WalmartNation

November 23, 2003 5:59 AM

Walmart Nation Wal-Mart's decisions influence wages and working conditions across a wide swath of the world economy, from the shopping centers of Las Vegas to the factories of Honduras and South Asia. Its business is so vital to developing countries that some send emissaries to the corporate headquarters in Bentonville, Ark., almost as if Wal-Mart were a sovereign nation. [First of a three part series in the LATimes. free reg. req.]
posted by srboisvert (89 comments total)

Remind me again: what's the metafilter guest name and password?
posted by faceonmars at 6:11 AM on November 23, 2003

Try cpunks/cpunks.
posted by ao4047 at 7:14 AM on November 23, 2003

My wife and I have been boycotting Walmart for a couple years now, ever since they made an executive decision that a particular drug was bad, and would not carry it in any of their stores. We decided that we didn't want to deal with a store that made political decisions like that.

Obviously, they're worse for us not shopping there.
posted by crunchland at 7:29 AM on November 23, 2003

walmartisbadfilter
posted by glenwood at 7:55 AM on November 23, 2003

Some people love to hate on wal-mart but I love it. I have done all my shopping there for years. When I'm traveling and need to buy something I look for the local wal-mart. Even if you're in a high-price area, wal-mart's prices are consistent across the coutry (from what I've seen of the east coast). Price and convenience is the reason. Wal0mart always has the best prices. I've tested it again and again and they always win except in rare cases like "big lots" having some things that are cheaper, but then big lots carries lower quality items. There's a reason wal-mart is so big and so popular. They have good deals. You don't get ripped off when you shop there. Quite the opposite. I don't care about thier politics, or that they put mom & pop stores out of business. It's the mom & pop stores that tend to rip you off the most. Why should I feel sorry for them when I just want to buy some groceries and save some money?
posted by Eyegore at 8:38 AM on November 23, 2003

Here comes the pain...
posted by dazed_one at 8:39 AM on November 23, 2003

Eyegore-

I sincerely hope you're trolling. If you're not trolling, then I hope you get what you deserve, a job at Wal-Mart. Imagine how cheap everything will be once you have an employee discount!
posted by mosch at 8:47 AM on November 23, 2003

Eyegore's why Republicans keep winning elections.
posted by PrinceValium at 9:04 AM on November 23, 2003

when all other businesses have died and your only option is to shop at walmart, prices will go up.
posted by titboy at 9:08 AM on November 23, 2003

oh and IIRC, walmart doesnt sell pr0n, so if you want to survive in a walmart-owned world, your only other option is to become a smutpeddler.

but you better offer your smut products and smut services at dirt-cheap crackho prices... ;)
posted by titboy at 9:15 AM on November 23, 2003

Sheesh...ONE person speaks up in favor of Wal-Mart, and is immediately called a troll. Mosch - nuts to you.
posted by davidmsc at 9:58 AM on November 23, 2003

Sheesh...ONE person speaks up in favor of Wal-Mart, and is immediately called a troll. Mosch - nuts to you.

Exactly!! And then they are likened to all Republicans, thus perfecting the perfect circle of default sweeping generalizing and hard left dogma that is prerequesite for every thread in metafiltrania.
posted by glenwood at 10:12 AM on November 23, 2003

IIRC, walmart doesnt sell pr0n, so if you want to survive in a walmart-owned world, your only other option is to become a smutpeddler.

You could always hang out at the in-store arcade and pick up lonely, white-trash pre-teens.

I* kid, folks.

* Insert "like" here.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 10:17 AM on November 23, 2003

As responsible anti-walmart shoppers, ATTENTION, we have to answer Eyegore's concerns legitimately, not deride him (or her).

Walmart is like the tragedy of the commons. On the individual level, everyone makes the decision which is best for him or her. In the case of Eyegore, he/she decides on Walmart because of convenience, low-prices and reliability. These are important to individuals.

