The Money Mustache Community
Learning, Sharing, and Teaching => Ask a Mustachian => Topic started by: smalllife on February 03, 2013, 06:48:54 AM
-
In my area there are a lot of small and locally owned businesses, including two grocery stores, near my house. I manage to avoid large national chains for just about everything else but groceries, where my desire to save occasionally takes precedence.
Where do you all stand when it comes to supporting a local business (and spending a little more) vs. shopping at the major retailers (for the most savings)?
Personally I try to support the local businesses when I can, and purchase items at the mega-chain that do not have an equivalent at the local stores or are decidedly cheaper. This generally leads to basic shopping - olive oil, butter, etc. - at the large store and everything else at the local store down the street. It does help that they have a wonderful bulk section :-)
My reasons include: my money is more likely to stay in the community (that business pays their taxes in my city, state, and country), they pay their workers better (at least in my area), I am fighting oversized-business practices, and voting with my dollars.
Hopefully I didn't miss a thread when I searched for this topic, but I'm interested to see how others feel.
-
I almost always shop at small, local businesses rather than at chains. Generally the prices are higher but I find the quality is better, for example when we eat meat we get it from the family butcher rather from the MetFoods.
For me it probably balances out in terms of cost, for example I spent a Sunday fixing my shower. The guy at the local hardware store talked me through every step of the way over multiple visits and even lent me his own tools.
If something is dramatically cheaper at a big box store I'll go there, e.g. when I needed 50 bags of gravel, they were $3 more a bag at the local hardware store so I went to Home Depot but I'm happy to pay the extra $1 here and there on other random things.
One of the reasons I chose to live where I do is that there are a lot of small, independent businesses here. I like that when I buy something it's usually from someone who specialized in whatever it is I'm buying, so there's a level of support I just don't get at chains.
-
I'm glad somebody brought this up. I brought up something similar in another thread (more about the ethics of shopping at some of the large chains) and it was crickets, not a single reply. I think a lot of mustachians have a problem on their hands. They save at the expense of the big picture.
For myself I do my best to shop local, shop small, shop sweat-shop free and keep my money in the community as much as possible. This is obviously difficult to do, but whenever the opportunity is there, I take it. I also do my best to avoid already profitable companies who destroy jobs when they don't have to.
Again, it doesn't always happen, but it's in my mind and I do my best.
-
It really depends on your core values, along with what is/isn't available (there aren't a ton of mom and pop small shops in Vegas, at least that I'm aware of).
Similar to people who don't invest in stocks in companies they don't agree with the practices of, one might not shop at a store whose practices they disagree with, regardless of the savings.
Of course, that is under the assumption that they actually disagree with the practices of these stores. Many, for example, hate Wal Mart. I'm a fan, and not just due to their prices (that's a whole long discussion I've had with people who are on the other side of that opinion, I think most arguments against Wal Mart are bunk ... and if you just tuned out my post due to that opinion, you need to look at how you take in information :) ).
If you hate Wal Mart, and refuse to shop there, I have respect for that. If you hate it and shop there to save a buck, not so much. If you're neutral on it, but think Mom and Pop stores deserve support, so you don't shop there, I respect that. If you're neutral, want to support mom and pop, but shop at Wal Mart to save a buck, not so much.
The question really comes down to your core values. There are many things I wouldn't do to save a buck.
But there are many things I would do, that others wouldn't.
Each has to decide for themselves, because each has to live with themselves.
Best of luck deciding the right path for you.
-
I am happy to support local businesses if and only if it makes sense economically for me to do so. I am very wary of local grocery stores getting away with ridiculous prices on produce "because it's local and we're the good guys, we swear". The farmers should be getting more money per pound of produce than from a a giant conglomerate, and the local store should have lower margins because of reduced overhead.
Right now, it seems to me than many small stores in my area only survive because of the charity of higher income customers rather than direct competition on quality and price.
-
For groceries, it's an easy choice for me. The mexican mom and pop supermarket has better produce at lesser prices than Safeway. The local discount chain is cheaper, too. There is a WalMart, but I disagree with their labor practices so I do not patronize them, so I have no idea how their prices compare. I also have access to one of the best farmer's markets at the country, which I ought to patronize more than I do.
That said, I run into this problem with hardware stores. The local Ace hardware is closer than the big box store and has a pretty good selection, but the prices are noticeably higher. My solution to date has been to do a project starter at the big box store (i.e. buy everything I think I need) and then pick up things I forgot or missed at the local store. It isn't a perfect solution, but it allows me to patronize the local store as much as I can afford to while still being able to afford to do carpentry projects.
-
Right now, it seems to me than many small stores in my area only survive because of the charity of higher income customers rather than direct competition on quality and price.
I tend to avoid NYC farmers markets for this reason.
-
I don't mind supporting local specialy shops at all if they fill a niche (bike repair, organic foods, etc.).
I don't shop anything local just because they are small.
-
For purchasing items that are simply imported and resold, my money goes to the cheapest outfit I can find. Which even means personal importing in some cases.
For goods that are made locally, I try to deal directly with the manufacturer. Failing that a NZ owned distributor/retailer.
-
Bought my bike at a local store. It was cheaper online but the store throws in a free service after 90 days.
A computer and internet connection is not going to provide the same personalised service.
Long live the local store & small business owner.
-
I would have liked to support the Ace hardware in my neighborhood instead of the Lowes two miles up the road, but it's not there anymore...
-
I frequently face this dilemma, not usually with grocery stores but with other consumer goods. It is usually somewhat less expensive and definitely easier for me to order things off of Amazon than it is for me to make the time to go to a store, see if they have what I want, and wait in a line to checkout to buy a specific product. So, I've tried to strike a balance. If I find myself out of something, I will give myself a day or two to make it to the store. If I don't then I buy online.
-
It is usually somewhat less expensive and definitely easier for me to order things off of Amazon than it is for me to make the time to go to a store, see if they have what I want, and wait in a line to checkout to buy a specific product.
And much easier than to go visit several stores, and discover that none of them have what you're looking for. UPS just delivered my new skis this morning - none of the local stores (including the REI branch) had anything close to what I wanted, took about 15 minutes to find on-line. A decent pair of muck boots? Not local, but type "rubber boots" into Amazon's search and there they were. Same goes for just about everything I buy on-line.
-
I always buy from the place that offers me the product I want at the lowest price. Usually that's Amazon.
It doesn't make sense to me to shop at another business because they pay their workers more. If I really cared about how much the workers made, I'd just donate a fraction of what I saved shopping at a big retailer directly to the employees of a local store. We'd both come out ahead.
-
I also wonder about this and we do buy most of our food direct from the farmers.
BUT when it comes to other stuff I shop and bargain hard. I figure if I can buy an item cheaper at retail from another supplier why should I pay the extra? Sounds harsh but I am not going to put someone elses retirement before mine based on locality.
-
This reminds me of the long ethics of Mustachianism discussion we had a few months back.
Sol and Bakari would, I believe, have a different opinion than most have expressed in this thread.
-
I think this is really a golden rule issue, at least as far as employment practices. Would you honestly voluntarily accept the work conditions in these places? I know I wouldn't. It males me deeply uncomfortable to enjoy a low price on the back of someone who's work conditions I see as fundamentally unfair. See http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/mac-mcclelland-free-online-shipping-warehouses-labor
-
I think this is really a golden rule issue, at least as far as employment practices. Would you honestly voluntarily accept the work conditions in these places? I know I wouldn't. It males me deeply uncomfortable to enjoy a low price on the back of someone who's work conditions I see as fundamentally unfair. See http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/mac-mcclelland-free-online-shipping-warehouses-labor
I would work at Wal Mart.
I would not work at Amazon shipping warehouse (or other online one), unless a very dire situation arose (have to feed family and it's the only option).
Those are brutal. (EDIT: just opened you link, see you linked to the same story I was thinking of.)
I shop at both.
-
If I really cared about how much the workers made, I'd just donate a fraction of what I saved shopping at a big retailer directly to the employees of a local store.
