The High Cost of Low Prices, Take 2 (Gov't Jag-Off Edition)

Nick Gillespie | November 30, 2005

A reader who wishes to remain anonymous sent this link to me a while back. It's about wildly different prices at nearby Wal-Marts along a while back. Incredible.

And a laptop that cost $398 in Woodbury [Minnesota], cost $632 in Hudson [Wisconsin; the two cities are 10 miles apart]. That's a difference of $234 for the exact same computer.

"That's unreal, isn't it?" says Judy Darwin of Hudson. "May as well go across the border."

"How can they do that? It's the same store," says Amy Weiser of Madison, Wisconsin.

The answer dates all the way back to 1939, when Wisconsin lawmakers passed the Unfair Sales Act. That state law says it's illegal for retailers to sell items below cost. It's supposed to ensure a competitive marketplace.

"Kind-of irritates me," one Wisconsin customer said.

Whole thing here. And let me state for the record that I abhor Wal-Mart's recent turn to the dark side when it comes to extracting goodies from local governments--especially since they used to actually buy their way into towns by offering to do various sorts of infrastructure upgrades.

A decade ago--a century in retailing years--I wrote about the then-burgeoning anti-superstore movement for Reason. That meant researching previous attempts to crush chains:

In the 1920s, chain stores were the pariah of the day, particularly the A&P grocery stores (at its height, A&P operated over 15,000 shops in the United States). Chains, because of larger economies of scale and increased efficiencies in distribution, tended to sell a wider variety of goods at cheaper prices, which cut into local merchants' profits. The chains were new, different, and very successful.

As chains began to dominate the commercial landscape, they, like the superstores of today, came under attack as destructive and evil. Louis D. Brandeis attacked them along "human scale" lines: "I have considered and do consider that the proposition that mere bigness cannot be an offense against society is false, because I believe that our society, which rests upon democracy, cannot endure under such conditions." A chain-baiting radio personality exhorted Americans, "Wake up! We can whip these chain stores....We can drive them out in thirty days if you people will stay out of their stores." A 1922 book, Meeting Chain Store Competition, offered this analysis: "Every retailer who has to meet chain store competition...needs no one to tell him what a chain store is. To him, it is a cut rate competitor managed from the outside by a soul-less corporation."

Chain baiting, although ultimately unsuccessful, had consequences. As Harvard Business School professor Richard S. Tedlow notes in his 1990 book, New and Improved: The Story of Mass Marketing in America (from which the previous examples are drawn), "In 1933, some 225 anti-chain bills were introduced in 42 state legislatures; 13 were passed. Chain taxes had been passed in 27 states by 1939, although not all were still in force that year." It also prompted longer-lasting federal antitrust legislation aimed at reducing the chains' advantages; the laws had the effect of raising prices to the average consumer.

More here.

Comments

|11.30.05 @ 5:24PM|#

I fail to understand why offering low prices and greater variety is such a bad thing, althought the new wal-mart here almost fails in the variety dept. Very poorly stocked.

Dave W.|11.30.05 @ 5:29PM|#

As long as you and Dogeater fail to understand why we have antitrust law all of this is bound to remain puzzling to you.

|11.30.05 @ 5:36PM|#

I like breasts.
Especially cheap breasts (to get back on topic).

MP|11.30.05 @ 5:46PM|#

Dave W. is apparently surrounded by trusts that need busting. Look, there's another one!

Dave W.|11.30.05 @ 5:51PM|#

WalMart is a pretty big company, MP. That is one of the major indicators. Dogeater is complaining that now that WalMart is so big and powerful, they are beginning to exert too much influence over local governments. Yeah, I'm crazy for seeing a trust problem here.

|11.30.05 @ 5:52PM|#

Wal-Marts, railroads...yeah, same thing.

|11.30.05 @ 6:10PM|#

"WalMart is a pretty big company, MP. That is one of the major indicators."

There are four major indicators of a monopoly. Without having all four in place, you do not have a monopoly.

-Single Seller (Wal*Mart is the only store in your town selling groceries?)

-No Close Substitutes (I guess I was hallucinating these other stores called "Target" and "CostCo" and "King Soopers" and "Shnucks" and have been shopping at Walmart the whole time.)

-Price Maker, or controlling the only supply of a given product so as to set the price. (Hm. Walmart is the sole supplier of everything from shotguns to Fruit Loops is what you're telling me.)

-Blocked Entry Walmart's size certainly gives it certain advantages WRT economies of scale (as has been mentioned elsewhere.) Life's not fair. Wah.

Dave W.|11.30.05 @ 6:12PM|#

WalMart looks a lot more like a railroad to me, then it does to A & P. WalMart is much bigger in absolute and market share terms than A & P or Sears or Penny's ever was. That matters. That kind of stuff has bad conseequences (as Dogeater himself is just starting to notice).

Number 6, "trust" does not mean railroad. It is a broader term than that.

Dave W.|11.30.05 @ 6:14PM|#

"There are four major indicators of a monopoly. Without having all four in place, you do not have a monopoly."

Good thing you aren't an antitrust lawyer. that's pathetically wrong.

|11.30.05 @ 6:18PM|#

Way to back up your assertion there!

You're awesome!

Gold star for Dave, he's King of Good Explaining!

|11.30.05 @ 6:18PM|#

"It also prompted longer-lasting federal antitrust legislation aimed at reducing the chains' advantages; the laws had the effect of raising prices to the average consumer."

The government should sue itself for anti-trust violations. Maybe we'd benefit by getting higher taxes out of it.

|11.30.05 @ 6:18PM|#

Yeah, it's a good thing mediageek isn't an antitrust lawyer -- he's set down some parameters for a monopoly, and antitrust lawyers get paid for creating monopolies out of thin air.

|11.30.05 @ 6:42PM|#

i am currently reading Mises, Human Action. he appears to argue that a monopoly in itself is not neccessarily a bad thing in and of itself. it doesn't appear as though wal mart comes even close to being a monopoly by any stretch of the imagination, but we can say buy its general bigness it can effect the market. even then, the negative effects of a monopoly are when it is able to establish monopoly prices, establishing an artificially high price thruogh a reduction of supply creating monopoly profits. high prices and restraints on supply do not seem to be among the complaints tied to wal mart.

|11.30.05 @ 6:43PM|#

ps. i do not believe in punctuation let alone the internet blog stuff

fyodor|11.30.05 @ 6:52PM|#

WalMart is much bigger in absolute and market share terms than A & P or Sears or Penny's ever was.

