Why the animosity? Because of the assumption of stupidity
People are probably asking, "O, why all the animosity and the Ontario Vineyard Village Association stuff? Heck, you hardly ever shop at the Upland Wal-Mart; why do you care about the existence or non-existence of an Ontario Wal-Mart?"
Or they're probably not asking, but I'll explain it anyway.
Governments too often make the assumption that citizens are stupid and need to be "protected." There's probably a similar motiviation infecting the Ontario Mountain Village Association in their opposition to a Super Wal-Mart - a thought that the residents of Ontario need to be protected from this menace.
Why? Because it's popular. If Wal-Marts weren't popular, then activists wouldn't care because the Wal-Marts would die of their own accord. Yet the fact that they are popular is worrisome.
Here's some of what the capital L Libertarians have to say about the matter:
In recent years, Wal-Mart has been a lightning rod for anti-business activists. The chain of discount stores remains under siege from impassioned political activists, intellectuals and unions who accuse it of exploiting workers, while some accuse it of wiping out smaller stores.
Thanks to these zealous crusaders, Wal-Mart spends tens of millions of dollars -- none of which benefits consumers -- to defend itself against dubious lawsuits and legislation designed to shutter or shackle it. California nearly banned Wal-Mart entirely, and various communities are mulling similar laws.
Does Wal-Mart warrant such hatred? Absolutely not!...
Consider the accusation that Wal-Mart is wreaking havoc with small-town America. The plain-to-see truth is that the romanticized "Mom and Pop enterprises" were failing long before Wal-Mart arrived.
Savvy shoppers are familiar with T.J. Maxx, Marshall's, Big Lots, Costco and other deep discounters hawking inexpensive imports. OfficeMax, Toys-R-Us, Home Depot, Barnes and Noble, Best Buy, and other "category killers" have long tormented independent retailers.
And don't forget catalogue retailers, online shopping, the Home Shopping Network, street vendors, factory outlet malls, flea markets and even garage sales!
Wal-Mart cannot be blamed for the death of smaller stores. Wal-Mart is not some unstoppable bio-engineered monster. Other dreaded and seemingly unstoppable cost-cutters have come and gone. Let us not forget today's lackluster Sears, Montgomery Ward (long disappeared), K-Mart (merged into Sears), Grants (a distant memory), Woolworth (dead), A&P (almost defunct), and countless other merchants.
Wal-Mart is hardly unique or eternal; it is only momentarily better. Industry observers are already speculating that the more upscale Target may be the wave of the future.
What about Wal-Mart's alleged stinginess, paying "near-starvation wages" with scant benefits? Paying the minimum wage is not a crime, and Wal-Mart employment is entirely voluntary. Wal-Mart haters should try shopping at Saks Fifth Avenue, where salespeople can earn $100,000 annually, and see the difference it makes when they reach the checkout counter.
To insist that clerks and cashiers deserve executive-level compensation (or that all U.S. employees must be unionized) is naive and invites corporate suicide -- no small matter to Wal-Mart employees with profit-sharing and pension plans. Working for a survivor, albeit with lower pay, outshines better wages paid by an employer tottering on the brink of bankruptcy.
Finally, Wal-Mart's success is fair and square. Low prices do not depend on some secret formula. Its merchandise is commonplace and consumers can certainly buy it elsewhere....
Wal-Mart is not "unfair" or ruthless; it is just better than its rivals.
Again, I challenge all the people who oppose Wal-Mart to remove all "Made in China" stuff from their stores. And I guess they should eliminate all mention of Yahoo while they're at it.
Comments