Still more bashing of America's largest non-government employer this month, from the anti-gay religious right (here, too) and the anti-business Democratic left (here, too).
It's demagoguery (and hypocrisy) all round, as the rightists don't like businesses that treat gays as valued customers, and the lefties just don't like business.
More on Edwards the hypocrite, from Radley Balko:
Edwards' contempt for Wal-Mart has nothing to do with real concern for the poor (it's more a mix of anti-corporatism and good old fashioned snobbery). If that were the case, he'd at least acknowledge that Wal-Mart has done more for the working poor in America than any government safety net program could ever hope to.
22 Comments for “Vilifying Wal-Mart, Again.”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I offer these links to reports of right and center-right GLBT organizations who condemned the Christian right’s flat-handed bullying of WalMart, Ford and other businesses who respond to the market by seeking GLBT business and GLBT employees:
uh …
er …
umm …
The problem with the dicotomies set up in Culture Watch is that they often compare unlikes (anti-gay religious boycotting of WalMart and leftist concerns over WalMart’s perceived business predation), are overblown (“the lefites just don’t like business”), and entirely ignore the Republican Party’s role in encouraging and enabling the Christian right’s agenda.
I agree with Steve and many Culture Watch posters that it is important for gays and lesbians to push hard on both parties, and to be independent of party.
I believe, for example, that it is important to keep Democrat politicians’ feet to the fire on their promise to introduce legislation to repeal DADT, and to lean hard on the Republican politicians when a bill to repeal DADT is introduced in the next session.
Gays and lesbians who are left and center-left can do the former, and gays and lesbians who are right and center-right can do the latter, and all of us, regardless of political persuasion, can make it a point to raise hell with our elected representatives of both parties.
GLBT organizations of all stripes are needed in the effort — GLAAD on the left, HCR on the center-left and … where is the right and center-right?
GLAAD and the HRC often take positions that are at odds with constitutional conservatism. But that begs the question, it seems to me. Where are the GLBT organizations representing the right and center-right? And where are the voices of conservatives who think that Republican politicians, by encouraging and enabling the Christian right, are abandoning conservative principles and GLBT folks?
“Independent” means just that — no ties to party. It seems to me that Culture Watch would do well to point out, at least once in a while, that the GLBT right and center-right is the “dog that doesn’t bark” in our national debate.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Once again, it wasn’t the “center right” Republicans who defended gay entrepreneurs and pro-gay companies, Tom.
It was Outright Libertarians back in the middle of the year who defended them:
If one listens to the loudest voices of the left, he’d think that the biggest gay issues aren’t protecting our families, gaining equal recognition under the law for our mutual living arrangements, and lifting government restrictions.
What should be more important? Well, according to the AFL-CIO’s “gay rights group,” it’s WalMart’s compensation arrangements and a laundry list of other leftist causes. . .
The rest of the post is worth a read if you want to get a partisan perspective in tune with reality, rather than ideology.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
NEL, the “left”, as I understand it, has many constituencies, each addressing issues as it concerns them.
Does it surprise you that the AFL-CIO focuses on labor and workplace issues rather than on marriages and civil unions as their prime concern? It doesn’t me. Addressing labor issues is, after all, the AFL-CIO’s sole reason for existence.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Does it surprise you that the AFL-CIO focuses on labor and workplace issues rather than on marriages and civil unions as their prime concern? It doesn’t me.
Nor does it surprise me.
What is annoying is their pretensions of being “pro-gay.” They’re not pro-gay — if it benefits their own agenda, they will happily be anti-gay (as they are in this Wal-Mart situation).
It underscores the absurd strategies of Democrats, which attach issues detrimental to gays (socialized medicine, tax increases, heavy regulations, big government) to so-called “support for gay rights” that usually turns out to be quite hollow indeed.
The Democrats have failed to deliver on any significant gay rights initiatives — yet they continue to demand that gay professionals and gay entrepreneurs “sacrifice” for the Democrats’ dying, increasingly irrelevant and out-of-touch 19th century union base (especially government employees). That’s a bum deal for most gays, and it’s high time someone pointed that out.
I’m certainly not holding my breath for Republicans to make that point, as noted earlier in the thread.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
NEL: “Nor does it surprise me. What is annoying is their pretensions of being “pro-gay.” They’re not pro-gay — if it benefits their own agenda, they will happily be anti-gay (as they are in this Wal-Mart situation).”
