...on Wal-mart

On the way home today I heard a talk show host claiming to be a conservative. He loved up on Wal-mart bashing a caller for not agreeing that it's great and wonderful. It's entertainment I know, and not even good entertainment for that matter. I think the whole idea of calling and trying to argue someone on their own show is an exercise in futility. This is what these people do and if you think for one second you're going to "win" and get him to say, "yea, you're right, I was wrong" you're dreaming. Nevertheless, I listen because broadcast music is pretty weak these days.

So, in between the host's carefully planned interruptions and patronizing comments, this caller made a good point. She spoke about how Wal-mart had tried to build a store in a nearby town. When the town put it to a vote, the people of that town voted overwhelming against it. Wal-mart then went to a nearby town, bought land as closely as possible to the first town and asked the town board for approval of annexation. This was 100% legal. Being legal however doesn't make it ethical. Wal-mart does this kind of crap all over the place and small towns and the people in them are nothing more than an "obstacle" in the path of their economic steam roller.

In this case the people spoke and in their minds having a Wal-mart was not in the best interest of their town. So, much like the way they muscle around their suppliers, Wal-mart simply sidestepped the public interest in a "we know what's best for your town" way.

Here's where I'm going to bash on Wal-mart as well as the consumers who keep it in business. After all they are free to get away with this garbage because they're so big. How did they get so big? People buy their junk everyday.

Argument 1: the jobs. As soon as a community opposes constructing a new store, the fist tactic Wal-mart pulls out is the jobs. "Just think of all the jobs your community is missing out on. You don't want those jobs to go somewhere else do you?" That's crap and here’s why. Wal-mart does employ a lot of people. They are, in fact, the largest employer in many of the small communities they destroy. Most of those jobs are low wage dead-end retail jobs that people are expected to fight and slobber over having. Many of the Wal-marts around the nation are open 24 hours just so some minimum wage worker can be there when John Doe needs that gallon gar of pickles at 3 AM. That’s quality of life for ya'. These so-called conservatives also "forget" to mention the way a Wal-mart wrecks the local businesses in the community as well as the surrounding areas. For every garbage job that they claim to bring, they kill a job at a local business. Local businesses aren't perfect, but it's been my experience that the people working there are nicer, more knowledgeable about the products and seem to have a genuine concern for the survival of their company. Local stores are also more in touch with the products that people might actually need. (This goes along with the general theme that Wal-marts are a cereal-no-milk store. We'll get into that more in the future.) In past experiences with Wal-mart, I've found the people there (when I can actually find someone who speaks English and can be bothered with helping me) generally hate working there, hate you, hate themselves and hate life. They're rude, they don't know a screwdriver from a pair of underwear and they don't care. I've also noticed that these lifeless trailer park slackers don't seem to be anywhere other than Wal-mart. Wal-mart survives in spite of this out of sheer size, and the promise that within a few years they'll "kill off" all the local competitors. It's been my experience that local places that are like this don't survive and are "consumed" by the competition. For Wal-mart, there is no competition.

Argument 2: the tax dollars. Again the Rushs of the world are flawed in their argument. Sure, Wal-mart is taxed on its retail sales. What about all the small companies they crushed in the nearby economy? Were they not paying taxes? The conservative agreement here is just plain stupid. They talk about how great it'll be with all the "new" tax dollars that will come in. I though you were against taxing the snot out of big businesses Mr. Conservative? So you're for killing the small businesses that compete and help promote the free market economy in favor of one big monopoly that you can then tax at will. Yea, that makes total sense.

Argument 3: (this is my personal agreement) the eyesore. Wal-marts are big ugly traffic nightmares. To build one, they either destroy a city block of small businesses in small buildings with character and history, or wipe out several acres of otherwise undeveloped woodland. When Wal-mart stock goes down, or the workers start asking for a better quality of life, Wal-mart closes the store and leaves an empty rotting hulk in its place. Sometimes, like in my town, they move next door and ruin an even bigger wooded area just to build a bigger store. In addition to being ugly and environmentally harmful, they cause a traffic mess building more lanes and traffic lights where before there was only road. In killing off the local guy back in town because they feel it would be better to build outside the city, they leave the downtown areas of these small cities with abandoned buildings unable to be filled with would-be competition. Remember, with Wal-mart in a small town, there is no competition.

Final argument: the consumer. Wal-mart isn't the only one guilty of aggressively marketing its "bigger is better" strategy of retail sales. Big box stores in the suburbs of major cities everywhere are choking the downtown business districts. Wal-mart is the focus of this piece because in addition to that, they can be found smothering the local economy in many of the small towns all across the country. In economies where there was once two, maybe three local businesses competing in a single market, there is now only Wal-mart. These areas don't have the population to support more than one big-box store and Wal-mart knows it. After crushing the last local guy, they are free to charge whatever they want and treat their employees however they feel.

Wal-mart's power and size to overwhelm and destroy a local economy in a small town, or anywhere for that matter is driven wholly by the consumer. There are many who back Wal-mart saying that it brings money (taxes), jobs and goods into a town. If this is true, did the town need more gallon jars of pickles sold by underpaid slackers? If it really boosts the economy so much, while offering cheaper products, was the town's needs not being met? These mindless Wal-mart consumers are the same bread-and-circus economy that buys not because they need, but because it's there. They get excited because that gallon of pickles is as cheap as a regular jar of pickles. Nobody stops to think, "do I really need that?" They buy because they can. Wal-mart shoppers also don't care about quality or American jobs. They glee when something is cheap, but the old adage is true, "you get what you pay for." At Wal-mart you get crap and you pay accordingly. On top of all that, you're buying foreign made junk which is taking even more jobs away, sometimes right in their own community.

If anything I've said above upsets you, do something about it and stop shopping there. I know it will take shopping at local stores where you might be forced to interact with people in your local community. The option of shopping for your household goods in the wee hours of the morning because of the "mess" in the parking isn't there. Do it, you'll like it. You'll be bringing real jobs, local tax dollars on American (sometimes even locally) made products and interacting with people who have a real and genuine interest in serving your needs. Wal-mart is only as strong as you the consumer make them.