Well absolute wouldn't seem to matter since thanks to increasing population, increasing wealth and inflation, sales are always going to be going up.

But maybe Wal-Mart has a larger share of its market than A&P or Sears or Penny's ever did. That's feasible. But were any of those three ever validly considered monompolies? If not, then the comparison is meaningless. If so, well tell us.

All that said, I understand the issue that that preventing the sales of items for less than cost is to prevent dumping. Ie, losing money on something (supported by sales elsewhere) to drive someone out of business with the intention of being able to charge a higher than "market" price after the competitor is safely disposed of. I'm skeptical that sustaining such a monopolized market is very feasible. Maybe Wal-Mart can get rid of some little Woodbury computer store that way, but nobody's going to miss that little store when CompUSA moves in, and all the dumping in the world won't prevent Wal-Mart from having to compete with them.

|11.30.05 @ 6:57PM|#

Using "trust" to describe a general retailer is silly.

...I keep waiting for someone to say that efficiency is an unfair barrier to entry--eventually someone will.

Dave W.|11.30.05 @ 7:06PM|#

Fyo,

when companies get as large as WalMart and CompUSa, they don't compete. Rather they act in concert to split the market and stop heeding things like supply and demand, or at least stop heeding them as well as Adam Smith would demand. Apparent competition is not capitalism, only real competition is. Furthermore, it is better to err on the side of too much competition, rater than too little. Once a company gets big enough to game the system, it can be hard to stop. Enron got stopped by its own fraud, but not before they butt-fucked me good as part of the "deregulation (HA!!) dealee out in California. See the Coke thread for more of my paranoid theories on what gaming the system looks like (hint: its hard to see once it gets underway). Oligopolies are a form of command economy. As such, tey should be repugnant to true libs.

|11.30.05 @ 7:12PM|#

I've been thinking about big boxes quite a bit lately, and it seems to me that their success is a function of the global trend. We've been in a world wide deflationary trend, more or less, since before the Asian Currency Crisis of way back when. ...Since the early nineties, retailers haven't had much in the way of pricing power, and profits have come from keeping prices low. Well managed big boxes have, indeed, thrived in that environment.

...but it isn't clear to me that this will be the case in an inflationary environment. ...when rather than seeing retailers compete for what little customers are willing to spend, customers compete for what little suppliers are willing to produce. Does anyone else remember Rubbermaid's story? They kind of marked the shift in the trend, and trends shift people--inflation will come. ...and there will be winners and losers just as there should be.

Whenever I see a Wal-Mart, I still think of Sears.

Dave W.|11.30.05 @ 7:19PM|#

That's funny. Whenever I see a WalMart, I think of the lives of oppressed Chinese laborers and wonder if they get bathroom breaks or have minimum wage. I know that neither WalMart nor me created Chinese poverty or barbaric labor standards, but I think I have might have more scruples about exploiting it as a well-off white guy than WalMart has.

fyodor|11.30.05 @ 7:30PM|#

when companies get as large as WalMart and CompUSa, they don't compete. Rather they act in concert to split the market and stop heeding things like supply and demand

That's quite an assertion there. Wal-Mart can be assumed to be colluding (with whom, Target?) simply by its very bigness? As long as a business has any competitors, it has to compete. In lieu of governmental favoritism, a genuine monopoly is very hard to maintain. I think the competition between Wal-Mart and Target and Sears, etc. is very real.

I think I have might have more scruples about exploiting it as a well-off white guy than WalMart has.

Yeah, I'd have more scruples too. And if you or I ran Wal-Mart, they wouldn't make as much money and their shareholders (not all of whom are necessarily very rich) would make less money. And maybe we wouldn't even have factories in China because that's the only reason American corporations build factories there, because they can "exploit" the workers enough to make it worthwhile economicly. And so those poor laborers would be stuck with doing with whatever they were doing before, which was worse or they wouldn't be voluntarily working undere barbaric standards.

|11.30.05 @ 7:41PM|#

Ah, no wonder computer prices are sky high -- WalMart and CompUSA are acting in concert to split the market! I wish they'd hurry up and collude in the large plasma TV market too, so I could afford one of those.

VM|11.30.05 @ 7:50PM|#

this practice still exists in france,too. the hyper eu didn't get rid of it.

(cassis case? can't remember offhand)

|11.30.05 @ 8:20PM|#

Well, if Wisconsin Wal-Mart crowds are anything like the one that descended on the Wal-Mart near my parents' place, then perhaps this particular application of the law isn't such a bad idea.

The local Best Buy, where I was staked out to get a $30 hard drive, took a much more sensible approach to dealing with the consumerist hordes that had arrived at their gates, having people sign up to buy the computers on sale while still in line, with preference being given based on a person's position in line. As a result, they "sold" all of them long before any mad stampede-cum-riot could ensue, and even got about half the people in line to flee for more inviting commercial pastures.

|11.30.05 @ 9:07PM|#

Dave W:

What exactly would Adam Smith demand of Walmart?

Good thing you don't have a brain.

|11.30.05 @ 10:28PM|#

"I fail to understand why offering low prices and greater variety is such a bad thing"

Different prices for different people is something generally only a monopoly can pull off (i.e. they can make everyone pay exactly their reservation price and thus reap all the social welfare gains, instead of having to set a single price).

The fact that WalMart can basically take over the entire retail markets of towns WITH COLLUSION from the local governments via regulation and other special gifts, should be a concern to people interested in small government. It's one thing to compete. It's quite another to use your size and influence in this way.

|11.30.05 @ 10:29PM|#

yeah dave has said some pretty stange things...what does he think this place is the daily kos?

anyway i really don't get the walmart thing..they seem to not have what i want half the time and the prices really arn't better then any other magamart like fred myer or Kmart or target.

also the fuckers don't sell duvets sure they sell comforters...but no duvets. in fact no one sells duvets i checked its a damn consperiacy i tell ya.

|11.30.05 @ 10:45PM|#

Different prices for different people is something generally only a monopoly can pull off (i.e. they can make everyone pay exactly their reservation price and thus reap all the social welfare gains, instead of having to set a single price).

I'll be sure to tell this to whatever airline I fly next.

|11.30.05 @ 10:57PM|#

Obviously, Walmart is pure evil. But, Dave W.: CompUSA? WTF?

Believe Reason doesn't allow many links, so just checking sites, you'll have to follow on your own.

CompUSA's cheapest PC is $399 (an off-brand 80 Gig HD Sempron, no rebate.)

