A Good Dinner Almost Ruined
This past Saturday, some friends (mostly from my program) and I decided to splurge and go to Little Zagreb, a local steakhouse that is recognized as having some of the best steaks in the Midwest. The fare did not disappoint, and despite being roped into splitting a couple of bottles of red wine, a good time was had by all. I even enjoyed the wine, an occurrence which, as those of you who know me well enough know, has never happened before.
At one point during dinner we were talking about cooking or something, and I asked the other people at the table where they prefer to grocery shop, since I have yet to find a single store that meets all of my dietary preferences. Various people responded to my query, giving me some perspective, but then they asked where I go grocery shopping. I got that awful feeling in my gut as I prepared myself and finally responded, "Wal-mart actually."
Incidentally... while I'm on the topic of groceries... Dear Kroger, get fresher vegetables -- my broccoli should be springier. Dear Marsh, please carry 1% Lactaid milk -- this 2% is making me fat. Dear Wal-mart, please carry the large jug size of SOME pulp orange juice. Mother of god is it so much to ask??
Back to the story. I flinched as I realized that I just stepped right onto an conversational IED. Yes, an inflammatory economic discussion. People, at least in my age group and at my level of education, tend to have a very negative opinion of Wal-mart. After a momentary pause (a short-lived attempt at decorum by my cohort, I suppose), a rain of aspersions were cast down on Wal-mart. Being civil people, they refrained from actually yelling at me for shopping at the Great Retail Satan.
I really don't understand people's opinion of Wal-mart. In the past, I might dismiss my friends' opinions as ludicrous, but in the interest of social grace, I will tone it down and say this much: I simply don't understand why everyone hates Wal-mart and given what I know, I think that hatred is irrational. Why? Economics.
In my first attempt to defend Wal-mart and economics as a whole, I made the argument that Wal-mart's ability to muscle out competition and hire cheap labor is a matter of simple economics, which is true. A member of our table countered that it would be more accurate to call it "simple capitalism." I fail to see how this makes my assertion any less valid or any less correct. I mean, I guess it's not "simple communism," but if you want that, I don't want to be having dinner with you anyhow.
Yes, Wal-mart is an economic entity, working to maximize its profits. Holy crap, they MUST be evil! Granted most people's complaints run deeper than that, but profit is fast becoming a dirty word in today's culture, and I believe that is preposterous. If you don't believe me, read Atlas Shrugged.
After the simple capitalism remark, I countered with the fact that Wal-mart has low prices, and thus it is a relatively uncomplicated economic decision for me. After all, I'm sitting here enjoying a $30 super filet and a $45 bottle of wine. I need to shop at fucking Wal-mart for the rest of the semester so I don't go broke and end up stealing meal points from freshmen to finish out the year. One of my other colleagues remarked that "Sure, they have low prices, because they are subsidized by the government."
Now, I currently do not have enough time to verify this argument, so I am not going to try and pick it apart piece by piece. I will say this, though: I have no power (yet) to change whether or not Wal-mart receives government subsidies. That is a fact. I also cannot change the fact that I have to pay taxes, unless I go all Thoreau and live in the woods somewhere. There are bears in the woods, and given their reputation as killing machines, I will not be avoiding taxes any time soon. So, the argument goes that since Wal-mart receives my tax money, I should not buy from them. Maybe on a philosophical level I can understand; however, if we are talking pure economics (and I would like to keep in that way), why shouldn't I buy from Wal-mart? It gives me a rare opportunity to recoup some of my taxes.
I am willing to concede that this argument is a bit odd, and possibly not even correct. As I sit here though, avoiding the shit-mountain of work that has accumulated at the end of this semester, it makes sense to me. Additionally, I would just like to make it known that I wholeheartedly DO NOT agree with the government policy of subsidizing Wal-mart or any other business (again... not sure that Wal-mart actually receives federal funding, but I know many businesses do). Only the invisible hand has the right to fondle the jubblies of the economy, not the skeezy-guy-at-the-bar hand of the government.
But even if the accusations are truth, the fact that Wal-mart receives government subsidies is not a good reason for refusing to shop there. By that logic you should not be buying any corn products whatsoever. Wal-mart is not providing itself with subsidies. If you want to be mad at someone, blame the government, not Wal-mart. I will be even madder with the government if I find out they are subsidizing Wal-mart, but I will not stop shopping there.
My final argument is against the most common reason people I know hate Wal-mart. People accuse Wal-mart of abusing their employees. Once again, in my mind, simple economics precludes this argument. Labor, even if it's scrubbing up toddler vomit in aisle 3, is a market. In a market, actors tend to make rational decisions. If it's so terrible to work at Wal-mart, then why does anyone work there... ever?
