Monday, June 07, 2004
The anti-Wal*Mart guy on NPR
WFCR interviewed Al Norman, the anti-Wal*Mart crusader.
He says Wal*Mart is evil because they source goods from China, "flooding the market" with cheap imports displacing American goods. And the working conditions there are full of "horror stories", he says, with people working for very little money.
So let's make people buy more expensive goods? Protectionist trade policy has never done more good than harm. Anyway, if he has a problem with trade policy he's barking up the wrong tree.
He goes on to say that Wal*Mart's employees are exploited, the communities are exploited, the environment is exploited, and the quality of life is damaged. Consumers buy goods that are cheaply made and that end up in our landfill. And the public gives Wal*Mart subsidies in the form of food stamps, welfare and health insurance for Wal*Mart workers.
He seems to imply that if Wal*Mart doesn't come, people will get high-paying jobs with full benefits at some benevolent, locally owned, and entirely mythical establishment. Oh, and by shopping there they'll never throw anything away.
Then he assails Wal*Mart for using advertising and PR to promote their image.
They're trying to create a positive image!! The nerve!
Finally, he blames Wal*Mart shoppers for killing off the competition: Ames, Rich's, Caldors. "These folks took away theirown diverse economy by shopping at Wal*Mart," says Norman.
First of all, those stores stocked the same cheap crap or worse than what you'll find in Wal*Mart. The problem they had was that Wal*Mart innovated and the other guys couldn't keep up. That's how competition works. They do a lot of stuff better than anybody else: inventory management, supplier relationships (their principal suppliers are consumer-products companies like Procter & Gamble, not the Chinese sweatshops), store management, and yes, site selection.
He says Wal*Mart is evil because they source goods from China, "flooding the market" with cheap imports displacing American goods. And the working conditions there are full of "horror stories", he says, with people working for very little money.
So let's make people buy more expensive goods? Protectionist trade policy has never done more good than harm. Anyway, if he has a problem with trade policy he's barking up the wrong tree.
He goes on to say that Wal*Mart's employees are exploited, the communities are exploited, the environment is exploited, and the quality of life is damaged. Consumers buy goods that are cheaply made and that end up in our landfill. And the public gives Wal*Mart subsidies in the form of food stamps, welfare and health insurance for Wal*Mart workers.
He seems to imply that if Wal*Mart doesn't come, people will get high-paying jobs with full benefits at some benevolent, locally owned, and entirely mythical establishment. Oh, and by shopping there they'll never throw anything away.
Then he assails Wal*Mart for using advertising and PR to promote their image.
They're trying to create a positive image!! The nerve!
Finally, he blames Wal*Mart shoppers for killing off the competition: Ames, Rich's, Caldors. "These folks took away theirown diverse economy by shopping at Wal*Mart," says Norman.
First of all, those stores stocked the same cheap crap or worse than what you'll find in Wal*Mart. The problem they had was that Wal*Mart innovated and the other guys couldn't keep up. That's how competition works. They do a lot of stuff better than anybody else: inventory management, supplier relationships (their principal suppliers are consumer-products companies like Procter & Gamble, not the Chinese sweatshops), store management, and yes, site selection.
