Is it morally acceptable to shop at Wal-Mart?

[Argus]

Is it moral to watch movies made in Hollywood if the State of California imposes capital punishment?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That is a rather disgusting comparison. You are comparing an American state which executes a criminal gangleader and multiple murderer to a nation which executes thousands of people for bribery, prostitution, pimping, protesting against the government, exercising their religion, and just generally disagreeing with the government.

Not to mention having a massive slave labour camp system with millions of people toiling their lifetimes because they dared to speak out against the government at some point - or a relative did, labour camps where they are beaten, tortured and killed, and forced to work as slaves on products which wind up in your house as your great bargain find.

[Argus]

Besides, what's morally wrong with having labour camps? It seems like a productive use of the prison system to me. It beats having cons playing PS2 and watching porn.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I should be, but am not surprised at the smirking ammoral response from people who constantly beat their breast about how much more compassionate and caring they are.

Yeah, who cares if the things is made by a slave labourer who is beaten and tortured so long as you get your toaster for three bucks less.

But let anyone dare to suggest homosexuals would be just as far ahead with a civil union as a marriage and you're up on your high horse as the great defender of human rights.

[Argus]

Renegade,

It then passes much of those savings to the customer. In my view that is not only moral, it is commendable and other retailers can only envy WalMart's position.

Normally, I try to not fall into the 'false dichotomy' trap, but it appears that you are endorsing slavery. This is a position of amorality, and while I agree that it exists (as the base of rights-theory), I think it is something we all are capable of being above.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No I'm really not endorsing slavery.

Yes, you really are.

And rape, torture, ethnic cleansing and mass murder.

But hey, so long as the toaster coasts a few bucks less that's okay, right?

[Guest eureka]

Argus, I would like to congratulate you on the passion in your posts as well as the accuracy.

This whole WalMart concept is what gives Capitalism a bad name.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear eureka,

This whole WalMart concept is what gives Capitalism a bad name.

This is what unfettered capitalism is, and it is much of why I am 'left-wing'. Therefore, morality itself is 'leftist', or at least, to the left of Wally-World and it's ilk.

PocketRocket,

I will often buy used items at places like "Value Village" or at any number of second-hand outlets.

I love Value Village, and other such stores, which often are operated to help fund charities, etc. (the thrift store in my 'hood raises money for 'education') Plus, some of the 'retro' styles are fantastic!

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Renegade,

and the manufacturers of those products decided to either close the factories or to mechanize so as to not employ anyone in "sweat shops"

They would mechanize in a second if it were more profitable.

What exactly do you expect those formerly employed to do for gainful employment?

Slavery isn't 'gainful employment', because there isn't any 'gain' at all for the slave. I would suspect that they could do the very same jobs, with better conditions and higher pay, as long as 'slavery' gets outlawed, so the companies can't simply move somewhere else.

There is lots of unemployment in the US, some of it amongst blacks in poorer neighbourhoods. Perhaps you can suggest bringing back slavery as a means to 'gainful employment'?

[Renegade]

What exactly do you expect those formerly employed to do for gainful employment?

Since there is would still be a demand for the goods in question then there would likely be workers in other locations or countries that would find new jobs that they did not have before. So the jobs argument is a red herring.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sparhawk,

Actually its not. Demand is elastic and if prices rise (because of increased production costs) demand will fall, so your assumption that there will be the same number of other workers in other countries who will find jobs is not valid. Further, much of production is done by hand simply because it costs less to do so then to produce the same by mechanization. If that cost of labour changes, so may that balance of cost efficiency. Simply put, it may be cheaper for producers to mechanize.

So the question remains, what do you expect those people to do?

Many of you cry at the top of your lungs condenming low-wage labour, without fully understanding the problem or providing constructive solutions.

From the source which theloniusfleabag previously posted: Sweatshops and Globalization

After spending some time in the region, however, Kristof and Wudunn slowly came to the conclusion that, while regrettable, sweatshops are an important part of a developing nation’s journey to prosperity.