If the conditions are so bad, it's not as if they can't drive/bike/take the bus down the street to Lowes, Marsh, White Castle, Wendy's, Chick-fil-A, the BP station, the movie theatre, Menards, or some other place and apply for a job there. Granted in some places, Wal-mart may be the only option for employment, but the majority of the time, Wal-marts do not spring up in podunk towns with one stoplight and no other work for miles. Workers at Wal-mart are ultimately responsible for making the decision to work there. Furthermore, if Wal-mart exploits their workers so horribly in search of bigger and bigger profits, why does it have competitors? Target is doing just fine, as is Meijer (for those of you who have never experienced the wonder that is Meijer, I encourage you to come out to the Midwest). These companies have found ways to remain competitive in the retail superstore market. Yet I never hear anything about how terrible they are for exploiting employees.
In the end, I silenced this cacophony of hippydom by gracefully saying "Again, I really don't want to argue over this," since all I wanted to know is where people like to grocery shop. Crisis averted. I enjoyed the rest of my steak and my company for the rest of the evening, having dodged a major Bouncing Betty in terms of dinner conversation. Still, though, I know a lot of people who I consider to be intelligent who share this opinion. I simply cannot understand this position given what I know about it. I'm not claiming to be an expert on economics, nor even to like the field itself. Please feel free to inform me, but I am fairly certain that you are wrong and I am right.
posted by House @ 8:08 PM
6 comments
6 Comments:
"The Wal-Mart Effect" by Charles Fishman.
I am about halfway through it now and it's an attempt (at least) at impartial analysis of the juggernaut.
PS The pimp-hand like abuse of the employees they mentioned most likely pertains to practices of locking employees in the store over night or making them punch out and then working overtime for free.
House,
This is an interesting post. I used to occasionally shop at Wal-Mart while I was in Texas, but I stopped because the produce and other perishable items sucked and were not much less expensive.
The idea that Wal-Mart is subsidized by the federal government seems dubious to me, too. They might get property tax incentives to move into a neighborhood, but that is state tax, not federal.
Joe,
I actually agree with you on the perishable items thing. First of all, they're all sold in huge family-sized portions, which does the bachelor no good. Aside from that, I really just have my doubts about Wal-mart's ability to sell fresh, high-quality perishable items, as you say. While I do a lot of my shopping there, I usually go elsewhere for produce and meat.
Bertrand,
Thank you for the suggestion. I admit that there are a bunch of books higher on the list, but with a grueling 9 credits of classes next semester, one never knows.
Additionally, in reference to your argument, I agree that that stuff is not tolerable; however, aside from that one night they spend locked in the store, who or what is keeping them from going across the street and taking another job? And if these types of things occur, why do people still work there? Furthermore, while I don't deny that those events occurred, I am betting that company policy frowns on such practices, and individual managers are to blame.
America likes to hate on anything that becomes a juggernaut/too big for its pleated Dockers. Look at Yankees/Red Sox, Patriots, 90s Cowboys, Ryan Seacrest, high release backhand, etc. As a Bills fan, who usually is stuck with hating on the favorite, I'd expect you to know this. ZING!!!!
Sorry, if this is below par, I'm typing one-handed (and not for fun reasons)
thoughtful post here. i'll throw some ideas back at you just to explore the arguments. here's two thoughts:
1) surely, it makes short-term economic sense to shop at wal-mart. i consider my current wallet's contents every time i go out of the house and in each week's grocery run. but looking at economics slightly longer-term than just this weekend's cereal and milk run, taxpayers foot the bill for emergency health care and other services (i.e. costs) when employees are suffering from deferred illnesses because employers aren/weren't providing insurance.
this problem isn't exclusive to wal-mart. still, arguments based solely on 'economic' considerations are specious when only limited to this month.
2) if messing with the market is a dirty thing to do, as you imply, the government wouldn't be the only actor with mud stains on their knees. wal-mart gets subsidies cause they lobby for special treatment.
people who think subsidies are bad charity - taken from tax-payers and given to rich corporations - ought be mad at the beggar and heavy-handed lobbyist (wal-mart) as much as the funder (private interests and governments at multiple levels). critics of wal-mart are justifiably mad at both the government and wal-mart for subsidies.
Ben,
On your second point, I think that it's possible to be mad just at the government. If the system weren't so broken, it wouldn't matter how hard a company lobbied for money. If the government stuck to what it is constitutionally supposed to do, we would not have these problems. While the beggar may seem to be equally to blame as the hander-out, there wouldn't be beggars if there weren't people to hand out free money.
I guess there'd probably be a lot more dead hobos, but I think I made the point I was trying to make?
The first point I can't really argue with. A small minority of people, however, are making this argument. It is logical to bring up the fact that in the long run we will be paying for the poor health care that Wal-Mart offers its employees. The question of scale comes up though... how much will poor health care for Wal-Mart's employees really affect my tax bill in the future?
Post a Comment
<< Home