Wal-Mart giveth, and Wal-Mart taketh away

Wal-Mart is selling more and more incredibly cheap generic drugs, now including $9 a pop for generic tri-cyclic birth control pills. Their prices are cheaper than the prices I got through my old health insurance. (Haven't filled anything up on the new insurance yet.)

At teh same time, they take a huge beating for the wages they pay their workers, and the alleged stinginess of their health care plans. But these two things are flip sides of the same coin: they can afford to provide cheap drugs in part because they have a flexible and inexpensive labor force.

Comments

Might want to use the spell check, unless you are trying to spell "the" like a lolcats caption.

Posted by aarons | September 28, 2007 12:33 PM

Well, yeah. We all know that.

Unfortunately, if the labor prices are so very low that they allow Wal-Mart to sell at such disgustingly low prices, that would seem to indicate that the low prices at Wal-Mart aren't going to help them very much -- they can't afford many of these super-cheap wonder-pills.

Ultimately that wouldn't be a huge deal if Wal-Mart only depended on cutting its own labor costs to make these low, low prices possible, but of course that isn't how they work. Wal-Mart's entire strategy is based on cutting not only their costs, but by cutting the costs of their manufacturers -- and yes, I do mean their manufacturers. The company's bloated status as retail hegemon allows it to force the companies with which they do business to cut labor costs by maintaining "flexible and inexpensive" (read: crushed, underpaid, benefit-free and powerless) labor forces.

Posted by Mike Meginnis | September 28, 2007 12:50 PM

Just realized I didn't make this point clear enough in that last comment:

The cumulative effect of this is that as we seem to be objectively richer -- we can afford more stuff the more Wal-Mart lowers its prices -- Wal-Mart continues to remake our economy in its own image, driving wages down even as it drives down prices.

Posted by Mike Meginnis | September 28, 2007 12:54 PM

Having extramarital sex on the backs of uninsured workers.

Ayn Rand would be proud.

Posted by U.S. Anthem | September 28, 2007 12:58 PM

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/07/0081115

An admittedly biased take on Wal-mart's pretty muscular control of its suppliers and selling practices.

I love the word "monopsony". It sounds made up, like it was invented for a James Joyce novel, you know?

Posted by jonathan | September 28, 2007 1:29 PM

Of course they could actually afford to pay their workers more, but then the vast Walton klan (intentional sic) wouldn't be composed of mega-billionaire Repiglican-donating kooks. They would just be plain old multi-billionaire Repiglican-donating kooks.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 28, 2007 1:47 PM

But do you think the unions would look kindly on Democrat candidates that took Wal-Mart money?

After all, they're the ones behind much of the anti-Walmart agitprop.

Posted by Kevin | September 28, 2007 2:24 PM

This is a pretty repugnant post, Megan. Then again, to be ignorant and selfish is apparently normal for you.

Posted by firemeganmcardle.blogspot.com | September 28, 2007 2:31 PM

MoelarryJesus et al,

Has it ever entered your mind that if the oppressed workers who work at WalMart don't like it, they can quit?

What exactly is it that WalMart does wrong? You are the only people I have ever heard who think it's good for mi/lower income America to have to pay MORE for their staples.

If you think that the best way to run a business is to pay WalMart workers more, why don't you use your brilliance and open a retail store and pay your workers a "fair wage" and see how far you will get? It's always amazing to me how many people on the left feel that they can tell someone else what to do with their lives, busineses and money. WalMart workers can quit, get an education and better themselves if they are treated so badly.

Posted by jbb | September 28, 2007 2:43 PM

jbb asks: "Has it ever entered your mind that if the oppressed workers who work at WalMart don't like it, they can quit?"

No. Never. Gee. Now that you put it that way, I'm changing all of my long-held opinions about labor and economics. Thanks.

No one should ever criticize any employer for anything, ever, because their employees can always quit. That's just damn brilliant, man. You should get the Nobel Prize for that one.

(In many parts of the country Wal-Mart hiring practices include telling new employees how to go about supplementing their shitty wages with various forms of public assistance. In other words they're subsidizing their labor costs at public expense. At one point in time this sort of practice might have been criticized by "those on the right," but not any more.)

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 28, 2007 2:58 PM

People getting information about supplementing wages with public assistance for which they are eligible seems like a good thing. I'm glad that Walmart provides this information to its employees.

Posted by henry evans | September 28, 2007 3:06 PM

moe,

That's not an answer. If it's such a lousy place to work, why do they have no problems hiring people? In most locations they pay more than minimum wage and they do pay benefits. Could it be possible that for the people there, it's not the hell on earth that you say? It's a starting point on the economic ladder or a second income.

What is it that WalMart does wrong? When I walk into WalMart in my community and often see the same people working there for months/years with no chains on their legs.

Posted by jbb | September 28, 2007 3:07 PM

henry evans writes: "People getting information about supplementing wages with public assistance for which they are eligible seems like a good thing. I'm glad that Walmart provides this information to its employees."

I agree. But it's not something old school conservatives would have dismissed as unimportant. That's a feature of the new corporate lickspittle Repiglican conservative.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 28, 2007 3:53 PM

jbb again: "That's not an answer. If it's such a lousy place to work, why do they have no problems hiring people? In most locations they pay more than minimum wage and they do pay benefits. Could it be possible that for the people there, it's not the hell on earth that you say?"

Look, chuckles, I know you're a half-bright Republican loyalist, but I never said any of the crap you're saying I did. This "hell on earth" nonsense is something you pulled out of your nether regions.

Are you really that stupid or is it an act?

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 28, 2007 3:57 PM

"If it's such a lousy place to work, why do they have no problems hiring people? "

They engage in predatory pricing to eliminate competition which offers a narrower range of products. If there is a local hardware store, they cut prices on hardware- even below cost- subsidizing the price cuts from other departments or from national sales. Once the offending competitor folds, Walmart can raise the prices, and hire the workers who used to work at the competitor, and fire the less dependable people they hired when the store first opened.

Workers will always have less bargaining power once Wal-mart is on the scene. An unskilled worker had the chance to quit working at the Supermarket and take a job at a hardware store, or a fabric store or a small appliance store etc. When Walmart is the only employer of unskilled labor around, they set wages by fiat.

It should be noted, that this practice is not the only reason Walmart is successful. They developed some very smart business practices, such as just-in-time inventory, that gave them a competitive advantage. The predatory pricing scheme could be done by any large retailer, provided they were profitable enough to live through it. Walmart's innovations are what gave them enough of an edge to pull it off.

The option of the Walmart worker isn't to quit and get another job, it is:

Quit, get another job in a market where Walmart dictates labor policy so you have essentially the same job.
Quit, move, get another job.
Quit, aquire new skill set, get another job.

