Wednesday, August 16, 2006

previous entry | main | next entry | TrackBack (0)


The Democratic Party vs. Wal-Mart

In the New York Times, Adam Nagourney and Michael Barbaro have a story on how the Democratic Party has arrived at a new bogeyman -- Wal-Mart:

Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, a likely Democratic presidential candidate in 2008, delivered a 15-minute, blistering attack to warm applause from Democrats and union organizers here on Wednesday. But Mr. Biden’s main target was not Republicans in Washington, or even his prospective presidential rivals.

It was Wal-Mart, the nation’s largest private employer.

Among Democrats, Mr. Biden is not alone. Across Iowa this week and across much of the country this month, Democratic leaders have found a new rallying cry that many of them say could prove powerful in the midterm elections and into 2008: denouncing Wal-Mart for what they say are substandard wages and health care benefits.

Six Democratic presidential contenders have appeared at rallies like the one Mr. Biden headlined, along with some Democratic candidates for Congress in some of the toughest-fought races in the country.

“My problem with Wal-Mart is that I don’t see any indication that they care about the fate of middle-class people,” Mr. Biden said, standing on the sweltering rooftop of the State Historical Society building here. “They talk about paying them $10 an hour. That’s true. How can you live a middle-class life on that?”

The focus on Wal-Mart is part of a broader strategy of addressing what Democrats say is general economic anxiety and a growing sense that economic gains of recent years have not benefited the middle class or the working poor.

Their alliance with the anti-Wal-Mart campaign dovetails with their emphasis in Washington on raising the minimum wage and doing more to make health insurance affordable. It also suggests they will go into the midterm Congressional elections this fall and the 2008 presidential race striking a populist tone.

Biden's comment here is revealing in how the Dems want to frame the debate -- they think Wal-Mart's greatest impact is as an employer. Most (thought not all) economists, I suspect, see Wal-Mart's greatest impact as lowering the costs of consumption for Americans who frequent their stores -- including the middle class.

In the Financial Times, Jonathan Birchall and Holly Yeager report on Wal-Mart's response:

Under Lee Scott, chief executive, the company has in the past year expanded beyond the usual realm of corporate lobbying to wage a fully-fledged campaign in the mainstream of American politics. “When a company is as large as ours, we’re certainly going to have a lot of interaction with both politics and government,” says Bob McAdam, vice-president of corporate affairs.

On Tuesday it sent 18,000 “voter education” letters to its employees in Iowa, pointing out what it said were factual errors made by politicians who had attacked the company. The group is to despatch similar letters to its staff in other states....

Wal-Mart’s evolving political strategy, shaped with advice and support from Edelman, the public relations consultancy, has been twofold. First, it has attacked its critics – arguing that it is the victim of an unholy alliance between Democrat lawmakers and the unions they rely on to deliver votes and campaign financing. Second, it is seeking to make the argument that the company is good for America.

It is doing this by mobilising its own political constituency, seeking alliances with local community leaders and businesses – in particular, black and Hispanic groups – that accept Wal-Mart’s argument that the company helps low-income Americans by offering low prices and jobs with the prospect of advancement.

Working Families for Wal-Mart, funded mainly by the retailer, is part of both strategies....

John Zogby, the pollster, argues that focusing too much on Wal-Mart “means no net gain”, because union voters already favour the Democrats and the party must seek other support if it is to recapture the White House in 2008. “When are the Democrats going to talk to Wal-Mart shoppers?” he asks (see below left). Mr Zogby, who has done some polling work for Wake Up Wal-Mart, says Democrats still lack “a strategy that deals with Joe and Mary Middle America – and Joe and Mary Middle America are at Wal-Mart”.

Two questions to readers:
A) Who's going to win this battle over the next few years?

B) Who should win this battle?

UPDATE: Well, I think it's safe to describe Andy Young as a loser in this battle.

posted by Dan on 08.16.06 at 10:58 PM




Comments:

Democrats are not about to talk to Wal-Mart shoppers because most of them don't vote, and many of the ones who do vote don't vote in Democratic Party primaries.

Critical to understanding American politics today is understanding how the dynamics of low-turnout elections differ from those of high-turnout elections. Wal-Mart as an issue for most eligible voters nationally (admittedly this is an important qualifier -- in local elections an institution as big as Wal-Mart is bound to become controversial from time to time for any number of reasons) has no legs; for unions, historically one of the organized interest groups that dominate the Democratic Party, the situation is entirely different. A unionized Wal-Mart workforce would restore much of organized labor's lost relevance in the private economy, and represents a specific agenda item that organized labor can rally around. Where the unions are rallying, so are Democratic politicians.

