« The Luddite in Me | Main | What's Good for the Goosed Should Be Good for the Goose» Don Boudreaux
December 01, 2005
Sad Day
Russell Roberts
We have a lot of work to do. More than half of those polled in a Zogby International poll think Wal-Mart is bad for America. Reuters reports:
Some 56 percent of U.S. consumers think Wal-Mart Stores Inc. is bad for America, according to a Zogby International poll released on Thursday by one of the retailer's most vocal critics.
The national poll -- commissioned by WakeUpWalMart.com, a union-funded group that has been pressuring Wal-Mart to raise employee wages and benefits -- surveyed 1,012 randomly chosen adults on their attitudes toward the world biggest retailer.
Respondents were asked to choose which of two statements more closely fit their personal opinions.
The majority, or 56 percent, picked: "I believe that Wal-Mart is bad for America. It may provide low prices, but these prices come with a high moral and economic cost for consumers." Thirty-nine percent agreed that "Wal-Mart is good for America. It provides low prices and saves consumers money every day."
My hat is off to the unions and Wal-Mart's competitors. Through a relentless media campaign, they have achieved something I would have thought nearly impossible. They have managed to convince a majority of Americans (assuming the poll is well done) that a company that has lowered prices throughout the retail sector, employs a million people and that has created tremendous wealth through the innovative use of technology is actually a bad thing. Lenin must be laughing in his grave. Bastiat and the rest of us can only cry.
(HT: Drudge)
Posted by Russell Roberts in Wal-Mart | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834518ccc69e200d8345b23a169e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Sad Day:
» I'll Second That from Democracy Project
Russell Roberts points us today to a depressing poll, which shows that a majority of Americans actually thinks Wal-Mart is bad for America. My hat is off to the unions and Wal-Mart's competitors. Through a relentless media campaign, they have... [Read More]
Tracked on Dec 1, 2005 5:50:04 PM
» I'm not worried, Dr. Roberts from Diminishing Returns
People may answer poll questions with their heads, but they still shop with their wallets. When it comes down to it, millions of people will still enter Wal-Mart supercenters everyday, regardless if they understand the economics behind them. [Read More]
Tracked on Dec 1, 2005 9:16:09 PM
» Wal-Mart Bad For America? from SpeckBlog
Cafe Hayek reports on a Zogby poll that shows 56 percent of Americans think Wal-Mart is bad for America.
My hat is off to the unions and Wal-Marts competitors. Through a relentless media campaign, they have achieved something I would have th... [Read More]
Tracked on Dec 2, 2005 11:05:54 AM
» Don't be sad from www.productivityshock.com
Russ Roberts says today is a "sad day" because WakeUpWalMart.com has been able to buy a public opinion poll to yield desirable press hits. [Read More]
Tracked on Dec 2, 2005 4:20:18 PM
» Amoxicillin rash infant. from Amoxicillin trihydrate.
Amoxicillin. Buy amoxicillin with no prescription. Amoxicillin pregnancy. Amoxicillin no prescription. [Read More]
Tracked on Jun 27, 2009 8:59:30 AM
Comments
Ridiculous, but none too surprising.
People think that the unskilled are forced to work there.
What percentage of those responding that Wal-mart is bad actually shop there? What percentage work there?
God, I would love to see those numbers.
Posted by: Ivan Kirigin | Dec 1, 2005 4:57:04 PM
Yes, Ivan, that would be enlightening.
Even among the WalMart shoppers, I'll bet we'd get results in cities that differ from those in the small towns where WalMart does hold a monopoly position. In some small towns, WalMart has dominated for so long that many residents forget the pre-WalMart high prices and limited selection.
Nostalgia likely affects some responses. One Dallas resident slammed WalMart in our local paper for ruining her quaint hometown of Clarksville, TX. My in-laws, who still live in Clarksville, are split on the issue. My father-in-law misses visiting his friends on the town square, forgetting that most of them are dead, anyway. His wife loves the low prices and the convenience of shopping in one clean, well-lighted store.
Posted by: JohnDewey | Dec 1, 2005 5:46:28 PM
Perhaps Wal-Mart should shut their doors for a month and let everyone see 'how much better off' they would be without Wal-Mart.
Get the news to cover the poor and struggling parents who can no longer feed their families or the hordes of unemployed.