Posted by Njorl | September 28, 2007 3:58 PM

But Moe, if you agree with henry evans that walmart's practice of helping it's employees understand if they are eligible for assistance is a good thing, why did you cite it early as an example of Walmarts abhorent business practices? Inquiring minds want to know.

What exactly is an old-school conservative? How does it differ from a corporate lickspittle Repiglican conservative?

Is this your idea of moving a debate forward?

Posted by jbb | September 28, 2007 4:02 PM

Njorl,

What is wrong with them quitting and getting a new skill set to then get a better job? I thought that's hopw things worked. I think that is the best of the three suggestions are perfectly reasonable.

I am not sure I get the predatory pricing issue. I do not believe that Walmarts sells products for below cost. You would have to give me specifics on that.

Based upon that arguement, a mother on welfare who shops at WalMart would have to pay more for clothes so that a mom and pop clothing store could stay in business, basically the lower income subsidizing the middle income.

By the way, WalMart is nowhere as successful as they used to be, competition from the Internet and specialty stores are eating into their markets. It's incredible how todays monsters become tomorrows also-rans. Creative destruction

Posted by jbb | September 28, 2007 4:08 PM

jbb again: "But Moe, if you agree with henry evans that walmart's practice of helping it's employees understand if they are eligible for assistance is a good thing, why did you cite it early as an example of Walmarts abhorent business practices? Inquiring minds want to know."

I didn't, chuckles, and I was quite clear about that. I cited it as an example of something old school conservatives would have been troubled by. I didn't say a word about it being "abhorrent." I'm not sure why you're unable to read what I actually write without making bizarre assumptions (like your "hell on earth" fantasy), but it seems to be your modus operandi.

"What exactly is an old-school conservative? How does it differ from a corporate lickspittle Repiglican conservative?"

Old school conservatives would have the capability of looking at a corporation like Wal-Mart and seeing some troublesome practices. Not you. You think they're a perfect corporate citizen in all respects, just because they support your party and you can buy cheap douche bags there.

"Is this your idea of moving a debate forward?"

What debate? You invent things and claim I said them. That's not a debate, it's the sewer in your mind. Keep on floating in it.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 28, 2007 4:39 PM

"I am not sure I get the predatory pricing issue. I do not believe that Walmarts sells products for below cost. "

You should try reading occasionally. It has been written that they DO do that, for the reasons stated and others. They've been sued for it.

Posted by nutellaontoast | September 28, 2007 4:44 PM

"If there is a local hardware store, they cut prices on hardware- even below cost- subsidizing the price cuts from other departments or from national sales. Once the offending competitor folds, Walmart can raise the prices, and hire the workers who used to work at the competitor, and fire the less dependable people they hired when the store first opened."

Does this really happen on any regular basis? (I would say 'ever' but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt about it happening at least once.)Especially the 'raise the prices' bit? WalMart has pretty much super-low prices on everything. When are they going to start getting these monopoly profits by jacking up prices?

Posted by Sebastian Holsclaw | September 28, 2007 4:45 PM

For my part, I'm wondering when the guilded age of retail ever was (except where it involved family businesses and the associated exemptions from child-labor laws and minimum wage). Sure, a guy can make a living running a mom-and-pop style retail shop or restaurant, but unless he happen to be the next Sam Walton or Dave Thomas and can aggressively expand the business, his life is going to be built around long work weeks, minimal vacations, and generally a lower-middle-class standard of living.

The only two modern exceptions I can think of are Starbucks and Costco, both of which have generous employee wage/benefits packages. Starbucks does it by charging high prices on range of popular luxury products, and Costco does it by enforcing a customer membership structure and refusing most non-cash forms of payment.

I can't see either of those models working in the broader retail market, however.

I also know of some ex-Kmart cashiers who got treated like dirt by their manager for a while and then, when they didn't quit on their own, laid off outright -- suspiciously close to the time that their seniority would have automatically pushed them into a higher corporate-specified wage bracket. But who bothers to sit around and complain about Kmart? Not so much target to shoot at, not so much fun, I guess. But crap like this happens everywhere in retail, because whether you're Wal-Mart or not, the margins are fairly thin and the incentives to trim back the cost of labor are too available and tempting.

Posted by anony-mouse | September 28, 2007 5:25 PM

Some people seem to be confused. WalMart is not run for the benefit of its employees, it's run for the benefit of its owners. WalMart (like any other business) will try to reduce its expenses, including labor.

I'm not defending all of WalMart's practices, and I do believe they cross ethical and legal lines at times. But hiring people who don't posess the skills to command high wages and paying them commensurately with their skills is not an example of crossing the line. It's the way the world works, and every attempt to try to deny that reality has ended very badly.

Posted by SG | September 28, 2007 6:18 PM

SG writes: "But hiring people who don't posess the skills to command high wages and paying them commensurately with their skills is not an example of crossing the line. It's the way the world works, and every attempt to try to deny that reality has ended very badly."

That's a variation on the same tired old arguments cons use every time an attempt is made to raise any minimum wage, anywhere. The fact that the doom scenarios the cheap stupid fools always use have never come to pass.

Which won't stop moral lepers from defending Wal-Mart, of course.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 28, 2007 7:49 PM

MLJ:

Perhaps you'd care to engage in conversation instead of hurling insults.

Or perhaps you're just a jackass.

My money's on the latter.

Posted by SG | September 28, 2007 10:04 PM

SG writes: "Perhaps you'd care to engage in conversation instead of hurling insults.

Or perhaps you're just a jackass.

My money's on the latter."

What sort of hypocritical dickhead comes into a discussion claiming people are "confused," then calls someone else a "jackass," yet complains about "hurling insults"?

Stop whining, fool. I made a valid observation about the weakness of your argument. You forgot to deal with that.

I know you're morally crippled and unable to distinguish between trying to keep labor costs down and going to extreme lengths to do so, but your disability doesn't mean others are 'denying reality.'

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 28, 2007 10:19 PM

Methinks Megan has dropped the ball on post deletions.

Hug it out, guys.

Posted by Mike W | September 28, 2007 11:54 PM

"Methinks Megan has dropped the ball on post deletions."

True, any post that uses "methinks" should be filtered out immediately. What else did you have in mind, Mr. Jones?

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 29, 2007 12:11 AM

Megan, if you do come through to clean up: Please delete my post calling MoeLarryAndJesus a jackass. I was clearly mistaken.

Posted by SG | September 29, 2007 12:38 AM

SG retreats: "Megan, if you do come through to clean up: Please delete my post calling MoeLarryAndJesus a jackass. I was clearly mistaken."