Boycotts and Bans

Anti-sweatshop organizations have achieved an impressive level of organization and influence in the last several years. Campus groups have persuaded university administrators at dozens of colleges around the country to refuse to buy school apparel from companies who use sweatshop labor. The activists demand that corporations pay a "living wage." and agree to international monitoring, or face the loss of collegiate licensing privileges -- which amount to some $2.5 billion in annual revenue for the likes of Nike, Reebok and Fruit of the Loom.

So far, evidence has shown that boycotts and public pressure do get results, but perhaps not the kinds of results that are in the best interests of sweatshop workers.

Free traders argue that instead of providing better working conditions or higher wages, which had until then offset the costs of relocating overseas, western companies respond to public pressure by simply closing down their third world plants, or by ceasing to do business with contractors who operate sweatshops.

The result: thousands of people already in a bad situation then find themselves in a worse one.

In 2000, for example, the BBC did an expose on sweatshop factories in Cambodia with ties to both Nike and the Gap. The BBC uncovered unsavory working conditions, and found several examples of children under 15 years of age working 12 or more hour shifts.

After the BBC expose aired, both Nike and the Gap pulled out of Cambodia, costing the country $10 million in contracts, and costing hundreds of Cambodians their jobs.

There are lots more examples like that one

[Renegade]

You couldn't be bothered to read either cite, could you? Let me summarize. Wal-Mart is a massive chain which not only imports its goods from China it underuts all other retailers by doing so, forcing them to also outsource. It gouges its suppliers, and even has a special branch of their sales force which helps put suppliers in touch with Chinese factories (after pressuring them to lower their prices more). Wal-mart forces suppliers who are reliant on it to relocate their manufacturing to China. The massive waves of consumer goods flooding into Canada and the US are directly attributable to Wal-Mart, even if they are sold at other stores.

Argus, Actually I read both of your references, and I reread them to make sure. Neither of them say that Wal-Mart is alone in persuit of low cost suppliers from China. The fact is, we would be awash in Chinese made goods even if Wal-Mart didn't exist. Wal-Mart accelerated the process with their agressive strategy. I will concede to you that Wal-Mart was the leader and the largest retailer to ever persue reducing costs in this way.

My point remains, that enterprises who follow Wal-Mart's lead are no more or less culpable than Wal-mart itself.

And it persues those savings with the ruthless efficiency of a shark, slaughtering any business which gets in its way, destroying suppliers, forcing them to outsource, forcing their own underpaid sales clerks to work unpaid hours, using child labour and illegal immigrants. That's what it does here. In China, the Waltons have found the perfect working environment; with no labour laws, no overtime pay requirements, no threat of unions, no environmental laws, and enough poverty to assure they can always get a supply of workers no matter how terrible they treat them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The fact is any supplier has a choice. Deal with Walmart on its terms or not deal with Walmart at all. If it were a more viable option for its survival, many suppliers would choose the latter option, but the fact that they don't mean they have chosen the better option for them.

The relationship between enterprise and supplier is simply a business one. The enterprise can choose what it values from the supplier. It may be that an enterprise may value its relationship with the supplier more than the specific cost of items supplied, but it may equally decide that the cost of the supplied item is paramount. Walmart has chosen the latter option as is its perogative. There is nothing moral or immoral about that decision, it is simply a business choice.

[Renegade]

Dear Renegade,

and the manufacturers of those products decided to either close the factories or to mechanize so as to not employ anyone in "sweat shops"

They would mechanize in a second if it were more profitable.

And they will if the cost of labour makes it economical to mechanize.

What exactly do you expect those formerly employed to do for gainful employment?

Slavery isn't 'gainful employment', because there isn't any 'gain' at all for the slave. I would suspect that they could do the very same jobs, with better conditions and higher pay, as long as 'slavery' gets outlawed, so the companies can't simply move somewhere else.

