|
My Name Is Duke, and I Shop at Wal-Mart I
have read several articles over the last couple of months supporting
retailing giant Wal-Mart and defending its place in free markets. You
can take a look at two good ones here
and here.
While
both the columns, and many more, make convincing economic arguments in
support of the chain, it is my opinion that you can be an economic
numbskull and shoot holes in the propaganda the anti-Wal-Mart people
are spewing in print, Internet and on the network news. How
can I do this? By taking a
look at how I spend my money, in just one area of my life.
While this may seem like a narrow sample to back up my claims,
just read through this column and apply my position to an area of your
life, and see if my stance still rings true.
I believe that it will.
Let’s
examine my buying patterns for tackle.
I have three primary sources I take advantage of.
In the first case, a small outdoor recreation store close to my
home. Second, the big, bad
ugly Wal-Mart, which is a 35-minute drive from me, and lastly, two
large store chains with a huge online retail business arm. How
I decide which entity I will patronize is contingent on several
factors. How quickly do I
want an item? How much
time from my day can I devote to obtaining said item or items?
Do I want a particular brand of rod or reel, or do I want
certain features built in, and so am I willing to shop many brands for
the best price? Do I need
it right away, or is it something I don’t need for five to seven
days? All of these factors
are weighed in with every purchase, and the best route for me will win
out. Sometimes this means
the small store gets my money, sometimes Wal-Mart does, and sometimes
I order online. One
of the most often repeated wailings by the haters of the store is the
inherently incorrect claim that “Wal-Mart puts small stores
and Mom-and-Pop shops out of business.”
This is most usually repeated as an emotional mantra by
opponents of the company the late Sam Walton built.
However, as I have just attested in the paragraph above, this
is simply just not true. One
of the reasons this claim is erroneous is because it is a knee-jerk,
overly sentimental assessment and not one based on fact or
rationality. My choice to
spend my money where I deem fit is always an option.
Under the crusader’s line of thought, since Wal-Mart is an
option I therefore always go there blindly buying things willy-nilly,
with glassed-over eyes, a slack-jawed expression and a bit of drool
running down my chin. Please.
So
under this line of reasoning, if a Wal-Mart exists in a community, it
acts in the same manner as a black hole – sucking all money from the
consumers within that community into only that store.
This is typical of the socialist worldview as everything being
a finite pie, or when one gains, another suffers.
This is ludicrous, since it assumes that since the five dollars
I spent at Wal-Mart did not go to the small store, the small store was
somehow deprived of my five dollars. How can they arrive at this
conclusion? Their position
is that if I did not have Wal-Mart, I would spend money in the local
store on a product I did not need or want!
These people are lunatics.
If any store does not have what I want, they will not get my
money, period. A no sale
in a small store is still a no sale, regardless of whether I bought
something anywhere else. “Wal-Mart
deals in large volume with its suppliers, and can often price the
little guy out.” This
is another oft-repeated criticism of the giant chain.
However, I have already stated that the Wal-Mart closest to me
is over a half hour drive away. In
While
it may happen that small stores may go out of business after a
Wal-Mart is built in a community, in my opinion the demise of the
small business was not a direct cause of the larger store.
How can I make this statement? Because no store, not even the
super-sized ones, can possibly stock every product I will need and/or
want. If the smaller store wants to compete, its owners can carry
products that customers will want that Wal-Mart does not carry.
At least in my small, locally owned tackle shop, this is
exactly what happens. Therefore, it is not an impossible dream for any
business. In
addition, how may of you Wal-Mart haters out there shop over the
Internet? The ‘Net shops
have done every bit as much “damage” to neighborhood stores as the
large chains, according to your stance.
Oh yes, but you buy books on amazon.com,
don’t you, and not always at your local little bookseller.
Why do I never hear you control freaks ever bring this up?
Either because you know this claim is not true, or the Internet
has enabled small businesses to continue to survive (and in many cases
– thrive) or you shop online yourselves, and would therefore
prove to be hypocrites. “Wal-Mart
pays low wages, and no-benefits to its workers.” So
what? A number of
businesses pay low wages and little or no benefits to their workers.
Benefits are not an entitlement.
They are offered by employers to attract the talent level and
quality of people they want to have in their organization.
Obviously, the level of skill required to work at Wal-Mart, or
any other retailer, is possessed by a huge number of people.
Therefore, they have a large potential base for employees, so
they do not have to offer wages and/or benefits at the same level as a
physical therapist, for example. If
you want higher wages and benefits, the recipe is simple.
Go to school and learn a trade that someone else will either
need or want to pay you for. Most
of the chain’s opposition position themselves as caring about “the
poor.” This is another load of manure, because if they did truly
care about poor people, they would be singing the praises of Wal-Mart.
Many people perform unskilled labor and receive low wages at places
other than Wal-Mart. Do
they not deserve a place to shop for low-priced goods?
Or what of the factory workers overseas who have jobs thanks to
vendors who supply Wal-Mart with goods?
Do they not deserve to make a living, often a better one than
many others make in their country?
Not according to the anti-Wal-Marter.
Solution? They
appear to believe that getting voters to veto
Wal-Mart will ensure you will spend your money in existing stores
and pay higher prices for things you want or on things you don’t
want but will buy since there is no other choice.
Amazing how these people’s brains work. Wal-Mart
does not exist in a vacuum, which is true for any business.
Many factors are assessed every day by consumers, who do not
blindly open up their wallets for Wal-Mart as these opponents would
have you believe. While it is not my only option, I am glad it is an
option. This is something
anyone who is a proponent of free markets and free choice should be a
fan of. I will say it
loud, and say it proud . . . . “My name is Duke, and I shop at
Wal-Mart.”! Take a look at how you shop around, and I bet it is not much different from the manner I have discussed here.
|