I haven’t followed the AFL-CIO’s exchanges with respect to Wal-Mart, so I’m not sure what “pretensions” you are refering to, NEL.
But I’ve observed that the labor movement, in areas where I am familiar with it (the UAW at GM, the HERE in Chicago’s hotel industry, and the SEIU in this area of Wisconsin) have done a reasonably good job of advocating and protecting the interests GLB(not so much T) union members in the workplace.
To me, that counts as “pro-gay” within the perview of their charter, which is to address workplace issues and issues affecting union members in and surrounding the workplace.
posted by kittynboi on
Oh come on.
(in regards to the update)
Wal Mart hasn’t done any more for the “working poor” and Kmart, Sears, or any other million department stores that have the same stuff and same prices.
Why is it that middle to upper class conservatives who live in cities talk of rural americans as if they were peasants squatting in floorless shacks and stinking of feces until Wal Mart came along? So many on the right seem to stop just short of saying that rural Americans lived in third world conditions until wal mart rescued them.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I’m with Kittynboi on Wal-Mart’s impact on the working poor.
Wal-Mart has, without question, come up with a business model that provides relatively low-quality goods at relatively low prices.
I shop our local Wal-Mart almost daily, if for no other reason than that it is the only food store left in town.
But while I shop at our local Wal-Mart, I note that Wal-Mart’s business model extracts a high price from rural areas.
The cost is predation, both on Wal-Mart’s suppliers (a remarkably high number of Wal-Mart suppliers in our area end up under the control of Wal-Mart rather than surviving as independent suppliers) and on local businesses (which tend to disappear when Wal-Mart comes to town). Both effects — and in particular the effect on suppliers — are a direct result of Wal-Mart’s business model.
I note, too, living in a rural area where $10 per hour without benefits is considered a “good” wage and many folks work one and a half or two jobs to make ends meet, that the Wal-Mart business model seems to be doing next to nothing to allow the “working poor” to move up the economic ladder.
I think that the jury is out on the long-term cost/benefit of Wal-Mart’s business model.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
If the big unions and their approach to the economy works, why are big union states like Michigan and Ohio such economic basket cases?
And if big unions are such a panacea for gay rights, why are the pro-gay states mostly entrepreneur’s havens like CA- while big union states like Ohio and Michigan have some of the most anti-gay laws?
Finally, what would all those “working poor” be doing if WalMart wasn’t there? Collecting welfare.
WalMart has meanwhile created new opportunities for gay entrepreneurs
posted by Tom Scharbach on
NEL: “And if big unions are such a panacea for gay rights, why are the pro-gay states mostly entrepreneur’s havens like CA- while big union states like Ohio and Michigan have some of the most anti-gay laws?”
NEL, you are making a slide of verbal hand worthy of Bobby, dear. No one has claimed that unions are a “panacea for gay rights”.
What has been claimed is that unions have been a positive force for GLB(and to some extent T) rights in the workplace, in companies and industries where unions are a factor. I think that is all that has been claimed. I think that is dead right.
Whether unions have been a positive force in non-workplace issues — the marriage referenda, for example — is open to debate. I don’t, myself, think that union support of gay/lesbian rights outside of the union’s immediate charter has been effective. Exit poll data in Wisconsin suggest that union members and their households voted pretty much along the same lines as everyone else.
But I think that it is accurate to note that unions have made an effort to influence their member’s voting on the amendment.
The SEIU issued a statement in favor of same-sex marriage (“We recognize that lack of access to marriage deprives gay and lesbian working families of more than 1,000 rights and benefits afforded heterosexual families, such as spousal Social Security and pension benefits, hospital visitation rights, spousal health insurance, immigration rights, and many other federal, state, and local protections, as well as rights in the workplace. Civil union and domestic partnership laws, while well intentioned, create an unequal legal status for same-sex couples that extends only a few of the state and local-level protections and benefits afforded “spouses” in heterosexual marriage … SEIU will support the right of same-sex couples to access the full and equal rights, responsibilities, and commitment of civil marriage and oppose laws and constitutional amendments that deny that right.“) and a large number of Wisconsin’s unions (AFT, AFL-CIO, AFSCME, CWAW, Milwaukee County Labor Council, SEIU, UAW, WEAC, WPEC) came out against the amendment.