Bestbuy's cheapest PC is $389 (an E-mach***/ Gateway Sempron, 100 Gig hard drive.) There's also a $50 rebate.

Sears has a better off-brand $399 PC (with DVD-RW... other two have DVD/CDRW).

Near me, Microcenter has even better deals in store (though I'd maybe get the $450 Winbook.)

Around Cali, there's Fry's, with ridiculous bargains. If you don't live near a Fry's or a Microcenter, odds are there's half a dozen screwdriver shops that can get you a sweet 64 bit PC, with better components and XP Home, for around $500.

Also, if no Microcenter or Fry's your local Office Depot or Staples might carry desktops, and offer sweet deals (near me, they only do BTO these days, but that's recent).

Then there's OfficeMax, which can also have ridiculous values in the store.

CompUSA got its ass beat in the '90s by BestBuy and others, became a sub-$5 stock, is now owned by a Mexican telecommuncations billionaire, and never, ever has labels for my Sharp 100.

Clearly, we need to get NYAG Spitzer on 'em, pronto.

|11.30.05 @ 11:51PM|#

Walmart is not the big concern for me- my State govmnt is! How can it come to this- the Vikings kicked our butts and so do their WalMarts?!?

fyodor|12.1.05 @ 12:51AM|#

The fact that WalMart can basically take over the entire retail markets of towns WITH COLLUSION from the local governments via regulation and other special gifts, should be a concern to people interested in small government. It's one thing to compete. It's quite another to use your size and influence in this way.

What the Helen of Troy are you talking about?? The law identified in the original post was passed IN 1939!!!! By the STATE of Wisconsin!!! It has nothing even to do with Wal-Mart colluding with anyone!!!!

I hate to make the ad hominen type of snipes that are unfortunately all too popular on H&R, but I do gotta wonder if the response I quoted is reflective of the kind of knee-jerk reactions people have about Wal-Mart. Now maybe this "plunge" is a troll, but what he's saying has been said a lot on this thread. If executives at Wal-Mart are cooking up unethical means of gaining favoritism from governments, well bad on them, but at the same time, so friggin' what? Except for those of us who are stockholders, those executives have no obligations to us!! But the governments who are participating in this do, and those public policies are what we should be talking about rather than wringing our hands over Wal-Mart for taking advantage of those policies!!! People have complained repeatedly that Wal-Mart has too much power, but no one is saying how they exercise that power in any sort of dangerous or uncontrollable way. Big businesses have gotten favors from governments from time immemorial, so Wal-Mart's bigness and supposed power is not the issue. Bad policy is!!!

|12.1.05 @ 2:30AM|#

Guys, it's WAL*MART®. Is that so difficult?

|12.1.05 @ 2:31AM|#

I just rolled over in my own grave.

|12.1.05 @ 3:00AM|#

"Different prices for different people is something generally only a monopoly can pull off (i.e. they can make everyone pay exactly their reservation price and thus reap all the social welfare gains, instead of having to set a single price)."

Close. A firm can only price discriminate if it has some degree of "monopoly power," according to standard neoclassical theory anyway.

|12.1.05 @ 3:46AM|#

A firm can only price discriminate if it has some degree of "monopoly power," according to standard neoclassical theory anyway.

?

An airplane with two seats costs $450 to make its flight. There are two types of customers: business travelers for whom the flight is worth $400 and leisure travelers for whom the flight is worth $100.

The flight is worth flying if and only if the airplane has two passengers, at least one a business traveler. Discriminatory pricing is not only required for the airline to make any money: It is the most economically efficient and fair way to price the seats, and the only way those consumers are going to get served.

And no monopoly necessary.

What does discriminatory pricing have to do with Wal-Mart?

Dave W.|12.1.05 @ 5:36AM|#

To Some Guy Who (Supposedly) Thinks . . .

Parallel pricing is evidence of what now?

|12.1.05 @ 5:48AM|#

Antitrust is complete BS. The only improper monopoly is a government run or subsidized one. Go pick on the post office or Amtrack or whatever or go clean Ralph Nader's townhouse for $5 an hour.

|12.1.05 @ 8:11AM|#

That was a nice switcheroo from "Wal Mart" to "chains," Nick.

Funny how you never see people protesting Costco, KSearsMart, or, er, A&P.

Nice dodge.

|12.1.05 @ 8:13AM|#

It's striking how different Dave W's arguments are from his detractors. He makes affirmative, factual statements describing real world conditions, to be met by smirking putdowns for straying from the Gospel.

|12.1.05 @ 8:18AM|#

Parallel pricing is evidence of what now?

A correctly determined market-clearing price.

|12.1.05 @ 8:23AM|#

joe, you must be reading a different thread than I am.

|12.1.05 @ 8:41AM|#

"CompUSA got its ass beat in the '90s by BestBuy and others"

As well they should.

We recently went computer shopping.
WalMart: not enough variety.
CompuUSA: no prices displayed on most merchandise (WTF?)...walk next door to
BestBuy (almost got one there), then off to
Circuit City (about the same as BestBuy),
then finally ended up with a new 1.8Ghz/80Gig/Winos XP/DVDRW for $260 bucks from a hole in the wall place manned by two swarthy guys with funny accents.
Works great.

For some mysterious reason WalMart forgot to use their Awesome Powers of Monopoly to force us to buy from them, despite the fact that we could've picked up the dog food at the same time.

Rich Ard|12.1.05 @ 9:09AM|#

"It's striking how different Dave W's arguments are from his detractors."

Indeed - he's the only person I've seen suggesting that Coca-Cola is involved in a wholesale effort to provide the world with diabetes.

Come on, Dave - if whenever you "see a WalMart, [you] think of the lives of oppressed Chinese laborers and wonder if they get bathroom breaks or have minimum wage.", I hope you're wearing all American made hemp clothing and ride a Cannondale to work. Just because WAL-MART's one of China's biggest trading partners, it doesn't follow that without them those laborers would be living the high life.

I second what fyodor said - that visible poverty of the Chinese worker is likely preferable to the earlier, less visible rural poverty offered him. (I seem to recall that Paul Krugman had a pretty good defense of that in "Dispatches from the Dismal Science" in Slate, before everyone hated him).

Rich Ard|12.1.05 @ 9:11AM|#

Yeah, here it is: "In Praise of Cheap Labor: Bad Jobs at Bad Wages are Better Than No Jobs at All."