As a collective of individuals, however, as we make these individual decisions in large numbers, the commons becomes spoiled because we all piss in it. That is to say, "screw mom and pop because they're trying to rip me off", but when there are no more mom and pop left and all that is left is Walmart, then Walmart will have control of where we work and what we can buy and how much we pay for it.

So the question is, how can we allow mom and pop to provide goods and services at the same low price as Walmart and meet people's needs in a similar fashion, without handing the world on a plate to Walmart?

Obviously, that's just not possible. We have to step in as a democratic society and say, "Ok, commerce is free up to the line where it impinges on societal welfare" -- yes, regulation. At some stage, we will have to regulate Walmart. Or, break it up like AT&T. Anyway, just a guess, I'm not omniscient.
posted by PigAlien at 10:56 AM on November 23, 2003

I think that WalMart' success based on pricing alone is a testament to what has become an increasingly disconnected thought in the mind of the American consumer. It's wrong for somebody else to make money. Look at the way we shop for anything negotiable. It's wrong for car dealers to turn a profit, we as consumers expect them to take a loss. Look at Eyegore's assumption that anyone with higher prices than Walmart is ripping off the consumer. I'm not saying consumers should overpay, but there needs to be an allowance in the consumer mindset for profitabilty.
posted by shagoth at 11:13 AM on November 23, 2003

As further support for PigAlien's (very cogent) argument, look no further than the current supermarket strike in SoCal where the workers are fighting simply to retain health insurance. Which is rarely available to store-level employees of WalMart. One might argue that health care is so important to everyone that government ought to be the provider (in some form) but for now, the reality is that for people at the income level of supermarket and WalMart workers, if the employer doesn't provide insurance they won't have it.
posted by billsaysthis at 11:13 AM on November 23, 2003

After making their way through the groceries, the Miraflors turned their attention to the housewares section, stopping in front of a 20-inch box fan. Glenn Miraflor checked the price and made room for it in their cart.

"Ten bucks," he said. "You can't beat that. That's why we come here."

This, I think, is where the flaw is in the "I should shop at Walmart because everything's cheaper" theory. Really cheap prices encourage impulse buying, of things you may not necessarily need. Did these people have a crying need for a 20-inch box fan, or did they decide they needed one after they saw the price? The article isn't clear in their case, but I think this is what happens to a lot of people -- they say, "oh, you can't beat that price," and don't think about the fact that if they didn't buy the fan at all, they'd save even more money. They end up buying more stuff and not saving as much as they think they are.
posted by JanetLand at 11:17 AM on November 23, 2003

when there are no more mom and pop left and all that is left is Walmart, then Walmart will have control of where we work and what we can buy and how much we pay for it.

This is exactly right. Look at Home Depot--at least where I live. They drove everyone else out of business with lower prices and excellent service. Now that there is no competition and they have turned their eye towards making a profit, their prices have risen and their service sucks ass. Only when a Loewes shows up in the area do things begin to change.

I don't think eyegore is getting railed because he/she's a fan of Wal-mart, per se, but because he/she doesn't offer any argument besides "I like 'em and I don't care about all the concerns everyone else has about 'em."

Also, what [the lovely and vivacious :-) ] JanetLand said.
posted by jpoulos at 11:36 AM on November 23, 2003

1) Wal-Mart costs the economy jobs by putting those "rip-off" small companies (like K-Mart!) in bankruptcy when they can't compete.

2) Wal-Mart costs the economy jobs by pressuring suppliers to provide product at such low prices that they either go bankrupt (like Fieldcrest and Vlassic!) or ship jobs overseas.

3) Wal-Mart costs the economy jobs by contracting out to smugglers of human beings.

4) Wal-Mart then turns around and pays their employees as little as they can get away with, resulting in hard working families who can't even afford to shop at Wal-Mart. Oh yeah, and they can't afford to even think about getting sick.