I stand by my call for deleting posts that use "methinks." Come on. That joke died a natural death decades ago.

In real life the jackass is a hardy and resolute animal that doesn't suck up to abusers. I've been called worse. At least I've never been a Bush voter.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 29, 2007 2:16 AM

If you think that the best way to run a business is to pay WalMart workers more, why don't you use your brilliance and open a retail store and pay your workers a "fair wage" and see how far you will get?

It's called Costco. Doing pretty okay, as far as I can tell.

I think in general the problem is that while the advantages of lower prices are broadly distributed and hard to pinpoint, the disadvantage to the workers of having a really low salary is definite and specific. And much larger than the advantage to a given buyer of the lower cost of a particular product.

Obviously this doesn't mean workers' salaries should rise to infinity while prices do, too. But there is a point at which the ability of a firm like Walmart to lower the salaries it offers to a huge pool of retail laborers with few other employment options damages the people in that pool much more than it helps them by lowering prices. You could argue that the damage being done to those workers is outweighed by the benefit being provided to the richer customers who can now buy their products even more cheaply; but that would fail a Rawlsian test of morality, which would demand that if inequality is going to increase, everyone has to benefit.

Finally, granting arguendo (Megan's favorite word) that what Walmart is doing is bad for its workers, but given that the possibility of doing what Walmart does existed in the economy before Walmart came along and figured out how to do it, one asks: is Walmart morally blameworthy? In the idealized vision of the free market, nobody leaves money lying on the table, so why do we blame Walmart for being the one who picked up the wallet? The answer runs along the lines of "just because someone else might do something, doesn't mean you should do it". Some people, for instance, would turn the wallet in to management, who would post a note saying that somebody had left something lying on the table and they should come to lost and found to retrieve it. These would be people who consider themselves to be fellow citizens living in a mutual society with the person who lost the wallet, in which certain common rules ought to obtain for everyone's protection - including the rule that your workers ought to share in the success of your business, and you shouldn't drive them to the brink of poverty just because labor conditions are such that you can.

Posted by brooksfoe | September 29, 2007 2:46 AM

brooksfoe wrote: It's called Costco. Doing pretty okay, as far as I can tell.

Right, but you have to pay annual membership dues, put up with a card check at both doors, be willing and able to buy things in large quantities, and pay cash or American Express (and the latter is only permitted because Costco has an exclusive, mutually-beneficial relationship with American Express).

This works well enough for certain types of buyer and certain types of goods -- an example of the former being families who own houses, and therefore have both a need for large quantities, and a place to store the surplus until it is needed; and as for the second, groceries, consumable paper goods, some other miscellaneous household goods come to mind.

It doesn't work so well across the broader segment of consumer goods, especially many types of housewares, home furnishings and furniture, hardware, tools, clothing, and most consumer electronics. That doesn't prevent the membership bulk discounters from carrying some of these items, but the selection is typically limited, demo models are not always available, and many of the prices are no better than any conventional retail store.

brooksfoe wrote: Some people, for instance, would turn the wallet in to management, who would post a note saying that somebody had left something lying on the table and they should come to lost and found to retrieve it.

That makes for a nice little Sunday School homily, but IMO it's a rather lousy analogy for a market economy. This "wallet" is more like a nondescript bag of cash, and if you don't take it, someone else will, and use it to pull ahead of your current position.

The fact that there's more than one way to take the bag of cash doesn't mean that some ways are automatically more virtuous than others just because they hand the money to The People.

I've also yet to see the Wal-Mart worker that was destroyed by low wages. I've seen many Wal-Mart workers who I knew were filling a second job; I've known others who were good workers and advanced. I also see just about every low-income demographic in the entire town shopping at Wal-Mart in droves after Friday payroll arrives, so apparently they get something out of that whole low-price thing -- which makes me wonder what the objectionable moral calculus is in paying a few dozen willing workers a low (but actually quite typical) retail wage so that several thousand low-income earners can afford the basic goods of living.

I also know from direct observation that even a low-skillset single mother who is on the edge of poverty can earn a reasonably good wage relative to her skills, plus some basic benefits, as a manager at a McDonalds restaurant if the whole Wal-Mart job thing doesn't pan out. Of course, for these and any other responsibile positions, you have to demonstrate a basic level of responsibility before they hand you the keys and the safe combination, and therein lies the problem for many people.

Posted by anony-mouse | September 29, 2007 3:24 AM

Well, the other problem, anony-mouse, is that not everyone can be a manager. There have to be workers. Unless McDonalds has figured out that chef-bot thing already.

In the Walmart analogy, you're actually wrong: it's not at all clear that someone else would be doing what Walmart is doing, because, empirically, there are a lot of big-box retailers around the world, but I've never heard of any others which employ Walmart's labor practices. That makes it rather close to the "stealing the wallet" analogy: for whatever reasons, nobody but Walmart seems to be paying their employees so little, and using all the well-documented tactics Walmart uses to balkanize the labor force and prevent people from demanding more. It's somewhat hard for me to get how this works though, because out here in Vietnam the major big-boxes so far are Big-C and Metro Cash & Carry, and I imagine neither spends a lot of time worrying about minimizing the payment of their retail sales force because, well, it's Vietnam, and retail salaries are probably a minuscule component of their expenses.

Posted by brooksfoe | September 29, 2007 3:41 AM

it's not at all clear that someone else would be doing what Walmart is doing, because, empirically, there are a lot of big-box retailers around the world, but I've never heard of any others which employ Walmart's labor practices.

And because you've never heard of it it doesn't exist, brooksfoe?

First: it's really crazy to pretend that Wal-Mart is somehow more motivated by greed than any other retail company. They're all greedy. Some of them may find that paying people more is a way to make more profit, depending on skills, but corporations do not raise or lower prices or wages out of the goodness or evil in their hearts. In all cases they are greedy and trying to make profit.

Second: The wages paid by Wal-Mart's retail rivals are similar in similar markets. Wal-Mart does as an entire company have lower wages than Target or Borders-- because Wal-Mart locates stores in poorer and rural areas with lower cost of living that its competitors just avoid, in addition to the suburban areas that Target targets.

In any area where there is a retail rival of Wal-Mart, the wages are essentially the same. (Exception: CostCo has a business model that involves paying their employees more but hiring a lot fewer of them per store, expecting customers to do more of their own shopping. CostCo also requires membership and locates in wealthier areas, and has a much greater average household income per shopper.)

Most of the controversy is because Wal-Mart locates in these small-town rural locations. No one much cares when all the big box retailers open stores in suburbs and exurbs that never had a quaint Main Street Downtown Shopping District in the first place. But unlike its big-box rivals, Wal-Mart doesn't stop there.