Rich Ard|12.1.05 @ 9:35AM|#

That note above about Dave is in fun, by the way - I forget sometimes that my facial expressions don't carry with my postings.

|12.1.05 @ 9:50AM|#

Rich Ard,

If one were to compare the plight of Chinese workers in the 1970s to what they experience today one easily sees the benefit of Wal-Mart (and other avenues of trade with China).

|12.1.05 @ 9:58AM|#

Nick-

Your headline refers to "Home Deport". Is this a malapropism or an intentional comment on their controversial accommodations for migrant (undocumented) day laborers?

I enjoyed your article, even though it was a bit rambling. You have the sagacity to note that democracy can morph into mob tyranny and does not necessarily maximize freedom. This is the fundamental flaw of Bush's world vision. He seems to think that "Democracy" will automatically guarantee freedom and peace. (sorry I deviated from the big-box thread)

|12.1.05 @ 10:01AM|#

False dichotomy, Rich Ard. Wal Mart's choices are not limited to 1) do no business in China or 2) work relentlessly to drive down the already-low wages on Chinese assembly lines, while while allowing subcontractors to operate in an abusive manner to their workers.

Wally World could go into China AND operate with a modicum of decency. They just choose not to.

|12.1.05 @ 10:03AM|#

I'm sensitive to some of these concerns. If Wal-Mart reacts to the sensibilities of its customers in regards to what music, movies, etc. it offers, then, I suspect, it'll react to their sensibilities in regards to the treatment of workers by contract manufacturers, etc. ...If that's what Wal-Mart customers want.

...of course, where Wal-Mart has direct control of the sort of media it offers, it doesn't have direct control of the working conditions in Chinese factories. I think it unfair to expect Wal-Mart to police Asian factories, interview workers on a regular basis, etc., etc. ...and if anyone's suggesting that their rate of expansion, etc. should be held in check by government because of the working conditions in Chinese factories, well I think that's plainly unfair.

I'm reluctant to discuss the societal contributions of a business, 'cause that ain't what businesses are for, but I'd like to add as a footnote that I suspect Wal-Mart has had some positive effects for Chinese workers too.

The fact that WalMart can basically take over the entire retail markets of towns WITH COLLUSION from the local governments via regulation and other special gifts, should be a concern to people interested in small government.

The suggestion that the government should intervene in a matter between customers and low prices should concern people interested in small government.

R C Dean|12.1.05 @ 10:06AM|#

The fact that WalMart can basically take over the entire retail markets of towns

This is what counts as a factual statement, joe?

I defy you or Dave to show us one single town, much less the dozens implied in Dave's post, endorsed by you, where Walmart has shut down every other retail outlet.

A Walmart opened several years ago in the small town where I grew up. Classic edge of town big-box store.

Not one grocery store has gone out of business. In fact, the biggest one has since invested in a remodel.

My mother's small, downtown gift shop, which you would think would be the first victim of Walmart, is doing just about the same as before Walmart opened.

The downtown vacancy rate is about what it was before. A furniture store closed, but it recently reopened under new management, and I don't think Walmart was really taking market share from it anyway.

The Walmart is now the anchor for two new shopping centers, one with probably a dozen stores, the other with maybe six.

All told, I would say the retail options in my hometown have increased since Walmart showed up, even though the population and economy have been pretty flat.

|12.1.05 @ 10:07AM|#

I've got an early meeting in a place far, far away, but what exactly would you have Wal-Mart do about the working conditions in its contractor's factories, and how, exactly, would you have federal or local government involved in this?

|12.1.05 @ 10:08AM|#

...sorry, my questions above were directed at joe.

|12.1.05 @ 10:10AM|#

Not to change the subject, but, RC Dean, I'm still looking for an early Roman Empire reference for the toga to gold ratio. ; )

Rich Ard|12.1.05 @ 10:24AM|#

joe: "False dichotomy, Rich Ard."

Sure is - and I don't mean to suggest that those are Wally's only options. But I'm unconvinced that the rise of cheap products from China and the shit wages that go to those producing them are completely (or even in large part) due to WAL-MART as an entity to itself.

For the record, I haven't spent a dime at that place for about five years.

fyodor|12.1.05 @ 10:25AM|#

Wal Mart's choices are not limited to 1) do no business in China or 2) work relentlessly to drive down the already-low wages on Chinese assembly lines, while while allowing subcontractors to operate in an abusive manner to their workers.

This is why I stopped being a liberal when I learned economics.

First joe, are you saying that Wal-Mart has nefarious purposes beyond making as big a profit as they can? I doubt it myself. To charge such a thing would make you sound like a fundamentalist seeing horns on Marolyn Manson. So please be clear if the "bad" things they are doing are purely a factor of economic interests or something else.

Next, putting the gratuitous ogre aspect of your charges aside, NO, they don't have the option of not getting the most out of their workers as they possibly can. They have an obligation to their shareholders to do that. As well they should, because it is the incentive to make profit that enables us to do more with our lives than work the fields. Plus, and this is very important, there is no guarantee that they would do business in China if they could not squeeze the amount of profit out of the venture as they are doing. Okay, if they made .000001% less, they probably still would. And maybe if they made 000002% perhaps they still would. At a certain point, not being able to get as much out of the Chinese workers as they do now would result in their hire not being worth it. And so Wal-Mart would stop hiring them. So in essence, Wal-Mart does NOT having the option of treating their workers anywhere near Western standards.

Now, I wonder what the weakest link in my argument is. I'll find out when joe addresses that while ignoring everything else that I've said.

Oh, and thanks for seconding me, Rich Ard!

|12.1.05 @ 10:30AM|#

RC,

I haven't been making the argument about Wal Mart gaining a monopoly over the retail trade. A bit more with the reading comprehension, a bit less with the bile, mmm-kay?

Ken,

First, since most of the abuses can be traced back to contractors trying to lower production costs to meet Wal Mart's hard bargaining, Wal Mart should set contract prices that can be met by subs who operate ethically. Second, there are numerous groups that track labor conditions among offshore suppliers to American companies - Wal Mart should set a policy of not doing business with those that don't operate ethically.

I don't really see any way local government can make this come to pass, other than by refusing to do favors for Wal Mart in the zoning, permitting, and taxing processes. The feds? The bully pulpit could be well used here (screw you "President" Hillary). Also, the inclusion of labor protections in trade deals.

|12.1.05 @ 10:35AM|#

fyodor, I guess a little learning is a dangerous thing. Gee, I know what a demand curve is, so there's no way a company can ever do anything but race to the bottom. I'm smart!