“Finally, what would all those “working poor” be doing if WalMart wasn’t there? Collecting welfare. ”
Most would be working other jobs, just as they did before Wal-Mart came into existence.
Wal-Mart’s business model didn’t create a significant net increase of jobs in the United States, and you don’t have to be Milton Friedman to know that …
What Wal-Mart’s business model did, for the most part, was redistribute jobs. Whether that is good or bad I don’t know, and we won’t know for years. Reasonable people differ, and the jury is out.
But I do know that I see the same folks working in Wal-Mart that I used to see working in various local businesses before the local businesses folded, and the data I’ve seen on Wal-Mart’s effect on employment back that perception up.
posted by ETJB on
Again; anyone who is critical of Wal Mart is automatically a Communist and Wal Marty is the savior of the working poor.
I do not buy either argument.
“issues detrimental to gays (socialized medicine, tax increases, heavy regulations, big government..”
I also do not buy the argument that these postions are detrimental to gays. Yes, you may disagree with them as a Libertarian.
However, as I found out the LP CA was certainlly will to sell gays out.
posted by dalea on
The willingness of the Libertarian Party of California to sell out gay people must weigh heavy in any view of the LP. Based on what has been presented here, the LP the LP can at no time, in no place, under no circumstances be considered a viable alternative for gay people. End of discussion.
Should someone, like NELP, like to continue advocating the LP, we need some answers. Having been part of the LP from 1971 on, this does not surprise me. Which is a very large part of why I left the LP. The continuous fascination with right wing crazies was a large part of it. How can any gay person vote LP when the party endorases anti-gay types?
posted by dr on
“What Wal-Mart’s business model did, for the most part, was redistribute jobs. Whether that is good or bad I don’t know, and we won’t know for years. Reasonable people differ, and the jury is out. ”
Not to mention a big part of their business model is based on extracting subsidies through a combination of threats and lobbying from local governments.
“How can any gay person vote LP when the party endorases anti-gay types?”
Well, first, you don’t vote for the crazies when they manage to get on the ballot. I know that might be an issue, because it seems like the LP actively recruits the biggest nuts it can find. Second, the LP is not that big that a concerted effort by an individual couldn’t reshape a state LP, at least, that is my impression. Because of the scale, and complete lack of success of the current model, the idea of working from within is more viable than it is with one of the two big parties.
posted by Randy R. on
Tom is right on about Walmart. When all these conservatives toot the benefits of Walmart, they NEVER calculate the lost capital of the bankrupt businesses caused when Walmart comes to town. These are the small town hardware stores, bike shops, toy stores, and so on that had been good tax-paying shops for generations. Over time, their businesses acquired capitol — the amount of money that their ongoing concern is worth — and it was wiped out by Walmart.
By the way, Walmart pulled out of Germany and S. Korea because they couldn’t make it there.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
the LP actively recruits the biggest nuts it can find
I’m always amused when people from the parties that gave us Sheila Jackson-Lee, Maxine Waters, Dennis Kucinich, Newt Gingrich, Mark Foley, B1-Bob Dornan, Cynthia McKinney, Zell Miller, Helen Chenoweth-Hage, David Duke, and hundreds of other shall-we-say “colorful” characters accuses anyone else of “recruiting the biggest nuts they can find.”
posted by raj on
It strikes me as a bit misplaced to expect the AFL-CIO not to oppose Wal-Mart because of its anti-union activities merely because Wal-Mart might have some “pro-gay” policies. It’s more than a bit misplaced to expect (some) gay people not to go along with the AFL-CIO. Why? Because other “big box retailers,” such as CostCo and Target, who also have “pro-gay” policies, appear not to have been targeted by the AFL-CIO. Accordingly, one can shop at those stores, and avoid Wal-Mart, and still retain their “pro-gay” bona fides.
Going up a bit, Tom, dr and Randy, are all correct regarding Wal-Mart, but I’ll add another wrinkle. Wal-Mart not only blackmails local governments, and plays one locality off against another to obtain the most beneficial tax/payment package to decide where to locate, and not only does Wal-Mart ravage local businesses after they enter the market, they also make use of taxpayer-provided subsidies, at the local, state and federal level to finance their construction and, to a lesser extent, their operation, and rely on taxpayer subsidies to help support their workforce.