One of the controversies about Wal-Mart's health insurance practices is that when Congress opened up the ability to purchase (subsidized) Medicaid to the working poor, Wal-Mart reacted by encouraging/forcing many low level employees to purchase it instead of its old plan. However, considering the subsidized nature of the program, that's understandable and not even necessarily a loss for the employees. Not what the lawmakers supposedly wanted at the time, but pretty inevitable in my opinion.

Posted by John Thacker | September 29, 2007 10:37 AM

It's called Costco. Doing pretty okay, as far as I can tell.

By selling to only the upper middle-class, yeah. As anony-mouse points out, Costco structures their entire store, from location to method of payment, in order to cater to a wealthier customer base. Poor people do have to shop somewhere. So "let them eat cake" is your answer?

I imagine neither spends a lot of time worrying about minimizing the payment of their retail sales force because, well, it's Vietnam, and retail salaries are probably a minuscule component of their expenses.

I imagine that both of them are highly interested in keeping labor costs down because all businesses are greedy.

MoeLarryandJesus:
In many parts of the country Wal-Mart hiring practices include telling new employees how to go about supplementing their shitty wages with various forms of public assistance. In other words they're subsidizing their labor costs at public expense. At one point in time this sort of practice might have been criticized by "those on the right," but not any more.

Am I supposed to expect businesses to engage in public policy, or not be greedy? Sure, since I'm on the right I think that public policy should be structured to avoid subsidizing at public expense, but it's hard to criticize them for taking advantage of a benefit.

It's difficult to predict what the wages would be without the public assistance. The incidence is a matter of economics; some of it means pure extra profit for Wal-Mart, some means extra money for the workers. Most of us would like to maximize the latter, but there's little that we can do to ensure that. (Whether the subsidies go directly to the company or the workers is largely irrelevant for determining the effects on wages.) However, those of us "on the right" agree that wage subsidies for the working poor are a better solution for the workers than the minimum wage or welfare systems that give people money for not working at all but no money if they work.

Posted by John Thacker | September 29, 2007 10:48 AM

John Thacker writes: "Am I supposed to expect businesses to engage in public policy, or not be greedy? Sure, since I'm on the right I think that public policy should be structured to avoid subsidizing at public expense, but it's hard to criticize them for taking advantage of a benefit."

What makes it hard? Only your own lack of a moral compass, Jack.

Yes, corporations operate on a profit model, but it's easy to look at how they differ, and Wal-Mart has been the biggest scumbag on the block for decades. You admire them for that. I call them what they are. They were chased out of Germany because of their shabby and illegal practices there, which were reflective of how they do business everywhere they go.

That the Walton heirs are almost all deeply involved with Repiglican politics of the filtiest sort is just a bonus. But of course you applaud them on that basis, too.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 29, 2007 12:50 PM

LM&J:
In my long experience of reading blogs, commenters who use terms like 'Rethugligan', 'Repugnican', 'Demoncrat', 'Democrap', 'Bushitler', and 'Hitlery' are invariably not worth reading. You might want to knock off using 'Repiglicans': it makes you look like a kneejerk halfwit. It's particularly stupid to complain that someone else called you a "jackass" and then call him his a "fool" and a "hypocritical dickhead" and call for the banning of anyone who uses "methinks". As the South African consul said in one of the Diehard or Lethal Weapon movies (I forget which): "who is the dickhead now?"

Posted by Dr. Weevil | September 29, 2007 1:41 PM

Hm. Any pills produced in china? If so, take it at your own risk.

Posted by beneficial | September 29, 2007 1:52 PM

Dr. Weevil lectures: "In my long experience of reading blogs, commenters who use terms like 'Rethugligan', 'Repugnican', 'Demoncrat', 'Democrap', 'Bushitler', and 'Hitlery' are invariably not worth reading. You might want to knock off using 'Repiglicans': it makes you look like a kneejerk halfwit."

I'm not concerned with your judgment or your experience. I'll be happy to go back to using "Republican" once the current crop of Repiglicans are out of office, and not until then. It's a useful, accurate term and differentiates between Bush and his followers and the growing number of Republicans who are as sick of them as I am. Capisce?

"It's particularly stupid to complain that someone else called you a "jackass" and then call him his a "fool" and a "hypocritical dickhead" and call for the banning of anyone who uses "methinks"."

I wasn't complaining, but he was, which makes him the hypocrite. I don't care what morons call me. And the "methinks" comment was a joke, chuckles. I think it was a good one.

By the way, the South African consul was the dickhead. It's not surprising that you had a different view on that, though.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 29, 2007 2:14 PM

You know, it's my understanding that Wal-Mart actually pays above-market wages in most circumstances. You'll have a better income working for Wal-Mart than you will running your own store, and way better wages than you would working at a Mom-and-Pop.

I'm perfectly willing to believe that Wal-Mart has some shoddy business practices, probably some that should be illegal (For instance, the whole "locking-employees-in-stores" thing makes me twitch, though I'm not convinced it's company policy). But underpaying its workers isn't among them, and really isn't something the company does at all.

Posted by Jadagul | September 29, 2007 3:47 PM

Jadagul writes: "You know, it's my understanding that Wal-Mart actually pays above-market wages in most circumstances."

Thanks for that bit of silliness, Mr. Walton.

What next? A claim that crack whores are all very sanitary?

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 29, 2007 3:57 PM

I notice that rude LM&J can't be bothered to back up his assertion that Wal-Mart pay is worse than its competitors'. A quick Google search suggests that he is simply wrong, no doubt led astray by his prejudice against the "vast Walton klan (intentional sic)", allegedly "composed of mega-billionaire Repiglican-donating kooks".

According to PayScale.com, which claims to have the largest database of actual pay for various industries, here are the pertinent hourly pay figures for Wal-Mart and some of its competitors:

Wal-Mart (link):

$8.24 Retail cashier
$8.09 Cashier
$8.95 Sales associate

Target:

$7.13 Retail cashier
$7.13 Sales clerk/cashier
$7.13 Sales associate
$7.30 Cashier

Sears Roebuck:

$7.06 Sales associate
$7.20 Retail cashier

Kohl’s Department Store:

$7.74 Sales associate
$7.51 Retail cashier

Here's a grocery store, for comparison -- Kroger’s:

$6.76 Cashier
$7.24 Sales clerk/cashier

Unless he can show that PayScale.com is an enormous and complex scam, or can point to a site with better figures, it appears that LM&J is not only a foul-mouthed troll but the kind of troll who simply makes stuff up.

Posted by Dr. Weevil | September 29, 2007 4:56 PM

Megan,

since you are merely pointing out the obvious ("Wal-Mart pays people poorly and sells cheap goods" - which begs for us to ask why even post it) I will spare from drawing conclusions that you absolutely consider this to be the best approach towards an economy.