"First joe, are you saying that Wal-Mart has nefarious purposes beyond making as big a profit as they can?" No, the drive to make a profit is their motivator, as it is for most misdeeds.

BTW, the weakest part of your argument is the "Western Standards" straw man, and your jump from .000002% to "anything near Western Standards."

Target, Kohls, and Costco all buy stuff from Chinese suppliers, too. They don't drive nearly the hard bargains Wal Mart does, and they're all profitable businesses. Quit poormouthing for the world's richest and most profitable corporation.

fyodor|12.1.05 @ 10:36AM|#

joe,

What "abuses" are you referring to. Not that I haven't heard the litany of horror stories, always in vague and horrific terms, but I'd like to know specifically what you're talking about.

|12.1.05 @ 10:41AM|#

fyodor,

Crappy wages (even in Chinese terms). Unsafe working conditions. Operations that lead to crippling injuries. Lack of ventilation. Lack of bathroom breaks. Physical and sexual abuse by overseers. Violent suppression of unions. Lack of windows. The whole slew of 19th century horrors we went through in America, combined with some very special novelties the world owes to post-modern Communism.

fyodor|12.1.05 @ 10:42AM|#

joe,

A corporation's goal is not just to make a profit, but to make the largest profit possible. If you want to call that a "race to the bottom," that's your choice of vernacular, but it's hardly a technical description of what's happening.

Again, what abuses and unethical behavior are you talking about? I've heard the horror stories about lack of bathroom breaks. I suppose they feel they get more out of the worker than that way. But, sigh, ultimately we come to the issue that as long as the worker is there voluntarily and gets paid what he was promised, I see nothing "unethical" but I suppose you do.

Rich Ard|12.1.05 @ 10:43AM|#

I think, fyodor, that I "firsted" you. :)

...And joe ("I guess a little learning is a dangerous thing. Gee, I know what a demand curve is, so there's no way a company can ever do anything but race to the bottom. I'm smart!"), what's your deal? I and fyodor clearly disagee with you, but there's no need to be a penis.

theOneState|12.1.05 @ 10:54AM|#

No, the drive to make a profit is their motivator, as it is for most misdeeds.

Wow. That's really a breathtaking statement.

|12.1.05 @ 10:54AM|#

"A corporation's goal is not just to make a profit, but to make the largest profit possible."

No, that is not true. A corporation's goal is to operate however the hell its owners want to operate. Many of them donate considerable amounts of money - money that could be going to the shareholders (won't somebody PLEASE think of the shareholders?) instead. Why don't I ever hear you complain when a corporation donates money to hurricaine relief, or when the CEO uses corporate funds on a tricked out 767 for his personal use?

And yes, because of the difference in power between the government-backed employer and the employees, I do believe that a "consensual contract" can be abusive. Just because you pay a desperate person a little bit of money to abuse him, doesn't mean you should.

Rich Ard, fyodor was being a dick himself by playing the "you just don't understand economics" card, and that's why I objected to it. Believe it or not, Robert Reich of the American Prospect and Duncan Black of Atrios fame, both of whom are economics PhDs, don't agree with fyodor, either, on the necessity of corporations being pricks to remain in business. Attributing this difference in values to the supposed ignorance of the opposition is both insulting and factually incorrect.

fyodor|12.1.05 @ 10:57AM|#

Yeah Rich Ard, the closest thing to a snarky comment I made was that I stopped being a liberal when I learned economics, which is simply true, and joe comes back with all this sarcastic insult stuff. Oh well. Gonna maintain the higher road anyway.

joe, of all the things you listed, violent suppression of unions is the one that catches my eye because it's, get this, violent, and therefore non-voluntary.

I'll admit I don't have gobs of research at my fingertips, but I'm seriously skeptical that wages and working conditions are all distinctly lower at Wal-Mart's factories than at Kohls' and Costco's and everybody else's. If so, there must be a reason for that all the Chinese would simply choose to work at all the other factories and not at Wal-Mart's. Maybe Wal-Mart buys from factories in poorer areas. One way or another, economic conditions determine why people do what they VOLUNTARILY do. But if Wal-Mart is using violence, of course I acknowledge that that's bad. The local authorities should prosecute whoever is responsible for such.

|12.1.05 @ 10:57AM|#

Target, Kohls, and Costco all buy stuff from Chinese suppliers, too. They don't drive nearly the hard bargains Wal Mart does, and they're all profitable businesses.

Do we know for certain whether they all buy from different suppliers/contractors, and if not, what the degree of overlap is? I'd be curious to know.

|12.1.05 @ 10:58AM|#

"Wow. That's really a breathtaking statement."

No, it's not. You're just making a basic logical error and misreading the statement.

|12.1.05 @ 10:59AM|#

fyodor, doesn't the "violent supression of unions" suggest anything to you about the "voluntariness" of the worker-boss contract?

fyodor|12.1.05 @ 11:02AM|#

A corporation's goal is to operate however the hell its owners want to operate. Many of them donate considerable amounts of money - money that could be going to the shareholders (won't somebody PLEASE think of the shareholders?) instead. Why don't I ever hear you complain when a corporation donates money to hurricaine relief

I'm not complaining. YOU are. But you're right that the corporation's obligation is to do what its shareholders want. Please excuse my lack of precise wording. But of course it's a meaningless distinction in this case unless your point is that Wal-Mart's shareholders want to sacrifice profit for better worker treatment and the executives are ignoring their shareholders in order to...to what?

Rich Ard|12.1.05 @ 11:02AM|#

No, the drive to make a profit is their motivator, as it is for most misdeeds.

Were you just giving me heat about logical errors?

"Quit poormouthing for the world's richest and most profitable corporation."

I can't speak for the richest, but I know ExxonMobil was the most profitable this year and last. There's a good case to be made against the WAL - why bother making shite up?

I guess I didn't see what fyodor posted as a slam, but it wasn't toward me so okey dokey.

fyodor: "...to make the largest profit possible." I think this oversimplifies things, and relies largely on the hope that it sounds like what Friedman said, so it must be true! If that means the largest profit in the long-term, or the largest profit tomorrow, or the largest profit at the expense of its workers, or the rich or the proles or or or...makes a big difference in just what that profit is.

|12.1.05 @ 11:07AM|#

Yes, you are complaining, fyodor. You are objecting to the statement that basing a company's operations, to any degree, on concerns other than profit is harmful. Except you're only complaining when the "other conern" is concern about one's employees. Or rather, one's bottom-tier employees, since you've never been seen to object to a business whose management pay themselves more than market conditions dictate.