Enjoy your everyday low prices, folks.
posted by ilsa at 11:41 AM on November 23, 2003

It's funny; I worked for one of those local (and now defunct) department stores when I was a young'un, and ... they paid me as little as they could get away with and didn't offer me health insurance. The more things change...
posted by boaz at 11:50 AM on November 23, 2003

JanetLand:

The flaw in your argument is the assumption that saving is unequivocally better than spending. There are somethings that we don't necessarily need, but are nice-to-have given a low enough price. It doesn't really matter if the consumer decided they need an item before they shopped at Walmart, or if they decide after they saw the price for that item at Walmart. It's all part of a cost-benefit decision.

The money you save is useless if not for its potential of turning into actual goods that you can use. In the end, the wealth of a consumer is determined by the amount of stuff he has, not by his stockpile of paper money or digits in the bank account.
posted by VeGiTo at 12:06 PM on November 23, 2003

Here are three more reasons not to shop at Wal-Mart:

1. The unhappiness. Everyone -- customers and employees -- looks unhappy about being there. The scowls on the faces are straight out of a Soviet gulag.

2. The in-store signs. As I recall, they usually read something like "Your Best Price!" and "Your most wonderful item!"

The most disquieting aspect of these signs is the manner in which they attempt to make the marketing slogan personal. Note the possession there: This is *your* best price. This is *your* item. They're employing viral memes.

3. The cameras. Try counting the number of cameras from any single point in a Wal-Mart store.

Certainly, I can understand their interest in protecting their merchandise, but this (and the people at the door checking receipts) always made me feel as though I was being treated like a thief. It is highly insulting.

Are the low prices truly worth it?
posted by Kikkoman at 12:21 PM on November 23, 2003

VeGiTo: In the end, the wealth of a consumer is determined by the amount of stuff he has, not by his stockpile of paper money or digits in the bank account.

Actually, VeGiTo, this is only what WalMart, Coach, Kellogs, Crate and Barrel, Williams Sonoma and every other company on earth want to make you believe. If you look at actual millionaires, you'll see quite a difference. In The Millionaire Next Door, a large population of actual millionares were interviewed about their financial outlooks, their saving and spending habits, and their actual posessions. Turns out that the number one car driven by millionaires is not a Mercedes, a Lexus, or another *nice* car -- it's a Ford F-150 pick-up truck.
posted by zpousman at 1:01 PM on November 23, 2003

It's funny; I worked for one of those local (and now defunct) department stores when I was a young'un, and ... they paid me as little as they could get away with and didn't offer me health insurance.

Good point.

When I was a kid, the local dime stores were about the only place a high school student could get after-school work. I remember many of them getting busted for paying less than minimum wage, which meant that they no longer hired kids. A friend of mine worked for K-Mart for mnay years, and didn't have health insurance unless she paid the company for it. Wal-Mart isn't much different than most retailers, at least as far as they treat their employees. Do McDonald's, Wendy's, Target, Sears or Meijer offer full medical benefits to all employees? Read the fine print. Wal-Mart seems to be the scapegoat du jour.
posted by Oriole Adams at 1:17 PM on November 23, 2003

There's no empirical way of knowing that WalMart's pricing causes people to impulse buy beyond their means or beyond their good. That's an individual choice, just as it is an individual choice to shop there at all.

To follow up on what zpousman has said, it's not hard to envision that those who are attempting to grow their personal net worth do shop at WalMart as opposed to higher priced alternatives. Money in their pocket is money in their pocket, bottom line. Perhaps that couple who picked up the $10 box fan on "impulse" did so because they a.) have money in the bank and can manage a $10 impulse buy without a problem and b.) realize that a $10 box fan will reduce the amount of A/C they will need, thereby saving them even more money in the long run. We don't know, because the anecdote (rightfully) does not include such personal rationales and information.