Err.. Why do you think small/local retailers pay their workers more than large retailers do?
-
If I really cared about how much the workers made, I'd just donate a fraction of what I saved shopping at a big retailer directly to the employees of a local store.
Err.. Why do you think small/local retailers pay their workers more than large retailers do?
[citation needed]
In my experience, that's not the case at all. But then again, anecdotal evidence is meaningless. Maybe Grant or another numbers junkie has a nice chart of proving either hypothesis?
-
I think chuckles was just making a hypothetical statement to underline that he still wouldn't care.
A quick search yielded this:
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Empirical evidence suggests that employees at Wal-Mart earn lower average wages and receive lessgenerous benefits than workers employed by many other large retailers. But controversy has persist-ed on the question of Wal-Mart’s effect on local pay scales. Our research finds that Wal-Mart storeopenings lead to the replacement of better paying jobs with jobs that pay less. Wal-Mart’s entry alsodrives wages down for workers in competing industry segments such as grocery stores.
from: http://www.academia.edu/226583/A_Downward_Push_The_Impact_of_Wal-Mart_Stores_on_Retail_Wages_and_Benefits
-
If I really cared about how much the workers made, I'd just donate a fraction of what I saved shopping at a big retailer directly to the employees of a local store.
Err.. Why do you think small/local retailers pay their workers more than large retailers do?
[citation needed]
In my experience, that's not the case at all. But then again, anecdotal evidence is meaningless. Maybe Grant or another numbers junkie has a nice chart of proving either hypothesis?
You called? 35% wage premium in favor of employees at larger firms (http://ideas.repec.org/h/eee/labchp/3-33.html).
-
If I really cared about how much the workers made, I'd just donate a fraction of what I saved shopping at a big retailer directly to the employees of a local store.
Err.. Why do you think small/local retailers pay their workers more than large retailers do?
[citation needed]
In my experience, that's not the case at all. But then again, anecdotal evidence is meaningless. Maybe Grant or another numbers junkie has a nice chart of proving either hypothesis?
You called? 35% wage premium in favor of employees at larger firms (http://ideas.repec.org/h/eee/labchp/3-33.html).
Has Walmart read this study?
-
Has Walmart read this study?
Do you think WalMart pays less to a stockboy than a mom and pop grocery store pays to a stockboy?
-
Based on detailed payroll data Wal-Mart provided in the course of a sex-
discrimination lawsuit, we found that its average wages were $9.70/hr in 2001, and
that 54% earned under $9/hr. Since this sort of detailed data was only available for
2001, and such wage distributions were critical to estimate public assistance take-up,
we used this as the base year for our study. We compared Wal-Mart’s wages to those
paid by large retailers (retailers with 1000 or more workers) in California in 2001
using the Current Population Survey – a representative household dataset collected by
the Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Census Bureau. We
found a 31% wage penalty for working at Wal-Mart.
from http://94.23.146.173/ficheros/0f290e7cac0c0514c2990f16dedf7dbd.pdf via google search for "walmart relative wages"
So not mom and pops but... I get the impression that walmart is not the kind of "larger firm" that grantmeaname's link is talking about.
-
9.70 is a whole lot more than most small-shop retail workers were making in 2001, I'll wager. Plus, Walmart workers get benefits.
-
not off on the walmart thing, but I do like going to the farmer's markets here, towards end of day when they are wanting to leave, they discount a lot. I can get entire trays of fruits/vegetables for $1-2. The meats are similarly priced.
I go to the large chain stores for convenience since they have more stocked up and are closer, but farmers markets are great for produce.
I know this isn't exactly mom and pop, but it's "local", local being anywhere from in the city to inside state/region.
-
Assuming the large firms walmart was compared to offered the 35% premium you quoted above the small shops, the 31% walmart penalty would come out to 4% above the small shops? Some but not a whole lot. Also from my last link:
we estimate that many of the 52% of Wal-Mart workers
who are not receiving health benefits from Wal-Mart are enrolling in public health
programs like Medi-Cal and many of their children enrolling in Healthy Families.
Note that our methodology accounts for the fact that some individuals who have
spouses working at a company with more generous health insurance are opting into
such plans. The public plan enrollment is the focus of our study, and we estimate this
to cost around $32 million annually. Given the greater rate of job based health
coverage at large California retailers overall (61% as opposed to 48% in Wal-Mart),
Wal-Mart workers and family members utilize 40% more in such public health
expenditures than workers in large retailers overall in the state.
-
So Walmart pays health insurance for one-seventh fewer of its workers than the average large california retailer? That's hardly earth-shaking.
-
This reminds me of the long ethics of Mustachianism discussion we had a few months back.
Sol and Bakari would, I believe, have a different opinion than most have expressed in this thread.
I don't know about "most" - the first three reflected my stance pretty much exactly. I do sometimes get groceries from FoodMax, but its mostly things the local grocer doesn't carry. I'll often get things online, but I'll give preference to a non-amazon shop if its an option. I believe in true free markets - i.e. perfect competition, i.e. small independent business, but I'm not strict about it.
That study that shows the 35% better wages for employees of large firms seems to be looking at overall numbers, and not controlling for variables, so it may not be directly relevant to this question:
"The ... selection of employees ... are responsible for the positive relation between wages and employer size."
"Large firms demand a higher... education, job tenure, and a higher fraction of full-time workers."
Unless you compare employees with the same education, work hours, etc, then you can't use relative wage data to say whether any given worker would be better off at a small or large firm.
I offer as counter evidence:
http://www.ilsr.org/key-studies-walmart-and-bigbox-retail/
"Independent businesses spend more on local labor"
"the arrival of a Wal-Mart store reduces total county-wide retail payroll by an average of about $1.2 million"
"...2,953 counties, including both rural and urban places, and find that, after controlling for other factors that influence growth, those with a larger density of small, locally owned businesses experienced greater per capita income growth"
The website lists about 40 independent studies that put hard numbers on the negative impact of big chains on local economies.
And, while we probably don't want to hear it, this is what we should expect, since in addition to paying for wholesale purchases, overhead, and labor, corporations also have to come up with dividends to pay its shareholders - in other words, all of us! That money has to come from somewhere. Economies of scale only go so far, so if a company wants to both have the lowest prices, and provide good dividends, it has to reduce costs. If it is going to have quality product, the only place left to give is wages.
-
This reminds me of the long ethics of Mustachianism discussion we had a few months back.
Sol and Bakari would, I believe, have a different opinion than most have expressed in this thread.
I don't know about "most" - the first three reflected my stance pretty much exactly.
Fair enough. I meant comments like:
I am happy to support local businesses if and only if it makes sense economically for me to do so.
I don't shop anything local just because they are small.
my money goes to the cheapest outfit I can find.
I always buy from the place that offers me the product I want at the lowest price.
I shop and bargain hard. I figure if I can buy an item cheaper at retail from another supplier why should I pay the extra?
Those were the most recent comments when I made that post.
My stance, as before, is that each has to live with themselves based on their core values. Do what you know is right.
-
Good find, Bakari. Now I just need to find the time to go through it all.
And, while we probably don't want to hear it, this is what we should expect, since in addition to paying for wholesale purchases, overhead, and labor, corporations also have to come up with dividends to pay its shareholders - in other words, all of us! That money has to come from somewhere. Economies of scale only go so far, so if a company wants to both have the lowest prices, and provide good dividends, it has to reduce costs. If it is going to have quality product, the only place left to give is wages.
This may be intuitively sensible, but it's also probably wrong.
The dividends the company pays are part of its cost of capital, but Mom and Pop both want a return on their life savings that they put in, and the bank wants interest on that loan, too. Ma is a shrewd negotiatior if the interest rate on the lease is less than the 2.33% dividend Walmart paid out last year. So both businesses have to pay for their capital, but Walmart's is likely cheaper.