I expect Democratic politicians to be banging away at Wal-Mart for years. In particular, every Democratic candidate for President in 2008 is going to spend some time ragging on Wal-Mart. It will be what each Democratic candidate (or at least the consultants who run Democratic campaigns) will think he needs to do to show labor that he is on labor's side -- something useful in a general election, but much more important in primary elections when only a fraction of registered Democrats vote.

posted by: Zathras on 08.16.06 at 10:58 PM [permalink]



You know, I'm for Wal-Mart. George Orwell would be if he were here: he noted the arrival of large discount department stores with approval, because he thought small shopkeepers were tyrants and price-gougers (he insisted tobacconists were all fascists).

While the Donks go on about minimum wage and health care benefits, they only give a damn about the wrongs of Wal-Mart - the cold-blooded calculations universities make about staff never seem to rate much comment (not to toss rocks at Tufts, which struck me as relatively humane. TAs were well paid, as I can attest). Same thing with global warming: people who travel in private jets complain about SUV emissions? Please.

I suspect that the reason for this is really not economic, just as a lot of the global warming complaints aren't really ecological. The American Left is much more interested in aesthetics than anything else, and Wal-Mart allows poorer people to indulge themselves in ways that are both unfashionable and that remind a poorly paid assistant professor at a provincial university that an electrician who shops at WalMart probably has a greater earning power, and a better shot at satisfying his desires.

posted by: Nanonymous on 08.16.06 at 10:58 PM [permalink]



Dan,

Stop thinking about general elections and consider only Democratic primary elections. Then it will make sense.

posted by: Tom Holsinger on 08.16.06 at 10:58 PM [permalink]



“My problem with Wal-Mart is that I don’t see any indication that they care about the fate of middle-class people,” Mr. Biden said, standing on the sweltering rooftop of the State Historical Society building here. “They talk about paying them $10 an hour. That’s true. How can you live a middle-class life on that?”

Did anyone else find this statement extremely odd? Wal-Mart employees are some of the lowest skilled employees in the job market. Even if Biden is correct that Wal-Mart should pay more, does anyone really think they should be middle class? If Wal-Mart employees are middle class, where is the lower class going to work?

posted by: FXKLM on 08.16.06 at 10:58 PM [permalink]



If Wal-Mart employees are middle class, where is the lower class going to work?

The food-service industry.

posted by: rosignol on 08.16.06 at 10:58 PM [permalink]



> Stop thinking about general elections
> and consider only Democratic primary
> elections. Then it will make sense.

Interesting how Radical Republican thought processes are now permeating our entire political economy. The idea that someone, even a *gasp* /Democratic politician/ might have an overall concern for the future direction of the entire US economy, both rich and poor, is immediately dismissed by 4 of the first 5 posters. Naw, must be partisan Democratic machine politics at work.

OK, smart guys: with the oil having run out in 1970 and our technology industry having moved to China over the last 10 years, what exactly is the US economy going to _do_ between now and 2050? Build McMansions for one another?

Gilded Age II, here we come.

Cranky

posted by: Cranky Observer on 08.16.06 at 10:58 PM [permalink]



There was a pretty good article in the Atlantic recently on the organized anti-Wal Mart forces. They have no interest in forcing Wal Mart to give it all its employees healthcare because they no it cant ( and continue to be a successful business). They are trying to force Wal Mart to stand up publicly and say the US needs nationalized healthcare.

By the way, since when does Wal Mart have any sort of obligation to the middle class or any class for that matter? There only obligation is to their share-holders.

posted by: Pete on 08.16.06 at 10:58 PM [permalink]



But the lighting in Tarzhay is so much nicer.

posted by: v on 08.16.06 at 10:58 PM [permalink]



Tom,

I agree with you on this. Wal-mart is all about primary elections. I suspect most of the Walmart bashing will come from Dem Senators running for President. The Senators (Biden, Clinton, Kerry et al) are at a structural disadvantage on domestic issues vis a vis governors, so they will hop on the Wal-mart bashing bandwagon to try to connect to base voters.

That said, a little bit of Walmart bashing is probably a good thing if it promotes a debate about health care and suburban sprawl.

posted by: SteveinVT on 08.16.06 at 10:58 PM [permalink]



“My problem with Wal-Mart is that I don’t see any indication that they care about the fate of middle-class people,” Mr. Biden said, standing on the sweltering rooftop of the State Historical Society building here. “They talk about paying them $10 an hour. That’s true. How can you live a middle-class life on that?”