Talking about pricing practices and labor practices is one thing; there is evidence and data to back up anti-Walmart stances on those topics. Getting into the area of personal spending habits and purchasing choices is murky and only serves to mire down the topic with broad generalizations that cannot support an argument in either direction.
posted by Dreama at 1:19 PM on November 23, 2003

I'm not trolling or a republican. maybe it's a little strong to say other places rip you off because it's not always the case. wal-mark has a huge infrastructure that lets them save money in all different ways like owning thier own trucks and distrubution centers. it's because of this that they can sell things cheaper than the little guy. I know it's not fair, but for me, an individual person who needs to buy things and wants to buy other things, it's nice to have as much money left over to buy the wants after the needs. I'd rather spend $120 on the weekly grocery bill than $180 if the only difference is that I shopped at the Wal-Mart superstore instead of the target super-store. I know theres' always the potential that once wal-mart eats up all it's competition it will raise prices, but then someone else will come along and fill the low-price gap. K-mart used to be the low-price store of choice for middle class folks until wal-mart beat them at thier own game. It's like ecconomic darwinism. survival of the cheapest. The trick is to keep it cheap while maintaining the appearance of a quality operation, which wal-mart does I think.
posted by Eyegore at 1:44 PM on November 23, 2003

The trick is to keep it cheap while maintaining the appearance of a quality operation

By outsourcing to Asia, they make it possible. And I'm not buying the "appearance of quality" angle. Is it really quality? Or have we unconsciously lowered our standards?
posted by PrinceValium at 1:53 PM on November 23, 2003

Are you really upset that some poor starving asian person is going to steal your job working in the factory? Wouldn't you rather not work in the factory anyway?
posted by Eyegore at 2:05 PM on November 23, 2003

if I was too lazy to be born into privilege and could not afford the education necessary to get a "proper" white collar job and only a factory gave me enough hours to support my family, then it's possible I would be upset by losing my job to someone in asia.
posted by mcsweetie at 2:09 PM on November 23, 2003

I hope everyone read this article - this entire article before commenting:


Wal-Mart employees, unlike their counterparts at other retailers, are forbidden to accept so much as a soda from vendors — or anybody else the company does business with — on the theory that such frills ultimately are paid for by consumers. The company's meticulous management of the flow of goods, from the factory floor to the store shelf, has shaved shipping and inventory costs to a degree that retailing experts say is unprecedented.

"You could argue that some of what Wal-Mart does to cut costs has been win-win," said Richard S. Tedlow, a professor of business administration at Harvard Business School. "What's being squeezed out is waste."

The company is so ruthlessly efficient that 4% of the growth in the U.S. economy's productivity from 1995 to 1999 was due to Wal-Mart alone researchers at the McKinsey Global Institute estimated last year. No other single company had a measurable impact. Wal-Mart also has forced competitors to become more efficient, driving the nation's productivity — output per hour of work — even higher.

Walton, who still is referred to as Mr. Sam throughout the corporation, worked in a ground-floor office barely big enough for a conference table. The current occupant, Chief Executive H. Lee Scott Jr., is the keeper of Mr. Sam's vision. Like all Wal-Mart executives, he empties his own trash and shares budget hotel rooms when traveling. Everyone flies coach.

"We do not have limousines," said Scott, who certainly could afford one, having made nearly $18 million last year in salary, bonus and stock, plus options with an estimated value of $11.3 million. "I drive a Volkswagen Bug."

Wal-Mart's stinginess reaches from the executive suite to the loading dock.
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 2:24 PM on November 23, 2003

i am now a bigger fan of walmart.

this reminds me of my old job where i caught shit for making everyone else look bad. Heaven forbid i work hard and get what i want! No fair succeeding in life!
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 2:25 PM on November 23, 2003

It's not about price, it's about value. Wal-Mart clearly is doing the best job of providing a valuable shopping experience. How do they do it:

1. Price: The trump card, these days, that wins the Average American Consumer's attention.
2. One-stop shopping: Better than KMart ever was.
3. Community center, in the absence of an actual Main Street, the Wal-Mart becomes the place to see and be seen. This is pretty depressing to us urban small-town fetishists, but the social connections fostered in a Wal-Mart should not be discounted.
4. Overall experience: like going to the mall, you can make it a day's entertainment.