What about the products? Large businesses have more price power in the marketplace and can negotiate things like sole-supplier agreements to decrease the costs that they pay. Since they manage their own shipping and warehousing in many cases, they may pay less to move the inventory around, as well. Both businesses have to contend with theft and spoilage, but you can bet your ass it's more rigorously monitored at Walmart. So Walmart could easily pay a dramatically lower price than Pa when it orders widgets. Some elements of overhead may have diseconomies of scale, but many business support services are really remarkably cheap when you're dividing by a large enough denominator of sales.
-
You're right that its not earth shaking, and its not a matter of big vs small either, but it is a fact that Walmart pays less than other large retailers and offers fewer benefits. So I choose not to shop there. I agree that not everything about their business model is bad, but thats enough for me.
I don't mind shopping at large and mid-sized stores in general although I do often patronize small and or local businesses when available as long as there isn't too much of a premium.
-
You're right that its not earth shaking, and its not a matter of big vs small either, but it is a fact that Walmart pays less than other large retailers and offers fewer benefits. So I choose not to shop there. I agree that not everything about their business model is bad, but thats enough for me.
I don't mind shopping at large and mid-sized stores in general although I do often patronize small and or local businesses when available as long as there isn't too much of a premium.
I think that's awesome that you vote with your dollars. Absolutely the way to do it.
-
I offer as counter evidence:
http://www.ilsr.org/key-studies-walmart-and-bigbox-retail/
"Independent businesses spend more on local labor"
"the arrival of a Wal-Mart store reduces total county-wide retail payroll by an average of about $1.2 million"
I believe this is called efficiency. That is, if you have N smaller stores, each will serve a share of the total customer base. So if when I do today's shopping, I need something from a drug store, auto parts store, clothes store, and grocery, I would have to go around to four different stores, spend time having the cashier ring up my purchases and paying, etc. If I go to WalMart (or similar retailer), all those purchases are rung up by the same cashier, and I pay once. Further, in smaller stores the cashiers are likely spending more idle time, because there are fewer customers.
We could even take the smaller business thing further, as for instance the 19th century model of several separate stores - butcher, greengrocer, dry goods, etc - for the things we now buy all at the same supermarket.
-
The dividends the company pays are part of its cost of capital, but Mom and Pop both want a return on their life savings that they put in, and the bank wants interest on that loan, too. Ma is a shrewd negotiatior if the interest rate on the lease is less than the 2.33% dividend Walmart paid out last year...
Ma and Pa's return come in the form of their income. The paycheck of the CEO and upper management of a corporation are considered labor costs, not profit. If the total income of all executive level employees of the corporation is greater than the net income of Ma and Pa, then that's already an additional amount of money that has to come from somewhere, and that's before even considering dividends.
As far as the lease, both large and small companies need to lease the building/land the store is on - the majority of commercial real estate isn't owned by the company working in it.
Now, you are right in implying that the total average historic dividend rate of 4.5% is much less than the average business loan of 5-7%, however if the business is more than 5-10 years old, it has most likely paid off its start-up loan, and from there on pays nothing. While that initial interest is being amortized into the lifetime of the business, dividends keep being paid out forever.
-
So if when I do today's shopping, I need something from a drug store, auto parts store, clothes store, and grocery, I would have to go around to four different stores, spend time having the cashier ring up my purchases and paying, etc.
I keep waiting for someone to implement a food court style supermarket: you go into a building and have different stands for vendors. Baker, butcher, produce, home care, and other assorted businesses would be one the walls. A massive bulk section would be in the center, along with other food products depending on the local demand. The company who owns the building can be national to save on overhead, but the "shops" would be local/regional. Best of both worlds :-)
To get back on topic, what always stops me from shopping at the huge multi-national corporations are the byproducts of their size. They can bully the manufacturers overseas into making the cheapest goods possible (and I would argue that this is a bad thing - it comes at the expense of the environment, the workers, and the quality of materials) and buy legislation and its resulting tax breaks/favorable business atmosphere/etc. I'd rather pay a little more so that I know that the taxes the business pays go back into my country, state, and county if possible. Even if it is going into the pockets of the CEO, that CEO likely plays golf on a local range, frequents local restaurants, and so on.
-
I keep waiting for someone to implement a food court style supermarket: you go into a building and have different stands for vendors. Baker, butcher, produce, home care, and other assorted businesses would be one the walls. A massive bulk section would be in the center, along with other food products depending on the local demand. The company who owns the building can be national to save on overhead, but the "shops" would be local/regional. Best of both worlds :-)
Closest I've seen to this is the Pike Place Market in Seattle. There is the B&I in Tacoma. When I was in Pittsburgh months back, there was a place similar as well. Cannot remember the name.
Basically what you are asking for is a mall that also sells groceries.
-
Basically what you are asking for is a mall that also sells groceries.
A mall has nothing useful in it. What I want is a "supermarket" full of local vendors surrounding a bulk goods section and other items that are not practical to sell through local vendors.
*Edited quote bracket
-
I think this is really a golden rule issue, at least as far as employment practices. Would you honestly voluntarily accept the work conditions in these places? I know I wouldn't.
Really, so you don't support any business where you wouldn't voluntarily accept working in a position at that business?
80 hour nonstop shifts cleaning bedpans as a resident in a hospital? No thanks. Guess I won't go to hospitals anymore and only to private practices where they usually work 6-7 hours a day and take an hour or two off for lunch.
Any form of picking crops? Look, I don't care if you gave me $40/hr, I would not spend hours out in the hot sun, hunched over picking strawberries or whatever, developing carpal tunnel. Guess I'll never buy anything from a strawberry company.
Septic system maintenance? Portapotty cleaning? Guess I'll just use a bush.
-
To get back on topic, what always stops me from shopping at the huge multi-national corporations are the byproducts of their size. They can bully the manufacturers overseas into making the cheapest goods possible...
Only because the customers are willing to buy cheap (= shoddy, not necessarily inexpensive) goods. Small retailers are (in general) perfectly willing to buy the same goods, and sell them to their own customers at a higher markup.
-
To get back on topic, what always stops me from shopping at the huge multi-national corporations are the byproducts of their size. They can bully the manufacturers overseas into making the cheapest goods possible...
Only because the customers are willing to buy cheap (= shoddy, not necessarily inexpensive) goods. Small retailers are (in general) perfectly willing to buy the same goods, and sell them to their own customers at a higher markup.
Very true - and I don't frequent those businesses either if I can help it. I guess I'm spoiled by the availability of small, local retailers who focus on local or handmade goods. I still have a butcher shop within three miles, a soap maker five blocks away (great soap btw), and a plethora of second hand stores. Groceries are the one piece of my spending that I don't have a small, local business I can frequent regularly. There is one shop but outside of the bulk food and produce it is pretty overpriced (the same organic brands as the large retailers but with a higher mark up). I end up getting what I can at the small store - most basics, dry goods, random ingredients - and the non-organic/prepared foods from the supermarket. Hence my dilemma.
-
Some food for thought from You Are Not So Smart...
http://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/04/12/selling-out/
-
Part of what I struggle with is that "small" and "local" and shit are trendy now. I don't know whether $8 is what a loaf of bread actually costs or the stores can charge that much because their clientele is of the upscale bougie variety.
Personally I want to belong to a CSA because, without the middleman and sticking to what's seasonal, there should be some savings or at least on a par with regular grocery produce in exchange for supporting small, local farms (and forcing myself to eat more vegetables). But now it's a thing and all these middle-class over-caffeinated wonder moms are into it so most of the options end up being certified organic. Fortunately now I'm in a lower-income neighborhood I found one that does organic-but-not-certified.
Only because the customers are willing to buy cheap (= shoddy, not necessarily inexpensive) goods.
Conversely, sometimes I just want the cheapest, shoddiest thing that will do the job. Do I need high-quality ergonomically-designed kitchen tongs? No. So I just got them from the 99-cent store. Once when I'd been out of work for a long time I needed a particular drill bit size for a job, so I bought it from the 99-cent store knowing it didn't have to last any longer than the job and it didn't make sense to spend my dwindling savings on anything I didn't need, even quality. But frequently the mom-n-pop places or "made in america" stuff is a higher quality than I'm willing to pay for because it's higher quality than I need. I can see why since they're standing behind their products in a much more personal way they would want to sell rock-solid things, but there it is.