>Did anyone else find this statement extremely
>odd? Wal-Mart employees are some of the lowest
>skilled employees in the job market. Even if
>Biden is correct that Wal-Mart should pay more,
>does anyone really think they should be middle
>class?


I suspect Biden's comment refers to poorly paid Wal-Mart employees getting stuck in a "poverty trap" with little room for social advancement...
---
One of the biggest myths concerning American society is the notion that poor but hardworking people have a bigger chance of becoming rich than their counterparts in class-obsessed Europe. However, the following study indicates sons of the poorest fathers in the U.S. are in fact more likely to remain in the lowest earnings quintile than their counterparts in Britain and Scandinavia in particular, where the state actively helps poor people to join the ranks of the middle class ---

http://doku.iab.de/externe/2006/k060124f13.pdf

I think there are fundamentally different ways of looking at the Wal-Mart problem. The Republicans thinks all voters are primarily consumers/customers whereas Democrats (and Europeans) tend to think the more important thing is the majority of voters are employees.


MARCU$

posted by: Marcus Lindroos on 08.16.06 at 10:58 PM [permalink]



If we didn't have our stupid employer-based health insurance system, I wouldn't have much to gripe at Wal-Mart about.

And if the Dems become the Party of Anti-Wal-Mart, they will keep on losing. Repub commercial: "Wal-Mart is a great American success story, bringing lower prices to poor Americans nationwide. Of COURSE the Democrats hate it. *They* all shop at Target!"

posted by: Anderson on 08.16.06 at 10:58 PM [permalink]



> I think there are fundamentally different
> ways of looking at the Wal-Mart problem. The
> Republicans thinks all voters are primarily
> consumers/customers whereas Democrats (and
> Europeans) tend to think the more important
> thing is the majority of voters are employees.

Funny how the word "Citizen" doesn't appear in either of those descriptions.

Are peopele even aware anymore that this is pure Grover Norquist framing, or has it become internalized to the point where we not only don't see it but can't talk about it?

Cranky


posted by: Cranky Observer on 08.16.06 at 10:58 PM [permalink]



It's convenient to beat up on Walmart because no one has constructive solutions to the real problem. We have replaced most of the manufacturing jobs in the US with retail sales jobs. I think you economists call this "comparative advantage." Am I being facetious? You bet! No one seriously thinks that a Walmart clerk should earn as much as a welder or machine operator. It's not Walmart's fault that it's clerks are fully capable of assembling a Chevy or a home appliance, but Chevys and home appliances are now assembled in Asia. Most of them are happy to have any job at all, even though they're underemployed. The real problem is figuring out how to make US workers competitive with the Asians.

posted by: OpenBorderMan on 08.16.06 at 10:58 PM [permalink]



"OK, smart guys: with the oil having run out in 1970 and our technology industry having moved to China over the last 10 years, what exactly is the US economy going to _do_ between now and 2050? Build McMansions for one another?"

Well, I'm making money hand over fist on railroad dividend payments. Seen BNSF earnings for the last quarter? They're shipping coal from the Powder River and containers from China (which contain a lot of molded plastic stuff you can buy at Target, rather than "technology").

And they're shipping oil from the fields off Los Angeles, which seem to be producing an astonishing number of carloadings for an industry that went dry in 1970.

posted by: Nanonymous on 08.16.06 at 10:58 PM [permalink]



As all too often my party is missing the point. The biggest issues with Wal-Mart are broad issues that affect all of retailing and while one of the two issues I will mention is more of a Wal-Mart issue than anything else, it isn't helpful to create bogeymen when that results in one missing the broader point.

1. The minimum wage is too low -- it ought to be above the federal poverty line at least. This becomes an issue at just about every box retailer I can think of except Home Depot, which actually pays its staff a living wage.

2. Anti-trust legislation isn't being enforced. This issue is a bit more particular to Wal-Mart than the pay one. In Wal-Mart's case this is hugely important for its suppliers, who WM forces to sell to them below cost (something they can do because of their size) and in this way drives outsourcing -- I.e. outsourcing in the manufacturing of general merchandise is being driven not by the market as a whole but by one company's unhealthy and anti-competitive domination of it.

