I really enjoy documentaries, but sometimes a documentary is so obviously a piece of propaganda that you cannot let it pass. I recently watched “Wal-Mart, the High Cost of Low Price,” and found it to be outrageously one sided.
Okay, so I admit it. I am a “free-market” conservative with a MBA who is ardently pro-business. However, I really do try to be honest with my opinions. Abuses happen all the time in a free market system, and since I also fancy myself a “law and order” type, I fully support ironing out misdeeds whenever they happen. So it was with my best go at neutrality that I popped in this DVD. Unfortunately, this piece of work is so blatantly anti-Wal-Mart that any criticisms of the company’s business practice that are honestly worthy of being questioned are drowned out by total anti-consumer, anti-business, anti-choice rhetoric.
The film starts out okay. It confronts the very real question of – Do we want to allow large competitors to drive mom & pop businesses in small towns out of business with their superior pricing power. This is a sensitive topic and actually a very fair question. The film uses the example of H&H Hardware, a small hardware store in business for forty-three years that is being forced to close its doors because of the competition represented from Wal-mart. It is heart-wrenching to see this family owned business being destroyed because it is unable to compete with a behemoth. Real issues are surfaced including the fact that the presence of Wal-Mart in the town instantly discounts the value of the retail space that H&H hardware owns. Resale or lease to other retail vendors is immediately devalued because Wal-Mart would likely compete against any new tenant.
It’s sad, and it’s horrible, and sorry (this is where “mean” market guy comes in), completely irrelevant! What is left out of the argument in the documentary is the value that Wal-Mart brings as a superior competitor. The fact of the matter is that Wal-Mart wins versus these smaller competitors not because of an “unfair advantage,” but because it delivers better value to the market. Potential customers of H&H software (and any other small business) are free to spend their dollars wherever they want. Given Wal-Mart’s lower prices or convenience provided by wider product selection, Wal-Mart is winning customers based on delivering value to the customer. Customers vote with their dollars, and Wal-Mart is winning.
The film passes on the sentiments of the small town businesses, but their own words give them away:
“ I’m all for free enterprise, but…it’s [Wal-Mart] owned by the richest people in the world….”
Okay, so I admit it. I am a “free-market” conservative with a MBA who is ardently pro-business. However, I really do try to be honest with my opinions. Abuses happen all the time in a free market system, and since I also fancy myself a “law and order” type, I fully support ironing out misdeeds whenever they happen. So it was with my best go at neutrality that I popped in this DVD. Unfortunately, this piece of work is so blatantly anti-Wal-Mart that any criticisms of the company’s business practice that are honestly worthy of being questioned are drowned out by total anti-consumer, anti-business, anti-choice rhetoric.
The film starts out okay. It confronts the very real question of – Do we want to allow large competitors to drive mom & pop businesses in small towns out of business with their superior pricing power. This is a sensitive topic and actually a very fair question. The film uses the example of H&H Hardware, a small hardware store in business for forty-three years that is being forced to close its doors because of the competition represented from Wal-mart. It is heart-wrenching to see this family owned business being destroyed because it is unable to compete with a behemoth. Real issues are surfaced including the fact that the presence of Wal-Mart in the town instantly discounts the value of the retail space that H&H hardware owns. Resale or lease to other retail vendors is immediately devalued because Wal-Mart would likely compete against any new tenant.
It’s sad, and it’s horrible, and sorry (this is where “mean” market guy comes in), completely irrelevant! What is left out of the argument in the documentary is the value that Wal-Mart brings as a superior competitor. The fact of the matter is that Wal-Mart wins versus these smaller competitors not because of an “unfair advantage,” but because it delivers better value to the market. Potential customers of H&H software (and any other small business) are free to spend their dollars wherever they want. Given Wal-Mart’s lower prices or convenience provided by wider product selection, Wal-Mart is winning customers based on delivering value to the customer. Customers vote with their dollars, and Wal-Mart is winning.
The film passes on the sentiments of the small town businesses, but their own words give them away:
“ I’m all for free enterprise, but…it’s [Wal-Mart] owned by the richest people in the world….”
“I think government should have more control, if Wal-Mart isn’t’ a monopoly, what is?”
“I’m a staunch American, there are things that are not good for the people…”
“I don’t think Sam Walton would be happy with this. He didn’t start the store to crush competition.”
What all these statements have in common is that the speakers feel that they are “owed” a job. Consumers should “have to” shop from them because they have been there for years and put their time in. The egalitarian side of anyone would say “yes,” certainly these people are owed something. However, reality dictates that consumers want, and will migrate to the best value. What the statements above really say is “you owe me a job. Because I’ve been working hard all these years, you should be forced to shop at my store, even if a cheaper solution exists.” I’m certain none of these well-meaning people would actually say this, but their sentiments say as much.