I don't know if this is super relevant, but I thought this post in response to Obama's SOTU mention of minimum wage was interesting.
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/02/13/debating-the-minimum-wage/ (http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/02/13/debating-the-minimum-wage/)
I've always assumed, like some economists, that higher minimum wage means fewer people are employed because their labor is worth less than the minimum wage. Or that by couching it in terms of what a self-supporting individual or head of household needs the debate ignores workers like high school students or stay at home parents looking to work part-time to add some "fun money" to the household budget, people, in other words, who would rather work for a low hourly wage than not at all.
The study cited at the end seems particularly interesting:
The main point to realize is that jobs aren’t like tomatoes, where if the price goes up, people purchase less of them. In fact, studies have found that increasing minimum wage at fast-food restaurants, for example, ends up increasing job stability, which in turn is good for the employer (it costs a lot of money to train newbies) and ends up saving them money. In the meantime, of course, the working poor, because they have so many needs, spend their new-found money faster than any other group, which in turn, boosts overall consumer spending.
-
Has Walmart read this study?
Do you think WalMart pays less to a stockboy than a mom and pop grocery store pays to a stockboy?
Not any more. They've effectively driven down wages. Mission accomplished. You can pat yourself on the back for helping out in that?
-
Any evidence for that theory?
-
Any evidence for that theory?
I didn't bother responding, but my favorite part of the comment was where he did the opposite of the tragedy of the commons, and placed the blame on me! :D
-
First thing Google came up with. Also found it in EbscoHost, it's peer reviewed. I have a friend working on a similar study at York University here in Canada, he hasn't published yet, but the effect has been the same here, though we are protected by a minimum wage that is somewhat better here (not to mention healthcare for everyone).
http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/retail/walmart_downward_push07.pdf
Oh, and "opposite of the tragedy of the commons"? I know full well what the tragedy of the commons is, but your comment made no sense. Sorry.
Hope you don't think I'm getting testy with you folks, I really like the forum here, but I find the idea of "saving the world through non-consumerism" at odds with patronizing big box stores, particularly Walmart. People hate to be called out, I get it, so do I. People defend what they do and how they think, particularly those with the zeal of the newly converted.
-
Oh, and "opposite of the tragedy of the commons"? I know full well what the tragedy of the commons is, but your comment made no sense. Sorry.
Think about it more. You'll get there.
Hope you don't think I'm getting testy with you folks, I really like the forum here, but I find the idea of "saving the world through non-consumerism" at odds with patronizing big box stores, particularly Walmart.
Most of us agree. We also just find agreeing for the sake of agreeing gains no one any knowledge, and unsubstantiated claims quite useless.
I don't think any of us minds a little back and forth (and indeed, welcome it), so don't worry about us thinking you're getting "testy." Everything you've posted has been 100% fine, IMO.
-
Deano, too bad you missed all the long involved threads on the morality of early retirement.
They were very long indeed, I summarized some highlights on my blog here: http://biodieselhauling.blogspot.com/2012/12/comments-from-mmm-economics-philosophy.html
(and by "highlights", I really mean "my comments" :P but there are links back to the original thread as well.)
After that one, there are 4 more similar and related ones.
This whole thread fits in very nicely with those discussions, and personally, I believe it is one of, if not the key issues in the modern global economy, and the direct cause of our historic levels of wealth inequality
-
I really like the forum here, but I find the idea of "saving the world through non-consumerism" at odds with patronizing big box stores, particularly Walmart.
Here are some aspects of Mustachianism and non-consumption I like:
- the psychological benefits from producing things for yourself (think about how pleasant working in a woodshop or switching the brakes on a car is, and the skills and insight you gain from doing so)
- The opportunity to be one of two full-time parents to my children.
- The weight of the knowledge that I am part owner of every public corporation in the nation, and that the vast majority of gainfully employed Americans work as agents of me and my fellow shareholders.
- The time to do time-intensive things right, like canning, homebrewing, gardening, and riding all the bikes. To quote Aida, I just want the time to be.
- The ability to volunteer my labor in ways that benefit me (http://www.habitat.org/), for that reason, and in ways that benefit society (http://www.taprootfoundation.org/), for that reason, when that's what I want.
How many of those have to do with the moral superiority of buying smaller amounts of things at a time? Not a one.
People hate to be called out, I get it, so do I. People defend what they do and how they think, particularly those with the zeal of the newly converted.
Here's the eye-roller. You're not calling me out for not following my values, you're making an ass of yourself by calling me out for not following your values! I don't feel the tiniest pinge of guilt when I buy Gordon Food Service frozen mango by the monstrous bag or Costco toilet paper by the 60, let me tell you, and it's not because I've turned off my moral sensibilities. My spending is in line with my values, despite the fact that it's not in line with yours. Is that so incomprehensible?
-
Its not like there's a limit on how many moral values one can hold. Listing off other various things you value doesn't particularly support or deny the negative factors that Walmart (and other similar mega-chains) has on society.
You may as well respond to the abortion debate by saying you support funding for libraries and space exploration.
If you are going to defend shopping there, why not address the issues raised regarding their detrimental effect on labor and independent business? If you feel no need to, why respond at all?
One could also debate whether a tenant of Mustachianism really is "saving the world through non-consumerism", or whether Walmart really does represent the pinnacle of consumerism.
If we accept that Walmart represents consumerism (and not just how you personally use it, but for the general population - does it's existence encourage more consumption?), and we accept that consumerism is bad for "the world", and if we also accept that "saving the world" is a positive value, then Deano's statement would be valid.
-
This is one I struggle with. I see why Walmart's not great - but my other options are Smiths or Albertsons, also large national chains. I shop some at Trader Joes, another national chain. I haven't researched to see who treats their employees better. Also Sprouts, a chain. Little stores here would all be ethnic stores, and I have one that I frequent, but it is pretty limited in what I buy there. I go there for spices, coconut milk, and occasional veggies.
I do buy 1/2 a cow from a farmer. I am thinking about buying a pig this year. And we are soon to go back to raising chickens for eggs. My thing about Walmart, though, is that they match prices from other stores, so I bring my circulars, and buy the loss leaders. In particular we have a really inexpensive store with really poor quality meats and produce. So I love to go to Walmart and buy my 5 mangoes for $1, 5 cucumbers for $1, etc at a store with better food. And how does the extra gas figure in, if I shop at several places, instead of one? And if I spend more, I am putting off retirement, and I think it is a social good to get me out of the workforce as soon as possible so another person can get my paycheck... Obviously these are all convenient justifications, but I also see them as true...
-
This is one I struggle with. I see why Walmart's not great - but my other options are Smiths or Albertsons, also large national chains. I shop some at Trader Joes, another national chain. I haven't researched to see who treats their employees better.
I sympathies with the rest of your post, and I (rarely) shop there too, for things that there is no reasonably convenient alternative for.
Just wanted to point out that Albertson's has a unionized workforce. I don't know Smith's, but the internet says they are too. Trader Joes (and Whole Foods) are not, and of course WalMart - well, to be fair, the CEO of whole foods is probably just as adamantly anti-union as Walmart. Walmart may be one of the bad ones, but it is kind of unfair that they get all the attention for it, when they aren't the only one.
-
I really like the forum here, but I find the idea of "saving the world through non-consumerism" at odds with patronizing big box stores, particularly Walmart.
Here are some aspects of Mustachianism and non-consumption I like:
- the psychological benefits from producing things for yourself (think about how pleasant working in a woodshop or switching the brakes on a car is, and the skills and insight you gain from doing so)
- The opportunity to be one of two full-time parents to my children.
- The weight of the knowledge that I am part owner of every public corporation in the nation, and that the vast majority of gainfully employed Americans work as agents of me and my fellow shareholders.
- The time to do time-intensive things right, like canning, homebrewing, gardening, and riding all the bikes. To quote Aida, I just want the time to be.