The power of Wal-Mart to make or break suppliers in general merchandise should not be underestimated. Our trade deficit narrowed dramatically in the early to mid 1990s when WM was pushing "Made in the USA". It has ballooned in recent years with the switch in WM's management to the current extreme squeezing of suppliers. To take one example, light manufacturing all over the Midwest -- which survived multiple previous downtowns -- is getting shunted wholesale to China under cost pressure from box retailers, and I don't see the price benefits as a consumer; I do see multitudes of middle Americans no longer able to afford to buy the products they once made.

posted by: DB on 08.16.06 at 10:58 PM [permalink]



This is all so sad. It's indicative of a political class that simply cannot articulate a positive agenda. They cannot operate without enemies and they risk becomming a party motivated soley by enmity and resentment.

Meritocracy is failing.

posted by: Jos Bleau on 08.16.06 at 10:58 PM [permalink]



> To take one example, light manufacturing all
> over the Midwest -- which survived multiple
> previous downtowns -- is getting shunted
> wholesale to China under cost pressure from box
> retailers, and I don't see the price benefits as
> a consumer; I do see multitudes of middle
> Americans no longer able to afford to buy the
> products they once made.

Having been involved in several such situations, I must agree. The problem of course isn't the entry-level cheap plastics molding jobs. It is that once those are moved to China the skilled maintenance jobs go right away. The industrial engineering jobs follow in about a year. Tool and die in three years. Machine tools in five years. Product engineering in 4-6 years. Right now the claim is that "high-value" product design will remain in the United States, but I am a loss to see why that would be so. And in any case it is the jobs that are going that build a prosperous, stable middle class.

The funny thing is that the US universities I am in contact with have experienced a drop in enrollment of foreign students of 40% or more since 9/11 due to visa and security hassles, and general perception of unwantedness. So another supposed high-value service is being sent elsewhere (presumably to Germany, but perhaps to India, Russia, and ?) right under the academey's nose. When the econ professors start to feel the bite in 5 more years or so we might get some more realistic analysis.

Cranky

posted by: Cranky Observer on 08.16.06 at 10:58 PM [permalink]



SteveVT,

I opposed the Wal-Mart superstore opening in my town, signed a petition against it, wrote a letter to the City Council opposing it and, when Wal-Mart sued my city's government, recused myself from reviewing Wal-Mart's petition for writ of mandate so it went to my court's other research attorney.

Wal-Mart lost the appeal too, and the ruling was published.

Dan,

This isn't about Wal-Mart. It's about campaign fund-raising and posturing inside the Democratic party. The attacks on Wal-Mart you relate are not intended to have any effect on Wal-Mart.

posted by: Tom Holsinger on 08.16.06 at 10:58 PM [permalink]



WHY I REALLY HATE WAL-MART:

My darling daughter sent me to Wal-Mart (which I hate) to buy baby formula for my cutest-on-earth grandson.

At the checkout I needed to write a check. I asked the cashier for a pen, and we fumbled the tranfer, so we had to dig the pen out of some equipment.

Me: "I'm glad we got that, your boss would have had to get you a new pen."

Clerk: "No he wouldn't, I have to buy my own pens."

Cheap, lousy SOBs, that is why we still need unions.


On another note:

This spring there was some reporting to the effect that Wal-Mart had a sweetheart deal with the DOL to get prior notice before any survey or enforcement activity (say, auditing overtime compliance). None of my clients ever received sweetheart deals from the government. How does one go about buying a presidential administration (rhetorical question of course).

posted by: save_the_rustbelt on 08.16.06 at 10:58 PM [permalink]



According to Kristin Forbes of MIT (and formerly of the CEA 2003 - 2005) Americans shouldn't worry so much about their lagging wages and outsourced jobs because we can buy "cheap sneakers" at big box stores.

I guess a PhD in econ isn't what it used to be.

posted by: save_the_rustbelt on 08.16.06 at 10:58 PM [permalink]



Tom-
I have a question-and its not snarky-I genuinely want to know. Why did you sue to have Walmart stopped-why do you care?
I live in a big city (not Los Angeles big, but Minneapolis big). If I drew a circle three miles from my house, I'd probably encompass 5,000 businesses. Three or four or five of them would be Wal-Marts. I really don't get the animosity for those five, and the indifference to the other 4,995.
I also really don't get the small town opposition to WalMart. I compare it to bookstores; Barnes and Noble and Borders have killed off the small bookstores that I grew up with (Walden books in the mall)-but that's a good thing! Big bookstores are better than those little Walden books!). I have always shopped for stuff at bigger places (whether Sears or B&N or supermarkets) rather than small places, because the selection is so much better.
So what's the source of the animosity towards WalMart that Sears and Target and giant supermarkets and any of the other businesses, large or small, don't have? And if you say a policy causing the animosity (unionization, health care, wage level, whatever), tell me that you also know the policies of Sears and Target and B&N and all the other 4,995 stores, and know them to be better than Walmart's. Otherwise, its just an excuse. I see this animosity in friends, I see it in blogs like this, and it really baffles me.