There is lots of unemployment in the US, some of it amongst blacks in poorer neighbourhoods. Perhaps you can suggest bringing back slavery as a means to 'gainful employment'?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not talking about Slavery. Slavery by your the definitions you have quoted is forced labour (eg prison camps, or people being forced to work camps), and yes I agree that isn't gainful employment.

I am referring to situations where people are paid very low wages but economic conditions cause them to voluntarily accept those positions.

From your very source which I quoted to Sparhawk, there exisits the real possibility that instead of doing the same jobs with better conditions and higher pay, they could be without jobs. So please answer the question. What do you expect the workers to do then?

[Renegade]

Renegade,

It then passes much of those savings to the customer. In my view that is not only moral, it is commendable and other retailers can only envy WalMart's position.

Normally, I try to not fall into the 'false dichotomy' trap, but it appears that you are endorsing slavery. This is a position of amorality, and while I agree that it exists (as the base of rights-theory), I think it is something we all are capable of being above.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No I'm really not endorsing slavery.

Yes, you really are.

And rape, torture, ethnic cleansing and mass murder.

But hey, so long as the toaster coasts a few bucks less that's okay, right?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Slavery no. Free market yes. Think what you will, but consumers vote with their wallet, and until they decide what they want is more than the lowest cost toaster, companies like Walmart with thrive.

[Guest eureka]

You read like something from the 19th. century, Renegade. "The Invisible Hand" and all that jazz. We have cpme a long way since then in spite of the efforts of the "Capitalists" of the past three decades to drive us back there.

The realtionship between enterprise and supplier is not just a business one. That is about as valid as saying a cat will play with a mouse before killing it and that is just nature.

We have government to ensure that the relationships in society are for the benefit of society and not for the enrichment of some at the expense of others. Though in this imperfect world that is often the case, it is not for government to protect the freebooters and parasites The role of government in this is to smooth out the relationship and to ensure that millions are not reduced to unemployment and poverty.

The last time this was happening on such a scale in the advanced societies it led to protectionism and Depression.

WalMart is not the only offender, as you say. But it is WalMart that introduced the concept and forced others to copy in otder to survive. That has led to the loss of more than 2 million jobs in the United States and a proportionate number in Canada. It has also led to the reduction of wages in all those enterprises that follow or are competing with WalMart.

Also, thousands of smaller enterprises have been forced out of business by WalMart. They do not have the choice of finding overseas suppliers and they do not have the power over their employees to subject them to "wage slavery."

It is a fact, as I have said, but you do not address, that you subsidize WalMart's low prices. You are one of the minnows being swallowed by the Barracuda. Your taxes go to the support of WalMart's employees who must turn to the "Safety Net" to survive. Your property taxes increase to make up for the loss in every community where WalMart operates. Those things should make you pause in your fixation on the "Market" if concern for the deterioration of your society does not.

It serves no purpose to defend the situation in thirld world countries as a necessary evil to provide some employment in them. The deterioration of our society is not a necessary remedy. Those countries must also end the conditions of their workers and compete on the basis of fair trade. The better conditions here from the restoration of the advances we had made will give opportunity for third world countries to compete on better terms for themselves. Reduction in our disposable incomes is of only short term advantage to the WalMarts and is not sustainable for the future here or in the "Third World."

[Argus]

Dear eureka,

This whole WalMart concept is what gives Capitalism a bad name.

This is what unfettered capitalism is, and it is much of why I am 'left-wing'. Therefore, morality itself is 'leftist', or at least, to the left of Wally-World and it's ilk.

Wal-Mart is to Capitalism what Joseph Stalin is to Socialism. The fact is that no one (sane) wants to live under what is economically termed "perfect Capitalism". As far back as college my business teachers were very clear about what perfect Capitalism would entail, and we see much of in Wal-Mart and its Chinese operations. If Wal-Mart could get away with the same sort of thing here, it would. If it could use slave labour locally, it would. Wal-Mart is an enterprise geared towards perfect capitalism, utterly ammoral, with no concern or care for employees, suppliers or customers; only profits. It is ruthless in its pursuit of those profits, and its attack on anyone who it suspects of interferring. In China, with little in the way of rules, and corrupt officials, it has a relatively free hand. Or has no one else wondered at why such arch-conservative capitalists are so delighted to be doing all their business with Communist China?

