Skip to main content

up against the wal[mart]

ok, if you're a regular reader of this blog, you know where i stand, but if you're new, let me be up front: i hate walmart. pretty much everything they do, i would do the reverse. anything they hold to be a virtue strikes me as a vice and, i would dare to say, their management would believe the same about me. that hasn't stopped me from courting them. i've worked with companies who supplied them and my personal efforts were dedicated to increasing their business. but that's not what made me hate them. if anything, working closely with them gave me a sense of admiration for their ruthless efficiency. in all honesty, it's like a newbie fbi agent looking at the work of an adept serial killer. it's hard not to be impressed by the craft, divorced from the real-world results.

but somehow, when i first heard the story of a garment factory burning to the ground and killing over a hundred people in bangladesh, i couldn't help but think that walmart's hand was in there, pulling the puppet's strings in the background.

and so they were.

and if there is anything that strikes me as worse than the largest corporation in the world being involved with a factory where supervisors barricaded the doors as the building burned around them, it's the fact that said corporation has chosen to adopt a position of ignorance, claiming that their supplier outsourced to this factory without consent and that they had absolutely no idea what was going on.

i call malarkey.

walmart's position with its vendors is that from one year to another, they must offer "more for the same, or the same for less". that means that the price either has to decrease, or walmart has to get more product for the same amount of money. it flies in the face of economic theory, which indicates that a healthy economy carries a nominal level of inflation [and the attendant price increases]. where exactly did they think that these savings were coming from? the owners and managers of walmart aren't stupid. they are perfectly aware that the demand that all suppliers lower prices means that jobs are handed off to factories with sub-standard [and possibly illegal] modes of operating. but as long as they get what they want, they're willing to look the other way.

i've already ranted about this, but i think it's worth calling attention to this story, because, ultimately, it's important to understand that this factory fire isn't a tragic accident, but a natural outgrowth of walmart's corporate policies. at a corporate level, this sort of incident has been deemed an acceptable risk in the name of maintaining the company's pricing policy. walmart will do the expected public mea culpas and insist that they didn't really know what was going on, but know this: it's a load of b.s. everyone, including those at walmart, know exactly what is going on. and while what happened in bangladesh may well have been an accident, in the sense that it was not intentional, it should by no means be a surprise.

ironically, by artificially suppressing inflation and holding domestic workers' wages at a lower rate than they should be, walmart creates a marketplace where consumers simply can't afford things that are made at properly managed and carefully vetted factories. it's a very tricky situation where both sides of the tug-of-war have to be adjusted at the same time.

but one thing is clear: walmart is hurting both sides, while enriching themselves. and that's the sort of thing that people really can't afford to endorse.

[fyi, this is not to say that all large retailers are inherently bad. costco, for instance, is much tougher on their overseas suppliers while at the same time providing a higher standard of living to their workers and earning less margin on sales than walmart. so there.]

Comments

as long as you're here, why not read more?

fun-raising

no, i am not dead, nor have i been lying incapacitated in a ditch somewhere. i've mostly been preparing for our imminent, epic move, which is actually not so terribly epic, because we found a place quite close to where we are now. in addition, i've been the beneficiary of an inordinately large amount of paying work, which does, sadly, take precedence over blogging, even though you know i'd always rather be with you.

indeed, with moving expenses and medical expenses looming on the horizon, more than can be accounted for even with the deepest cuts in the lipstick budget, dom and i recently did something that we've not done before: we asked for help. last week, we launched a fundraising campaign on go fund me. it can be difficult to admit that you need a helping hand, but what's been overwhelming for both of us is how quick to respond so many people we know have been once we asked. it's also shocking to see how quickly things added up.

most of all, though, the ex…

losers?

just a short time ago, i waxed prosaic about trump supporters who felt betrayed by their candidate pursuing in office the exact things that he said he would. short version: i have no sympathy.

today is a bit different. in the wake of america's bombing of a syrian air strip, in response to a chemical weapons attack by the syrian government, my facebook and twitter feeds were peppered with plaintive shades of "we believed you". these are the people who heard trump say that he wanted the united states to step back and focus on defending its own. indeed, trump did say such things, over and over; america cannot be the policeman of the world. even arch-liberal cynics like me had to admit that this was a refreshing argument to hear from someone outside the paul family, and, could easily have been turned into trump's greatest argument against hillary clinton. [he chose to go another way, which also worked.]

trump also said, repeatedly, that america needed to invest heavily …

long division

after the united states election last year, there were the usual calls for the country to unite behind the new president. that never happens anymore, because, since george w. bush scored a victory in 2004, having launched the country into a war in iraq for no reason, the people on the losing side of a presidential election have been pretty bloody angry about it. democrats hated bush 43. republicans really hated obama. democrats really hate trump.

it didn't help that trump didn't make the typical conciliatory gestures like including a couple of members of the opposite party in his cabinet, or encouraging his party to proceed slowly with contentious legislation. barack obama arguably wasted at least two and as many as six years of his tenure as president trying to play peacemaker before he felt sufficiently safe to just say "screw you guys" and start governing around the ridiculous congress he was forced to deal with. not-giving-a-shit obama was the best president in …