Living in a small midwest town has its drawbacks. Like Wal-Mart. Despite intense local opposition, Wal-Mart forced itself into SMT a few years back. The result is low, low prices . . . at the expense of the employees and the taxpayers. Wal-Mart's presence also means local establishments carry a limited inventory. If Wal-Mart carries a product, you're less likely to see it in the local grocery, hardware, or specialty store. Oh, the local business owners could try and carry all the same products but would get killed in the pricing department. That means some products are difficult to come by if you refuse to shop in The Evil Empire of department stores. Take hair dye, for example. STK wants to dye her hair black but can't find any dye. When we ask at local establishments we hear, "We don't carry dye anymore. Try Wal-mart." Ugh.
I've been ranting about Wal-Mart for a couple years on this blog and I haven't set a foot in the establishment in going on five years. Even though the closest Target is over 50 miles away, I won't be stepping foot in The Evil Empire anytime soon. Yes, it's a major inconvenience to wait for our monthly out-of-town shopping trip, but I simply couldn't live with myself if I broke my vow to avoid Wal-Mart. Is Wal-Mart really that bad? How can low prices be bad for the consumer? Read away:
Wal-Mart Sucks
What's not to like about a company that underpays its workers, limit hours to avoid offering employees health benefits, discriminates against women, and bans media (namely books, magazines, and music) that includes "offensive material" or material critical of conservative Christian values? Some may be willing to overlook these insults in the name of lower prices, but I'm not. There isn't a better example of corporate greed at the expense of workers. I'll gladly deal with a little inconvenience and higher prices if it means giving the progeny of Sam Walton the metaphorical bird.*
*For the record, I have a difficult time giving any money to the Denver Nuggets' franchise. Stan Kroenke, the owner of the Nuggets, is married to one of the Wal-Mart heiresses.
4 comments:
I know all the reasons Walmart sucks. I've boycotted them for years. And yet when money gets really really thin as it has a couple of times in the past 10 months, and I can buy a picture frame for $2 at Walmart or $7 at Michaels, I wind up saving the money in spite of my principles. (and they're the only ones who carry the horrendous, smelly gloop that is "Special Kitty brand tuna" which is all Ophelia will eat right now).
It's easy to say "Walmart's low prices cost you more" but when someone is working on a limited income, saving that $25 on groceries this week, even if it means $30 in taxes later, well, they save the $25. Or make that $25 go farther than elewhere. conscientious shopping, like specialized diets, is the privilege of the well-off.
Your 50-minute drive, of course, feeds into the whole petroleum industry mess. Not that that's news to you.
Perhaps drugstore.com could help??
Sheila
I don't totally disagree with you, Curtis. If people would stop buying CDs at Wal-Mart, Wal-Mart would have to change its policy. What about those areas where Wal-Mart is the only gig in town, though? If I want to hear a new CD, I'm kind of forced to buy the edited version. That's the part that gets me riled up. If an artist wants to reach as many people as possible, they're essentially forced to record a "clean" version of their music. There's something to be said for artistic vision, too. When Wal-Mart accounts for 30% of the CD market, what choice is there? Do you sell out or blow Wal-Mart off. That's a tough decision to make, especially when you have recording industry folks pressuring you the entire way.
Thankfully, I have the means to purchase all my music via online sources.
I don't disagree with anything you said, Sheila. There has to be some balance or a more responsible business model, though, don't you think? I don't even see Wal-Mart making an attempt.
I completely agree about the choice to carry products, Curtis. The issue with Wal-Mart is that it HAS become such a retailing powerhouse that musicians no longer feel they have a choice about whether to produce an edited version or not. If they want to be commercially successful (ie get stocked in Wal-Mart), they don't have a choice. Frontline aired a great segment on this issue. I believe the episode was titled, The Way the Music Died. Record companies and artists understand the economics and talk about it pretty frankly: if you want to be commercially viable, you have to be in Wal-Mart.
So, while the choice exists in name, I'd argue it doesn't exist in practice.
For the record, I don't think Wal-Mart should be forced to carry the explicit versions. Wal-Mart does have the right to stock the products they choose. I just think the Wal-Mart policy sucks ;)
I have difficulty giving the Denver Nuggets franchise money because a) I live out of state, and b) they suck - and have sucked for years.
Post a Comment