Wal-Mart
Here is a much needed defense of Walmart by Jason Furman, and here is a response by Barb Ehrenreich. I've been debating the Wal-Mart Issue with a young progressive lately (see my upcoming Letters to a Young Progressive for more), and I think I have a bit more to say on the issue. We don't often enough compare Wal-Mart to the sacred "family businesses" that it replaces, and while Furman points out the virtue of low prices and attempts to argue the wage issue, Ehrenreich successfully pokes some holes in his evidence in her reply.
First, low wages. Ehrenreich argues that the $9.68 average wage Furman cites cannot be correct--a point with which I tend to agree. However, the fact that she was hired at $7.00 an hour is not the strike against Wal-Mart that she thinks it is. To me, that sounds like a pretty standard wage at retail outlets in general. Thus it is not an argument against Wal-Mart as much as an indication that we do not pay retail workers very much in this country, especially inexperienced ones. So we should not judge Wal-Mart qua retailer based on this fact.
Second, the quality of work. The young progressive I referred to earlier complained that Wal-Mart jobs suck. I agree. But so do all retail jobs. Working for a local employer does not make anyone any happier. And we should celebrate Wal-Mart because its more efficient supply line reduces the number of retail jobs we need. That means less shitty jobs. Now, before you complain that less jobs means more unemployment, go take an entry-level economics course. Many industries have become more efficient, and yet modern economies employ a much larger section of the populace than ever before. This is because you have to look at the whole economy, not individual sectors, to determine the effect that efficiency has on the workforce.
Third, homogeneity. Many, including Furman (Wal-Mart’s defender), bemoan the fact that Wal-Mart makes American culture even more homogenous and soulless than it already is. Well, I'm sorry; I actually prefer consistency and predictability in both the products I buy and the places I buy them. I love the fact that I can go into almost any Wal-Mart, Target, Best Buy, Lowe's, Home Depot, McDonald's, etc. and get exactly what I want, for a price I can be pretty sure is fairly cheap, without having to deal with a lot of high pressure sales or stupid local "flavor". When I buy something, I do not want to interact with anyone, I want to buy something. To me, the desire for "service," i.e. subservience and servitude, is anachronistic and rather sick. No one goes inside the bank branch instead of using the ATM so they can get "service".
Fourth, music availability. The first I ever heard of Wal-Mart was during the 90's, in the era of alternative music, when many complained that its demand for censored CD's infringed on free speech. Well, it doesn't. It would be unfortunate if Wal-Mart actually had the ability to prevent us from buying CDs with swear words in them, but, in the era of the Internet and Amazon.com, I am not really worried about Junior's inability to buy his shitty Nickleback CD. If he can't figure out any other way to get it than buy it at Wal-Mart, he's got other problems.
Five, organic/local food. If you prefer local food, don't shop at Wal-Mart. If you're really worried about the energy costs of shipping food nationally, then you will see that there's no threat from Wal-Mart. Surely high energy prices will deal with the problem.
posted by Austin 5-000 at 12:01 PM
9 Comments:
As much as I hate to be a hypocritical pseudo-hippie asshole and criticize Wal-Mart when I shop there, I must contend that Wal-Mart does indeed suck fat cock. In response to 5-000’s post:
First, the average retail hourly wage in the US is over $12, which is obviously more than Wal-Mart pays (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t16.htm). And instead of giving its workers good benefits, WM urges its workers to pursue benefits offered by the government. This makes life harder for WM workers.
Second, WM jobs do suck because normal people tend to give less respect to a WM worker than to an average retail store employee (at least I do). And WM workers have to look at some old geezer every morning greeting people at the WM front entrance and realize that that old diaper-wearing freak is making as much money as they are. And workers at WM have to deal with more poor people than do average retail store employees, and we all know how gross poor people are.
Third, homogeneity makes life easy, but also more boring. I guess it’s a toss up.
Fourth, agreed.
Fifth, agreed.
Right here, right now, I am going to take a stand. I vow never to shop at Wal-Mart ever again. There’s a Target closer to my house anyway.
One, $7.00 is the average entry-level pay. I doubt it really gets to $12, but that doesn't actually matter: while the average retail wage is indeed around $12, the middle 50% make between $7.46 and $12.22 (according to http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos121.htm). Keep in mind that this includes sleazy used car dealers, talented music store bums, and would-be authors working at bookstores; jobs at Wal-Mart require none of the extensive skills that these others do.
Second, they get as much respect as you give them. But I guess that's not much if you won't even shop at their stores. They'll miss you.
I vow to shop at Wal-Mart whenever I feel like it.
I would like only to respond to your third point, homogeneity, mainly because I don't really know enough to formulate an educated response to all the Wal-Mart stuff.
I know it may seem as if you are affording workers more dignity when you say that you don't want them to have service jobs that are "anachronistic and rather sick." But of course we possess the technology to make shopping a sort of loner's paradise of automated screens, one-touch pay, etc. So then we could just eliminate all those pointless service jobs! But the economy couldn't possibly sustain all those lost jobs.