Other successful retailers are succeeding by adding value where Wal-Mart does not:

Target has somehow turned itself into an arbiter of style.
Online retailers add convenience to the mix.
7-Eleven is on every street corner.
Specialty stores add staff with actual experience to guide buying decisions.

So there are clearly ways to compete with the Behemoth. Probably the least productive way to look at the problem is by bemoaning "consumerism": that might be true, but I don't see how any of that hand-wringing has actually managed to slow consumer spending in this country.

Wal-Mart is currently the most successful retailer, but that doesn't mean they will be successful forever. Their profit margins are so thin that some systematic shift: the price of gasoline, minimum wage, would have a material impact upon their profitability. I think that some of the supply chain advantages currently enjoyed by the Big Boxes, like transportation costs, will become commoditized enough that in the future, smaller players might be able to once again compete on price, at the same time adding the Mom-and-Pop-iness we all seem to long for.
posted by ssukotto at 2:47 PM on November 23, 2003

I find fault with the idea that every time you create a job opening, the salary has to support a small family.

Or that a job you voluntarily sought out somehow OWES you something.
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 2:53 PM on November 23, 2003

If you can afford to be political about your shopping choices, more power to you. But from my standpoint, that is a luxury than many poor and lower middle-class Americans don't have.
posted by lychee at 3:11 PM on November 23, 2003

Look at Home Depot--at least where I live. They drove everyone else out of business with lower prices and excellent service.

Home Depot is a good example of why you should never give your ZIP code when making a purchase. A lot of companies (Radio Shack comes to mind) ask you offhand for your ZIP code, and occasionally your full address for the stated purposes of sending you promotional advertisements. The real reason is for market research to decide where to open up new stores. It's pretty clever, I'll give them that.

Their profit margins are so thin that some systematic shift: the price of gasoline, minimum wage, would have a material impact upon their profitability.

Except Wal-Mart acts like a 80's-style Japanese keiretsu -- they're firmly entrenched market-leaders in so many different areas -- a slump in one product line is absorbed by a jump in another. Just about the only industry where they don't dominate is the automotive supplies industry, though I'm sure you'll start seeing Wal-Mart Auto (a-la Sears Car Center) very soon. I'm also surprised they don't open up their own bank and start offering home mortgage loans.

this reminds me of my old job where i caught shit for making everyone else look bad. Heaven forbid i work hard and get what i want! No fair succeeding in life!

This kind of line reminds me of hardline Republicans who think poor people should just 'get a job' and stop robbing the hard-workin' man of his wages. There's a much bigger picture that's being deliberately overlooked. Yes, Wal-Mart is efficient as hell -- it couldn't operate with such low overhead if it wasn't. But it should bother you that most of the suppliers for Wal-Mart are not employing Americans. Even Levi's, after announcing that it would finally start supplying Wal-Mart with jeans, concurrently closed down the last remaining production lines in the U.S. Hey, that's great for Asia, though, right? We're building empires that are going to be our masters in a matter of decades. Our trade deficit with China alone is staggering, but more interesting when you realize that 10% of all exports from China were to Wal-Mart.

What it really boils down to is this: selfish, greedy people are willing to sell out our future so long as their own pockets are full. That's it.

Or that a job you voluntarily sought out somehow OWES you something.

Well, wages, for certain.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 3:26 PM on November 23, 2003

"But it should bother you that most of the suppliers for Wal-Mart are not employing Americans." This doesn't frighten me.

I think its unfortunate, but our current ideas about smoke breaks, health insurance, benefits, minumum wage etc are what move the jobs over there in the first place.

No one is owed a job, let alone a good paying job. That was never one of our inalienable human rights. These ideas about what workers are owed are what fuck the workers in end. Like you said civil - selling out the future so you can have some money in your pocket right now.
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 3:32 PM on November 23, 2003

Are you really upset that some poor starving asian person is going to steal your job working in the factory? Wouldn't you rather not work in the factory anyway?