Rich Are, I was giving theOneState heat for his "John is a Man, therefore All Men are John" logical error.

|12.1.05 @ 11:09AM|#

fyodor,

"You are objecting to the statement that basing a company's operations, to any degree, on concerns other than profit is harmful." should be "...is acceptable." You're MAKING the first statement, and objecting to my objection.

Rich Ard|12.1.05 @ 11:23AM|#

"Rich Ar[d], I was giving theOneState heat for his "John is a Man, therefore All Men are John" logical error."

You called me out on my false dichotomy earlier, and made me feel bad.

|12.1.05 @ 11:34AM|#

A corporation has the obligation to do what its shareholders want, but it would be foolish to act in a manner contrary to the wishes of customers. I'm all in favor of educating Wal-Mart's customers; I still don't get the government regulation logic.

...If Wal-Mart gave its contractors more room for better worker conditions, how would we, or Wal-Mart for that matter, know that the contractors spent the money on better worker conditions?

theOneState|12.1.05 @ 11:36AM|#

"Wow. That's really a breathtaking statement."

No, it's not. You're just making a basic logical error and misreading the statement.

Jesus, you're presumptuous. Which logical error am I making, please?

|12.1.05 @ 11:36AM|#

Rich Ard,

But I'm unconvinced that the rise of cheap products from China and the shit wages that go to those producing them...

As opposed to jobs that paid even less twenty years ago.

fyodor|12.1.05 @ 11:59AM|#

fyodor, doesn't the "violent supression of unions" suggest anything to you about the "voluntariness" of the worker-boss contract?

No. Not in the sense that the worker-boss contract is immoral because of it. Just because some things the boss does are immoral and maybe limits the potential palette of choices for the worker does not make the worker's choices any less voluntary. You may as well say someone has no choice but to drink to excess because pot is illegal. The one restriction of choice has nothing to do with the voluntariness of the ultimate choice.

"You are objecting to the statement that basing a company's operations, to any degree, on concerns other than profit is acceptable."

No I'm not. If the shareholders want Wal-Mart to treat its employees better, no argument from me.

I addressed what you said in this thread originally to point out that being forced to pay workers more (by law or even by shame) may very well result in Wal-Mart not giving as many jobs to Chinese workers. I agree that nothing's black and white, everything's a shade of gray. But the Wal-Mart's "abuse" of its workers is what makes them profitable. Curtail that, and you curtail jobs. Maybe you don't accept that. And I'm sure you'll think I'm being a dick if I point out that that contradicts basic economics.

Rich Ard|12.1.05 @ 12:08PM|#

Sir Haksalot: As opposed to jobs that paid even less twenty years ago.

Or didn't exist at all - no argument here; but on my low-middle-class income, I can afford to stay out of WAL-MART (largely because we buy used as often as we can, my wife sews and knits, and I like to build things and garden) and vote w/ my bucks as I see fit. I don't like WAL-MART's business practices and their apparent long-term model, so I don't support it.

M1EK|12.1.05 @ 12:34PM|#

"f so, there must be a reason for that all the Chinese would simply choose to work at all the other factories and not at Wal-Mart's."

Chinese people aren't as mobile as Americans. Not even within an order of magnitude. So if Costco's Chinese factory is in Town X, and Wal-Mart's is in Town Y, the people from Town Y don't really have an option (and no, you can't commute either).

|12.1.05 @ 12:38PM|#

Believe it or not, Robert Reich of the American Prospect and Duncan Black of Atrios fame, both of whom are economics PhDs, don't agree with fyodor, either, on the necessity of corporations being pricks to remain in business.

I found it curious that someone who consistently exhibits as strikingly poor an understanding of economics as Robert Reich does would actually have a PhD in economics. So I looked it up.

For the record, he's got a BA from Dartmouth, an MA from Oxford, and a JD from Yale.

fyodor|12.1.05 @ 12:42PM|#

Rich Ard,

I believe in ethical behavior too. But I don't believe anything done in mutual cooperation is ever unethical...well very rarely anyway. (One can always find counter-examples in extreme cases, but by definition, they're extreme and probably not applicable to this discussion.) And I doubt any large corporation's hands are perfectly clean. What about Wal-Mart's practices makes you want to avoid them, and why are you sure your patronization of a competitor is really an improvement?

|12.1.05 @ 12:52PM|#

MikeP:

All I was trying to point out was that any time you price over marginal cost you have some monopoly power since in a "perfectly competitive" market all firms are price takers. That's just standard neoclassical theory, like I said. I'm not even saying it's entirely correct (I lean more austrian myself).

fyodor|12.1.05 @ 1:01PM|#

So if Costco's Chinese factory is in Town X, and Wal-Mart's is in Town Y, the people from Town Y don't really have an option

Accepted. But if Costco can make all the profit it desires while paying higher wages, why not open a factory in Town Y and steal all Wal-Mart's employees? It's not 100% as simple as that, but my point is that when capital can move where it wants, there's competition whether the workers can move as easily or not.

Anyway, I acknowledge that Costco's and Wal-Mart's different treatment of workers may be a function of differing employment strategies. But...well I've already made the points I was going to make next a dozen times so I'll leave it be now.

|12.1.05 @ 1:03PM|#

fyodor,

"But the Wal-Mart's "abuse" of its workers is what makes them profitable." That other corporations manage to be quite profitable while treating their workers better falsifies this statement. "Curtail that, and you curtail jobs." Because reducing jobs is the only cost Wal Mart could possibly scale back? Have you seen its profit statements? It's dividends? Its top executive compensation? It's spending on corporate goodies?

"{Maybe you don't accept that. And I'm sure you'll think I'm being a dick if I point out that that contradicts basic economics." Acting as though labor, and only factory-floor labor, is the only cost a corporation has contradicts basic economics.

Mike P, I stand corrected. Nonetheless, he teaches economics, and his texts are used in advanced economics classes. Advanced economics, meaning, those that look more closely into economic activity than a simple supply/demand curve.

Rich Ard|12.1.05 @ 1:09PM|#

Well, let's not be silly fyodor - the only sure thing out there is TANSTAAFL. :)

I don't care for giant big-box stores in general, and I suppose I see WAL-MART as the most egregious example. I'm just not in a hurry to go buy as much crap in one place as I can, so I buy my meat from a butcher (it's cheaper, fresher, and most of it's local[ish]), my produce from a farmer's market (when it's open), and the rest from businesses that I see doing things in and for my community.