However, this argument was the exact same argument used by supporters of slavery.

It is morally unfair in any society to essentially pick a class of people, and essentially cost-shift everything to them, especially when the cost shift is applied to the absolute weakest, poorest class. It is one thing to tax the wealthy (where post-cost shifting tax, they are still relatively well to-do). But it is absolutely another thing to try to support that those who can afford the cost-shift the least, should be burdened with it so the rest of us can live at a higher standard of living.

Back to why even post something so obvious without any additional analysis makes me wonder how much the Atlantic is paying you for this shtick.

Posted by Brad | September 29, 2007 6:06 PM

Wal-Mart's starting wages are indeed higher than those of some other retail megastores, and I suppose if you're a blinkered Bushpig, having ascertained that, you can convince yourself that they're generous and decent employers.

And, like all Bushpigs, you'd be a moron.

From WakeUpWalMart.com:

"In probably the most outrageous move I’ve seen since I started working on this campaign a year and half ago (which says a lot), Wal-Mart just announced to its workers that the long-term associates will never get another raise again, not even a penny.

But, the most disturbing part, is that Wal-Mart coupled this cruel announcement with what would have otherwise been a good thing by slightly raising the starting salary of its employees (and they probably thought they were going to get away with it).

So, if you are a Wal-Mart employee here’s the message you just got: Do not apply here if you want a career, and if you have worked here for awhile, please leave because you cost us too much.

I just hope this story gets reported for what it is, a total national disgrace. There used to be a time when company’s valued their employees and their experience. Now, Wal-Mart wants to cut full-time workers, push out more senior workers and slash its labor costs because the company is suffering from sluggish sales as a result of its declining public image.

What Wal-Mart doesn’t understand is that these kinds of announcements are providing the fuel for our movement! The more severe or cruel Wal-Mart’s decisions become, the faster we grow. And, we will not stop, we will not rest, we will not sleep until Wal-Mart changes into a responsible and moral employer.

That is my promise on behalf of everyone here at WakeUpWalMart.com to Wal-Mart’s employees, our lawmakers and every American who believes in fighting to build a better America."

Note that the odious Weevil's tactic don't include any information about how long people have been on the job, whether the figures given are medians or averages, ages of the employees, how many hours the employees are offered each week, if overtime pay is ever allowed, if premiums are paid for Sunday of late-shift work - nothing. It said nothing about opportunities for advancement, either, but then the answer the Weevils always give is the same - if they don't like it, fuck 'em.

That's been the same answer given by apologists for scumbags by their lickspittles forever.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 29, 2007 6:22 PM

If odious ML&J had followed my link, he would have seen that the first table on the page, from which I extracted my figures, is headed "Median Hourly Rate by Job". His complaint that I "don't include any information" as to "whether the figures given are medians or averages" is therefore either a bald-faced lie or an inadvertent confession of gross incompetence.

He also asks for figures adjusted for "how long people have been on the job". He wouldn't have had to scroll down very far on the same page to find the table headed "Median Hourly Rate by Years Experience". Again, he was too busy slinging insults to do his homework.

Of course, nothing I've written here makes me an apologist for Wal-Mart. They may well be as vile as LM&J thinks: I'll believe it when he manages to come up with some evidence. I'm not defending Wal-Mart here, I'm attacking LM&J as a foul-mouthed liar and long-winded fool, who needs to crawl back under his bridge and stop interrupting arguments like an ill-bred child.

Posted by Dr. Weevil | September 29, 2007 8:11 PM

Dr. Weeble writes: "Of course, nothing I've written here makes me an apologist for Wal-Mart. They may well be as vile as LM&J thinks: I'll believe it when he manages to come up with some evidence. I'm not defending Wal-Mart here, I'm attacking LM&J as a foul-mouthed liar and long-winded fool, who needs to crawl back under his bridge and stop interrupting arguments like an ill-bred child."

Of course Weeble didn't present his so-called facts here, and he neglects to respond to the other points I brought up, and he fails to notice the comment from WakeUpWalMart.com about the freezing of wages. For some reason he enjoys pretending to be an open-minded defender of truth and beauty, when he is (in fact) acting as a pimp for Wal-Mart. That's why all of the "facts" he presents show them in a good light, and why he refuses to even acknowledge any others.

By the way, "experience" and "how long people have been on the job" are not the same thing. One refers to total work experience and one to time spent with the same employer. It used to be a given that employee loyalty meant something, but it no longer does to employers like Wal-Mart or to their pimps like Weeble.

Lick, spittle. Lick.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 29, 2007 8:57 PM

The one who has presented no facts here is ML&J, who provided no link for his quotation from WakeUpWalMart.com. The story turns out to be more than a year old (here), and it provides no link or other evidence to back up its claims about WalMart.

I on the other hand provided a link to show that ML&J was simply wrong in some of the things he said, a link he was too lazy to follow, and is too arrogant to admit not following.

I have not attempted to disprove everything he says about Wal-Mart, because (a) I'm not particularly interested in defending Wal-Mart, as ML&J so stupidly suggests, and (b) I've done more than enough to show that ML&J is a foul-mouthed liar who needs to go away and leave the conversation here to the grownups. He's not so much an ill-bred child as an ill-bred child with Tourette's Syndrome.

Posted by Dr. Weevil | September 29, 2007 9:51 PM

For someone who isn't "interested in defending Wal-Mart," Weeble, your posts here have done just that, which (again) is why you refuse to acknowledge any facts or arguments that reflect poorly on your Repiglican megacorp pals. Whining about the WakeUp information being "more than a year old" is particularly lame.

Your failure to even address Wal-Mart's no overtime policy and their heavy reliance on part time workers - thus depriving many of their employees of benefits and unemployment insurance - is particulary revolting, but it's also typical.

"(H)ow many hours the employees are offered each week, if overtime pay is ever allowed, if premiums are paid for Sunday of late-shift work - nothing. It said nothing about opportunities for advancement, either, but then the answer the Weevils always give is the same - if they don't like it, fuck 'em."

But oooooh, I used a naughty word, so nothing else matters.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 29, 2007 10:36 PM

From Weeble's silly-ass blog, where he links to Little Green Footballs and Michelle Malkin and Mark Steyn and every other wacko-fascist you can think of, comes this gem to show what he really thinks about the employer-employee relationship:

"Powerline and other sites have been covering the story about Muslim employees at Minnesota Target stores refusing to ring up pork products. I’m wondering if it would be possible to get the message of tolerance across to the Muslim community with a tit-for-tat demonstration. Surely Target has a few Hindu employees. Could they be permitted or even encouraged to refuse to ring up beef for Muslim customers, just for a week or two, to make a point? I’m guessing that a town like Minneapolis has a fair percentage of vegetarians, too, including some of the stricter Hindus, and that some of them work at Target. Could they refuse to sell beef, chicken, and lamb to Muslim customers, again just for a week or two?"