[Argus]

The fact is any supplier has a choice. Deal with Walmart on its terms or not deal with Walmart at all.  If it were a more viable option for its survival, many suppliers would choose the latter option, but the fact that they don't mean they have chosen the better option for them.

In most cases it is deal with Wal-Mart or go out of business. In many cases, what happens is that they will have an agreement with Wal-Mart to purchase X amount of goods at X price. Wal-Mart, being Wal-Mart, quickly becomes by far the most important customer. When it reaches a level where so much of the supplier's goods are being purchased by them the supplier can ill-afford to lose them, Wal-Mart demands price cuts. The supplier cuts prices, even though it lowers its profits. Wal-mart appears satisfied - for a short time. Then it demands more price cuts. If the supplier says that he can't possibly or he'll be losing money, Wal-Mart then tells them to relocate its manufacturing in China, and offers to arrange it for them. If the supplier refuse Wal-mart drops them, and the supplier, even if he survives, has to make massive layoffs and close factories anyway - which is what Wal-Mart tells them to persuade them to relocate in China.

To my knowledge, no other retailer engages in such a practice.

There is nothing moral or immoral about that decision, it is simply a business choice.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Much of what Wal-Mart does is, by strictly technical interpretation of what a business enterprise is for - ammoral. But in our society, the willing use of child labour, the willing use of illegal immigrants, forcing employees to work unpaid hours - all that is immoral. And knowingly purchasing goods made in whole or in part in labour camps populated by political prisoners is immoral by any yardstick.

Costco has prices as low as Wal-mart, if not lower. Their non managerial employees earn over $20 an hour with good benefits. The cashiers at Costco make $40,000 a year and with good benefits. The cashiers at Wal-Mart make little more than minimum wages with minimal benefits.

[Renegade]

The realtionship between enterprise and supplier is not just a business one. That is about as valid as saying a cat will play with a mouse before killing it and that is just nature.

If not a business relationship, then what is it?

We have government to ensure that the relationships in society are for the benefit of society and not for the enrichment of some at the expense of others. Though in this imperfect world that is often the case, it is not for government to protect the freebooters and parasites  The role of government in this is to smooth out the relationship and to ensure that millions are not reduced to unemployment and poverty.

Since the agressive policy Walmart persues with suppliers is not illegal and you believe it is the role of government to set the "rules" of the game, why fault Walmart. Fault the government. Walmart is playing by the rules set down. By your analogy it is immoral for someone trying to avoid taxes to use a legal tax loophole.

The last time this was happening on such a scale in the advanced societies it led to protectionism and Depression.

While I'd be happy to discuss the cause of protectionism and the Depression, that would considerbly divert this thread. If you want to do so, let's do it another thread.

WalMart is not the only offender, as you say. But it is WalMart that introduced the concept and forced others to copy in otder to survive. That has led to the loss of more than 2 million jobs in the United States and a proportionate number in Canada. It has also led to the reduction of wages in all those enterprises that follow or are competing with WalMart.

Ok so what. That in itself is not immoral. There have been many other waves of innovation, such as technology, which have put people out of work, that doesn't make the innovation immoral. Walmart has not just introduced cost efficiencies by moving production to China and demanding lower prices from suppliers. They have created an excellent distribution system and monitoring system, further they demand a work ethic from their employees that few companies can rival.

It is true that other companies have copied Walmart, but they do so because it is a more cost-effective system than the one they employed, and to not change would mean they should go out of business. When Henry Ford introduced an assembly line to create cars, it was an efficiency and innovation and others had to copy the model or go out of business.

