Monday, June 07, 2004
Wal-Mart Wars
The last two books I have read both express distinct opinions on Wal-Mart. It's not that often that you read a book and run across a Wal-Mart commentary, but I did it twice in two books. Crazy.
What's even crazier is the fact that the two opinions are so diametrically opposed to each other.
The first book, "The Invisible Heart," by Russell Roberts, is essentially a free-market capitalism propaganda piece couched in the form of a novel. Our hero, Sam Gordon the economics teacher, states, "Wal-Mart couldn't and didn't force people to become their customers. Wal-Mart had to earn their business. Evidently the people who lived in those small towns preferred to shop at those big ugly boxy Wal-Marts on the edge of town rather than those quaint little stores on the town square. Their preference made Sam Walton rich. And at the same time, he made his customers wealthier by giving them a better deal than they had before. His riches weren't taken from anybody." Wal-Mart, for all its aesthetic faults, is the adonis of capitalism--it rose up and through sheer competition became the biggest retailer in America because it was better than everyone else and satisfied its customers better than anyone else. Wal-Mart is the hero.
But accordig to Bill Bryson, in "I'm a Stranger Here Myself," Wal-Mart is the villain. This book is a collection of newspaper columns written for a British audience about life in America. Bryson writes: "The principal culprits in [the closing of small town shops] are big discount chains like Wal-Mart, the most successful retail group in America. . . . Since 1980, Wal-Mart's sales have gone from $1.2 billion a year to about $120 billion a year, roughly equivalent to the gross domestic product of Greece. The bulk of that--80 percent, according to one study--is money that was once spent in scores of different businesses in the middles of towns. . . . Wal-Mart has effectively become the new downtown. . . . Most people think they want Main streets but won't make the small sacrifices in terms of time, cost, and footpower necessary to sustain them. The sad fact is that we have created a culture in which most people will happily--indeed, unthinkingly--drive an extra couple of miles to walk thirty less feet."
I'm going to have to side with the economist on this one. Yes, it's true that people are spending their money more in Wal-Mart and less in small mom-and-pop stores. But they're spending less money overall than they would if there were no Wal-Mart because Wal-Mart is cheaper. I believe in helping out the little guy. If all else is equal, I'll choose the self-owned establishment rather than the national chain. But all else is seldom equal outside of the restaurant world (a meal is a meal, and they all charge about the same). Little local bookstores are cozy and nice-looking, but I can't be sure they'll have the book I'm looking for like I can with Border's or Barnes & Noble. For some people, it's worth it to spend a little extra money and go to a little extra effort to support smaller stores. But usually I find myself aligned on the side of convenience and savings. Sorry, Main Street.
What's even crazier is the fact that the two opinions are so diametrically opposed to each other.
The first book, "The Invisible Heart," by Russell Roberts, is essentially a free-market capitalism propaganda piece couched in the form of a novel. Our hero, Sam Gordon the economics teacher, states, "Wal-Mart couldn't and didn't force people to become their customers. Wal-Mart had to earn their business. Evidently the people who lived in those small towns preferred to shop at those big ugly boxy Wal-Marts on the edge of town rather than those quaint little stores on the town square. Their preference made Sam Walton rich. And at the same time, he made his customers wealthier by giving them a better deal than they had before. His riches weren't taken from anybody." Wal-Mart, for all its aesthetic faults, is the adonis of capitalism--it rose up and through sheer competition became the biggest retailer in America because it was better than everyone else and satisfied its customers better than anyone else. Wal-Mart is the hero.
But accordig to Bill Bryson, in "I'm a Stranger Here Myself," Wal-Mart is the villain. This book is a collection of newspaper columns written for a British audience about life in America. Bryson writes: "The principal culprits in [the closing of small town shops] are big discount chains like Wal-Mart, the most successful retail group in America. . . . Since 1980, Wal-Mart's sales have gone from $1.2 billion a year to about $120 billion a year, roughly equivalent to the gross domestic product of Greece. The bulk of that--80 percent, according to one study--is money that was once spent in scores of different businesses in the middles of towns. . . . Wal-Mart has effectively become the new downtown. . . . Most people think they want Main streets but won't make the small sacrifices in terms of time, cost, and footpower necessary to sustain them. The sad fact is that we have created a culture in which most people will happily--indeed, unthinkingly--drive an extra couple of miles to walk thirty less feet."
I'm going to have to side with the economist on this one. Yes, it's true that people are spending their money more in Wal-Mart and less in small mom-and-pop stores. But they're spending less money overall than they would if there were no Wal-Mart because Wal-Mart is cheaper. I believe in helping out the little guy. If all else is equal, I'll choose the self-owned establishment rather than the national chain. But all else is seldom equal outside of the restaurant world (a meal is a meal, and they all charge about the same). Little local bookstores are cozy and nice-looking, but I can't be sure they'll have the book I'm looking for like I can with Border's or Barnes & Noble. For some people, it's worth it to spend a little extra money and go to a little extra effort to support smaller stores. But usually I find myself aligned on the side of convenience and savings. Sorry, Main Street.
Comments: Post a Comment
