[MD] Walmart, Final Answer

[Platt Holden]

Arlo,

There are three Walmarts within a radius of 35 miles from where I live and I 
can detect no evidence of the sort of dire consequences you speak of. No doubt 
a few people lost their jobs when Walmart came in, and maybe some local 
business went under. But, on balance the area appears to be flourishing. 

Such is the nature, the "mythos" if you will, of a free market competitive 
system which, like Pirsig, I favor for its Dynamism. Recall his description of 
Dynamic NYC where the life's losers live side by side with the winners. Or, in 
the words of the great sage Jimmy Carter, "Life isn't fair."

Anyway, I agree it's time we put this horse out to pasture (if we haven't 
beaten it to death already), and while we're at it let's put Barry Manilow on 
its back. We have bigger fish to fry regarding what's the right thing to do 
about the potential of Iran getting WMD and other matters of import.

Platt

> 
> Sure, there are hundreds of communities in ever-widening circles, from 
> local to global. And one must be able to "discern" what makes each level 
> healthy, and how the health of one level effects the health of another.
> 
> Many, if not all, social programs are funded on the local level. From fire to
> police to EMT services, from public libraries to public transportation. When the
> average wage in a community drops, as it does when a Walmart moves in, these
> programs suffer. When many neighboring communities experience the same
> wage-drain, programs on the next level suffer, from public schools to road
> repair. Charities, too, suffer when the overall wage in a community suffers.
> Although people might be paying 36 cents less for a can of Campbell's soup, the
> drop in real wages more-or-less negates "excess cash" from being donated to
> charitable causes.
> 
> As for manufacturing jobs being a source of real wealth, I've already 
> referred you to several conservative sources on this. Farming is hardly, 
> though, a "source of wealth" (as you suggest). I know many small farmers in the
> state, all of whom barely make it by, and do so because of commitment and love.
> The pressure to sell out to farming conglomerates is intense, but the income
> provided to employees of these megafarms is also on par with minimum wage (when
> they hire legally). But my concern here is not "what people do", but the wages
> they receive for their labor. When manufacturing jobs give way to high-tech
> jobs, wage levels tend to balance. When they give way to retail positions, wage
> levels go down. The health of local economies depends on wages earned in that
> community, and these local economies together impact the health of the state and
> nation.
> 
> I realize that for you, if a region in West Virginia becomes destitute 
> because of wage-loss, this is of no concern for you, so long as your income
> level is maintained. And I am quite aware that the labor market is evolving, and
> jobs will always come and go. But, when a community shoots itself in the foot to
> expedite its descent into poverty, and supports stores that lock it into a cycle
> of poverty, that is something else entirely. And it does so out of a very,
> narrow mercantilist view that immediate profit (or savings) is ALL that matters.
> As the local tax base crumbles, as wage levels decrease, and police and fire
> services are cut, and public transportation is cut, and schools receive less
> funding, and libraries can't afford to obtain new books or even stay open, those
> 36 cents become meaningless.
> 
> This focus on "immediate gratification" also ignores the long-term cost of
> buying the shoddy, cheap crap Walmart sells. A pair of sneakers at Walmart might
> cost $7, but last about as many months. While a pair of Quality shoes, at a
> higher price, last significantly longer, and are thus in the long-run actually
> less expensive to purchase. By relying on people's fixation for immediate low
> cost over Quality, Walmart's low prices actually make people spend more money at
> Walmart over the long-term. So, you can save $20 on a jacket, for example, but
> you'll buy jackets more frequently due to the low quality of Walmart's
> merchandise, and so that savings is not real. In fact, you'll end up spending
> MORE on merchandise when you shop at Walmart due to the high rate you have to
> replace the cheaply made junk it sells. I tried to explain this to an
> acquaintance last year who was "on his third VCR" from Walmart in less than two
> years. Sure, they only cost him $40 each, but that $120 he spent (so far at that
> time!) could have easily purchased him a higher quality VCR that would last many
> years. Hardly "saving money", if you ask me.
> 
> Walmart owes its success to preying on the shortsighted, mercantilist 
> attitudes that pervade our culture. It is an economic vulture that feeds 
> off poverty while all the while cementing the grip of poverty on a region. It
> preys off the need for "immediate gratification", and the reluctance of people
> to consider the long-term trade off. But again, as always, you reap what you
> sow... And that's my final word on Walmart, I'll look forward to your reply, but
> I think its time we put this horse out to pasture.
> 
> Arlo