Also, thousands of smaller enterprises have been forced out of business by WalMart. They do not have the choice of finding overseas suppliers and they do not have the power over their employees to subject them to "wage slavery."

If they have been forced out of business because they cannot match the cost efficiences required, then they deserve to be out of business. Business reality can be a harsh teacher, and in fact our society is better off if only the most efficient survive.

It is a fact, as I have said, but you do not address, that you subsidize WalMart's low prices. You are one of the minnows being swallowed by the Barracuda. Your taxes go to the support of WalMart's employees who must turn to the "Safety Net" to survive. Your property taxes increase to make up for the loss in every community where WalMart operates. Those things should make you pause in your fixation on the "Market" if concern for the deterioration of your society does not.

Yes, though i was tempted, I did not address your previous post, however I will do so now. You say that the "Safety Net" is a subsidy to Walmart. Your right it is. But it is an equal subsidy to other enterprises operating in the same market.

As you have seen in other threads, I have advocated for a reduction of these "subsidies". If what your are suggesting is that we can level the playing field by eliminating those subsidies which comprise the "Saftey Net" I'm fine to go along with that suggestion.

It serves no purpose to defend the situation in thirld world countries as a necessary evil to provide some employment in them. The deterioration of our society is not a necessary remedy. Those countries must also end the conditions of their workers and compete on the basis of fair trade. The better conditions here from the restoration of the advances we had made will give opportunity for third world countries to compete on better terms for themselves. Reduction in our disposable incomes is of only short term advantage to the WalMarts and is not sustainable for the future here or in the "Third World."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is really up to the Thirld World societies and governments to decide the rules by which they want foreign investment. If they have decided that it is advantageous for them to allow low-wage labour, I don't see that it is immoral for an enterprise to play by THEIR rules. We have set our own rules here in terms of working conditions and minimium wage, and others are able to set their own.

[Renegade]

In most cases it is deal with Wal-Mart or go out of business. In many cases, what happens is that they will have an agreement with Wal-Mart to purchase X amount of goods at X price. Wal-Mart, being Wal-Mart, quickly becomes by far the most important customer. When it reaches a level where so much of the supplier's goods are being purchased by them the supplier can ill-afford to lose them, Wal-Mart demands price cuts. The supplier cuts prices, even though it lowers its profits. Wal-mart appears satisfied - for a short time. Then it demands more price cuts. If the supplier says that he can't possibly or he'll be losing money, Wal-Mart then tells them to relocate its manufacturing in China, and offers to arrange it for them. If the supplier refuse Wal-mart drops them, and the supplier, even if he survives, has to make massive layoffs and close factories anyway - which is what Wal-Mart tells them to persuade them to relocate in China.

To my knowledge, no other retailer engages in such a practice.

I don't dispute that this is WalMart's strategy with suppliers, but this is not illegal. It is also not immoral. Walmart owes the supplier nothing and vice versa. If a supplier has a good which was in short supply it would no doubt raise the price. Why do you expect that the buyer should be any less ruthless in its tactics. In my view both buyers and suppliers can be rutheless. You should expect it and you won't be disappointed. It's not a question of morality, it is just business.

Much of what Wal-Mart does is, by strictly technical interpretation of what a business enterprise is for - ammoral. But in our society, the willing use of child labour, the willing use of illegal immigrants, forcing employees to work unpaid hours - all that is immoral. And knowingly purchasing goods made in whole or in part in labour camps populated by political prisoners is immoral by any yardstick.

Costco has prices as low as Wal-mart, if not lower. Their non managerial employees earn over $20 an hour with good benefits. The cashiers at Costco make $40,000 a year and with good benefits. The cashiers at Wal-Mart make little more than minimum wages with minimal benefits.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Many of the practices you have outlined above ("willing use of child labour, the willing use of illegal immigrants, forcing employees to work unpaid hours") are not just immoral they are illegal in our society. I am aware that Walmart has directly used illegal immigrants in the US. Where Walmart has acted illegally they should be proseuted and remedies applied as specifed by law. I'm in full agreement here. But where they have acted legally there is nothing immoral about what they have done.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Renegade,

But where they have acted legally there is nothing immoral about what they have done.

