that MS takes care of their employees. I think that this whole discussion inevitably leads to larger issues of misplaced measures of personal success and governmental meddling in the marketplace, but Wal-Mart is out for no one but themselves, just like all big corporations. It doesn't have to be that way.
They're out to make money for themselves first and foremost because they've experienced remarkable success operating this way. Appeals to conscience by themselves don't change business practices, the businesses that are swayed by these appeals and do change their operations accordingly, risk putting themselves at a competitive disadvantage. Without some incentives to back up these appeals, they'll never amount to sustainable widespread changes in business practices.
Sure, trying to get employers to pay better wages is a dicey proposition, but there has to be a decent compromise somewhere.
They compromise with what the market demands, not some artificially inflated government mandated wage and benefits package. That's the only decent compromise unfortunately.
I guess my original point was that Wal-Mart became hugely successful when they were selling reasonably priced American-made goods. They chose to drop that and start buying Chinese solely for profit purposes, and god only knows how many businesses have folded because of it. And for what? So more executives can get ridiculously inflated compensation packages. That's an argument unto itself, though.
I couldn't care less about their intent, it's the consequences of their actions that concern me. The upheaval caused by Walmart domestically is what seems to bother people, pushed out of their comfort zones they're forced to adapt and find jobs elsewhere. Jostle enough people that way and you'll create an opposition for yourself.
:icon14: