save money; live better?
by Paige Cram
Published: June 28, 2008
Two things of note happened last week that deserve special attention. The first was that my mother bought some outdoor cushions for our lawn furniture. The second was that AC/DC made a deal regarding the distribution of its next album. These seemingly unrelated events have one thing in common: they both involve Wal-Mart.
The retail giant made its name by “rolling back prices” with its ubiquitous, bouncing happy face. I remember visiting Wal-Mart as a kid, and looking forward to being greeted by an elderly or handicapped employee handing out smiley face stickers. The message: we employ all types of people and everyone loves working here.
Not a bad marketing campaign.
There were rumors of lawsuits and wrong doing, but the prices were so low that customers were happy to ignore them. In 2005, Wal-Mart’s squeaky clean image was irreparably tarnished with the release of Robert Greenwald’s documentary Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Prices. Or so I thought. After seeing it, I immediately began my boycott of the superstore without a conscience, feeling confident that consumers had the power to force Wal-Mart out of business or at least into better practices.
For a time they did appear to be cleaning up their image. They ran ads talking about their donations to local communities, featuring employees who were trying to sell Wal-Mart as the second happiest place on Earth. While it did make some modest changes to its health care plans and environmental violations, most of the company’s policies have remained the same.
In 2007, a Massachusetts jury awarded a female Wal-Mart employee $2 million for a gender discrimination lawsuit. The store is still facing a class action suit of the same kind comprising nearly 2 million former employees nationwide. Just last month, the retailer shelled out an undisclosed amount to another employee in Arkansas as a settlement for a harassment suit that was filed in 2006.
And of course, there was the well-publicized dispute over Debbie Shank, the brain-damaged former employee from whom Wal-Mart was seeking to “recoup medical expenses.” Shank was awarded a settlement in a lawsuit related to the accident that caused her permanent, life-altering condition. Shank’s husband was hoping to use the money for her long-term care until Wal-Mart filed suit against the couple, who also recently lost a son in Iraq. If the Shanks had been forced to repay the nearly $500,000 dollars that Wal-Mart was seeking, it would have bankrupted them.
The New York Times reported that Wal-Mart has an annual profit of approximately $12 billion.
Luckily, the public stepped in. CNN did a story on the Shanks countersuit and Wal-Mart’s despicable behavior, and the public outcry left the retail store no other choice but to drop its case against the traumatized family.
Amidst these public relations nightmares, Wal-Mart has developed a new strategy: making exclusive deals with musicians and technology companies so that consumers looking for specific items have no choice but to go to Wal-Mart. When I was looking for a 26-inch Vizio television, and learned that it was only available exclusively at Wal-Mart, I chose another TV. But not everyone can afford to be so dedicated in her socially-conscious consumer behaviors.
Which is why I was so horrified to learn of the most recent deal with AC/DC. The legendary band is not the first. According to Billboard.com, Garth Brooks, The Eagles and Journey have all made similar deals in recent years, boosting the sales of their albums as well as the profits of America’s modern evil empire. But all of these musicians, who are true American icons, have made this decision thinking only about their wallets, and not about what the cost will be to the American public.
By supporting stores such as Wal-Mart, you condone their inhumane behavior toward their employees both here, and in the sweat shops abroad. You also support the destruction of local businesses that inevitably follows the opening of a Wal-Mart in any suburban town. By forcing customers to shop at Wal-Mart by signing these exclusivity contracts, these “artists” and technology companies perpetuate the cycle.
Which is exactly what I tried to explain to my mom when she came home with those chair cushions. Her response?
“But I couldn’t find them anywhere else!”
That, unfortunately, is exactly what Wal-Mart is making sure of.
Luckily, I’m not an AC/DC fan, so boycotting their new album won’t come at a personal cost to me. But sitting on those wooden lounges at home, without any mass-produced padding, is going to hurt.
—
(email this article or post to social network)
—
June 28th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
It’s pretty sad all the stuff Wal-Mart is willing to do to make money because I can say that I have a testimony of Wal-Mart.
I agree we should be doing something to make sure American companies are not abusing people, but I don’t know if I agree with everyone attacking Wal-Mart exclusively. They are definitely not the only ones using child labor and other disgusting means to make money. We should be boycotting all of the other stores and their products too, if we’re serious.
And you’re right again; does a band selling out surprise anyone? Luckily, I, like you, am no fan of AC/DC, so that would be pretty easy to avoid.
June 30th, 2008 at 9:34 am
Well I am an AC/DC fan and I gotta say this takes them down a notch in my book. I don’t see how anyone could increase record sales by exclusively selling your record at only one type of store.