- The ability to volunteer my labor in ways that benefit me (http://www.habitat.org/), for that reason, and in ways that benefit society (http://www.taprootfoundation.org/), for that reason, when that's what I want.
How many of those have to do with the moral superiority of buying smaller amounts of things at a time? Not a one.
People hate to be called out, I get it, so do I. People defend what they do and how they think, particularly those with the zeal of the newly converted.
Here's the eye-roller. You're not calling me out for not following my values, you're making an ass of yourself by calling me out for not following your values! I don't feel the tiniest pinge of guilt when I buy Gordon Food Service frozen mango by the monstrous bag or Costco toilet paper by the 60, let me tell you, and it's not because I've turned off my moral sensibilities. My spending is in line with my values, despite the fact that it's not in line with yours. Is that so incomprehensible?
It's clear I touched a nerve. Easy Tex. If you want to piss on the world, that's fine. I was calling out people who profess to want to do good things for the world and yet still shop at places that do bad things for the world. You're a greedy jingo maybe, I could care less. I don't care about your lack of guilt, I care about those who care because they are the ones who might care about what I posted. It's clear you have the answers and you want to list them for me in handy html. Kudos.
You were most certainly not the target of my post, I apologize if you assumed you were.
-
This is one I struggle with. I see why Walmart's not great - but my other options are Smiths or Albertsons, also large national chains. I shop some at Trader Joes, another national chain. I haven't researched to see who treats their employees better.
I sympathies with the rest of your post, and I (rarely) shop there too, for things that there is no reasonably convenient alternative for.
Just wanted to point out that Albertson's has a unionized workforce. I don't know Smith's, but the internet says they are too. Trader Joes (and Whole Foods) are not, and of course WalMart - well, to be fair, the CEO of whole foods is probably just as adamantly anti-union as Walmart. Walmart may be one of the bad ones, but it is kind of unfair that they get all the attention for it, when they aren't the only one.
We get quite a range on MMM here don't we? I would choose to patronize a union shop, but by the sounds of it others would rather see a unionized worker burn in hell.
In any event, it's fairly easy where I'm from to never set foot in a Walmart. In fact, the only place I've ever been to a Walmart in is Palm Springs CA...absolutely the only place in town to buy a hotplate to cook on. I went everywhere to find one...Walmart was it.
For me though, it's not just how Walmart treats it's workers, it's the effect they have on workers for other stores as well as their suppliers. It's bad all around.
-
This is one I struggle with. I see why Walmart's not great - but my other options are Smiths or Albertsons, also large national chains. I shop some at Trader Joes, another national chain. I haven't researched to see who treats their employees better. Also Sprouts, a chain. Little stores here would all be ethnic stores, and I have one that I frequent, but it is pretty limited in what I buy there. I go there for spices, coconut milk, and occasional veggies.
I do buy 1/2 a cow from a farmer. I am thinking about buying a pig this year. And we are soon to go back to raising chickens for eggs. My thing about Walmart, though, is that they match prices from other stores, so I bring my circulars, and buy the loss leaders. In particular we have a really inexpensive store with really poor quality meats and produce. So I love to go to Walmart and buy my 5 mangoes for $1, 5 cucumbers for $1, etc at a store with better food. And how does the extra gas figure in, if I shop at several places, instead of one? And if I spend more, I am putting off retirement, and I think it is a social good to get me out of the workforce as soon as possible so another person can get my paycheck... Obviously these are all convenient justifications, but I also see them as true...
I think that if you're not sure that you should be shopping at Walmart, try not doing it for a month or two. You can then assess what it will mean for you personally and decide if it's worth it. You could spend some time getting a range of information about Walmart and its practices in the meantime.
I can't speak for MMM, but I was under the impression that he believed (as I do I), that financial freedom shouldn't come at the expense of society. Personally, I think the quest for financial freedom can be very much in line with the goal of a better society and I doubt very much that a better society includes hordes of workers on food stamps.
-
We get quite a range on MMM here don't we?
its funny cause Grant and I seemed to be mostly on the same page throughout the several philosophy/morality threads I mentioned earlier.
I don't think he's amoral, just doesn't believe that Walmart actually does bad things for the world
Also, he has a tendency to play devil's advocate and to search for logical flaws in arguments, as far as I can tell, just on general principal. Which in general is a good thing for the forum. I don't know, maybe you really did touch a nerve, I actually thought that post was a little uncharacteristic...
-
It's clear I touched a nerve. Easy Tex. If you want to piss on the world, that's fine. I was calling out people who profess to want to do good things for the world and yet still shop at places that do bad things for the world. You're a greedy jingo maybe, I could care less. I don't care about your lack of guilt, I care about those who care because they are the ones who might care about what I posted. It's clear you have the answers and you want to list them for me in handy html. Kudos.
You were most certainly not the target of my post, I apologize if you assumed you were.
We prefer more respectful disagreement around here. Being a dick isn't going to win anyone over.
-
its funny cause Grant and I seemed to be mostly on the same page throughout the several philosophy/morality threads I mentioned earlier.
I don't think he's amoral, just doesn't believe that Walmart actually does bad things for the world
I'm sure Walmart has some shitty practices. I'm just not convinced that Walmart does more bad things for the world than its competitors do, especially after the total lack of evidence that was presented in the thread (and don't start on unions, because the teamster's union is among the scummiest organizations in the nation and none of my Kroger friends and classmates could name a thing their union did to earn its enormous dues -- it's just not that simple). Setting all that aside, I'm even more unconvinced that consumerism at smugger stores like Trader Joe's or Whole Paycheck is any different than consumerism at Walmart. Is an Aston Martin really less 'consumeristic' than a Toyota? Is a sweatshop Macbook really less 'consumeristic' than a sweatshop Acer Aspire?
Deano, while your post may have irked me, it's not like it touched a personal nerve-- I don't shop at Walmart by choice, and Costco and Giant Eagle both pay their employees well and treat them even better, as I happen to know from being close friends with employees (the exception of Costco subcontracting their free samples notwithstanding). What irritates me is when somebody wanders into a thread, only halfway reads what's been said, says "I know the secrets of MMM morality", and then paints this diverse and reasonable group of people with varying and nuanced views with the same broad brush. I was simply trying to point out that there are a whole lot of things about MMM that speak to me that have nothing to do with assholishy stated generalizations, and that maybe "don't shop at Walmart" is not the entire truth of how to live a virtuous life.
-
Mr Grant, I did provide a couple of links, did you find the sources deficient? I don't think you can claim a total lack of evidence without first rebutting what's been put out there. But I don't begrudge you your skepticism and I agree that they're certainly not alone.
-
We prefer more respectful disagreement around here. Being a dick isn't going to win anyone over.
You're right, when he called me an ass he was kind of being a dick. Thanks for that, I'm new here so I think it's great I've got someone on my side. You're tops!
Let's not be too hard on him though, we all get worked up sometimes.
-
Deano, while your post may have irked me, it's not like it touched a personal nerve-- I don't shop at Walmart by choice, and Costco and Giant Eagle both pay their employees well and treat them even better, as I happen to know from being close friends with employees (the exception of Costco subcontracting their free samples notwithstanding). What irritates me is when somebody wanders into a thread, only halfway reads what's been said, says "I know the secrets of MMM morality", and then paints this diverse and reasonable group of people with varying and nuanced views with the same broad brush. I was simply trying to point out that there are a whole lot of things about MMM that speak to me that have nothing to do with assholishy stated generalizations, and that maybe "don't shop at Walmart" is not the entire truth of how to live a virtuous life.
I think it's fair to say that a lot of people on this forum shop at places like Walmart. Furthermore I think that I was spot on in the discussion (see name of thread Re: Supporting Small Business vs. Saving), it was totally in line. I was adding my varied and nuanced view of something that I noticed, and, if you read a quick comment I made to Bakari, you'd realize I recognized the variety of the group. I also made a previous statement (to you, if you read it) that I was directing my comment to people who were thinking about the issue at hand (such as the original poster, you were quite clear that you weren't thinking about it, you've already made up your mind).