Regarding Wal-Mart’s lack of success in Germany, I suspect that it has more than a bit to do with the fact that the German work force is heavily unionized by law–and Wal-Mart detests unions–than a failure of it to be able to compete in the marketplace. So much the better for the Germans.
posted by Randy R. on
I hope that’s the real case. The person who informed me about Walmart in Germany said that people like to bag their own products, but Walmart wouldn’t let them!
Sounds funny, in any case. If that’s all it takes to bring down Walmart, then I know what I’m gonna do!
posted by raj on
Randy R. | November 22, 2006, 11:29am |
The person who informed me about Walmart in Germany said that people like to bag their own products, but Walmart wouldn’t let them!
I tend to doubt that last. From experience, I know that people in Germany are used to bagging their own groceries at supermarkets, and generally bring their own shopping bags. If they don’t bring their own shopping bags, they can buy them at the check-outs at a nominal price, but most people do carry their own shopping bags.
At other stores, the shop-keepers bag the products, usually much better than in US stores.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
It strikes me as a bit misplaced to expect the AFL-CIO not to oppose Wal-Mart because of its anti-union activities merely because Wal-Mart might have some “pro-gay” policies
It’s more mendacious for the AFL-CIO to attempt to campaign on gay issues when their campaign actually harms gay entrepreneurs.
plays one locality off against another to obtain the most beneficial tax/payment package to decide where to locate
In other words, it locates in the area that most wants its investment. . .
ravage local businesses after they enter the market
. . . it also replaces high-dollar, low-customer service gouging monopolies with competitive pricing and better selections.
Sounds good to me, and most consumers. It’s only bad for retail establishments who refuse to compete and change with the times, and communities who believe that the purpose of business is paying huge taxes and making no money.
rely on taxpayer subsidies to help support their workforce
I agree that’s awful. That’s one reason why Libertarians favor eliminating the subsidies in question — yet Republicrats who bash Wal-Mart vote every year to not only allow the subsidies, but to increase them. It’s strange they’d then turn around and attack Wal-Mart for taking advantage of the largesse they provide!
Regarding Wal-Mart’s lack of success in Germany, I suspect that it has more than a bit to do with the fact that the German work force is heavily unionized by law–and Wal-Mart detests unions–than a failure of it to be able to compete in the marketplace. So much the better for the Germans.
It also probably has something to do with Germany’s extremely weak retail economy and general economy. A number of major players including Carrefour and Marks & Spencer have also pulled out or sharply reduced their presence in Germany. Declining average income, sharply increasing taxes, and a shrinking population mean it’s a suboptimal market in general — especially compared to the booming, and much less union-choked, British and Eastern European retail economies — where Wal-Mart, Carrefour, M&S and others are doing very well.
posted by kittynboi on
“”. . . it also replaces high-dollar, low-customer service gouging monopolies with competitive pricing and better selections.
Sounds good to me, and most consumers. It’s only bad for retail establishments who refuse to compete and change with the times, and communities who believe that the purpose of business is paying huge taxes and making no money.””
Actually, you’re completely wrong when it comes to music, because that’s one of the areas where Wal Marts selection is VASTLY inferior than an independent record store where the people working there actually know a thing or two about music.
Listen, Wal Mart sells crap. They have inferior selections all around, especially clothes, music, food, and furniture.
posted by raj on
Northeast Libertarian | November 22, 2006, 12:23pm |
You’re starting to sound silly
It’s more mendacious for the AFL-CIO to attempt to campaign on gay issues…
The AFL-CIO actually campaigned on gay issues? When? Where? Please cite chapter and verse. I have been paying attention to various campaigns, and was unaware that the AFL-CIO actually campaigned on gay issues, and I would find it extremely doubtful that they would do so.
… when their campaign actually harms gay entrepreneurs.
This is silly. How would AFL-CIO’s campaign (for or against what? gay issues? Wal-Mart?) harm gay entrepreneurs?
…it (Wal-Mart, presumably) also replaces high-dollar, low-customer service gouging monopolies with competitive pricing and better selections (emphasis added)
Oh, and just what “monopolies” are you referring to? Local businesses? I’ve studied a bit of economics and have yet to find anyone suggest that local businesses are monopolies.
I agree that’s awful (referring to my “taxpayer subsidies to help support their workforce”) . That’s one reason why Libertarians favor eliminating the subsidies in question
That’s nice. But it isn’t going to happen any time soon. Which is one reason why I don’t give the pie-in-the-sky rhetoric of the libertarians much attention. Moreover, it doesn’t excuse the fact that it has occurred in the past–to the detriment of local businesses.