Half the reason you listen to AC/DC is because they are everything walmart is not. I don’t know if you bash walmart for this though, there are plenty of instances of corporations buying off musicians for their own profit. But what’s supposed to separate good musicans from people like Britney Spears is they don’t sell out like this.
July 1st, 2008 at 10:02 am
I’m contrite! I pledge to be more conscious of my shopping habits–in my defense, I’m sure I’m not alone in my ignorance of the labor practices of these retail giants, but perhaps we anti-industrialists from the 70s all need to be more mindful when doing our bit to keep the economy going.
July 1st, 2008 at 6:02 pm
You want to regulate wal-mart?? How about regulating the ever-growing government that usurps us? How is it that a government, supposedly of the people, does things that a large portion of the people disagree to? Do you understand that minimum wage causes higher unemployment? A supplier says i can afford paying 20 dollars in wages. He isnt going to spend more than 20 dollars whether he pays 20 workers for one dollar or one worker for 20 dollars. Why do immigrants come here? Because they CHOOSE to. They wernt forced to come here. The beauty of the free market is that its a contract between sellers and buyers. The workers were not forced to work there. They did it because they saw it as beneficial.
You want to complain that walmart is doing enough for the environment? It is not an accident that the best air is in the most advanced countries. Its not in Afghanistan where you find the cleanest air.
Why do you think when Hong Kong was a crown colony still, millions and millions of people poured in there because they knew they had opportunity there. It was a free-market without any govt regulation.
America is different than any other country because it was built as a free-market economy. Any race, any person can come here and become rich. Do you Arnold Schwarzenegger can go back to Austria and become prime minisiter and become rich? NO! He came here because this is where you have opportunity.
July 1st, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Sorry i typed my last response extremely fast without proof-reading. Here is the same comment with proof-reading, lol.
You want to regulate wal-mart?? How about regulating the ever-growing government that usurps us? How is it that a government, supposedly of the people, does things that a large portion of the people disagree to? Do you understand that minimum wage causes higher unemployment? A supplier says i can afford paying 20 dollars in wages. He isnt going to spend more than 20 dollars whether he pays 20 workers for one dollar or one worker for 20 dollars. By imposing minimum wage, youre creating higher employment because there are homeless people who agree to work for less. Why do immigrants come here? Because they CHOOSE to. They wernt forced to come here. The beauty of the free market is that its an agreement between sellers and buyers. The workers were not forced to work at walmart. They did it because they saw it as beneficial.
You want to complain that walmart isnt doing enough for the environment? It is not an accident that the best air is in the most advanced countries. Its not in Afghanistan where you find the cleanest air.
Why do you think when Hong Kong was a crown colony still, millions and millions of people poured in there because they knew they had opportunity there. It was a free-market without any govt regulation.
America is different than any other country because it was built as a free-market economy. Any race, any person can come here and become rich. Do you think Arnold Schwarzenegger can go back to Austria and become prime minisiter and become rich? NO! He came here because this is where you have opportunity.
July 2nd, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Nick
The point of this article wasn’t that more gov’t regulation needs to be imposed on businesses, it was that individuals need to become more educated about how the places they shop treat their workers. But since you brought it up, YES, WAL-MART DOES NEED TO BE REGULATED. When you have a free market and you let businesses do as they please and rely on a “contract between sellers and buyers”, you are putting an unreasonable amount of power in the hands of the sellers. I understand that a big part of the appeal of “free market” is that it allows for competition without restriction, but you fail to consider what happens in competition; eventually there will be a winner. The big flaw behind your “free market” logic is that it is very short sighted. If you don’t regulate businesses then eventually the business who gets far enough in front of the pack (Wal-Mart) will have exclusive access to certain goods (like the albums mentioned) and buyers who do not approve of that business will not have the option of abstaining from that business because they have no alternative. I don’t mean to generalize, but this is a constant thread in conservative vs. liberal economics. Conservatives are always worried about the guy at the top not being held back, while liberals are concerned about the guy at the bottom having a fair playing field against the guy at the top. Honestly, I don’t know how people can still argue that gov’t regulation on businesses is a bad thing. I’m not saying we should have the gov’t control every aspect of business, but didn’t you ever hear about the steel industry or the meat industry when this country was first being industrialized? Remember how that “free market” turned out? We had monopolies, no quality control or safety in our products, and no way of unseating or controlling businesses that refused to treat their employees or their customers fairly. This debate was already settled about a century ago.
As for the other rants you wandered off on
1) No, immigrants are not physically dragged here by anyone, but in the sense of survival (adequate medical care and education), YES they are forced here because this country is the only place close enough where they can attain such things.