Incidentally, Sam Walton (IMHO) would think no such thing. This is a man who was OBSESSESED with cutting costs inside his operation, and was EQUALLY OBSESSED with passing that value on to his customers. It’s documented over and over how Walton would traipse the isles of competitors constantly recording prices for goods, as well as new merchandising ideas. The precise reason Wal-Mart is the “monster” it is today is the culture of cost-cutting and passing value on to the customer that Sam Walton championed. It is not hyperbole to say that millions, perhaps billions of people have benefited from lower prices for goods and services offered by the cost cutting Sam Walton and his company.
What follows in the movie is one reason after another why Wal-Mart is ruining the country. “They’re a billion dollar company – why can’t they afford a better health care program.” The simple answer is – they don’t have to. Most workers at Wal-Mart are low-skilled workers. Translation- easily replaceable. That sounds harsh (and to some extent it is), but it is reality. Undoubtedly one of the highest components of cost built into prices at Wal-Mart stores is the cost of employing people at the company. If getting workers at the lowest cost produces lower costs for consumers, is that really bad? No one who works at Wal-Mart is forced to work there. You might say, “but Wal-Mart is the only large employer in town.” Yes, that may be true. History is littered with examples of people who moved out of town to seek employment where it was more plentiful. It DOES create hardship for individuals, but what is the alternative? Should we only allow Wal-Mart’s in towns that also have a Target? Maybe. Certainly many many communities have voted to pass up on allowing Wal-Mart zoning rights to build in their town. That is completely within their prerogative in our society.
The fact is that retail workers are low skilled and reasonably easy to replace – that is why they are low paid. If there was a dearth of available talent to fill these positions, basic supply and demand would raise those wages (including the “good” health care benefits offered to those employees). One man in the movie quips, “I’ve worked there three years and only got $1.07 raise.” That sounds horrible, but if someone can be hired to fill that position for the same cost (maybe even minus the $1.07 raise) why should they give him more? If he’s not contributing more value to the company, should he be entitled to more automatically? In a free society, if he can contribute more and is not getting it, can’t he take another job where he is fully valued? (um..yes!)
A good portion of the middle part of the movie is devoted to how Wal-Mart actively fights to bust any type of union organization at the company. My first reaction to this was, “ummm…duh!” Unions serve different purposes (in some eyes), but mainly they add to the cost of labor. If Wal-Mart’s mission is “always the low price,” (in other words- give the best value to consumers), how could it possibly stand by and allow such an enormous cost to be added to the delivery of it’s products and services? What’s more, if (in the United States at least) no on is being forced to work at Wal-Mart, what value does unionization bring to the employees.
Many things are brought up in the movie that strike me as innocuous. “Wal-Mart does illegal surveillance of employees in the break room!” Well, um, don’t they own the break room? Why is it illegal? “Wal-Mart managers are told to do more with less- discourage any overtime.” Well, um, isn’t that their prerogative – if they want to hire more people to cover the time they need and decide that costs less than paying some people overtime, um, isn’t that their right?
Of course, there is completely potential for abuse in a hard nose system like this. There are reports in the movie of intimidation of employees. Something along the lines of “you have to do this work off the clock so as to avoid overtime, or you’ll lose your job.” Or, “this is how you cheat workers by moving their overtime work to their next pay check/pay period.” If that’s true, that’s wrong and immoral and a perfect place for a hotshot government prosecutor to do the right thing and take Wal-Mart to task. Certainly abuse like this would be hard for your average hourly unskilled worker to combat. The same holds true for reported bias against women and blacks. However, absent proof, it’s just hearsay. Certainly this particular “documentary” has not established it’s bonifides as an impartial source. OF COURSE a company with 1.2 MILLION employees is going to experience racial and gender bias – that does not in of itself prove that it is systemic.
Possibly the most disturbing part of the film had to do with Wal-Mart’s treatment of workers in other countries, specifically China. Given our pre-disposition to think of China as, well, less-than-giving to the average worker, it is easier to believe such abuses of the system as described in the film. Lack of a true free market economy, as in the United States, makes it easy to believe that many of these workers are half-enslaved by China and actions of Wal-Mart. IF they are true, they are shameful, and the free market should react by voting with it’s dollars else ware. However, this film is hardly proof.
In summary (sorry, so long winded this time), this movie is completely intellectually dishonest. A company of Wal-Mart’s size must certainly have some problems. It must do some things that are less than optimal for society, or even wrong. However, the film completely omits any mention of ANY of the good that Wal-Mart does through providing jobs in rural areas (or anywhere for that matter) or the low prices that it brings to consumers (including the low-income families) that shop there. What’s more, the film ostracizes the Walton family, certainly collectively the richest in the world, but leaves out the world-wide set of investors that benefit from the profits of a successful Wal-Mart. In fact, the company is so big and successful, that any person who owns a mutual fund with any percentage of large cap equities is almost guaranteed to have some ownership in the Wal-Mart company.