Steve

posted by: Steve on 08.16.06 at 10:58 PM [permalink]



Walmart is not a very profitable company. It's margins are very small, resulting in just $6000 of profit per employee. Increasing pay by $3 per hour almost completely erodes Walmart's profitability.

Walmart employees, like most other retail employees receive low wages because their labor is not very productive. This was even more true of the retail jobs that jobs at Walmart have replaced. Using discriminatory legislation to tear down Walmart does nothing to upskill American workers. It serves only to create greater unemployment while failing to address difficulties faced by the working poor. And for a number of reasons, most Walmart employees are not poor.

posted by: Aaron Chalfin on 08.16.06 at 10:58 PM [permalink]



It appears to be all about the Unions here in Chicago (i.e. the "big box" wage ordinance). Which in turn is mostly about Dem primaries, but also about having an organization to draw on for general elections.

As to your questions:

A) I don't believe that W-M will lose the battle, but I don't know that they will win either. I doubt that Dem pressure, as currently applied, will cause W-M to change significantly. However, if, as suggested above, either (i)this is really about pressuring W-M to support universal health care in some form or (ii) the Dems change their attacks to be about W-M's driving their suppliers to offshore jobs, then the Dem politicians might win; and if it's actually (i), then both W-M and the Dems can win.

B) As a registered Dem, unless this is really about either (i) or (ii) above, I REALLY hope that the Dems lose. If this is merely a union-building exercise, or a cynical poitical strategy of bashing the unpopular big guy, I have to put aside my distaste for W-M and support W-M.

On the Chicago big box wage ordinance, I am flabberghasted by the lunatic assessment that differential minimum wages for comparable jobs will have no substantial impact on W-M, Target, and other big box retailer decision to locate stores in Chicago. Everyone just says "Chicago is a big market, of course they will open stores in a market this size". Idiots.

posted by: Chicagoan on 08.16.06 at 10:58 PM [permalink]



Steve,

My city's government denied a WalMart application to open a superstore here. Various reasons were given for the denial, including a real good one (to my professional eye) about unmitigated traffic impacts) and I didn't track the lawsuit about it save to note who won.

WalMart sued my city's government in my court (where I am a research attorney) to overturn the denial of its superstore application. The judge here denied WalMart's petition for a writ. WalMart appealed and the appellate court upheld my court.

I personally dislike WalMart's personnel policies for the usual reasons. My wife loathes WalMart for the same reasons, but I don't.

My major reason for opposing the superstore in my city is that its lower prices, made possible by the exceptionally low labor expenses created by its personnel policies, will pretty much eliminate the ability of many couples I know who work in local supermarkets to raise families based on two incomes. I view WalMart's personnel practices as anti-family.

My city's planning commission and City Council were IMO absolutely correct, though, about the unmitigated traffic impacts/congestion the superstore would create at the location WalMart chose.

I have considerable private practice experience representing developers and sued my city's government often enough representing developers to know which arguments fly, which don't, and what a traffic disaster this particular superstore in that particular location would have been. I didn't track the lawsuit but suspect the trial judge and appellate court focused on the traffic issue.

WalMart might well build a superstore in my city if it chooses a different location where road access is easier, or pays mitigation fees to expand the roads in a new location.

I'd still oppose such a superstore but my city's government might not.

posted by: Tom Holsinger on 08.16.06 at 10:58 PM [permalink]



Interesting-
There was a WalMart that was going to go into an area of my town, that was defeated, for many of the same reasons (traffic, as far as I know). What I found odd about the case, though, was that the WalMart was trying to locate in an abandoned, out of business shopping mall. It baffled me that people would rather live across the street from blight (empty shopping mall) than across the street from a viable business (that happened to be WalMart).
As to 'the usual personnel reasons' for opposing WalMart-that's what I don't know: what are they? And are they really different from Taco Bell, Sears, Target, the Dollar Store, etc etc? I feel like I'm surrounded by store clerks all day long, selling me clothes, prepared food, groceries, books, computers, you name it. Somehow WalMart Clerks (but not Taco Bell clerks, or bookstore cash register operators, or waitresses at the steak house, or Hobby Lobby shelf stockers, etc) deserve a middle class wage?