Is the assumption here that we're only oursourcing our crappy jobs so that Americans can stay home and code HTML, consult, work in offices and do other "clean" work? I'm sorry, this is bunkum. While I agree with lychee that many folks don't have the luxury of being able to "vote with their dollars" by opting to purchase materials made in the US, humanely killed, or union made [to name a few types of higher priced goods that some seek out], many can. In Vermont, you see a lot more American cars than you do on the West Coast. Part of the "buy American" thing is not just that American cars are better, since they aren't always, or cheaper, ditto, but that by purchasing goods manufactured in America you are supporting the idea that domestic production of goods and services is a social good, good for the country, good for the society. As a result, your extra dollars could be going to support a system that is more humane, requires less fossil fuels to support, employs your neighbors, recycles, or whatever. Not that US automakers do this, neccesarily, but you can track down companies who do. There are a wealth of comsumer variables to shop for besides variety, convenience, and price, though those three are pretty important to the American consumer. Also shopping this way takes time, is imperfect, and ultimately shows results slowly if at all.

Many people don't give a crap about the social good. Many people can't afford to care about the social good. America as a nation may well decide that he most "sustainable" way to keep on keeping on being America is to leave the production and manufacturing jobs to overseas companies with lower workplace standards than in this country. This will mean there are a lot of people out of work, natch, but I guess they can always work at Wal-Mart... and maybe the federal minimum wage will creep up over $5.15 one of these days. We all know that the price of an item isn't just a reflection of how much it costs to produce. I'd love to see us expanding the concept of cost to include social costs as well as purely financial ones. Wal-Mart's goods are certainly inexpensive, but their social costs aren't.
posted by jessamyn at 3:49 PM on November 23, 2003

I think its unfortunate, but our current ideas about smoke breaks, health insurance, benefits, minumum wage etc are what move the jobs over there in the first place.

Bull. It's our ideas about fire escapes, health care, liability for continuous exposure to dangerous or toxic materials, and not employing 9-year olds or managers who intimidate the staff through beatings and rape that are moving the jobs over there. For some strange reason we still have a few laws against treating employees like subhuman garbage here -- laws that might cut into the CEO's compensation, possibly reducing it to 300x that of the average worker in his employ rather than 475x . And that would be just plain wrong.
posted by George_Spiggott at 4:05 PM on November 23, 2003

I think its unfortunate, but our current ideas about smoke breaks, health insurance, benefits, minimum wage etc are what move the jobs over there in the first place.

...40-hour work weeks, child-labor, safe foods...

Yeah, I can see what you mean about how all these socialist things that make our society such a nice place to live in (as opposed to, oh, say China) are really just leeching away at our ability to remain competitive.

It always irks me to see someone who is a product of a beaurocratic beneficence that, after establishing themselves, wants to eliminate it for everyone else. "Well, I got my education, I got my job. Now the rest of you can go screw yourselves."
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 4:10 PM on November 23, 2003

If Wal-Mart really cared about the bottom line, why not pay the CEO and executives a more realistic salary? Like maybe $50,000 for the CEO, $40,000 for upper management. They'll still be making more than twice what the highest paid line-level employees are making.

It is amazing to me that jobs are shipped overseas, CEOs make multiple millions every year, people are unemployed, and yet they still shop at Wal-Mart because it is cheap.

I've been in Wal-Mart a few times. Bought some garbage cans there a couple months ago. But time and again, I always end up back at Target.

Cheap is Expensive.

The effect Wal-Mart has had in this country is the proof.
posted by benjh at 5:01 PM on November 23, 2003

I shop at wal-mart. Mea culpa. I earn shit wages at a shit job. Can you blame me, really?
posted by beth at 6:01 PM on November 23, 2003

I was going to post this, which I think is an equally fgood piece on the same subject, but I thought better of it. Perhaps you should have too. Still, I dislike Walmart as much as the next guy, so...
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:22 PM on November 23, 2003

For people like Civil_Disobedient who are harping about China and manufacturing, take a look at this examination of myths about the economies China and the US:

Many assume that, as manufacturing jobs in the U.S. decline, manufacturing jobs in China rise. In fact, rising productivity leading to the loss of manufacturing jobs is much more powerful in China than in the U.S. Depending on which figures one uses, the decline of manufacturing jobs in China may be more than 10 times the American loss. All calculations show that Chinese manufacturing job losses are proportionately more severe than in the U.S.

