Let me state something that's going to get me in more trouble with my conservative friends.
The acceptance of Wal-Mart's collateral damage to our economy is a choice. (Image from Chris-Place.Com.)
The results of economics are not inevitable, like the tides or volcanic eruptions. They can be adjusted, if we choose to, and their effects can be adjusted, if we choose to.
A century ago, under a Republican President, we made that choice. Maybe, in this case, we will make a different choice.
But to deny there is such a choice is to deny reality.
Unlike, say, Microsoft, Wal-Mart is not in a position to move to India. So there are many things we could do to ameliorate the social damage it causes, without resorting to Socialism, Communism, or any other -ism.
- We could improve the climate for union organizing, if we chose.
- We could raise the minimum wage, if we chose.
- We could require that companies of a certain size offer real health insurance to all their workers, if we chose.
- We could even talk to the board of Wal-Mart about their sourcing policies, about how far they should press and what they shouldn't do, if we chose.
None of these things would threaten Wal-Mart's profitability more than marginally. None would be unprecedented, unconstitutional, or un-American.
Wal-Mart makes money because it's the best computer user in the world. Wal-Mart makes money because its distribution system lets it pay for goods a full month after they're sold.
Now, maybe Wal-Mart's prices wouldn't be quite so low if we did these things. I admit that freely. But maybe, just maybe, all Wal-Mart employees, and the people who work making Wal-Mart's goods, could then afford to shop at Wal-Mart. Seems to me in that case Wal-Mart might make more money, not less.
Yet here is the most profound point I can make today. None of these actions are even being considered. No one, anywhere on the American political spectrum, has made any firm proposal regarding Wal-Mart, the class system it is creating, the pollution it is causing, or the economic damage it is doing in the developing world. Voters in Inglewood just slapped Wal-Mart's hand, over the issue of their local control of zoning, but no one else is willing to consider the larger issues.
Even this article will seem, to many readers, like heresy.
Well, Teddy Roosevelt was no heretic. (Image of Roosevelt on the stump courtesy the National Civic League.) And neither am I. I think Roosevelt would have taken Wal-Mart's power as a challenge. I just did.
Dana Blankenhorn has been a business journalist for over 25 years and has covered the online world professionally since 1985. He founded the "Interactive Age Daily" for CMP Media, and has written for the Chicago Tribune, Advertising Age, and dozens of other publications over the years.
1. Brad Hutchings on April 19, 2004 04:37 AM writes...
Dana,
The surest way to turn the country completely Republican is to attack WalMart. Why not burn the flag and outlaw steak while you're at it?
BTW, I picked up a combo DVD-VHS player at WalMart for less than $75 recently to replace a DVD player I spent over $500 on a few years ago. It's a much more functional unit, with more connection options to the rest of my entertainment system and is about as affordable (in terms of hours needed to work to purchase) for the average WalMart employee as the DVD was for me a few years ago. Sounds like that Moore's Law thing to me.
-Brad
Permalink to Comment