Steve

posted by: Steve on 08.16.06 at 10:58 PM [permalink]



Let's put aside the traffic issues if we can. This is supposed to be about whether WM treats its employees fairly. Whatever happened to the idea that market forces determine wages? Why is this the business of city govt? Why are we not concerned about creating jobs? I thought the idea of a planned economy was debunked.

posted by: OpenBorderMan on 08.16.06 at 10:58 PM [permalink]



OpenBorderMan,

Because this is America. All politics is local. I know people who would be hurt by a WalMart superstore in my city.

Politics is not about logic. Law is., but not politics.

posted by: Tom Holsinger on 08.16.06 at 10:58 PM [permalink]



The worst thing that could happen to Wal-Mart would be for a Democratic President to realign the NLRB so it isn't completely one-sided in favor of management.

posted by: save_the_rustbelt on 08.16.06 at 10:58 PM [permalink]



Tom H,
My point is that WM is the symptom of a globalized economy where US workers cannot compete. WM did not cause this problem. You cannot fix the problem by legislating higher wages. The only "logic" in this political gambit is that ignorant voters will be distracted from the real issues.

posted by: OpenBorderMan on 08.16.06 at 10:58 PM [permalink]



The jobs Wal Mart creates pay more than the ones it displaces. Because Wal Mart is more productive than its competitors.

And then there are those low prices.

Democrats have always used big business as a boogieman.

There's something to the argument that this is about aesthetics and the likely voter. It's amazing how many upper middle class Democrats I encounter who hate Wal Mart for what it is, and don't see what it has done for those on low incomes.

There's something to the argument that this is about unions, and milking them for campaign contributions.

There's something to the argument making Wal Mart a target works in the primaries, but fades into oblivion in the general election.

If this is a big issue for Democrats, the Republicans still have a chance of retaining power. Pathetic.

The commenter raising antitrust issues needs to go back to Eco 101 and figure what part of this he didn't get. Wal Mart has made its suppliers more competitive, and its market share has grown because its prices are low, not high.

Wal Mart will win. Sanity in economic policy usually eventually prevails in the U.S.

posted by: John B. Chilton on 08.16.06 at 10:58 PM [permalink]



The notion that a nontrivial number of American workers are competing for jobs with people from very poor countries like India and China is laughable.

posted by: Aaron on 08.16.06 at 10:58 PM [permalink]



Every single "econ 101" texbook discussion of comparative advantage ends with a paragraph along the lines of "employment and wealth dislocations caused by [this process] that are judged socially undesirable can be adjusted with politically-determined transfer payments".

Yet whenever anyone actually starts using the political process to determine the scope and magnitude of those transfer payments the economists (or more accurately the hangers-on of the extreme free-market economists) pile on, calling such efforts "idiocy", "insane", and worse. Ditto to any atttempts to review the morality sections of Adam Smith's work.

Funny dat.

Cranky

posted by: Cranky Observer on 08.16.06 at 10:58 PM [permalink]



The jobs Wal Mart creates pay more than the ones it displaces. Because Wal Mart is more productive than its competitors.

Blatantly wrong. It is wrong in economic theory generally, and wrong on the specific facts.

Wages are set based on supply and demand. They have nothing to do with productivity at a company level.

Walmart is more productive because of supply chain management and logistics. That doesn't translate to higher wages, that translates to higher profits.

posted by: Jim on 08.16.06 at 10:58 PM [permalink]



Steve & OpenBorderMan,

The non-WalMart examples you cite are simply not comparable for a simple reason - each involves significantly smaller stores which, in any given town, simply do not impact existing employment in supermarkets.

Tell us how many people raise families with careers in fast food, or in bookstores, relative to those employed in supermarkets. Supermarkets in towns and small cities together employ a non-trivial proportion of people in a single, identifiable industry who raise families.

You guys just don't get it that families are the issue here. You keep trying to broaden the subject beyond families, and thereby so diffuse the subject that it becomes a non-issue. That inability to focus, and neglect of local family economic issues, is why Democratic candidates are such losers these days.

I used to be a Democrat. I grew up with politicians constantly underfoot. I crept out of bed as a kid and huddled in the hallway listening to politicians plot in a smoke-filled room (my father's study). I know how to count. I even managed campaigns.

