New at Reason
Julian Sanchez gives the lowdown on Robert Greenwald's high-profile new Wal-Mart documentary.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time.
-
Outstanding Julian. Just about the best ink spilled on an already over-chewed chunk of cultural scenery, I'd say.
-
The same people who complain bitterly about the legal fiction that a corporation is a person have succeeded in thoroughly anthropomorphizing Wal-Mart, until it is no longer a collection of persons and policies, but a kind of malevolent intelligent force -- perhaps with its own twisted corporate soul.
I saw that episode of South Park. But I didn't know Julian wrote it! -
So was the writer of that wikipedia article not paying attention to the episode?
"The moral of this episode seems to be completely antipodal to that of the episode Gnomes, in that it seems to suggest that large corporations are evil compared to small, family-owned businesses."
It wasn't suggesting it at all. Asshat. -
But a far larger pile, alas, sails from the screen, falls short of its target, and lands with an unceremonious plop on your coffee table.
Wal*Mart sells some stuff that'll get the plop off your coffee table, and probably sells some anti-plop tables to boot.
Is there some reason that every job ... must be remunerative enough to support a family of three?
What's the difference between a 14" pizza and a Wal*Mart job?
The 14" pizza can feed a family of four. -
I deal with people on a daily basis who are looking for jobs, specifically at Wal-Mart. Or, rather, I shake my head after reading what they have to say... and it definitely brings a somewhat... different perspective to this.
Ryan, clearly the author of that wikipedia article wasn't paying attention. I watched the same episode as he did, I think, and got something entirely different out of it: If you don't want a Wal-Mart, you're just going to have to pay more for all of your stuff. -
I think the real question is can we look forward to a Greenwald TV series in the Spurlockian tradition?
-
a small town around here changed their mind about the evil empire
http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/106418 -
I deal with people on a daily basis who are looking for jobs, specifically at Wal-Mart.
I know a couple who've worked for Wal*Mart for 7 years, and don't intend to change. And they have four kids.
FWIW, that Wal*Marts around here are in fairly upscale areas, like Evergreen and W. Jefferson county CO. I used to take a bus load of old folks for their monthly Wal*Mart run, and they loved it. -
The various whiny liberal bitches have done the same thing with Wal-Mart as they have done with George W. Bush. Their absurd, hyperbolic critiques of Wal-Mart obscures the actual valid problems with it---just as they did with GWB. Though, to be fair to WalMart, there's much more actually wrong with GWB than there is actually wrong with WalMart.
Blaming all the world's ills on Wal-Mart might be easy, but in the end, it kills any credible/valid criticisms of them, like their blackmailing to get corporate welfare from localities.
Blaming all the world's ills on GWB might be easy, but in the end, it kills any credible/valid criticisms of him, like his steadfast dedication to the expansion of the welfare state. -
Evan:
Great post. I guess it's easier to paint someone/something as a monster than it is to debate his/it's existence on a point-by-point basis, which entails conceding that there may be some good there. Because admitting that someone/something isn't all bad could weaken the case. -
The various whiny liberal bitches have done the same thing with Wal-Mart as they have done with George W. Bush. Their absurd, hyperbolic critiques of Wal-Mart obscures the actual valid problems with it---just as they did with GWB. Though, to be fair to WalMart, there's much more actually wrong with GWB than there is actually wrong with WalMart.
I think that's precisely right. Although I believe it has more to do with being out of power then being liberal. Of course, I thought the Republican vitriol towards Clinton was bad, but it's got nothing on the pure hatred of Bush. -
Stretch: I disagree, but obviously, this is just a matter of opinion. I was indifferent to Clinton who was distasteful, but find Bush intolerable.
from the article: "Their jobs were far more important to these people," said Gilliam, "because there was nothing else." Perhaps the obscene profits that drive Wal-Mart's expansion are helping to create still more such opportunities for other prospective workers who have "nothing else." But if that thought occurred to the filmmakers, they don't give any hint of it.
just to play devil's advocate here, perhaps if Wal-Mart wasn't there, other businesses would have filled the gap of Wal-Mart's absence, then those workers would have just had other jobs. maybe better, maybe worse, but the "nothing else" might only be because of the presence of the Wal-Mart.