It isn’t only Wal-Mart that makes use of taxpayer subsidies to help support their workforce. A few years ago, there was an article in the Wall Street Journal that indicated that the New York City Ballet company laid off their dancers at the end of the performance season so that they could collect unemployment compensation. Of course, they were re-hired at the beginning of the next season. In other words, the NYC Ballet company used taxpayers to subsidize their workforce. I’m sure that, if I was interested in doing so, I could find many other examples, but this one struck me as being quite interesting.
It (Wal-Mart’s lack of success in Germany) also probably has something to do with Germany’s extremely weak retail economy and general economy.
Hardly. We go to Munich (Germany, not North Dakota) several times a year–we have a house there–and I can report that the retail economy there, as well as the general economy there, is doing quite nicely, thank you. To the extent that there is weakness in the German economy, it is pretty much limited to the former East Germany. It is doubtful that Wal-Mart would have wanted to locate stores in depressed areas such as the former East Germany, but they might have done more than a bit of business in the former West Germany.
posted by Dave in Cali... on
If you believe that Walmart has ultimately had a positive impact on customers, employees, small business or…well…anyone but Walmart, you’re severely mistaken.
When a Walmart moves in to a community, it doesn’t move in someplace where products are inaccessible to people in the community. They go places where people are already getting their goods somewhere else. Typically, from smaller stores…businesses owned, run and staffed by people in the community in which they live. Now that’s not to say that competition is bad, because it’s not. But the competition has to be POSSIBLE. A Walmart store can go into a community and operate at a loss for YEARS before they need to become profitable, and during that time they can “Roll Back” prices so they consistently undersell their small-town competitor, ultimately running them out of business. This leaves a small business owner and all their employees without jobs, with little recourse other than to go to Walmart for jobs. Once the competition is out of the way, Walmart jacks their prices back up. They’re still inexpensive, a) no less expensive than their small-town competitors were and b) for lesser quality goods.
So now Walmart’s not just the big kid on the block, they’re the ONLY kid. They offer lots of jobs which sound good to out of work folks who need jobs. But is it worth it? Will the hourly wage paid at Walmart allow someone to support themselves much less a family? Will they have access to BASIC needs like health insurance that most of us take for granted? Nope.
So now our employees who were getting health insurance and a livable albeit meager salary from the corner grocery have to go work at the Walmart for less money and no insurance because their old employer’s been put out of business.
Let’s look at the customers. Yes, Walmart’s products are cheap. But are they actually cheaper than other stores in the area over the long-term? Not really. Sure, a pair of jeans for your kid will cost less today at Walmart, but that same pair of jeans will fall apart LONG before a better pair would have, requiring you to buy, yup, another pair of Walmart jeans. In the end, the person who bought those jeans ends up spending MORE than they would have on the good brand, but THINKS they’re spending less.
This is part of the scam. We tell the working poor, “you CAN support yourself on a Walmart salary,” “you SHOULDN’T expect health care from your employer,” and “buying from a cheap big-box store will save you money in the long-run.” All of these things are false.
I know what you’re thinking. Cry me a river. Why shouldn’t Walmart make a profit if all these people are willing to work or shpp there? Let’s look at Target for example, another big-box store. They offer benefits packages for ALL their employees, and pay a wage that, while meager, comes closer to allowing their employees to live. AND their prices and products are pretty much commensurate with any local store, making thier main draw the CONVENIENCE of shopping there. And wow, they still make a profit!
Remember, there are plenty of LGBT people among the working poor. Not all of us live in West Hollywood or Manhattan and can shop or work anywhere we want. I think it’s GREAT that Walmart has started supporting LGBT causes, but shouldn’t we still challenge them to be the type of “American company” that REALLY exemplifies what it means to be an American? Things like family and community…now THAT’s what I call VALUE.
posted by pryjunkie on
I’d like to buy some Xmas gifts for my family. I am too busy to go shopping and bargain in the store. So I surf on the internet to choose that!
Surprisingly found http://www.opentip.com/christmas_holiday/holiday.html
10% discount with coupon code holiday10, together with extra free gift
expiration: Dec.30th 2006
I bought some wristbands and yoga kit a few days ago, which seems quite good and reasonable.