He's a uniter, not a divider, folks. I'm sure I've seen dumber suggestions somewhere, sometime, but they were written in crayon.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 29, 2007 11:11 PM

Sometimes its fun to walk into a new Church. Let me add something that I don't think some of the worshippers know. Jesus Christ was crucified on a cross built in China for WalMart. Just something you'd expect if you thought about it, isn't it?

Posted by michael | September 29, 2007 11:41 PM

Poor ML&J doesn't seem to understand that defending someone (or something) against dishonest attacks is not the same as endorsing him (or it). If someone claims that Hillary Clinton murdered Vince Foster or was Janet Reno's Lesbian lover, or that Bill Clinton murdered Vince Foster or dealt cocaine out of Mena, Arkansas, I'll defend even a Clinton. That doesn't mean I admire either one of them: I think they're horrible people. But I don't think you're allowed to lie about people (or corporations) just because they're horrible or you think they are horrible.

Apparently ML&J thinks that sort of thing is OK, because he's lied about Wal-Mart right here. At 3:57pm he mocked Jadagul's statement that "Wal-Mart actually pays above-market wages in most circumstances" as "silliness". Confronted with actual figures, he wrote (6:22pm) "Wal-Mart's starting wages are indeed higher than those of some other retail megastores". Will he apologize to Jadagul for his ignorant insult? I doubt it.

Of course, my point about the WakeUp information being more than a year old is that ML&J didn't bother to provide a link. Anyone who went to the site and looked for the quotation would not have found it. It took more than one Google search to find it, because ML&J is too rude or too stupid to back up his arguments with links. If I haven't bothered to refute all of his claims, it's because he hasn't bothered to back up any of them with actual evidence: some of his assertions are demonstrably wrong, and there's no reason to believe any of them until he backs them up.

Finally, I've never yet had anyone call me 'Weeble' or other variations on my actual pseudonym who wasn't losing an argument with me. And anyone who thinks Mark Steyn or Charles Johnson or Michelle Malkin is a fascist doesn't know the meaning of the word. Now please go away for a few years and try to grow up, ML&J. You're embarrassing yourself and annoying the rest of us. I suppose the latter is your aim, but you might want to worry more about the former.

Posted by Dr. Weevil | September 30, 2007 12:11 AM

Weeble replies: "Apparently ML&J thinks that sort of thing is OK, because he's lied about Wal-Mart right here. At 3:57pm he mocked Jadagul's statement that "Wal-Mart actually pays above-market wages in most circumstances" as "silliness". Confronted with actual figures, he wrote (6:22pm) "Wal-Mart's starting wages are indeed higher than those of some other retail megastores". Will he apologize to Jadagul for his ignorant insult? I doubt it."

Why should I? Jadagul picked one stat, hourly wge, just as you did, and pretended it was all that matters. It's just an absurd tactic, since most of the complaints about Wal-Mart's abuse of employees involve other wage-related issues and various non-wage-related issues. His comment was silliness not just because of what it said but because of its blinkered nature - just like your own.

"Finally, I've never yet had anyone call me 'Weeble' or other variations on my actual pseudonym who wasn't losing an argument with me. And anyone who thinks Mark Steyn or Charles Johnson or Michelle Malkin is a fascist doesn't know the meaning of the word. Now please go away for a few years and try to grow up, ML&J. You're embarrassing yourself and annoying the rest of us. I suppose the latter is your aim, but you might want to worry more about the former."

It's funny how Weeble can call me "LM&J" over and over again in his 4:56 and 8:11 posts. Like I haven't seen that particular tactic used over and over again by right-wing dingbats. But when does it, apparently it means he's WINNING an argument.

As for Malkin and Footballs and Steyn, I call them fascists because they're diehard supporters of wars of aggression, torture, the abandonment of habeas corpus, and they're rancid nationalist corporation-sucking morons. That amounts to fascism in my estimation, and I didn't even mention that Weeble also links to proto-Nazi AceOfSpades.

It's funny how the spiffy Dr. whines about profanity but the whiff of torture and murder doesn't bother him even a little bit.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 30, 2007 12:51 AM

It's not funny how ML&J keeps on lying. I don't see how anyone could read his 3:57pm comment and what he says about it here and not conclude that he is changing his story.

I call 'ML&J' that because his chosen pseudonym is offensive (equating Jesus with the dumbest of the Three Stooges) and too long. 'ML&J' merely abbreviates, where 'Weeble' mocks (inanely, but it's the thought that counts). If I called him 'LM&J' a few times, that was quite inadvertent: 'LarryMoe&Jesus' trips off the tongue more easily than 'MoeLarry&Jesus', so I tend to misremember his awkward chosen name. I don't mind being addressed as 'DW' in argument -- it saves keystrokes -- but somehow I don't think ML&J will find that sufficiently rude.

As for his profanity, the point is that our host (remember her?) likes us to keep it clean. There's a good chance she'll delete some of these comments if and when she notices them. I think the site-owner's rules, however arbitrary, should be respected: ML&J doesn't, and pointing that out hardly constitutes "whining".

Finally, I note that ML&J has still not provided a single link to back up his assertions about Wal-Mart's alleged business practices.

Posted by Dr. Weevil | September 30, 2007 1:09 AM

Weeble can spend two Googleminutes and find the link to this if he wants. Discomforting him amuses me: "Nearly all of the cases faced by Wal-Mart are off-the-clock claims, with allegations that employees worked through lunch breaks without pay, or were forced to punch out when the store closed but then continue with tasks such as restocking shelves. Store managers are under constant pressure from Wal-Mart headquarters to keep wages down, says attorney Michael Donovan, who won the $72.5 million verdict against the retailer in Philadelphia last year. The easiest way to control wages, he says, is to prevent workers from logging overtime. “We’re finding that that’s a common pattern in large retail operations where a store manager’s compensation is based in part on the profitability of their store,” says Piper Hoffman, a New York attorney who has filed similar suits. John Simley, a spokesman for Wal-Mart, says the notion that the retailer doesn’t pay people for overtime is “simply not true.” Simley says that Wal-Mart will appeal the $172 million California verdict. He also notes that the company has persuaded courts to reject numerous class actions."

Dozens of Repiglican dupes have called me "LarryMoeAndJesus," and it always makes me wonder if they swim in the same poisoned gene pool, since they tend to use the same "jokes."