But if that thought occurred to Julian, he didn't give any hint of it.
further, I postulate/ hypothesize/ suppose that if Wal-Mart didn't exist in a small town, but that the small proprietorships remained, even if their prices were higher, it seems likely that at least the profits from the store are likely to remain in town, and the wealth will stay local to the benefit of the locals, in the form of salary to pay local employees, and purchase of goods and services from other local businesses. I know Wal-Mart does that also to some degree, and that not all purchases will be from local, some money will exit even under the proprietorships BUT no money will be being funneled out of the small town to pay Wal-Mart Corp's owners/ stockholders. to me, that seems preferable. I'll have to think about a more convincing argument if that doesn't make sense to anyone. I don't think Wal-Mart is the evil empire, and one of my best friends is a manager for them, I'm just trying to express some reasons why an economically efficient megacorporation chain store might not always be in the average guy's best interests, even if you can buy things you need (or not) more cheaply. -
I thought the Republican vitriol towards Clinton was bad, but it's got nothing on the pure hatred of Bush.
I don't buy this. Nor do I think WalMart bashing falls strictly into right/left political lines. And if Wal Mart gets out of the firearm business, you can bet the Bubbas will join hands with the anti-globalists against the Wal Mart Satan. -
Mark Schmitt has an interesting post on the Walmart Low Wages / Subsidies conundrum.
http://markschmitt.typepad.com/
Also there was previously a heated discussion on Hit&Run on whether it is ok to boycott Walmart. I thought libertarians were up with boycotts, whatever the person's personal reasons for doing so. -
Hey Ryan, why don't you edit that wikipedia article if you disagree?
-
"And if Wal Mart gets out of the firearm business, you can bet the Bubbas will join hands with the anti-globalists against the Wal Mart Satan."
Many of them already have. You wouldn't believe the number of gun owners who think that Wal*Mart is going to put their local gun dealer out of business.
Comparing the selection of firearms at the local Wal*Mart to the selection of firearms at Ye Olde Gonne Shoppe, they may as well not even be in the same business.
I buy about half of my practice ammo at Wal*Mart, but none of their firearms hold any interest for me. -
This discussion led me to another widely differing, but interesting critique of the anti-Wal-Mart film. I linked the commentary to my name, since pasting url here didn't link it: http://reclaimdemocracy.org/walmart/target_movie.php
-
Stretch: I disagree, but obviously, this is just a matter of opinion. I was indifferent to Clinton who was distasteful, but find Bush intolerable.
I was only referring to the actions of the opposition regarding the two, not my opinion of the individuals.
I could be mistaken, but as I remember it the right's hatred of Clinton boiled up over the course of his entire presidency finally reaching a, ahem, head during the whole scandal-which-shall-not-be-named. The fact that the Republicans took control of Congress early on also probably helped to mitigate some of the rage. To be fair, I wasn't as politically active then and I already hated the Republicans, so maybe I just didn't pay them too much mind.
In the current situation, it seems that the left's hatred of Bush spouted fully formed from the 2000 election. This, of course, is only exacerbated by the fact that not only have the Dems lost power but they seem to have no real plan to get it back.
Say what you want about the way the right treated Clinton, but it worked and they got the whole damn government for all their whining. I do not anticipate a similar swing for the Democrats in the near future, though it would sure be nice to have a divided government again.
I don't buy this. Nor do I think WalMart bashing falls strictly into right/left political lines.
No, it doesn't, although the WalMart bashers are predominantly on the left for right now. My main point is that I agree with Evan that a common feature shared by many of those who hate WalMart and those who hate Bush, is that their hyperbolic rhetoric often obscures very real problems.
It's tough to talk seriously about WalMart's chicanery with overtime pay or their abuse of government subsidies when someone tells me that they eat children and kill puppies. Or is it the other way around? -
I thought the Republican vitriol towards Clinton was bad, but it's got nothing on the pure hatred of Bush.
Clinton was impeached. Perhaps he deserved it, but the legal issues were sufficiently murky that I must hold that the huge throngs of ordinary Republicans who cheered Ken Starr on were motivated less by zeal for the perjury laws and more by vitriol matching anything the left can produce against Bush. -
There was plenty of hatred and hypocrisy on both sides during the whole Clinton incident. But I'd like to take this opportunity to remind everyone that Bill Clinton was not the victim of some vast right wing conspiracy, but of of the laws and policies he and his supporters worked to enact. Virginia Postrel pointed that out here back in April 1998:
Media-savvy but legally unsophisticated liberal commentators, such as radio talk show host Tom Leykis, make a passionate, and fairly persuasive, argument about Clinton's presumed affair: It may be bad, but it's a private matter. It's between Bill, Hillary, and Monica. It's none of our business. It certainly doesn't belong in court. "Why are we asking questions about the president's sex life?" asks Leykis. "Why is that relevant to anything? Why should the president be put in a position of having to lie about something that's none of our business in the first place?"
Why indeed? The tempting answer is, Because you asked for it. Demanded it. Screamed and yelled and waxed indignant. You dedicated the 1992 Democratic National Convention to the cause. Remember "The Year of the Woman"? It was a media frenzy. And the number one agenda item was a ban on any hint of sexuality in the workplace.