Also, often their competitor for some of those products is me - I make toys for my kids out of wood, and they're playing with my duplos from when I was little; we make most of our food from scratch, and my house is filled with plants, not plastic bullshit.

I don't like spending my money at a place that keeps prices low by paying rock-bottom wages - not because I think that they're breaking a social contract, but because I don't think it engenders loyalty to the company or draws people who are going to help me find stuff when I need a hand. If I need bulk goods - we buy a lot of flour, for example - I'd rather go to Costco because I know that more of my money is going to go to the employees, and the selection is rotating and of higher quality.

I see that in the last century we've become a society of employees, of servants - and I refuse to spend my dollar at the company store.

Rich Ard|12.1.05 @ 1:15PM|#

And let's be clear - WAL-MART doesn't get its stores built by "mutual cooperation".

|12.1.05 @ 1:21PM|#

joe, yes, I agree that Robert Reich fancies that he teaches economics while being a professor of social policy. I would define "advanced" economics in this context as trying to figure out how governments can "improve" the outcome of economic processes.

fyodor|12.1.05 @ 1:30PM|#

That other corporations manage to be quite profitable while treating their workers better falsifies this statement.

No it doesn't. First of all, Wal-Mart may be MORE profitable than other companies, thus everyone complaining that it's too damn big. Second, what other companies do and succeed at doesn't show that Wal-Mart could change its own strategy and succeed just as well.

Because reducing jobs is the only cost Wal Mart could possibly scale back?

All those other choices they could make are independent decisions, also made to maximize benefit for their shareholders. They have no baring on what would happen if they were forced to change their labor practices.

fyodor|12.1.05 @ 1:33PM|#

And let's be clear - WAL-MART doesn't get its stores built by "mutual cooperation".

Well I'm sure that depends on the store. I strongly doubt ALL their stores have depended on government favoritism. Anyway, as I (and others) have said before, Wal-Mart is hardly alone in its appetite for and success in getting government favors, AND that's an issue that's more sensibly taken up with the governments providing the favors.

fyodor|12.1.05 @ 1:46PM|#

I don't care for giant big-box stores in general

Fair enough. We all have our different tastes. I don't especially like big box stores either, but more of the things I occasionally go to Wal-Mart for (kitty litter, for instance) I can't find in anything but.

I buy my meat from a butcher (it's cheaper, fresher, and most of it's local[ish])

So far you're talking about personal taste, not bad business practices.

and the rest from businesses that I see doing things in and for my community

Like beating their children? :-) I say that to make the point that people aren't better for being local, but maybe you live in a great area. Certainly you'll get more back economicly by buying from a local company, although probably only a minute amount. But if you actually know and like a local business owner, well hell, by all means!

I'd rather go to Costco because I know that more of my money is going to go to the employees

Fine, if true (might take more research than you or I have to know it's true, but it's plausible anyway). But recognize that that's a form of philanthropy, or charity, for the employees. It's interesting that people think this makes sense but would virtually never do something like tip the cashier.

and the selection is rotating and of higher quality.

Again, that's your personal taste and would seem to have nothing to do with the supposed ethical issues we're ostensibly discussing.

I see that in the last century we've become a society of employees, of servants - and I refuse to spend my dollar at the company store.

Seems like patronizing Costco isn't any different from Wal-Mart in that regard. If you patronize a very small business instead, then you're making a tiny drop in the ocean toward your desired end. When I have the chance, I do the same thing! :-) In fact, your shopping habits appear to be very much like mine. But I don't claim I'm avoiding Wal-Mart because of their supposedly vile business practices.

|12.1.05 @ 1:47PM|#

So if Costco's Chinese factory is in Town X, and Wal-Mart's is in Town Y....

As far as I know neither firm owns any factories in China. Since they both (also Target & Kmart) carry a lot of the same brand names there's got to be some question of whether anyones exclusively guilty of "exploiting" the Chinese.

If anyone can show anything to the contrary I will stand corrected.

Rich Ard|12.1.05 @ 1:48PM|#

"I strongly doubt ALL their stores have depended on government favoritism."

I've been involved in some of the transactions in which they acquired property, and you're definitely right about that - but we're not talking about a franchise situation where a local WAL-MART franchisee decides to looks for handouts, but a corporation that does so as a matter of course, and they can find the money in someone else's pocket (since they don't seem to mind plucking it from mine if it makes it easier to put concrete in the ground).

|12.1.05 @ 1:51PM|#

Rich Ard,

What sort of handouts are we talking about here? Employees getting welfare or some sort of state sponsored health insurance?

fyodor|12.1.05 @ 1:55PM|#

Rich Ard,

Well as I said before, bad on them. But as I also said before, I think they're hardly alone.

Isaac Bertram,

Good point. Without having all the facts and figures at hand, it's hard to refute those villifying Wal-Mart, but I find it very hard to believe it's a black/white matter of them exploiting workers and the nice companies treating them fairly. Hell, I remember a few billboards here in Denver years ago, maybe a dozen, urging people not to shop at K-Mart because low wages are contagious! Oh but joe says that pointing out that other big businesses have been likewise villified in the past when it was trendy is a "nice dodge." Just like swear words and polite terminology for unfortunate conditions, this too will pass. Someday there'll be a new bogeyman and villifying Wal-Mart will be passe.

|12.1.05 @ 1:56PM|#

matt:

Okay, I see that you were simply stating found theory.

But the fact that, in very competitive markets, different airline patrons pay different prices that are mostly unrelated to their costs is something of a counterexample to the strict statement. The aggregate price is not any higher than the aggregate cost, but the individual prices can be higher or lower than the respective individual costs.

That said, there may be some truth to the general statement. When I tried to add a second airline in my simple example above, I ended up with one or two surviving airlines charging $225 per seat while leisure travelers were left hitchhiking.

Next time I take a leisure flight, I'll be sure to thank all the business travelers for letting me free ride on their employers' dime.

I still don't know what discriminatory pricing has to do with Wal-Mart.

|12.1.05 @ 2:01PM|#

fyodor,

In my eyes Wal-Mart is a symbol for what liberals/Democrats like joe don't like - corporations. They should just come and say that they don't like corporations (or at least the legal structures which they are created under) and get over it. If you want to be anti-corporation that's fine, but lumping Wal-Mart into a category all its own is just a dodge and simply ignores their true agenda.

Rich Ard|12.1.05 @ 2:15PM|#

"Employees getting welfare or some sort of state sponsored health insurance?"