Now, to continue, I certainly don't think the entire truth of living a virtuous life is not shopping at Walmart. This is a generalization to be sure, though I'm going to be more charitable and not call it "assholishy". I also don't think I have the secret to MMM's morality, I based my comment on the title of one his posts. Hardly a secret. I really don't know him, the secret of his morality might be eating babies, he only exists on the internet for me, but I enjoy his writing and tips, they make me think. I've even changed my mind about some things, that's a valuable website that can do that.
Alright, to get back to the discussion, I think that a modest Toyota is indeed less consumeristic than an Aston Martin. One of the prime movers of a consumer society is commodity fetishism. A brown Corolla is not the object of many dreams, it doesn't encourage the consumption of newer, flashier versions of brown Corollas. Now, you're probably spot on about the Macbook and Acer, but one could say that a budget Lenovo might be less consumeristic, for the reason that I outlined above.
To make this a bit of a marathon post, I should outline that I don't think Walmart's only problem is how it treats it's workers (shitty), I have the following problems;
-getting tax breaks to open new stores (not needed, are they not profitable?)
-bribing people to get what they want (Mexico, but they're people too)
-forcing their suppliers to outsource (they do this with price pressure when the supplier is heavily invested in Walmart)
-their buildings are a blight on the landscape, same as Costco et al. (Here in Canada they're called Smart! Centres. Irony)
-They kill downtowns with independent businesses (which give our downtowns nuance and variety).
My position would be that I don't shop at Walmart and it's ilk because they damage my local community (see some of the points above). I suppose I've made up my mind on the issue, but I'm certainly open to discussion and I won't think anyone who thinks something other than me is attacking me in any way.
-
I'm just not convinced that Walmart does more bad things for the world than its competitors do,
Fair enough. I have actually made that same exact argument myself many times.
and don't start on unions, because the teamster's union is among the scummiest organizations in the nation
I'm not meaning to suggest it is simple. Whether any one specific union is corrupt is no more an indictment on the principal of organized labor than one (or many) corrupt politicians is on democracy or one (or many) corrupt corporations is on capitalism.
none of my Kroger friends and classmates could name a thing their union did
Pretty much everyone here, and nearly everyone alive, is too young to have experienced the world per-organized labor directly, but its pretty important that we acknowledge it.
Its not just a question of what this specific union did, its what the labor movement did. The standard in the 19th century was 12-16 hours work days, 6-7 days per week (up to 100 hour weeks), for the inflation-adjusted equivalent of $1 to $4 per hour - half that if you were female, black, or a child (which were employed as young as 5 years old).
The company you worked for likely paid you in company scrip, not US currency, so you could only shop at the companies store, which had prices set to ensure you had to spend more than you made just for food and basic supplies.
If you got injured by the companies cheap machinery breaking, you were fired because an injured worker is less productive.
Child labor, overtime, minimum wage, and OSHA laws didn't come about because the US government wanted to protect its citizens. The US government sent not just cops, but military units to force peaceful strikers to not just disperse, but to go back to work, at gun point. The courts consistently sided with those who owned the means of production (the "job creators"). Change happened only because the amount of American citizens, across cities, industries, race and gender lines, that banded together finally overwhelmed the inherent power imbalance between worker and boss due to capitalism.
Does anyone think for a second that Walmart and every other corporation would hesitate to undo all of that if they were given the opportunity? Does anyone think that if Republicans ever gained control of both the white house and congress, and no labor unions existed anymore (because they are "no longer needed"), that there is any question other than "how quickly would labor laws be undone?"
Would Mitt have done it all on his first day? Or we it be gradual, over a decade?
Hopefully we never find out, because American's seem to have very short memories. This stuff isn't "ancient history", it is very, very recent. Technology has changed, but capitalism has not. Walmart is not alone, but there is evidence (some pointed out in this thread, and plenty available on line) is one of the worse offenders, in trying as hard as possible to go back in the direction of those times.
The cumulative effect of choosing low prices over American made, or Union, or local, or handcrafted, is to encourage outsourcing, automation, and corporate consolidation, all of which drives unemployment, and in turn depresses real wages. If these same things were happening on a micro level, within one town, the cause and effect would be obvious. It should be no less obvious on a global scale, but since it is dilute, we can collectively pretend it has to do with market bubbles or government spending or interest rates or whatever.
-
Bakari, spot on post. I'd just add a few things.
I think we don't need to go back to the 19th Century to find the work/pay you describe. Steinbeck did an amazing job in Grapes of Wrath of highlighting conditions which were quite similar in the 30's, that would be the non-fiction part of the book. Steinbeck knew, he worked in those conditions and he knew the people who toiled in those conditions because they had no other choice. My grandmother certainly remembers, but she was born before WW1.
I also think that the Democratic party is under the same forces as the Republicans. To a Canadian, looking south, your two parties seem to differ very little, save for tone. Our Liberal and Conservative parties have a little more distinction between them, but they are coming closer together in their policy direction as time goes on, if not in tone.
We also have some common history in sending our workers back at gunpoint...during the Ludlow Massacre period, our future PM Laurier worked for Rockefeller. Yet, there he is, staring at me whenever I pay with a fiver. Bugger.
-
Paying more at local businesses has got to be the most inefficient way of "helping" people. Why not donate the savings from shopping at Walmart to whatever cause you want?
Speaking of ineffienencies - One of the main tenents of the MMM attitude is to conduct yourself in a manner that preserves the environment for future generations isn't it?
How much more efficient do you think Superstore is than Al's Grocery? In every measure: building, utility and energy costs, minimizing waste food, parking efficiency, merchandice delivery etc. The big guy has the little beat at every turn.
I read in Maclean's Magazine a while back a story about the negatives of organic farming. I don't remember the exact figures they expressed but the analogy that stuck with me was that: if everyone in the western world only ate "local" "organic" foods, instead of modernized big-farm foods, we would need additional arable land equivilant to the landmass area of South America....
-
Pretty much everyone here, and nearly everyone alive, is too young to have experienced the world per-organized labor directly, but its pretty important that we acknowledge it...
Helloooo, I just spent an entire year working directly with primary materials related to labor history in the industrial core of the country, full time, as a job! You can make the short memory argument if you'd like to, but it doesn't apply to me and probably doesn't apply to most of your audience.
You've got a particularly rosy view of unions' roles in things, and people disagreeing with that view doesn't necessarily mean that they don't know their history. While on the whole I agree that unions were a main driver for the dramatic improvement in working conditions in 1870-1940, you're leaving out a few pretty huge drawpacks that I think lend a little more nuance to the period. You're ignoring the effects of journalism and works like Sinclair's The Jungle. You're not mentioning all the organized violence committed by unions and their members as part of their strikes in the gilded age, or the extreme expense that would come with using US currency in backwoods coal and iron towns -- remember, even those workers that weren't paid in scrip were usually paid in bank notes, which were fundamentally little different. Scrip use was also declining by the time unions came onto the scene. And high prices at company stores could be related to the expense and difficulty of running supply chains across the nation and the overhead inherent in a company trying to function in an area outside its core competency, especially for a small company before the advent of scientific management. Your statements have part of the truth in them, but it's certainly not the whole truth. And even setting all of that aside: the fact that labor unions have done great things does not earn them a perpetual right to 10% of the salary of the lower class! If labor unions are not performing any service of value today, why do they continue to collect their dues?
Does anyone think for a second that Walmart and every other corporation would hesitate to undo all of that if they were given the opportunity? Does anyone think that if Republicans ever gained control of both the white house and congress, and no labor unions existed anymore (because they are "no longer needed"), that there is any question other than "how quickly would labor laws be undone?"
Would Mitt have done it all on his first day? Or we it be gradual, over a decade?