Writing cheap symbolism into real law is a dangerous thing to do. But Congress did it in 1994. Ratifying the view that sexual harassment is too serious a matter to be governed by normal legal constraints, the very same Democratic Congress that reauthorized the Independent Counsel statute rewrote the rules of evidence. The new rules allow a defendant's sexual history--not just previous allegations of harassment--to be dragged into sexual harassment suits. (The plaintiff's history, however, was made inadmissable.)
So the president of the United States can be asked, under oath, about his sex life. It doesn't matter if the sex was consensual or even if the woman made the first move. It doesn't have to be harassment; indeed, no one claims anything of the kind in the Lewinsky case. But Congress chose to make every intimate detail fair game. And if, like many a cheating spouse, the president lies to cover up adultery, he is guilty of a serious crime--perjury, a potentially impeachable offense.
As somebody else pointed out around the same time, the Paula Jones case may have been baseless, but "the man who vetoed tort reform should be the first person subject to as many frivilous lawsuits as possible." (I wish I could remember who to credit. I think it was in Reason, but I can't find it).
It's funny how many people believe "Clinton only lied about sex (which he didn't have)" AND "Bush lied about Iraq," but can't explain what Bush said about Iraq that Clinton did not. -
biologist,
The "spend money locally" argument has always baffled me. Money that goes into the coffers of Walmart stockholders does not just disappear; they themselves spend money in the wider economy, after all. And it is in that same wider economy that the commodities produced in the local economy are bought. Well, that's assuming that the local economy produces something people in other towns are willing to pay for, but if it doesn't, why should we be concerned about saving it?
mediageek,
If WM's selection is that terrible, then gun shops have nothing to fear. What bugs me about the anti-Walmart propaganda is that half of the issues raised are problems that could be solved if people would just shop around (poor selection, poor service), and the other half are caused or abetted by government (corporate subsidies, non-enforcement of labor laws). -
"The "spend money locally" argument has always baffled me. Money that goes into the coffers of Walmart stockholders does not just disappear; they themselves spend money in the wider economy, after all."
Crimething: it's a different version of American "they tuk ur jubs!" protectionism, just on a smaller scale. You know how people rail against "outsourcing", because they believe that American workers deserve those jobs more than Chinese workers do? Well, yes, it may benefit the "wider economy", but, well, protectionist asshats like this think that their local economy is more deserving than anyone else's.
That, and it's just more convenient (for their argument) to entertain some fool fantasy about the evil, heartless Wal-Mart shareholders hording all their money in a big money bin and swimming around in it a la Uncle Scrooge. -
Producer Jim Gilliam is explaining that, due to Wal-Mart's "culture of fear," employees were even more reluctant than insiders at Fox News to talk to the documentary crew. "Their jobs were far more important to these people," said Gilliam, "because there was nothing else."
"Hello, I'm making a documentary about how horrible Wal-Mart is and how the store you work in should be shut down and the managers run out of town on a rail. You're stupid enough to work at Wal-Mart. Will you let us film you making comments about how horrible Wal-Mart is and how the store you work in should be shut down and the managers run out of town on a rail? We'll put it in the documentary and make sure you get full credit for your opinions. Sure, you'll either lose your job or become a pariah among your fellow employees, but it's for the children. You won't? You want to keep your job? What; you disagree with me? Well, that can't be right. Wal-Mart must be intimidating you."
Yes, these people could go to work in a locally-owned small shoppe, like I do. $8 an hour for the first six months (higher than the other places I applied) and $9 thereafter. No benefits. No benefits as in no overtime allowed, no health/retirement, no vacation/holidays/sick leave, no lunch hour. If I work 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM I get eight hours pay. If I do that five days (which the owner selects, currently I'm off Sunday and Tuesday) I get 40 hours. If I don't, I don't. -
And of course, Ebert & Roeper gave this documentary two thumbs up, and kavetched about how terrible Walmart is on their show. Of course, these are the same guys who said In Her Shoes is not a chick flick.
-
as a student of agit-prop (well, rhetoric, but same difference) i'm sort of curious to see it.
-
Clinton was impeached. Perhaps he deserved it, but the legal issues were sufficiently murky that I must hold that the huge throngs of ordinary Republicans who cheered Ken Starr on were motivated less by zeal for the perjury laws and more by vitriol matching anything the left can produce against Bush.
That's certainly fair enough, but it's not like the left doesn't want to impeach Bush. They just haven't found an excuse yet. Again, they're both awful and it's probably foolish of me to quibble over degrees.