I know how to win. Too few Democrats do these days and it shows.

posted by: Tom Holsinger on 08.16.06 at 10:58 PM [permalink]



I have no love loss for Wal-Mart. The one thing I consistently hear in support of Wal-Mart is that the company lowers prices for consumers. This is absolutely true. But the price of patio furniture, underwear, a CD - isn't that important to me. It seems like "middle class" is interchangable with "ravenous consumerism." I'm far more concerned with the human beings in the blue vests than I am with the marginal price difference that results from the getting screwed.

posted by: Harden on 08.16.06 at 10:58 PM [permalink]



Tom H,
I am not saying that families are unimportant. I am saying that WM is a symtom; not a cause. If the only jobs available are low-paying retail sales jobs, that is a failure of the US to adapt to the new world economy. You cannot legislate locally higher wages without unintended side-effects (like the loss of even more jobs). The laws of economics are more powerful than all the lawyers in DC.

posted by: OpenBorderMan on 08.16.06 at 10:58 PM [permalink]



Whereever the US leads, will the UK follow? At the moment this isn't a big electoral issue here.

Now that Wal-Mart has crossed the Atlantic and bought Asda, we're having an interesting tussle for supermarket supremacy in the UK between Tesco, Sainsburys and Asda. Tesco are currently winning easily, with about 30 % merket share, followed by Asda on 16 %.

I'm mostly interested in Tom Holsinger's experience in opposing a Wal-Mart in his town. In the last year I've had the fascinating experience of Asda trying to build a store on land that had been designated as a 'neighbourhood centre' in the area I represent as a district councillor.

Twice they've tried to get planning permission, each time I've moved refusal (for good planning reasons) and won the vote. I don't know how party politics affects this kind of decision in the states, but here I'm one of only 4 Lib Dems on a council with 34 Conservatives and 1 independent, and I usually get a very fair hearing from the 'other side'.

posted by: Chris Black on 08.16.06 at 10:58 PM [permalink]



> Now that Wal-Mart has crossed the
> Atlantic and bought Asda, we're having an
> interesting tussle for supermarket supremacy
> in the UK [...]

Note that Wal-Mart just got run right out of Germany, where oddly enough store clerks are paid a decent wage and have access to single-payer health care ;-)

Cranky

posted by: Cranky Observer on 08.16.06 at 10:58 PM [permalink]



Walmart is more productive because of supply chain management and logistics. That doesn't translate to higher wages, that translates to higher profits.

How many Wal-Mart employees would be employed if they weren't working at Wal-Mart?

posted by: rosignol on 08.16.06 at 10:58 PM [permalink]



How 'bout that other retail phenomenon that's metastasized across the American landscape at a much more rapid rate than Wal Mart and has actively fought unionization?

Oh, but the cultural connotations of Starbucks are treasured by the entitled Democratic (fund-raising) base.

And the kid with the earring in his nose who snarls when you don't tip him? So much cooler than the peppy, 60-something greeter...

posted by: BT on 08.16.06 at 10:58 PM [permalink]



I suppose those crazy Dems just don't get it: Wal*Mart is cheaper, and Americans (particularly economists) don't care about how that happens or what the consequences are. More power to them, I say: More Wal*Mart jobs = more Americans who can only afford to shop at Wal*Mart. Sounds like a good deal to me!

posted by: Frank Cohen on 08.16.06 at 10:58 PM [permalink]



Andy Young (paid spokesman for Walmart) had this perspective on the effect of Walmart:

In an interview published in Thursday's Los Angeles Sentinel, Young was asked to comment on whether he is concerned that Wal-Mart causes mom-and-pop stores to close.

"Well, I think they should; they ran the 'mom and pop' stores out of my neighborhood," the Sentinel, a newspaper serving the African-American community, reported. "But you see, those are the people who have been overcharging us — selling us stale bread and bad meat and wilted vegetables. And they sold out and moved to Florida. I think they've ripped off our communities enough.

I have omitted a series of racial slurs that followed this quote that caused Young's resignation from the WalMart support group he belonged to. But I think it is important to remember that other members of the Democratic coalition have a different opinion of those Mom and Pop stores remembered so nostalgically by Democratic politicians seeking a vote.

posted by: Appalled Moderate on 08.16.06 at 10:58 PM [permalink]



> I say: More Wal*Mart jobs = more Americans
> who can only afford to shop at Wal*Mart.
> Sounds like a good deal to me!