Those are both symptoms of existing programs, and as long as WAL-MART is honoring contracts with its employees, I see that as more a gov't problem; I'm referring to the means by which they acquire property and negotiate (due to their size) tax and infrastructure breaks.

Note that I've not said that I think they aren't following the letter or spirit of existing law; I just don't care for the company and its practices, so I don't shop there. Keep in mind that at the same time I'm employed by a juggernaut of a corporation myself, so I'm one of the proletariat of employees I mentioned above...but I don't see that WAL-MART treats their low-level employees as 'people', and I think that's part of the economy of scale that keeps them profitable.

As a rule utilitarian, Hakluyt, how do you see their practices, on the whole, as contributing to the greater good (or do you just not believe that they are acting outside an acceptable sphere)?

Or is this something you can't change, so you don't worry about it? ;)

|12.1.05 @ 2:46PM|#

fyodor, "It's interesting that people think this makes sense but would virtually never do something like tip the cashier."

Shopping at a store that pays its workers better is the same thing as tipping your cashier.

And the "dodge" I pointed out was not about stores in the past, but to conflate "anti-Wal Mart" protests with "anti-chain protests." I belong to Costco, and shop at Sears, Target, Kohl's, and Best Buy. They're all chains, they're all big boxes. But they don't treat their workers like crap.

Oh, wait, I think I just interrupted somebody who was explaining what I think.

|12.1.05 @ 2:48PM|#

Rich Ard,

Like any large economic entity Wal-Mart is a fantastic source of poverty relief. There may be individual practices of theirs which are problematic, but as a "rule" I accept the general poverty relief of such organizations as beneficial. Now, there may be "exceptions" (granting exceptions is at the heart of being a rule utilitarian) to that rule, but no one has convinced me that Wal-Mart should fit under any exception.

Rich Ard|12.1.05 @ 3:02PM|#

joe "Oh, wait, I think I just interrupted somebody who was explaining what I think."

Sometimes you're a dick, but when you're funny you're funny. :)

"Shopping at a store that pays its workers better is the same thing as tipping your cashier."

Not quite - the cashier at Costco is probably at best mildly happy that you came there instead of a competitor; the waiter you tip well knows that he or she, as a representative of the company, pleased you.

Hakluyt, wasn't there a recent study posted here that suggested Wally World was actually dragging real wages down? Sorry, too busy to look, and I seem to have heard that you keep a lot of references around. :)

|12.1.05 @ 3:07PM|#

Rich Ard,

*shrug*

Haven't seen such.

fyodor|12.1.05 @ 3:13PM|#

Shopping at a store that pays its workers better is the same thing as tipping your cashier.

If you pay an extra buck at a store that pays its employees more, maybe some of that buck in effect goes to the employees (and maybe not, it's a very complicated matter), but if you tip an employee a buck, that WHOLE buck goes for charity.

Oh, wait, I think I just interrupted somebody who was explaining what I think.

Heh, well you do make a little more sense when to condescend to explain yourself!

But then, as all important as you are, Gillespie, believe it or not, was not addressing you personally. There seems to be plenty of overlap between the anti-chain angst he cites from the past and the chagrin over Wal-Mart today. If you don't fall into the traps of stupider of the complaints against Wal-Mart, well good on you.

Rich Ard|12.1.05 @ 3:16PM|#

"If you pay an extra buck at a store that pays its employees more, maybe some of that buck in effect goes to the employees (and maybe not, it's a very complicated matter), but if you tip an employee a buck, that WHOLE buck goes for charity."

Dammit fyodor, that's what I said. :)

|12.1.05 @ 3:18PM|#

belong to Costco, and shop at Sears, Target, Kohl's, and Best Buy. They're all chains, they're all big boxes. But they don't treat their workers like crap.

Heh. I don't shop at Best Buy because their workers treat me like crap. I have never, ever had a good customer service experience at a Best Buy store, and that's a dealbreaker for me.

|12.1.05 @ 4:05PM|#

I belong to Costco, and shop at Sears, Target, Kohl's, and Best Buy. They're all chains, they're all big boxes. But they don't treat their workers like crap.

You don't know dick about the employees of Sears, et al.

Rich Ard|12.1.05 @ 4:13PM|#

"You don't know dick about the employees of Sears, et al."

Ah, assumptions. Where would we be without them?

|12.1.05 @ 4:17PM|#

My brother worked in Sears' automotive department as a mechanic. His experience was a rather negative one, which is why he opened his own shop.

|12.1.05 @ 4:21PM|#

ISTR a website/message board dedicated to allowing Best Buy employees spout off about their being treated like crap. Anyone remember that one?

|12.1.05 @ 4:32PM|#

"I still don't know what discriminatory pricing has to do with Wal-Mart."

Yeah, me neither Mike. It's not price discrimination if the government is the reason for the price difference.

Rich Ard|12.1.05 @ 4:49PM|#

"My brother worked in Sears' automotive department as a mechanic. His experience was a rather negative one, which is why he opened his own shop."

And I used to work for First American, but they sucked, so I quit. Where ya goin' with this?

The Wine Commonsewer|12.1.05 @ 5:50PM|#

Heh. I don't shop at Best Buy because their workers treat me like crap. I have never, ever had a good customer service experience at a Best Buy store

No Doubt. Felt like that for years until they built a new one down the hill from me about 9 miles and, believe it or don't, it has good service. The people who work there actually fight over who is going to help the customers.

|12.1.05 @ 5:58PM|#

The Wine Commonsewer,

I always had good service at the Best Buy in West Lebanon, N.H.

|12.1.05 @ 7:23PM|#

I may be way too late for anyone to see this but...

Wally World could go into China AND operate with a modicum of decency. They just choose not to.

I'm not always certain of the initial assertion that Walmart DOESN'T operate with a modicum of decency. However, I do know that Walmart is 'into' China, not just with manufacturing, but retail outlets. Our neighbors just spent three weeks in an absolutely obscure region way inside the interior of china, and shopped at, you guessed it, a Walmart. They said the experience was rather surreal- in that you knew you were physically in a walmart, but the products were, well, distinctly chinese.

So not only is Walmart creating jobs on the manufacturing side, they're also creating jobs on the retail side as well. At this point, my vote is that China is better overall with walmart, than without. Because we kinda knew how China was without Walmart.

Paul

|12.1.05 @ 7:38PM|#

Phil: bestbuysux.org? ihatebestbuy.com?