2) Higher minimum wage causes higher unemployment because CEOs refuse to forego one of their 10 beach houses so the person working in one of their warehouses can afford to eat and pay their child’s health insurance. Whenever I here someone say raising minimum wage is a bad thing, I know right then that they have never worked for minimum wage. I have worked for minimum wage and I know first hand you can’t even afford to live in your car and eat McDonald’s for breakfast, lunch, and dinner off what you make with minimum wage.
By the way, great article Paige, and you’re not alone, I’ve been Wal-Mart free for a few years now.
July 2nd, 2008 at 7:58 pm
I’d like to start with a disclaimer: I have no problem with people boycotting WAL-MART. Consumers with ethics in mind are an essential part of the free market. I might find some views extreme, but there are equally extreme views on the other side, and this balances out.
Now I begin: I have a big problem with government regulation of private industry.
Jake, I will respond point by point for clarity.
I. “you are putting an unreasonable amount of power in the hands of the sellers” This is false. In a free market, a sale is only made when both the buyer and the seller decide the sale benefits them. No force is involved. Walmart has no exclusive rights to products (AC/DC mentioned later). Offering the lowest price creates the illusion of an advantage, but again, sellers need buyers just as much as buyers need sellers.
II. “eventually there will be a winner” Yes, more than one! Competition influences businesses to offer lower prices, better quality, and better service. This helps the buyer and rewards the business. Walmart isn’t price-gouging, so the harm you speak of is unrelated to the sale.
III. “have exclusive access to certain goods” You’ve misinterpreted what happened. Walmart didn’t force AC/DC at gunpoint. AC/DC agreed to give their business to WM, in the SAME WAY that they agree to give their business exclusively to the record label! Walmart simply offered the best contract and the best access to the market in the eyes of the band. The buyers can still “abstain,” because they have an alternative - “don’t buy.” 70s rock remakes are hardly a necessity. Besides, AC/DC’s album is probably going to suck. What are they, 60?
In summation, WAL-MART does not need to be regulated, because it already is. Consumers decide if they want to give them business or not. They may see flaws in the business model, but prices still outweigh that. If WM gets worse, they will feel the pain. Also, courts regulate them, as it should be. Those extra costs to lawyers like HILLARY CLINTON add up and factor in. If the cost was big enough to make a dent, I can assure you WM would eliminate them the same way they eliminate all kinds of costs. They’re that good!
Continue to spread your message, and use that as your market regulator if you believe they are that bad of a company. But don’t get the government involved - there will always be a company to fill the void, and they won’t be perfect either.
“You can’t legislate virtue.”
I highly recommend you all watch the South Park episode “Something Wal-Mart this way comes.” http://www.southparkstudios.com -> full episodes -> season 8, ep 9.
July 2nd, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Jake,
Your arguement is so flawed that I dont know where to begin. Both parties are winners in the market. If a product is made cheaply or is defective, people will notice that and stop buying and the seller will have to change in order to survive. Furthermore, even if products are made cheaply, there is a big market of people out there who dont want expensive products and want the cheap ones because they suffice. Other sellers that see one seller making poor quality products will make better quality products to compete and get that poor quality seller’s market share. Everybody wins in the end because the sellers fight and rumble in order to win customers, and at the end, its the customers who get the best, cheapest product.
The fact that you want to tell walmart how much or how little they should spend on wages or how many yachts the CEO should own is simply out of this world. No one is telling you how to live your life, right? The CEO has worked hard all his life to make a profit and live a rich man. If he knew that the government will tell him what to do, he wouldnt have started wal-mart and that would have hurt the economy bad…REALLY BAD. Imagine all the lost workers on every single step on the value-chain. When you institute luxary taxes on things like yachts, the rich people just won’t buy them anymore. So yes, they get hurt. But the people that are hurt most, are the blue-collar middle class folks, who rely on building the yachts.
This whole nonsense of trying to take from the rich and give to the poor is outrageous. It gives no incentive, no opportunity. Too much regulation will shut america’s principles down. America was not built to be a socialized nation. Its different than any other country out there. This is precisely why any person of any race can come here and have the opportunity to do anything he wants. If you socialize america, this will no longer be the case. Business is a wonderful institution, provided that it is subject to competition and it cant get away without producing something better in the marketplace at a lower cost.
Immigrants come here NOT because they think the conditions here are worse than where they are coming from, but much better. So when you talk about these workers for walmart working for a low wage, keep things in perspective that they are living much better here. In addition, the reason why I am doing well is because I am standing on the shoulders of my ancestors who migrated here and did all the hard work for me. These factory workers’ children and grandchildren will have it much better than what they have.