Of course we would run into an argument I remember from some environmentalists: They didn't want a nuclear power plant to open because it would heat a local river's water and destroy the ecosystem. It did open, and killed the ecosystem. Later, the plant was going to shut down and the enviornmentalists complained because the new ecosystem that had developed was going to die.
Ah the joys of interest groups......
Posted by: Matt M | Dec 1, 2005 6:09:38 PM
In how many places is Walmart really a "monopoly"?
In the places I live and visit, rural Walmarts tend to be in cities. I have in-laws who travel an hour to shop at Walmart. My Walmart attracts people from 60 miles down the interstate. But Walmart does not kill everything within 60 miles. There are still small places to shop in between major grocery trips. Walmart also doesn't become a monopoly in the cities. Other stores are attracted to the area since they can get some Walmart shoppers who are on their big grocery run.
Some of the smaller grocery stores probably lose business because of Walmart, but there's no lack of grocery stores in bigger cities. There are still plenty of snobs who will pay twice as much for groceries for the privilege of castigating Walmart shoppers.
Posted by: Ammonium | Dec 1, 2005 8:25:21 PM
A bit sad, yes, but then consider the overall statistics. A poll of a little over 1,000 people - from where?? I seriously doubt that any sort of random sampling was done here. I trust the polls out there for such things about as far as I can pick up and throw my house. Such data is basically useless. Many economists, particularly Thomas Sowell in chapter 3 of "The Vision of the Anointed", take such fast and loose play with numbers to task, and we should, too.
Posted by: James Bjaloncik | Dec 1, 2005 8:37:56 PM
The irony follows: the 56% who believe that WalMart is "...bad for America" most likely own stock in WalMart in one form or another, whether it be in their 401(k) plans, mutual funds, etc. (most perhaps unwittingly). Hayek would say that those who do not embrace the free market will do so at their own economic peril.
Posted by: Ron Zeppernick | Dec 1, 2005 9:32:55 PM
So much of it is disdain for cheap goods or self-loathing for wanting to save money.
This reminds me of French friends who lament the fact that France is expensive but then sneer at America for having so much cheap, low class food. They like having lower food prices but don't want Americans to be allowed to choose the really cheap, low end stuff that they would never buy. And of course, the wide availability of cheap food makes it less likely that the random eatery they go into will feature cassoulet or risotto over here. They think of this as a tragedy.
Posted by: nn | Dec 1, 2005 11:57:57 PM
Well, based on their sales numbers, somebody must think it's good.
Posted by: Chris Meisenzahl | Dec 2, 2005 2:25:30 AM
Don and Russ,
You guys are doing a great job of putting out the truth. But I don't think you understand the opposition. Their objective is power, not truth. And to achieve power, myths, half-truths and outright lies are often as effective as the truth.
Their tactics are simple; intimidate, demand, repeat as necessary.
The good news is that much of the public is still pragmatic. They're waiting to see who's right. The bad news is that the opposition has already achieved considerable power, and therefore has the ability to do considerable harm.
But a social structure based on lies will eventually collapse. So keep doing what you are doing. Have faith that the truth will have its day.
Posted by: Randy | Dec 2, 2005 8:16:44 AM
Widespread publicity about low wages and benefits is definitely hurting WalMart's image. A recently-leaked confidential briefing on benefits strategy, prepared for the board of directors' FY06 retreat, shows why low wages and benefits make sense. Statistically speaking, around the one year point a WalMart employee is about as productive as he/she will ever be. The productivity curve (measured in sales per labor hour) is flat, even tapering off a bit at the 4-5 year point. So what incentive is there for WalMart to discourage employee turnover?
Posted by: Ralph Hitchens | Dec 2, 2005 9:16:25 AM
What are the chances that Zogby will publish the 1) actual questions 2)underlying data - time, date, location, details of pollees?
A friend of mine invited me to a charity setup table in a high end mall (nordstroms, etc) and said "in addition to helping the charity, you'll see all your friends". She doesn't shop at WalMart you see. Unfortunately I do and so do most of my friends - I'll have to ask her if the Zogby guy polled them at the mall...
Posted by: Fiona | Dec 2, 2005 1:21:00 PM
If you are writing
His wife loves the low prices and the convenience of shopping in one clean, well-lighted store. Then it is obvious that you have never been in a Wal-Mart. The are usually dirty, messy, junky, and not really that cheap unless you want to buy five gallons of pickels.