As for Megan, she's already told me she loves my work here, and she doesn't seem like the sort of uber-weenie who is offended by the occasional artful use of profanity. After all, she's a Pogues fan. ("The big Turkish shell knocked me arse over tit.") And she isn't the "site-owner." That would be The Atlantic.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 30, 2007 1:20 AM

Here you go, Weeble. This is Megan's comment from the "Comment Policy" section started on August 29th. Note - the "f word" she's referring to is "f*sc*st." Which I have used in this thread, but... oh, hell.

"[This comment deleted for debating fascism. Please, MLJ, I love your work, but could you please find some other word to describe your loathing for the Bush administration? I will be happy to let you go on at great length, provided only that you do not use the F-word.]

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | August 29, 2007 4:07 PM "

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 30, 2007 1:24 AM

It's also nice that a Grand Hypocrite like Weeble is so sensitive about the supposed "offensiveness" of my name. Here's how the Jerry Falwell-wannabe expressed his own brand of religious sensitivity on his blog:

"Sunday: August 27, 2006
Planning Ahead
Filed under: Politics, Orbilius — site admin @ 9:59 PM EDT

In honor of the timely conversion to Islam of kidnapped Fox reporter Steve Centanni and cameraman Olaf Wiig, Lt Smash, the Indepundit, is calling himself Abu Samoud al-Americani. If we’re going to pick out our Muslim names in advance, I’d like to claim Abu Porki al-Koholik for myself."

And he didn't even give credit to "The Simpsons" for the "al-Koholik" portion of the "joke." Which is okay, since the joke is older than Barbara Bush's hemmorhoids.

I'm guessing Weeble will be there at the gate with flowers when Lynndie England gets out of lock-up.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 30, 2007 2:10 AM

ML&J just keeps on lying:

I've been blogging for nearly six years. If I had anything positive to say about either Jerry Falwell or Lynndie England, it should be easy to prove. According to Google, I've mentioned them once each on my blog, on October 27, 2002 and February 24, 2006 respectively. ML&J is welcome to try to twist those posts into expressions of admiration. (I don't even know whether Falwell is alive or not, because I always get him mixed up with Pat Robertson. One of the two died a few months ago, but which one? Not being a Protestant, I don't know and I don't care.)

He might want to explain how calling him 'LarryMoe&Jesus' is supposed to be an insult. As I have already pointed out, it's a natural mistake caused by the awkward rhythm of his chosen pseudonym and the fact that Larry and Moe are pretty much interchangeable as stooges. 'LarryMoe&Jesus' has an easy trochaic rhythm (/ v / v / v) where 'MoeLarry&Jesus' has an unnamed non-rhythm (/ / v v / v). So how does putting 'Larry' ahead of 'Moe' constitute an insult rather than a natural error?

As for Megan's rules, ML&J mentions her August 29th post, but takes care not to provide the link or to quote the rules she gives there, because he has violated four of the five in this comment thread, two of them (1 and 4) repeatedly. Here's an abbreviated version:

"1) No name calling. You may make fun of your opponents ideas as vigorously as you like. Be funny, sarcastic, bombastic, whatever. Call him a 'Moron', 'Fascist', or a four-letter word, however, and I will delete you. Likewise if you accuse people of secretly longing to [see the poor starve/impose their quasi-communofascist philosophy on freedom-loving people everywhere].

"2) No derailing threads. . . . .

"3) No posting copyrighted content. . . . .

"4) No profanity. This is a family blog. Specifically, my family. When launching your nasty attacks, try not to say anything that you wouldn't want your mother and father to see written about you.

"5) No referring to anything as 'Fascist' or 'Communist' unless the people involved are actually adherents of the 19th- and 20th- century political ideologies thus described. These words are not synonyms for 'mean people' or 'people who disagree with me'."

The only one he hasn't violated here is number 3, and even that is arguable, since his quotation from WakeUpWalMart is a little long for fair use. Then again, it may not be copyrighted, so I'll give him this one. That still leaves four out of five.

Which brings us to his biggest lie. When ML&J wrote that Megan "doesn't seem like the sort of uber-weenie who is offended by the occasional artful use of profanity", he was writing something that was simply false. By the time he wrote his next comment, he knew it was false, because he was quoting the very post in which she wrote up her rules, including the one against profanity. Of course, he took good care not to mention that he was utterly wrong.

Posted by Dr. Weevil | September 30, 2007 11:52 AM

For someone so enamored of "the rules," here are the terms Weeble has thrown about in order to violate Megan's #1 rule, "No name calling. You may make fun of your opponents ideas as vigorously as you like. Be funny, sarcastic, bombastic, whatever. Call him a 'Moron', 'Fascist', or a four-letter word, however, and I will delete you."

- kneejerk halfwit
- foul-mouthed troll
- I'm attacking LM&J as a foul-mouthed liar and long-winded fool, who needs to crawl back under his bridge and stop interrupting arguments like an ill-bred child.
- foul-mouthed liar who needs to go away and leave the conversation here to the grownups. He's not so much an ill-bred child as an ill-bred child with Tourette's Syndrome.

But of course in Weeble's World conservatives are allowed to break "the rules" at will and without punishment, which is why he contributed to the Scooter Libby defense fund and cried like a little girl when Libby's sentence was commuted.

As for his failure to mention Lynndie England in his blog, what is that supposed to prove, exactly? He avoids such plebeian "personal" blogging. Cons are good at denying such quirks in their personal lives. Just ask Larry Craig.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 30, 2007 12:58 PM

ML&J lies and lies again:

Once again he states as fact something that is utterly false: I've never given any money to 'Scooter' Libby or his defense fund.

Of course, I didn't actually call ML&J a "kneejerk halfwit" either (9/29, 1:41pm), I just said that his use of 'Repiglican' makes him look like one. If he doesn't want people to think he's a kneejerk halfwit, he can easily stop doing the things that make him look like one. At that point he had used the non-word four times on this comment thread and dozens of times on others. It's very tiresome, which I suppose is the point: to drive away anyone to his right on the political spectrum. He also wrote all these things before my 1:41 comment:

"Walton klan (intentional sic)"
"corporate lickspittle Repiglican conservative"
"chuckles" (twice)
"half-bright Republican loyalist"
"something you pulled out of your nether regions"
"Are you really that stupid or is it an act?"
"That's not a debate, it's the sewer in your mind. Keep on floating in it."
"cheap stupid fools"
"moral lepers"
"hypocritical dickhead"
"Stop whining, fool."
"I know you're morally crippled"
"What makes it hard? Only your own lack of a moral compass, Jack."
"That the Walton heirs are almost all deeply involved with Repiglican politics of the filtiest [sic] sort is just a bonus. But of course you applaud them on that basis, too."