I agree.

Wen Jiabao

posted by: Wen Jiabao on 08.16.06 at 10:58 PM [permalink]



Andy Young speaks only for a subgroup of Dems known as "racist antisemites posing as civil rights leaders who get away with the charade because nobody thinks a black person can be racist". He apparently does not mind his black neighbors being exploited by other ethnic groups, so long as they're stockholders of a large corporation, and not small entreprenuers.

posted by: one-time-Nixon-voter on 08.16.06 at 10:58 PM [permalink]



Jim is wrong about relative wages--in the long run, they are set by marginal productivity when firms face strong competitive pressure (modulo smaller effects relating to turnover costs and effort observability). If wages are above marginal productivity, then the firm is losing money on those last few workers and needs to fire them. If wages are below marginal productivity, then the firm increases its profits by hiring more workers.

I am appalled by the know-nothing economic nationalists posting on these threads. Low prices are not some sort of yuppie fringe benefit. Low prices are the same thing as higher wages. Wal*Mart has tremendously raised the standard of living of all the people who shop there and all the people who shop at their competitors' stores, too. The beneficiaries are primarily low-to-middle income families. Trying to drive up Wal*Mart's costs and prices is the same as imposing a regressive tax on the incomes of the working and middle classes.

The cranks and rust savers also completely misundersand why manufacturing jobs are declining. It's because labor productivity in manufacturing continues to grow more rapidly than in non-manufacturing jobs (Wal*Mart has mitigated this trend a bit). That's why China has lost manufacturing jobs as well as the US. That's why the same amount of steel can be produced with a fraction of the man-hours needed in 1980.

Economic growth and progress, by definition, implies getting more output per input. "More output" doesn't mean necessarily more physical units of the same stuff, but a more-valuable bundle of stuff, where value is determined by demand. The only way this growth can occur, and historically has occurred, is if jobs are destroyed, i.e. if the division of labor evolves over time. If people are doing exactly the same thing they were doing before, then their output is the same and there is no growth in per-capita output.

What will the jobs of the future look like? If I knew that for sure, I'd be able to get rich. But the idea of a planned economy with politicians and bureaucrats, instead of decentralized market search, deciding on what jobs we should have is a recipe for stagnation. Too much rust on the cranks.

posted by: srp on 08.16.06 at 10:58 PM [permalink]



> The cranks and rust savers also
> completely misundersand why manufacturing
> jobs are declining. It's because labor
> productivity in manufacturing continues to
> grow more rapidly than in non-manufacturing
> jobs (Wal*Mart has mitigated this trend a bit).

First of all, I have sat in 200-300 planning, budgeting, and wage-setting meetings in the last 20 years and I have yet to see anyone pull out a marginal productivity graph and try to relate it to this year's raises, cuts, or layoffs. The overall concept has some validity but when you have a real firm in a real market with all its complexities and hidden information I would defy you to link the skilled machinist being cut back to $7/hr, the industrial engineer being kept at $45,000/year, and the marketing dude with the goatee who hasn't produced anything this year being given a $50k bonus to anyone's marginal productivity anywhere in the world. And I don't believe for a minute that Japanese or Indian firms are really any different in the long run. Not in any firm with more than 50 people.

Second, the reason manufacturing is declining in the United States since 1990 (not since 1960, which is another story involving WWII and complancency) is that the financing boom of the 1990s, topped off with the dotcom boom, let loose once again the utterly pernicious idea that every profit-making entity can, should, will, and must maintain 60% gross profit margins and 30% annual growth _compounded_ forever. Simple arithmetic and/or petri dish experiments shows that this isn't possible, but ever 40-50 years Wall Street tries to wish it so with results that have been predictiable since at least 1600 AD if not before.

The problem is that this time the damage done to the US may be irreversible due to natural resource and other international factors.

Cranky

posted by: Cranky Observer on 08.16.06 at 10:58 PM [permalink]



Look up the comparison of Walmart and Costco. Both are discount stores yet Costco pays a good wage and provides health and retirement benefits. The thinking at Costco is that they get more productivity and lower turnover from their better compensated employees.

When WM comes in other stores close, the tax base goes down and liabilities go up as lower compensated workers require more city services.

We've had good success keeping WM out of California. For my part I'll add my voice to those who continue this fight.

posted by: JohK on 08.16.06 at 10:58 PM [permalink]






Post a Comment:

Name:


Email Address:


URL:




Comments:


Remember your info?