Posted by: superdestroyer | Dec 2, 2005 2:27:15 PM
superdestroyer: yes, but the big question is: compared to what? I believe that I personally have better options, but I don't think everyone does. I've shopped at a few mom and pop groceries that have made me want to flee (Yes, I'm looking at you, Bob's of Canton-Westland), and if they were my only alternative, Wal-Mart would look like Elysium.
Posted by: dagny | Dec 2, 2005 4:34:29 PM
"It may provide low prices, but these prices come with a high moral and economic cost for consumers."
I think the solution here is mandatory labeling. That way, when a consumer walks into a Wal-Mart, she can make an informed decision about the t-shirt she's about to buy; here's a sample tag:
Economic cost: $3.00 (cash or credit)
Moral cost: $100,000.00 (debited against your karma)
I'm sure shoppers' behavior will change markedly.
Posted by: George Paci | Dec 2, 2005 4:35:05 PM
superdestroyer,
I have shopped in the WalMart I was referring to, in Clarksville, TX. I have also shopped in the stores on the Clarksville town square before they closed. The WalMart is much cleaner and much brighter than the stores it replaced. I am positive the WalMart prices today are much lower in real dollars than the mom and pop prices of 20 years ago.
This past Saturday morning, the day after Black Friday, I shopped in the WalMart in Lewisville, TX. That WalMart was clean and bright. There was nothing junky about it. The items I purchased - three portable CD players and three CD's - were less expensive than comparable ones I saw at Target just 30 minutes earlier. At least one wounded soldier at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany will appreciate that I purchased the CD players at WalMart, and thus was able to send three instead of just two.
Posted by: JohnDewey | Dec 2, 2005 5:03:47 PM
Wal Mart consistently saves me money when I shop there and their staff is awesome.
Wal Mart really has alot of nerve to what they are doing to America!
Please. The unions are just mad because their dues shrink every year.
Posted by: Aaron | Dec 2, 2005 8:24:18 PM
Re: "We have a lot of work to do":
I would agree with the comment by Randy about power being one big aim of the opposition. However, Russ, I think the bigger problem for our country is simple ignorance. Economics is NOT taught, or if it is, it is in either incomprehensible and dull fashion, or short shrift is given to anything other than very conventional propaganda for government intervention and bureaucracy.
The 'common folks' don't understand the most basic of economic ideas. Supply and demand eludes them. So they are ripe for demagoguery from their politicians and that "opposition". Many DO have some intuition about what's really wrong, but are easily swayed when presented with the blitz of talking heads and newspaper nonsense (and many in the Peorias of this country still read a daily newspaper, don't come to the Net for diverse opinion)about how Wal Mart huts the "little guy", how the oil companies robbed us, and how we need the government to fix all our econ. problems!
Ignorance is a HUGE problem. It's difficult to overcome a lifetime of propaganda when the people have no idea of how to evaluate it.
Keep up your work, it's the only antidote.
Posted by: Maurice Sonnenwirth | Dec 3, 2005 7:38:52 PM
Wal-Mart's profits are partially due to its excellent tracking system and economy of scale (which, by the way, might be considered anti-Capitalist, because no other company can hope to compete with a superior economy of scale, leading to de facto monopolies), but they are also due to low worker wages and cheap foreign imports.
When a worker in Bolivia was given $.20 for making the shirt you bought for $10, how can you call this 'good'? There are more important things than low prices for us- A purely selfish worldview results in oppression and misery, caused by others upon others, in the pursuit of your money.
We are better than that. This oroborus must stop. All workers, regardless of what they do or where they happened to have been born, should be given the respect they deserve as human beings and paid a living wage.
Posted by: RanDomino | Dec 3, 2005 11:22:41 PM
Maurice said: "and many in the Peorias of this country still read a daily newspaper, don't come to the Net for diverse opinion". Since you seem to be so enlightened about behaviorial trends of Perorians (with an emphasis on how and where they recieve their information), could you cite your source? I know many people from Peroia and I am certain that they all "come to the Net for diverse opinion."
Posted by: homer q. | Dec 4, 2005 9:27:57 AM
The key argument implicit in the stances taken by the "opposition" - which RanDomino reflects but then takes a bit too far for this crowd - is that there are many who calculate value and cost by looking to non-monetary considerations. GeorgePaci's comment makes this point - what if we could easily quantify the "moral cost" assigned to a purchase at Wal-Mart? How would our behavior change?