It seems that you do not believe in morality at all, just legality, even though you say this;

Many of the practices you have outlined above ("willing use of child labour, the willing use of illegal immigrants, forcing employees to work unpaid hours") are not just immoral

. Or, it seems that you think that 'the scales of justice' only measure when coinage is placed on them.

Fault the government. Walmart is playing by the rules set down.

Actually, some companies have been fined, and in at least one case a factory manager was sentenced to 10 years for 'slaving' (I couldn't find a link, but I believe the factory was affiliated with JC Penny, located in SE Asia.)

So please answer the question. What do you expect the workers to do then?

I must plead ignorance as to local conditions in Asia, though they must have done something before multinational corporations took over their resources and land. Perhaps if they unionized, some might make $40,000/yr, and others could start up service businesses, such as daycares, restaurants and the like.

Oh, wait. That would mean that they would have to use their military or coerce our government to enslave us, and move all the head offices over there.

[Guest eureka]

The enclosures in the UK were driven by the same motivation as WalMart. They came close to a revolution and did encounter violent resistance. They were the gathering of property and power by forcing others off the land and "enslaving" them.

The potato famine in Ireland was played out in much the same Market ideo;ogy as you say is right for WalMart. There was ample food that could have been shared but it required transportation. The authority at the time would not do that because it did not fit into "Market" ideology.

And those consequences are just about what you say is good business strategy for WalMart.

We are at least a hundred and fifty years more advanced in our thinking and our compassion now. We are also that much more advanced in our government structures. We now know that government must protect the people against this kind of economic subjection.

We also know, from experience of the past, that if government does not protect people, eventually people will take their protection into their own hands.

The question of whether WalMart's actions are illegal is yet to be decided. Some of it is before the courts. Its Union busting tactics are illegal: its knowing employment of illegal immigrants is illegal: its forced overtime without pay policy is illegal.

WalMart is hubris riding for a fall.

Whether it could be put together again after the fall will be interesting to see. As the underpinnings of its success are removed, it may find things not so easy.

[August1991]

Argus, I would like to congratulate you on the passion in your posts as well as the accuracy.

This whole WalMart concept is what gives Capitalism a bad name.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't know what it is about retail sales that has always attracted so much attention. I suppose that some people just hold on to their dear childhood memories and shopping, for some reason, is part of the tradition of life. Dunno.

In 1883, Emile Zola wrote Au Bonheur des Dames and in novel form, made almost all the same arguments as Argus. No doubt in 50 years or so, when WalMart is filing for bankruptcy because of competition from some new retailer, people will be pleading for its protection.

----

As to the issue of Chinese workers, poverty can be defined as a lack of options. Giving people a choice is what makes people richer. When a factory opens up in south-east China, poor rural people have a choice.

I read through the links provided above and the only evidence of "slavery" I saw were lawsuits in American Samoa. There are fraud artists and deceptive employers. Having a choice, not meaningless government regulations, is the best way to protect against such practices.

I mean, what do you suggest? Should we close WalMart down? Force our labour laws on China? How would this in any way benefit people there?

[Riverwind]

Actually its not. Demand is elastic and if prices rise (because of increased production costs) demand will fall, so your assumption that there will be the same number of other workers in other countries who will find jobs is not valid.

On the other hand, workers earning more more would have more money to spend and demand would rise.

There is a balancing act here. I agree with economists that say minimum wages cost jobs, however, I still think a minimum wage is necessary because it forces employers to invest more in the workers that they do hire and encourages workers to persue the education/training they need to deserve the hire wages.

Obviously, we cannot take this to the extreme and mandate a $20/hour minimum wages. Just like we cannot expect factories in China to pay labour rates that are anywhere close to what people earn here. But we can insist on some appropriate minimum standards when it comes to labour laws and fair treatment of workers. This would cause some people to lose opportunities in the short term but in the long term everyone is better off.

