OK — a Wal-Mart post!
November 5th, 2005 | by mbhunter |I’ve seen threads a mile long in misc.consumers.frugal-living debating Wal-Mart, so I might be embroiling myself in a big argument.
I saw a Reuters article on MSN called “Wal-Mart lowers costs at a price: studies”. The article reports on a Wal-Mart-sponsored conference that examined its effect on the US economy.
I certainly can’t judge the validity of the statistics mentioned in the article. (In any case, statistics can mean anything you want them to — after all, if you make up a statistic, 76% of the population will believe you.) How much Wal-Mart saved each consumer and how much Medicaid spending grew in Ohio due to Wal-Mart can be subject to interpretation. But it probably is true that almost 1 in 100 workers in this country work for Wal-Mart. That’s easier to verify.
This article doesn’t take sides on the issue. But I will say this: I shop at Wal-Mart. I shop for price. I’ll take a competitor’s loss leader to Wal-Mart to see if they’ll beat it. Even a loss leader isn’t a good enough price — I want better. What have you done for me lately?
I’m not the only one who thinks so, apparently, because Wal-Mart sold more stuff to people than #2 retailer Home Depot by a factor of four. Frankly, they give me better service than some of the other smaller grocery stores. Wal-Mart is just giving people what they want — low prices. If there are economic impacts due to Wal-Mart, it’s our own fault. If Wal-Mart keeps lowering its prices, something has to give — health care, wages, competition, etc. This shouldn’t be surprising.
JibJab was right on the money.
4 Responses to “OK — a Wal-Mart post!”
By Nels on Nov 5, 2005 | Reply
Is there a typo in your post somewhere? I hope so because otherwise you’re saying that since you shop at Wal-Mart, you’re happy to blame yourself for the economic problems that it causes? The only people who’s fault it is that there are economic impacts due to Wal-Mart’s prices are the people who shop at Wal-Mart. You could at least shop at Costco (no, Sam’s Club doesn’t count) where employees work full-time and get benefits.
Did you even watch the JibJab video?
By mbhunter on Nov 5, 2005 | Reply
Oh yes, I’ve watched the JibJab video a bunch of times. It would be a lot funnier if it weren’t so true, especially the last line about Big Box Mart: “Your everyday low prices have a price; they aren’t free.”
I shop at Costco too. I also shop at Wal-Mart, at Food Lion, and lots of other places. I usually shop for price. Wal-Mart doesn’t have the lowest price on everything, nor do they carry everything.
Wal-Mart would go out of business if no one bought from them, so I’m “to blame” for my part there. I never said that I wasn’t.
It’s easy to shake our fist at the economic problems, because it absolves people responsibility for their circumstances. Granted, some people get really short straws in life, and they don’t have many viable options. But most people do have the ability to improve their situation. I’m addressing the following comments mainly toward the second group.
You imply that Wal-Mart employees get shortchanged on benefits. Let’s say that this is true. So why do so many people work there if the benefits are so bad and they can’t work full time? They choose to work at Wal-Mart. They choose to accept whatever compensation they get for their time. And they can choose to leave any time they want. If they can do better, why don’t they? Some do. Others don’t. But if they’re earning minimum wage they’re still getting almost 10 times what the Chinese manufacturer who makes the stuff they sell, and probably work in much better conditions. Some are thankful that they have a job at all, and Wal-Mart offers work to an awful lot of people. This doesn’t seem like a bad thing.
The same with people who lose their jobs to foreign competition. Why? Because the unionized workers were probably getting closer to 50-70 times what a comparable Chinese worker would get paid. There’s global competition for a lot of jobs now, and a lot of the rest of the world seems to be content working for a lot less than we do. Whose fault is that? If the American workers missed the writing on the wall, whose fault is that? We’re getting our clocks cleaned by foreign competition. What do we do, blame the Chinese for selling to us so cheaply?
I shop at Wal-Mart because I get good value for my money. That’s part of how I take care of my economic future — by not having as much money leave my pocket. If I’m concerned that my job is in jeopardy from cheap foreign competition, then I’d be wise to plan for that by investing in my education. Or I should plan that Medicaid is going to continue to cost more, and that Social Security is going to become so overburdened that I’m not going to get a dime.
The statistics of the economic problems are made up mostly of people who could have planned, but didn’t.
By Jane Dough on Nov 6, 2005 | Reply
My main problem with Wal-Mart is the quality. Wal-Mart is really in the distribution business, looking for the absolute-lowest-cost producers of a product, then moving it as quickly as possible through the marketing chain. This means that poor quality, but cheap apple juice (for example) lines the Wal-Mart shelves. I would far rather pay for a higher quality apple juice that is healthier.
I am lucky that where I live you have to travel far to get to a Wal-Mart – so most of the time it is not the cost effective way to shop. Rather it ends up being cheaper to buy closer to home and pay a few cents more per item but save all the gas and milage.
Walking around and shopping in a big box retailer also prompts me to spend MORE than I intended because I keep seeing “bargains” whereas, if I shop locally I tend to stick to my list and buy just what I need.
By My Boaz's Ruth on Nov 6, 2005 | Reply
I bought slippers at G.I. Joe’s today. But after I walked out of the store, started worrying about the price. (plus they weren’t what I really wanted)
After all, my last slippers I was pretty sure did NOT cost my parents (they were gifts) $40-$50. AND they lasted nearly two years.
So I went to Wal-mart. They had slippers almost exactly like the ones I had — for $10.
I REALLY doubt the G.I. Joe’s slippers are going to last 8-10 years — and that would only “equal” the quality:price ratio of Wal-mart.
I’ve got dresses I have bought at Wal-mart that I can’t FIND Anything like anywhere else (and I’ve looked) and they wash up just fine — none have fallen apart or gotten too shabby to wear so I can’t give you a year amount of life on them yet.
My purses from Wal-mart tend to last 1-2 years, for about $20. My mother-in-law gave me a fancy $100 leather purse from Nordstrom’s two Christmases ago — I thought “Gee that’s expensive– Let’s see how well this holds up versus what I usually get.” Two months ago, I went back to Wal-mart to pick out the purse I carry now after it got too shabby to use anymore, including a tear on the inside fabric.
Oh and I still use, day in and day out, the jewelry box I got in the wal-mart in College Station (so more than 11 years ago.)
I’m not seeing this great quality difference in Wal-mart goods versus elsewhere.
Oh, I DID have one thing break — a pair of three-color gold earrings I bought from the Wal-mart jewelry counter. But I got quite a bit of use out of them before they broke, and it taught me not to buy earrings that were quite so thin