It is not an accident that millions upon millions of people wanted to come to America in the Golden age and to Hong Kong when it was a crown colony because of less government. They escaped their current country of poor conditions to come to america, a land of opportunity due to its free economy. In comparison, millions and millions of people escaped Red China to come to Hong Kong to prosper.
America is not a country where everyone should be making the same salary, have the same living conditions, and have everyting the same. Its a land where anyone can come, work hard, and be successful.
When you raise taxes and overregulate business and people, this will shift the aggregate demand curve to the left, reducing GDP and leading us to a recession. Rich people will stop spending and investing in the American market or even worse, spend abroad.
July 3rd, 2008 at 3:12 am
Jake in determining your economic system it is never a question of will we have people who live on a subsitance wage or “minimum” wage. It is only a question of which economy will have fewer people on minimum wage. If it is true that govt. regulation improves our lives than let’s study the economies that most rely on regulation: Cuba and N Korea (I’m not mentioning China because their economy continues to boom because of their gradual or not so gradual rejection of command economy practices.) In theory and in practice, command economies suck at distributing wealth. Total regulation pushes all people into the minimum wage category. I can’t imagine that anyone will make the argument that that is a good thing.
But your not talking about communism, you just want to establish or increase the minimum wage. I get it. So maybe a little command works with a little free market?
Solid arguement. Maybe. Let’s look at the redistribution efforts of our government. Government housing? A mess. The more the government subsidizes living expenditures the worse the neighborhood. How about welfare stamps? Feeding the poor is always a good thing right? Except when you visit the hollers and dead-end towns of Kentucky and realize
that many families haven’t held a job for three generations (I’m not exagerating. Go to a Kentucky holler and you’ll see.) Food stamps do help some people get through a rough patch. But the net effect is always damaging to society. You’re patting yourself on the back for your efforts while at the same time you’re maintaining a perpetually impovershed class. Congratulations.
Farm subsidies. There’s nothing honorable about propping up the mega-farms with cash stolen from taxpayers. Subsidy accepting farmers are freaking extortionists.
Social Security. A train wreck from day one. Anyone who disputes that is too uniformed for me to care about. Just sit back and enjoy your government as it pilfers your paycheck.
Sir, I could go on but I’m bored. Where’s the article on school vouchers?
July 3rd, 2008 at 1:35 pm
I have neither the time (nor the intellect) to respond in depth to all three of those responses. But when I was reading them, I saw that some of the stuff I wrote was misinterpreted. I also immediately regreted posting on here because, like any political discussion these days, it’s people talking at each other, injecting snarky comments just meant to mock people(”but I’m bored”) and stating these broad sweeping “facts” and declaring things true or false without any hard data to back it up. I’m just going to try to clear up some of the things that must’ve come out wrong before walking away from this conversation so it doesn’t feed into your perceptions that us liberals are these clueless idealists with no knowledge of our current reality.
1) When I say regulation, I’m talking about employee treatment and nothing more. I’ll readily admit I’m am not familiar enough with economics on that large a scale to suggest how or even if pricing should be regulated. My main gripe is that there isn’t enough regulation of how buisinesses treat their employees. Example: I think minimum wage should be upped and their should be regulation in place so that that added money comes out of the deepest pockets in the company instead of laying off the people who have the least. Also, anyone who’s willing to work (and even those who can’t find a job) should have full health care.
2)I completely agree, immigrants come here because it’s a better place then where they left. I have no idea how what I wrote was implying that coming to America is a worse situation for them. I don’t think our “free market” is responsible for the good things that attract immigrants here.
3)It seems like the other %90 of the responses assumed that I think gov’t regulation should include housing, social security, and all other sorts of things I never said should be regulated.
So to sum up: I have no problem with the competition aspect of free market, but if there’s going to be true competition, there needs to be rules and someone to enforce those rules. That someone should probably be the gov’t. Those rules shouldn’t limit how much someone can succeed, but if someone is succeeding by exploiting their workers, then someone should step in and make sure that success is more fairly distributed to the exploited people who have helped make it happen. And no, consumers or buyers can not be relied on to keep employee treatment fair because consumers/buyers are usually ignorant or uniformed of employee treatment.
And seriously, I know you don’t know me, but my South Park knowledge is quite sufficient. That was a total waste of a hyperlink because I can replay that whole episode in my head on command.
July 3rd, 2008 at 2:10 pm
If our market isn’t what attracts immigrants what is it?