That would be a sensible argument in the early 1950s, when the AFL and CIO were peaking in power and the economy had never known weak labor unions since their advent. But I think there are a view instructive comparisons we could make to evaluate such an argument: for example, look how dramatically the American worker has been weakened in the last fifty years by such cruel and oppressive corporate legislation as the ADA, ERISA, the Civil Rights act (a terrific non-union example of citizens projecting their will into the policy sphere), and the ADEA in the time that the AFL-CIO has had a 33% membership decline amidst a booming economy, and the labor union participation rate has plummeted from 33% to 11% (with largely only the public sector's employees remaining unionized, and only 7% of private sector employees unionized). We've had an indisputable plummet in the strength of labor unions, and employment practices have not worsened along with it.
We could also look between peer firms in the same industry: Do Giant Eagle workers really work under worse conditions or crueler policies than Kroger workers? What about Honda plant workers compared to their UAW peers? On a larger scale, you could also do so between nations: do the Germans (participation rate 19%) live oppressive working lives compared to their Finnish neighbors (participation rate 70%), who otherwise live in a pretty comparable society? In each case, controlling as closely as possible for everything but labor unions suggests that they aren't earning their keep.
Finally, regarding the Republican party: remember, very nearly half the nation's voters choose to vote for it each election. It's not like there's an auction for seats and the owners of capital directly buy their influence. Many moderates lie in the middle, and nearly all Americans want both businesses and workers to prosper -- I for one would love to see an end to private-sector closed shops with involuntary membership, for example, but I didn't support my governor's 2011 attempt to end public unions in Ohio, SB 5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_Senate_Bill_5_Voter_Referendum,_Issue_2). You're dramatically oversimplifying it by painting it as a contest with Democrats, unions, and virtue on one side and Republicans, Wally World, and greed on the other.
The cumulative effect of choosing low prices over American made, or Union, or local, or handcrafted, is to encourage outsourcing, automation, and corporate consolidation, all of which drives unemployment, and in turn depresses real wages. If these same things were happening on a micro level, within one town, the cause and effect would be obvious. It should be no less obvious on a global scale, but since it is dilute, we can collectively pretend it has to do with market bubbles or government spending or interest rates or whatever.
If low prices are driving an increase in unemployment, aren't real wages buoyed back to their prior level by the decrease in the price level? If not, you're positing some sort of murky multiplier effect that you haven't mentioned -- do you have support for the existence of such a multiplier?
-
Mr Grant, I did provide a couple of links, did you find the sources deficient? I don't think you can claim a total lack of evidence without first rebutting what's been put out there. But I don't begrudge you your skepticism and I agree that they're certainly not alone.
Yes, we've had a couple of sources each way, and I think that, at least on the basis of the three or four studies in the thread, it's suggestive that numerically, big retailers are better than small retailers in general and that on the whole Walmart is worse than its big retailer peers. There are some pretty compelling anecdotes suggesting Walmart's lobbying practices and the like are undesirable, too. My point isn't that this is a total dark area unaddressed by social science, and I hope that didn't come across as me dismissing your sources out of hand -- there's not a total paucity of evidence. I just haven't seen whatever evidence exists that demonstrates that Walmart is as bad as its image.
-
Paying more at local businesses has got to be the most inefficient way of "helping" people. Why not donate the savings from shopping at Walmart to whatever cause you want?
Speaking of ineffienencies - One of the main tenents of the MMM attitude is to conduct yourself in a manner that preserves the environment for future generations isn't it?
How much more efficient do you think Superstore is than Al's Grocery? In every measure: building, utility and energy costs, minimizing waste food, parking efficiency, merchandice delivery etc. The big guy has the little beat at every turn.
I read in Maclean's Magazine a while back a story about the negatives of organic farming. I don't remember the exact figures they expressed but the analogy that stuck with me was that: if everyone in the western world only ate "local" "organic" foods, instead of modernized big-farm foods, we would need additional arable land equivilant to the landmass area of South America....
I can't actually agree with anything you wrote.
-money spent "locally" stays local, much more so than spending it at big box stores. It also moves around more as this article in Time magazine states (if you are going to use Macleans, I'll use something of the same quality) http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1903632,00.html (http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1903632,00.html)
As far as environmental impact, I think if we compared a human scaled, walkable neighbourhoods, with work/commerce/residential, you'd find your statement does not add up. Here is a good look at the issues at hand http://www.theatlanticcities.com/politics/2012/08/failure-walmarts-sustainabiility-measures/2805/ (http://www.theatlanticcities.com/politics/2012/08/failure-walmarts-sustainabiility-measures/2805/)
Think of this scenario though, a common sight when I lived in the US. A woman gets in her Escalade (BIG!) and drives clear across town to go to Walmart. She loads up on everything she needs for the week in a building that uses the same amount of energy as about 1100 US homes (verifiable, Sierra Club study). Now, another woman gets on her bicycle, scoots down to her local grocer and hardware stores to get what she needs for 2 or 3 days. She does this 2 or 3 times a week. Who uses more energy? Who is likely to consume more? You can find both scenarios in my small city (Ontario), one is my wife and one is my colleague. I think using economies of scale to reduce environmental impact can work in some areas, but I don't think this is one of them.
As far as the organic farming reference, that's a little off the question at hand, though I'm sure there is room to include it. While I think the argument is probably exaggerated, I would think, yes, we'd need a lot more land. Or less people. That's probably worth a different thread.
-
If low prices are driving an increase in unemployment, aren't real wages buoyed back to their prior level by the decrease in the price level? If not, you're positing some sort of murky multiplier effect that you haven't mentioned -- do you have support for the existence of such a multiplier?
Real wages are wages with inflation factored in. If prices have been dropping in some areas we would have low inflation (which both our countries currently have, Canada is at 2%, with the long term avg being a point or two higher). You're right, real wages would be higher with lower prices.
What you've ignored I think, is that the basket of goods that is measured to find inflation cannot all be found at Walmart, for instance. Housing, education, transportation...these items in the basket can't be found at Walmart (in direct terms). So, you can have decreasing prices in some areas, with increasing prices in others. This is precisely what has happened in the past few decades. The prices of food and clothing are at a low, and most other things are at a high. Sadly, the high prices have more than made up for the low priced goods found at Walmart (or other retailers).
So, to sum it up. Bakari is right in that there has been downward pressure on wages because of prices (pushing prices down in a store effects the amount you'll want to pay a worker in that store for instance). Now, if everything we need could be found at Walmart, you'd be right Grant, but that isn't the case. Higher prices for ed, health, and housing have not had the positive effect on wages that consumer goods would have if their prices were higher. How do I know this? It's common knowledge that real wages have been stagnant or nearly-stagnant for both our countries for probably 3 decades, a period of rising housing costs, transportation costs and health costs (your country more than mine).
Now, quickly, when you mention the low rate of union membership in Germany and the high rate in Finland, both countries with relatively well functioning economies right now, you do a disservice to the effect that the 19% in Germany wields in their country. As you must know, German unions have an active role in deciding where their companies go and what they do, so to speak. This has an enormous effect on German industry as a whole. In fact, I wouldn't think you can find a time in history where such a small percentage of workers have such a large effect on a country's economy. It's worth some study, something that it sounds like you have the skill set to do.
I also think you do a disservice to the plight of many workers in your country. You spoke of The Jungle, are you aware of the miserable conditions faced by workers in the Colorado meat packing plants? Here is some info on that, just a primer, there is lots out there. http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/250/meat-packing.html (http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/250/meat-packing.html) Perhaps you could check out this article as well. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/25/amazon-working-conditions-warehouses_n_1545599.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/25/amazon-working-conditions-warehouses_n_1545599.html). I found several about Amazon, but I'll just post one.
-
What you've ignored I think, is that the basket of goods that is measured to find inflation cannot all be found at Walmart, for instance. Housing, education, transportation...these items in the basket can't be found at Walmart (in direct terms). So, you can have decreasing prices in some areas, with increasing prices in others. This is precisely what has happened in the past few decades. The prices of food and clothing are at a low, and most other things are at a high. Sadly, the high prices have more than made up for the low priced goods found at Walmart (or other retailers).
That's a compelling argument and one I hadn't considered. I think that this would be diminished somewhat by the income effect of a decrease in the price level, but in general I can see how that makes sense.