[Renegade]

Dear Renegade,

But where they have acted legally there is nothing immoral about what they have done.

It seems that you do not believe in morality at all, just legality, even though you say this;

Many of the practices you have outlined above ("willing use of child labour, the willing use of illegal immigrants, forcing employees to work unpaid hours") are not just immoral

. Or, it seems that you think that 'the scales of justice' only measure when coinage is placed on them.

theloniusfleabag, I don't think enterprises are the same as individuals. Enterprises don't have a conscience, individuals do. Enterprises are driven by a mandate ("Maximize profit") and are subject to the rules set down by government for their behaviour. The rules as they stand today do not permit the use of illegal immigrants, child labour, or the use of unpaid hours. In my view, the "rules of the game" as they stand today are fair and are applicable to all enterprises. Walmart has just proved more adept than others to maximize their benefit. (Note I'm not talking here about illegal behaviour, just the legal but apparently "immoral" actions)

Fault the government. Walmart is playing by the rules set down.

Actually, some companies have been fined, and in at least one case a factory manager was sentenced to 10 years for 'slaving' (I couldn't find a link, but I believe the factory was affiliated with JC Penny, located in SE Asia.)

Great. If Walmart or other companies have been prosecuted, fined, or jailed, then they have recieved just retribution for their actions. This is as it should be for this behaviour. Is the suggestion that Walmart be boycotted, one which we should punish them again, or is it that we didn't think the punishment was severe enough.

So please answer the question. What do you expect the workers to do then?

I must plead ignorance as to local conditions in Asia, though they must have done something before multinational corporations took over their resources and land. Perhaps if they unionized, some might make $40,000/yr, and others could start up service businesses, such as daycares, restaurants and the like.

Oh, wait. That would mean that they would have to use their military or coerce our government to enslave us, and move all the head offices over there.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I must confess that I'm still trying to understand your reply here. I have been to many of the places where these factories exist, and have visited some of them. Many of the people they employ, in previous generations worked the land. That option is less viable because of overpopulation and pollution. Still others relied on begging or prostitution.

[Renegade]

The enclosures in the UK were driven by the same motivation as WalMart. They came close to a revolution and did encounter violent resistance. They were the gathering of property and power by forcing others off the land and "enslaving" them.

The potato famine in Ireland was played out in much the same Market ideo;ogy as you say is right for WalMart. There was ample food that could have been shared but it required transportation. The authority at the time would not do that because it did not fit into "Market" ideology.

And those consequences are just about what you say is good business strategy for WalMart.

We are at least a hundred and fifty years more advanced in our thinking and our compassion now. We are also that much more advanced in our government structures. We now know that government must protect the people against this kind of economic subjection.

We also know, from experience of the past, that if government does not protect people, eventually people will take their protection into their own hands.

The question of whether WalMart's actions are illegal is yet to be decided. Some of it is before the courts. Its Union busting tactics are illegal: its knowing employment of illegal immigrants is illegal: its forced overtime without pay policy is illegal.

WalMart is hubris riding for a fall.

Whether it could be put together again after the fall will be interesting to see. As the underpinnings of its success are removed, it may find things not so easy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

eureka, I guess we will just need to wait and see where Walmart ends up.

You are trying to apply the same standards to the Third World that are applicable in the West. It took us almost 200 years to get where we are today. In my view the countries in which these low wage jobs exist, need to go through as similar evolution. Forcing it upon them simply will not work.

[Renegade]

Actually its not. Demand is elastic and if prices rise (because of increased production costs) demand will fall, so your assumption that there will be the same number of other workers in other countries who will find jobs is not valid.

On the other hand, workers earning more more would have more money to spend and demand would rise.

This would be true if these workers actually consumed what they produce but as a practical matter virtually all of what is produced by the factories we are discussing are soley directed at external markets

There is a balancing act here. I agree with economists that say minimum wages cost jobs, however, I still think a minimum wage is necessary because it forces employers to invest more in the workers that they do hire and encourages workers to persue the education/training they need to deserve the hire wages.