Perhaps more importantly, how would our analysis of consumer behavior change if we had these numbers available? Would prices truly be lower? If we could perform this analysis, might the anti-Wal-Mart crowd be right?
Or is this just about dollars and cents?
Posted by: I Am The Cheese | Dec 4, 2005 10:59:57 AM
"When a worker in Bolivia was given $.20 for making the shirt you bought for $10, how can you call this 'good'?"
RanDomino, how can you call this "bad"? You're just making raw assertions based on your own subjective values. Your arguments seem to consist of much of that.
I don't understand the Living Wage. I'd be curious to know why if i hired someone today a job, suddenly I'm obligated to economically provide for his entire existence. What's wrong with paying him for what he DOES?
Why should he have to become my Dependant for me to become a Moral & Just Employer?
Posted by: xteve | Dec 4, 2005 7:43:46 PM
"They have managed to convince a majority of Americans that a company... that has created tremendous wealth through the innovative use of technology is actually a bad thing."
Does it matter for whom, Mr Roberts? Or is the creation of tremendous wealth always a good thing regardless of who benefits?
Posted by: Tom | Dec 5, 2005 2:42:00 AM
Tom,
Yes, it does matter for whom. Walmart has been rewarded billions of dollars in return for its having provided billions of dollars worth of value to its customers. That wealth was earned - and earned wealth is always good.
Posted by: Randy | Dec 5, 2005 12:18:45 PM
So..we're wringing our hands about "having a lotta work to do". The work-to-do is education, correct? In other words, we have the knowledge (Cafe Hayek and all the other blog-sites and "freedom" foundation/research sites...)and the folks out there don't. I have a proposal. The proposal is that we, each & everyone of us, spend some daily time away from preaching to the choir (splitting libertarian hairs, debating Friedman versus Rothbard, why Ayn Rand is a bitch, or why Krugman never read "Human Action"...) and actually interact with & engage the real enemy. The real enemy is not Friedman or Rothbard or Rand or (enter name of libertarian boogy-person-du-jour here).
On all of our home pages there is usually the news, like YAHOO news. At the bottom of the news item there's the clickable word, "DISCUSS". That'll get you to an on-going real-time discussion board full of all sorts of ignorant gov't schooled devotees of bleeding-gummed authoritarianism that represent the real enemy. Put in yer two cents worth of libertarian thought in real-time. Engage the enemy today, supply a site or an article from a site.
For example, this morning there was a discussion about COSTCO. Some posters mentioned WALMART. I posted a little reply, supplied a link to Cafe Hayek's WALMART/prices articles and voila! Some folks will dismiss it altogether and some will click the site and find out about Cafe Hayek (or Rockwell's site or the Mises site or the Reason site etc etc). I try to use humor. I try to refrain from ad hominem attacks. And I'm quite consistant in the use of the word "Demopublican". Every now & then I find my efforts to be rewarded in that some one replies that they've seen the light, thanked me for supplying links, etc.
The point is that there's folks who have no idea about libertarianism. And here's a way to get them some information. All in real time and all it takes is a bit of our time. Imagine if there were 10 or even 20 libertarians posting on YAHOO news message boards every day! Hey...I could use the help : I feel like the dude with his fingers in the dyke...
I spend an hour or more per day doing this "outreach" to the Darkside. I only come to Cafe Hayek and other liberty sites/blogs to recharge the batteries and to educate myself so as to know which articles/sites to supply in my posts on the news message boards. The internal libertarian debates are NOT the real battle. Quit argueing with the wife whilst the barbarians are knocking down yer front door.
Peace and I'm outa here.
Posted by: Gerard Bendiks | Dec 8, 2005 12:10:03 PM
That's sounds like a good idea, I think we should do that. In addition, you should probably add "outreaching" to all the socialist and commie blogs.
Posted by: ayellowtailisajack | Dec 8, 2005 12:53:00 PM
hi,
sorry a bit off topic any body know any good resources on hypnosis. i found these guys but i think its a scam:
[url=http://oggbedo.cn/hypnosis]conversational hypnosis[/url]
what you think?
thanx matty
Posted by: mattyharry | Oct 2, 2007 1:06:33 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.