I also think you do a disservice to the plight of many workers in your country. You spoke of The Jungle, are you aware of the miserable conditions faced by workers in the Colorado meat packing plants? Here is some info on that, just a primer, there is lots out there. http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/250/meat-packing.html (http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/250/meat-packing.html) Perhaps you could check out this article as well. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/25/amazon-working-conditions-warehouses_n_1545599.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/25/amazon-working-conditions-warehouses_n_1545599.html). I found several about Amazon, but I'll just post one.
I've worked the shitty minimum wage job, as I 'd suspect nearly everyone here has. It's not that I haven't seen poor working conditions, manipulation of benefit laws past their original intent, or terrible pay. I just think that even though all of those things are bad, they merit critical thought rather than unthinking acceptance of things like unions that are supposed to help. It's like understanding that the college education attainment gap between races is a problem but still questioning the wisdom of affirmative action. I'm in no way trying to downplay the problems facing the working class, but that doesn't mean that I support unions as those problems' solution.
-
Paying more at local businesses has got to be the most inefficient way of "helping" people. Why not donate the savings from shopping at Walmart to whatever cause you want?
I actually think donating to causes is a fairly inefficient way of helping people.
Going directly against my principals just so I could donate would be counter-productive.
Speaking of ineffienencies...
How much more efficient do you think Superstore is than Al's Grocery? In every measure: building, utility and energy costs, minimizing waste food, parking efficiency, merchandice delivery etc. The big guy has the little beat at every turn...
Quite a few people have mentioned something along these lines.
Long before WalMart there was something called a "general store". They sold all sorts of different things in one location. They still exist in rural areas. In the suburbs you have shopping centers, and even malls. These bring together lots of different shops in one place, and they share a common building. You can get everything you need in one car trip, adjacent buildings provide for mutual insulation, it basically addresses all of those factors, while spreading the wealth they generate among several different companies or owners. Sure, each one has their own sales people and cashiers, but Walmart has sales people for every department, and 20 registers up front. I don't see the difference in terms of efficiency, or even convenience.
I read in Maclean's Magazine a while back a story about the negatives of organic farming. I don't remember the exact figures they expressed but the analogy that stuck with me was that: if everyone in the western world only ate "local" "organic" foods, instead of modernized big-farm foods, we would need additional arable land equivilant to the landmass area of South America....
I'm willing to believe that, as far as it is worded. If you are talking about certifiably organic, particularly using permaculture methods, yes, it can be more labor and land intensive than agrichemical monoculture methods on a calorie per basis. But that's making a lot of assumptions. One, "organic" and "local" are not interchangeable. Flying produce from the other hemisphere in order to have out-of-season fruit in no way adds to efficiency. Another is that Westerners (and esp. Americans) eat an extremely large amount of meat, much more than most of the world, and it is an order of magnitude less efficient than plants on a per land mass (or per water, or per energy input) basis. The only thing that keeps it as cheap as it is, is the massive feed crop subsidies the US government has been providing for decades. End those, and the land mass required to feed us drops as dramatically as going all organic would increase it.
-
Helloooo, I just spent an entire year working directly with primary materials related to labor history in the industrial core of the country, full time, as a job! You can make the short memory argument if you'd like to, but it doesn't apply to me and probably doesn't apply to most of your audience.
Well, I really didn't think it was, which is why I was kind of surprised by your last statement!
You've got a particularly rosy view of unions' roles in things,
I said the "labor movement", not "unions" per say, and I don't define "union" as the formal organization which collects dues, but rather a collection of workers sticking together to balance the power differential between any one of them alone and the boss. The Union, capital, that you are talking about has arisen as the defacto form that takes.
While on the whole I agree that unions were a main driver for the dramatic improvement in working conditions in 1870-1940, you're leaving out a few pretty huge drawpacks that I think lend a little more nuance to the period.
While I am curios what drawbacks during that period you are referring to are, I wasn't meaning to imply that everything workers do is admirable and beyond reproach, just that organized labor has a valuable role to play in society.
You're ignoring the effects of journalism and works like Sinclair's The Jungle.
Wasn't trying to do a thorough history of American labor laws.
You're not mentioning all the organized violence committed by unions and their members as part of their strikes in the gilded age,
The violence was both ways. Would we deny the overall positive effect of our role in WWII on the grounds that our soldiers were violent? I am aware of it, I just didn't see the relevance to the discussion
Your statements have part of the truth in them, but it's certainly not the whole truth.
fair enough.
And even setting all of that aside: the fact that labor unions have done great things does not earn them a perpetual right to 10% of the salary of the lower class! If labor unions are not performing any service of value today, why do they continue to collect their dues?
Why do police and firemen collect salaries even on days there are no crimes and no fires?
I think the 10% question is valid, but separate from whether or not the need for organized labor has become obsolete.
We've had an indisputable plummet in the strength of labor unions, and employment practices have not worsened along with it.
well, during that same time period (1970s- to now), while GDP has risen consistently, and the CEOs and stock holders of corporations (those who own the means of production), have increased even more quickly, median real wages have stagnated, particularly that of the working class, and the average wealth of the poor has actually decreased. I submit that the decline in worker organization may be one factor in that change. Partially due to peoples feeling that company/employee conflicts have been "solved" by labor laws, making unions unnecessary, partially by corporations undermining labor via corporate consolidation, outsourcing, and automation. If you need less workers to get the same amount of work done, workers lose their strength in numbers. These sort of moves are all facilitated by the excess capital available to the largest corporations (which brings it all back to the original thread topic)
We could also look between peer firms in the same industry: Do Giant Eagle workers really work under worse conditions or crueler policies than Kroger workers? What about Honda plant workers compared to their UAW peers? On a larger scale, you could also do so between nations: do the Germans (participation rate 19%) live oppressive working lives compared to their Finnish neighbors (participation rate 70%), who otherwise live in a pretty comparable society? In each case, controlling as closely as possible for everything but labor unions suggests that they aren't earning their keep.
The fact that any workforce is unionized helps raise average salary throughout the industry, just like how one store with discounted prices drives down prices for the same product everywhere. Even so, average salary at Giant Eagle: $25k. At Kroger: $34k
http://www.indeed.com/salary/Giant-Eagle.html
http://www.indeed.com/salary/Kroger.html
Different cultures have different ideas of the proper balance between economic growth and wealth equality. The executives at the big three are given salaries from 10 to 20 times as high as Japanese manufactures.
Germany was once 1/2 communist, and the two main parties are Christians, and Socialists, so they are, as a culture, less likely to attempt to take advantage of workers. Even so, Germany is 30 nations below Finland on the list of income equality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_distribution_of_wealth
You're dramatically oversimplifying it by painting it as a contest with Democrats, unions, and virtue on one side and Republicans, Wally World, and greed on the other.
lol, I could see how it might seem that way, but I didn't mention Democrats at all. I wouldn't put them in the "virtue" category. I mentioned Republicans because they are explicitly anti-union, anti-labor, anti-regulation. Their candidate was Mitt Romney for cryin out loud!
I'm not talking about citizens who vote republican, I'm talking about the politicians themselves.
The cumulative effect of choosing low prices over American made, or Union, or local, or handcrafted, is to encourage outsourcing, automation, and corporate consolidation, all of which drives unemployment, and in turn depresses real wages. If these same things were happening on a micro level, within one town, the cause and effect would be obvious. It should be no less obvious on a global scale, but since it is dilute, we can collectively pretend it has to do with market bubbles or government spending or interest rates or whatever.
If low prices are driving an increase in unemployment, aren't real wages buoyed back to their prior level by the decrease in the price level? If not, you're positing some sort of murky multiplier effect that you haven't mentioned -- do you have support for the existence of such a multiplier?
That would only be true if 100% of the savings the corporation gained from outsourcing, etc went to lowering prices. They don't. Some percentage of it gets skimmed off to expand the business further, and to pay executive salaries and stock dividends. That's why wealth inequality has increased so dramatically over the past few decades. It is complex, and there isn't the direct cause and effect relationship I am implying, but these things are all correlated, and the trends line up.