Original Message: ----------------- From: Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 09:14:35 -0800 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Wal-Mart efficiency (was Re: My annual Xmas tirade...)
On 12/23/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > For example, you brought up that cost is not the only measure, the > distance > needed to travel to shop is a factor that has to be included. The counter > would be that shoppers at Wal-Mart have already made this > tradeoff. People > won't go 5 miles Wal-Mart to save $0.25 on a gallon of milk when they can > buy it 6 blocks away at a higher priced store. But, they will do their > weekly grocery shopping there, to save 10% on a $200 grocery bill. >That's the sort of half-truth that is constantly trotted out to justify >unethical behavior. The fact is that *enough* people are willing to travel >to shop at Wal-Mart for it to make a profit. This goes back way further than WalMart. My mom use to go five miles for weekly grocery shopping. She was raised in the Depression, and her father was out of work. My dad grew up in an orphanage, after his mother died and his father couldn't handle 8 kids. Grandma took the girls, but the boys had to go to the orphanage...even though his father was able to pay for upkeep. I was raised on bargains. All of the folks who lived through the depression looked for every bargain that they could. I cannot remember hearing the arguements that you made until late in high school, when I ran into folks who argued against developing the interstate north. My dad, a good depression liberal, laughted at them, saying "the interestate was the best thing that happened to the Western side of Duluth." My sister lives in a very poor part of the country...unemployment is in the 20% range. She likes drinking coffee at the local place, but she (with everyone else) "goes K-mart" to shop for bargains. I don't think that there is the same range of income in Palo Alto that there is here. I've seen cracker-boxes going for > a quarter million dollars there. Here, we have houses worth no more than $20,000 just a mile from the mall, and close to a lot of small businesses. Yet, the lower income folks are those that you tend to see at WalMart, while upscale folks tend to shop at the locally owned small businesses. Prices are far higher at the latter. So, we have a case where there are small businesses available for lower income folks to shop at, yet they choose WalMart for prices. That tells me that they shop where they choose, not where they have to. If discount chains (such as Target, WalMart, or K-Mart) are kept from opening stores, then lower income folks have no choice. The choice is made for them by the political groups that sucessfully oppose these stores. I see this as people making decisons for others because they are convinced they know what is good for others. >Yet the argument becomes the usual, "See, they're giving people what they >want and they're making a profit, therefore nothing could be wrong as long >as they don't break the law (notwithstanding the fact that they *do* break > the law)." OK, WalMart should be treated like any other store that breaks the law. But, I can't help but wondering if people believe that, if you look at all the convenience stores in the nation (who's sales equal WalMart's), if you would find greater or lesser rates of violations. For example, the falsification of timecards is serious. But, I'd be interested in knowing how many of the thousands of WalMart stores this was found at. If it was less than one percent, then a likely would be managers who cheated after they didn't make goals within the law. >The fact that Wal-Mart can make money and people end up driving farther doesn't >make it good that they've driven smaller businesses out of business. It doesn't >make it bad, either. But ignoring the impact on people who are marginalized >by the changes brought about by Wal-Mart's tactics is bad, in my opinion. But, isn't the fact that Wal-Mart cut prices by innovation good? Isn't making the nation, as a whole, wealthier, a good? For example, if the national GDP is 1.1X and the federal government has a tax of 0.1X to fund various social programs, everyone who is taxed would be at least as well off as they would be if the national GDP were X and there was no social welfare program. Clinton's ecconomic boom helped virtually everyone in the nation...and it was fueled by productivity. >I don't think it is ever ethical to turn a blind eye to some people by talking >as though profits and prices reveal goodness and truth. I'm not arguing for turning a blind eye to people, I'm arguing for weighing the plusses and the minuses tangibly. >It's not going to happen. God forbid I should ever limit my decision-making >criteria to mere economics. Aside from the fundamental fact that there's >more to life than economics, it's a far from objective or complete field of >knowledge. It's the *dismal* science. There is, but "it's only money" is a statement of the wealthy, not the poor. We don't/didn't yell at our kids when they broke a glass while washing dishes because we could easily afford another $4.00 Target glass. Neli, on the other hand, dropped a glass while washing dishes, and immediately freaked out. She felt horrible about what she did. After I calmed her down, she told us that this is something her mom would yell at her for two weeks, and write down. She would take twice the total breakage over Neli's whole life out of her bride price. It was at that point that I had a relavation. Only those of us who are relatively wealthy can say "it's only money." In the US, breaking a glass means buying a replacement. In Zambia, breaking a glass means doing without for a long time. > I see inefficiency as money down toilet. Efficiency is the foundation > > of the world we live in. Zambia has a much much less efficient economy, > > mostly separated from world trade, and people are near starvation there. > > When the average farmer produces 5% more food than his/her family needs, > > then there is little room for error, as well as little chance for more > > than a few to rise above hand to mouth poverty. >I hear the first few notes of "A Modest Proposal." How? Your arguements parallel Tolkien's anti-modernist arguements. The "good old days" were only good for a few on the top. My folks, who rose from poverty, didn't have to worry about us starving. The latter is a result of industrialization. >It's seriously twisted logic to argue that businesses that result in lower > >incomes, fewer benefits and fewer jobs is good for society just because > it > >results in lower prices. > >> No, the logic I'm using is standard ecconomics, accepted by a very wide >> range of ecconomists. >Dan! "Good for society" is not measured just by economics and >economists!!!! Add another dimension or two, please! OK, but the criteria you have mentioned were all ecconomic...incomes, jobs, and benefits. Every innovation will cut someone's income, result in someone losing a job, and someone losing benefits. How are innovations in retailing different from other innovations. Stores are ecconomic entities. Forcing people to buy from less efficent stores is an ecconomic decision. What other factors, that are not tied to jobs, prices, income, etc. are you thinking of? I know when I have/had less money, I was less interested in spending money on aestetics, taste, etc. than when I have/had more money. How can we be sure that keeping discount stores out of an area isn't simply a matter of forcing one's own value system on others? Finally, are you arguing that improved productivity is not inherently valuable? Dan M. -------------------------------------------------------------------- mail2web - Check your email from the web at http://mail2web.com/ . _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