Also, many people really appreciate service, and not because it makes them feel superior to a "subservient" worker. I actually *do* go into the bank to deposit my checks rather than use the ATM, because I enjoy talking to one of the tellers. I frequent one particular Memphis barbecue restaurant, all the barbecue in town being pretty much equally delicious, because the owner is especially nice and friendly. And how did I meet him in the first place? Why, he bought records from the music store I worked at. But I suppose he could have just gotten them online. And I could just go to the BBQ restaurant I "want." (Of course, here again, just like in the aesthetic experience thread we had a long time ago, one has to think of why we have the preferences we do. For some people, "getting good service" is just as wrapped up in their shopping experience as "wanting to buy something." There are numerous factors at work.)
Now, a Wal-Mart is different from a music store or a barbecue restaurant, where a customer might expect special service. At Wal-Mart people generally go in knowing what they want, so everything else is a distraction. But I hope that your experience at Wal-Mart does not make you want that sort of experience everywhere (or want it for everyone else). That is only one kind of shopping and certainly not the best or only kind. There is a new study out about Americans' increased social isolation:
http://www.asanet.org/ check out the bottom right
It would be interesting to ponder whether "Wal-Martization" has anything to do with it.
"But the economy couldn't possibly sustain all those lost jobs."
Overnight, it couldn't, but, in the long-term, it could easily. I'm not sure why you think that isn't true.
As for your preference for service, that's fine, but don't attempt to use it as a reason for condemning Wal-Mart. You're welcome to pay someone to do your taxes without a computer because you like their company, but don't turn it into a moral argument.
As for American isolation, I'm not terribly interested in mandating a different kind of business in order to increase national sociability. I'm confident that people can shop at more expensive, more service oriented stores if they are really interested in making friends. So far that has not proven to be the case. So be it.
Well, I had hoped that I could raise some of the points that I did without us ending up talking past each other, but apparently that is not the case. You mistake me as saying that because I like service at some stores I condemn Wal-Mart for the lack of it. Nowhere did I say that. I explicitly point out that people go to large retail stores knowing pretty much what they want and therefore in no need of service. My point was that just because this scenario exists, we need not assume that all sectors of the retail and service industry should mirror it.
In fact, I am grateful that there are large, non-specialized retail stores that can drive down prices for lower-income buyers. At the same time, I am equally concerned about the working conditions, pay, and benefits those stores offer their own employees, and from what I have heard Wal-Mart largely fails in that area. But as I said in my original post, I don't know enough, so that is neither here nor there.
Finally, if your first response to my suggestion about the social isolation study is to dismiss it out of hand because you think either constraining or promoting business interests for social needs is uneconomical or ridiculous or whatever, I don't concede the argument to you; I pity you.
You can pity me all you want, but I think that it's pretty strange. You really think your bank teller or barbecue cook would rather be doing that than another, non-retail/service job? You think that they increase the amount of friends that you can confide in (which was what the study you cite was about)? Your own preferences on the matter are clear: you would never choose a retail job over what you're doing next year. Why would you expect others to?
This is getting silly. I never said that I think those people don't want better jobs. Where does this stuff come from? As a matter of fact, I can't be sure. It's not completely ludicrous to think that the owner of the barbecue restaurant is perfectly happy with running a successful business that he inherited from his parents.
But none of that really matters, because just because someone might want a different job, it doesn't mean that they don't want to do their current job well/provide service to people/be friendly. That was the original point of my post. I'm not sure what their supposed dislike of their jobs has to do with an opposition to interacting with people. Furthermore, I'm not sure what my personal case is supposed to mean in the context of all this. (As a matter of fact, I thought for a time about staying in retail for a year before enrolling in school.) And isn't my or anyone else's willingness to interact with service and retail workers, and their reciprocal friendliness and helpfulness, exactly what I'm talking about? This was my original point, which I'll repeat again, in two different forms:
"But I hope that your experience at Wal-Mart does not make you want that sort of experience everywhere (or want it for everyone else). That is only one kind of shopping and certainly not the best or only kind."
"I explicitly point out that people go to large retail stores knowing pretty much what they want and therefore in no need of service. My point was that just because this scenario exists, we need not assume that all sectors of the retail and service industry should mirror it."
This is all largely pointless and nitpicky, but I do it because you seem to be misconstruing my argument. I think I'll end my discussion there. But it's okay--I know it won't come between us. Because we'll always know that we're arguing about important things, while other friendships are broken on emo diaries fighting about Conor Oberst's best haircut.
Scantron--
Who's to say that people arguing about Oberst's best haircut are worse than you are? I've seen you argue about his hair, and I've seen you lose friends over it (T.J, Suzannah, Elijah, Timothy, should I continue...?). The point is, if you had hair half as good as he did you wouldn't be saying such hurtful things. It's like this bird I saw today...
GOd, birds are sooooo sad.
Post a Comment
<< Home