Obviously, we cannot take this to the extreme and mandate a $20/hour minimum wages. Just like we cannot expect factories in China to pay labour rates that are anywhere close to what people earn here. But we can insist on some appropriate minimum standards when it comes to labour laws and fair treatment of workers. This would cause some people to lose opportunities in the short term but in the long term everyone is better off.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Some decades ago Taiwan and south Korea were in exactly the same situation as many of the countries we are now discussing. They were consider low wage juristictions and considered "exploited" labour. The investment in these areas propelled their economies forward to such an extent it raised their standard of living, their ability to educate and train the population and the increasingly better the wages of its population. This didn't take a year or two, it took decades. Today each are powerhouses in its own right.

In my view, countries who want to get to the level where its population has a great standard of living, has to evolve to that state. It cannot be imposed on them. That means that for example with a minimium wage, they need to start with a low barrier to investment, and increase it only as the education and economy of that community allow. External imposition of minimimium wage standards will not work and are bound to cause economic disaster. ( Want to guess what would happen if we suddenly somehow forced China to adopt a $7/hour min wage?)

August said it correctly that the conditions are brought about by lack of choices by the population. Forcing companies to pull out or cease production do not produce more choice for the population; it produces less. Until their local environment and economy changes to allow the population more choice, companies who invest in factories in these low wage areas, are doing nothing more than taking advantage of these conditions to lower costs. In my view this is not immoral.

[Guest eureka]

It is not a question of applying our standards to the Third World but one of maintaing the standards we have achieved for ourselves. You like to make the hackneyed and trite observations that enterprises do not have consciences: individuals do.

That is a superficial excuse for rapaciousness. Societies are individuals and nothing else. Enterprises of any nature are the tools of individuals and cannot be divorced from conscience. Modern law requires enterprise to exercise the collective conscience and it is that which the neolib (neanderthal) is attempting to alter.

There is nothing at all wrong with trade that is beneficial to the population at large: there is everything wrong with trade that reduces the nation and its standards. There might even be a rationalisation for the existing pattern with China if China were taking other goods in return and thus creating alternate choices for our societies. That is, if the exploiters were also forced to abide by established standards at home and to carry rheir fair share of the burdens of our society.

Korea and Taiwan did not grow by excluding the goods of the nations they were exporting to and they, accordingly received the foreign investment befitting a free economy. China does not have a fair trade outlook or policy. It does not allow competition but only investment and goods that it needs for its own designated purposes.

I fail to see that there is any argment that could favour the WalMart concept. It has all the faults that have been outlined by various posters and no virtues other than that it is claimed to be directed by the "Invisible Hand" that Adam Smith is falsely accused of calling the ultimate determinant.

The only reason for the existence of any society is for the mutual benefit and protection of all its members. When a WalMart disturbs that and impoverishes and exploits society for personal gain, then it is breaking laws: laws that are written in some instances but certainly unwritten but implied laws that fall under the general heading of the Rule of Law.

WalMart should not necessarily be boycotted but that would be a reasonable step pending the actions that will force it to be a responsible corporate citizen.

[Argus]

As to the issue of Chinese workers, poverty can be defined as a lack of options.  Giving people a choice is what makes people richer.  When a factory opens up in south-east China, poor rural people have a choice.

This is the same argument made by the old mine owners whose employees were contstantly dying in collapses and cave-ins because the mine owners were uninterested in safety. Hey, they have a choice. Are you opposed to work safety regulations, as well?

And those in labour camps? Do they have a choice?

I mean, what do you suggest?  Should we close WalMart down?  Force our labour laws on China?  How would this in any way benefit people there?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

China violates every trade agreement there is, and with its corruption and despotism, is unworthy of any relationship with the world. I would ban Chinese products from Canada. We can afford to pay an extra couple of bucks for a toaster.