So what kind of hypocrite thinks he can play the intellectual bully over and over, and then complains when someone replies in kind, however belatedly and (relatively) mildly? I've never claimed to be a rhetorical pacifist, turning the other cheek to every provocation. Like 95% of Americans, if someone steps on my toe or shoves me or pokes me or curses me or lies about me once, I won't reply in kind, but I will ask him to stop it and/or apologize. If he keeps shoving, cursing, or whatever, and there's no policeman (or site-owner) around to stop him, I will eventually reply in kind. There's nothing hypocritical about that. What's hypocritical is abusing others repeatedly and expecting them not to reply in kind. Only a narcissistic sociopath does that.

ML&J might want to seek professional help for his anger issues. Not to mention the pathological lies. They reveal more about his psyche than most of us really want to know. I doubt if if would have occurred to anyone with a healthy mind that anyone could have a crush on Lynndie England, at least after the Abu Ghraib pictures came out. Apparently ML&J's imagination is more vivid and twisted than most. As with his insults, there's a good deal of 'projection' going on here.

Posted by Dr. Weevil | September 30, 2007 2:13 PM

Weeble replies: "So what kind of hypocrite thinks he can play the intellectual bully over and over, and then complains when someone replies in kind, however belatedly and (relatively) mildly?"

I'm not "complaining," chuckles. I'm merely pointing out your arch-hypocrisy. Of course the current crop of "conservatives" is completely unable to perceive hypocrisy, but here goes -

YOU brought up "the rules," as though you thought they were important.

Yet YOU violated one of "the rules" repeatedly.

And YOU can claim you did so because you were provoked, but the fact is that you lobbed the "kneejerk halfwit" insult at me before we had ever had any other sort of exchange.

Your sad little dodge that it wasn't a direct insult because you used the "makes you look like" rhetorical ploy could only impress an impotent feckless dupe who thinks Michelle Malkin is worth taking seriously.

"I doubt if if would have occurred to anyone with a healthy mind that anyone could have a crush on Lynndie England, at least after the Abu Ghraib pictures came out."

I'm used to the stunning humorlessness of conservatives, but that doesn't mean you're incapable of longing to be on top of one of Lynndie's piles. And from my own long experience with cons the only thing they really regret about the Abu Ghraib scandal is that the pictures became public. I see nothing in your Steyn-Malkin-Ace-loving blog that suggests (even for a moment) that you're an exception.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 30, 2007 2:48 PM

So I'm not allowed to be provoked by repeated abuse of other commenters and repeated violation of the site rules as long as it's not directed at me personally? That's a conveniently ad hoc rule. I suppose if people use the vilest ethnic or gender slurs in ML&J's company, that's perfectly OK with him as long as it's not his gender or ethnic group they're abusing.

ML&J just can't stop making stuff up.

Posted by Dr. Weevil | September 30, 2007 3:10 PM

Weeble replies: "So I'm not allowed to be provoked by repeated abuse of other commenters and repeated violation of the site rules as long as it's not directed at me personally?"

You can do whatever you like, Weeble. You're the one yammering about "the rules." But why pretend you don't enjoy this sort of thing, or that you don't know exactly what you're doing when you type things like "makes you look like a kneejerk halfwit"?

You should really try to avoid using such tactics unless you want to look like a disingenuous passive-aggressive dingbat.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 30, 2007 3:47 PM

SG: Even in relatively low-skill retailing, a smart business knows that better-paid, and better-treated, employees are more loyal, thereby producing less turnover and saving money. They also, by being, at the least, less disgrunted, are more helpful to customers.

Part of the problem is that as unionization declines more and more, thanks in part to WallyWorld, many such employees don't even think about standing up in the first place.

Another part is that too many people, including too many WallyWorld employees, let themselves be distracted and bought off by today's "bread and circuses": cheap made in China gewgaws.

Posted by SocraticGadfly | September 30, 2007 3:53 PM

SocraticGadfly writes: "Even in relatively low-skill retailing, a smart business knows that better-paid, and better-treated, employees are more loyal, thereby producing less turnover and saving money. They also, by being, at the least, less disgrunted, are more helpful to customers."

I wonder if we, as a culture, have grown accustomed to receiving poor treatment and service.

Here's a link to what the wingnuts will regard as an unreliable source - it details Wal-Mart scumbaggery rather well. I think the dream state of the Bush-style Republicans would have strong feudal characteristics... if I'm allowed to use that "f" word.

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2003/03/ma_276_01.html

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | September 30, 2007 4:44 PM

Of course, this doesn't help you if it isn't available in your state:
(from http://www.walmart.com/cservice/contextual_help_popup.gsp?modId=553170)
The following Family Planning items are now available for $9:
DRUG NAME AND DOSAGE QUANTITY
New CLOMIPHENE 50MG 5**
New SPRINTEC 28-DAY 28**
New TRI-SPRINTEC 28-DAY 28**
**Up to a 30-day supply at commonly prescribed dosage for fill or re-fill. Program not available in CA, CO, HI, MN, PA, TN, WI, WY.

California, Colorado, Hawaii, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. I wonder why...

Posted by Trickster Paean | September 30, 2007 7:25 PM

um, I thought Megan McArdle was an economist or something.

She must know that WalMart's profitability these days is way more about monopsony power than low wages to their employees.

So why does she emphasize the wages?

Does she generally argue in bad faith, or just this time?

Posted by tomtom | September 30, 2007 8:49 PM

a smart business knows that better-paid, and better-treated, employees are more loyal, thereby producing less turnover and saving money. They also, by being, at the least, less disgrunted, are more helpful to customers.

Well, that's the theory. I'm pretty sure that if WalMart thought there was a larger profit margin to be had through better paid (therefore happier and better) employees, they'd be doing it. As noted elsewhere in this thread, Costco takes that approach. Successfully, too I might add.

But that doesn't seem to be WalMart's target market. They're going after the cheapest sumnabitchs around. And seeing as how WalMart has become the world's largest retailer, that seems to be all of us. Or at least that's what it rounds off to.

Posted by SG | September 30, 2007 11:30 PM

I joined WalMart in April, 1993 as the manager of Electronics. I become a support manager the following year. Ithen took a position as a CSM for the following 7 years. I had serious medical problem, by-pass surgery, and was on a leave of absence for 6 months. I returned to work to find that I was placed in a lower placed position, part time. I have been at the lowest rate sence I returned to work.
Now they told me a my position had been eliminated (4AM-8AM) and told me the only other position open was 32 Hrs from 3 to ?. I think that after 15 years of deicated service that this company could offer me more oppotunities rather tell me or take it or good by

Posted by Bill OBrien | January 12, 2008 10:31 AM