Incidentally, Sam Walton (IMHO) would think no such thing. This is a man who was OBSESSESED with cutting costs inside his operation, and was EQUALLY OBSESSED with passing that value on to his customers. It’s documented over and over how Walton would traipse the isles of competitors constantly recording prices for goods, as well as new merchandising ideas. The precise reason Wal-Mart is the “monster” it is today is the culture of cost-cutting and passing value on to the customer that Sam Walton championed. It is not hyperbole to say that millions, perhaps billions of people have benefited from lower prices for goods and services offered by the cost cutting Sam Walton and his company.
What follows in the movie is one reason after another why Wal-Mart is ruining the country. “They’re a billion dollar company – why can’t they afford a better health care program.” The simple answer is – they don’t have to. Most workers at Wal-Mart are low-skilled workers. Translation- easily replaceable. That sounds harsh (and to some extent it is), but it is reality. Undoubtedly one of the highest components of cost built into prices at Wal-Mart stores is the cost of employing people at the company. If getting workers at the lowest cost produces lower costs for consumers, is that really bad? No one who works at Wal-Mart is forced to work there. You might say, “but Wal-Mart is the only large employer in town.” Yes, that may be true. History is littered with examples of people who moved out of town to seek employment where it was more plentiful. It DOES create hardship for individuals, but what is the alternative? Should we only allow Wal-Mart’s in towns that also have a Target? Maybe. Certainly many many communities have voted to pass up on allowing Wal-Mart zoning rights to build in their town. That is completely within their prerogative in our society.
The fact is that retail workers are low skilled and reasonably easy to replace – that is why they are low paid. If there was a dearth of available talent to fill these positions, basic supply and demand would raise those wages (including the “good” health care benefits offered to those employees). One man in the movie quips, “I’ve worked there three years and only got $1.07 raise.” That sounds horrible, but if someone can be hired to fill that position for the same cost (maybe even minus the $1.07 raise) why should they give him more? If he’s not contributing more value to the company, should he be entitled to more automatically? In a free society, if he can contribute more and is not getting it, can’t he take another job where he is fully valued? (um..yes!)
A good portion of the middle part of the movie is devoted to how Wal-Mart actively fights to bust any type of union organization at the company. My first reaction to this was, “ummm…duh!” Unions serve different purposes (in some eyes), but mainly they add to the cost of labor. If Wal-Mart’s mission is “always the low price,” (in other words- give the best value to consumers), how could it possibly stand by and allow such an enormous cost to be added to the delivery of it’s products and services? What’s more, if (in the United States at least) no on is being forced to work at Wal-Mart, what value does unionization bring to the employees.
Many things are brought up in the movie that strike me as innocuous. “Wal-Mart does illegal surveillance of employees in the break room!” Well, um, don’t they own the break room? Why is it illegal? “Wal-Mart managers are told to do more with less- discourage any overtime.” Well, um, isn’t that their prerogative – if they want to hire more people to cover the time they need and decide that costs less than paying some people overtime, um, isn’t that their right?
Of course, there is completely potential for abuse in a hard nose system like this. There are reports in the movie of intimidation of employees. Something along the lines of “you have to do this work off the clock so as to avoid overtime, or you’ll lose your job.” Or, “this is how you cheat workers by moving their overtime work to their next pay check/pay period.” If that’s true, that’s wrong and immoral and a perfect place for a hotshot government prosecutor to do the right thing and take Wal-Mart to task. Certainly abuse like this would be hard for your average hourly unskilled worker to combat. The same holds true for reported bias against women and blacks. However, absent proof, it’s just hearsay. Certainly this particular “documentary” has not established it’s bonifides as an impartial source. OF COURSE a company with 1.2 MILLION employees is going to experience racial and gender bias – that does not in of itself prove that it is systemic.
Possibly the most disturbing part of the film had to do with Wal-Mart’s treatment of workers in other countries, specifically China. Given our pre-disposition to think of China as, well, less-than-giving to the average worker, it is easier to believe such abuses of the system as described in the film. Lack of a true free market economy, as in the United States, makes it easy to believe that many of these workers are half-enslaved by China and actions of Wal-Mart. IF they are true, they are shameful, and the free market should react by voting with it’s dollars else ware. However, this film is hardly proof.
In summary (sorry, so long winded this time), this movie is completely intellectually dishonest. A company of Wal-Mart’s size must certainly have some problems. It must do some things that are less than optimal for society, or even wrong. However, the film completely omits any mention of ANY of the good that Wal-Mart does through providing jobs in rural areas (or anywhere for that matter) or the low prices that it brings to consumers (including the low-income families) that shop there. What’s more, the film ostracizes the Walton family, certainly collectively the richest in the world, but leaves out the world-wide set of investors that benefit from the profits of a successful Wal-Mart. In fact, the company is so big and successful, that any person who owns a mutual fund with any percentage of large cap equities is almost guaranteed to have some ownership in the Wal-Mart company.