Myth three: The rise of the service sector at the expense of the manufacturing sector means that Americans are being forced out of high-paying manufacturing jobs and into low-paying service jobs. The reality is that while some workers lose steel jobs and move to McDonald’s, the larger trend is higher-paying service-sector jobs squeezing out lower-paid manufacturing jobs.

Myth four: Restricting imports from China would reduce U.S. unemployment. In reality, over recent decades, more protectionist economies like France and Germany have experienced a negligible increase in total jobs, while the more open U.S. has experienced a huge rise in total jobs and achieved unemployment levels about half those of France and Germany. Restricting imports would make America’s economy behave like that of France.

Myth five: America faces a manufacturing crisis, caused by competition from China. The reality is that U.S. manufacturing production has soared, decade after decade. Imports from China equal only 5 per cent of U.S. manufacturing.

Myth sixth: Due to its undervalued currency, China is taking over manufacturing of almost everything. In reality, China’s successes have been concentrated in low-end manufacturing.

Where China has tried to move quickly into higher-level exports, as in Shanghai, huge investments have resulted in slower export growth than elsewhere in China. About 83 per cent of Chinese technology exports are the exports of foreign companies, and the bulk of the profits typically go to those companies. China’s hi-tech imports greatly exceed its hi-tech exports.

Yes, that's right, China is losing more manufacturing jobs than America, and America's manufacturing output has been expanding continuously. Fortune magazine recently cited the same phenomenon: "Even China, which is supposed to be where most of our factory jobs are going, lost 15 million jobs in that period, vs. America's loss of just two million."

PigAlien - but when there are no more mom and pop left and all that is left is Walmart, then Walmart will have control of where we work and what we can buy and how much we pay for it.

False dichotomy. That statement assumes that WalMart has no competitors other than mom and pop outfits, which is false.
posted by NortonDC at 6:24 PM on November 23, 2003

Also: well said, jessamyn.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:28 PM on November 23, 2003

I just do not get how all these flag waving middle americans with their in-your-face patriotism are not willing to pay an extra dollar or two for an american made appliance (either that or just acknowledge why the economy is so fucked-up instead of blaming liberals, drugs, family values, Clinton, etc, etc, etc). Have we as a country been absolutely and completely brainwashed? I'm not for isolationism, but at least do the math before you buy the cheapest item on the shelf.
posted by milovoo at 6:47 PM on November 23, 2003

I'm not for isolationism, but at least do the math before you buy the cheapest item on the shelf.

There are plenty of Americans for whom the only math which matters is $Money In My Bank Account - $Cost Of Item = $Money I Still Have. What priority are they supposed to put above that?
posted by Dreama at 7:00 PM on November 23, 2003

There are plenty of Americans for whom the only math which matters is $Money In My Bank Account - $Cost Of Item = $Money I Still Have. What priority are they supposed to put above that?

Was it always thus? Was there ever a true sense of community, of loving your neighbour and understanding that their welfare was inextricably tied up with your own, in America, or has Ray Bradbury been lying to me all these years?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:04 PM on November 23, 2003

Norton, Its false right now... My assumption was based on a future possibility. Being a possibility in the future (and it is, however remote you may think it to be), it cannot be labeled 'false dichotomy'. Unless, of course, you can see the future.

That is beside the point, however. Despite my earlier post, I do not necessarily think that Walmart will consume the world. However, we do have to be on our guard. We cannot always trust to fate alone. After all, greedy people have controlled the world throughout history and still control most of it today. More people in this world live in despotism than live in freedom (however you define that). We can't take for granted that our society will remain in equilibrium without vigilance.
posted by PigAlien at 7:17 PM on November 23, 2003

Walmart is the culmination, the epitomy of many cultural trends in this country. We have become such a consumerist society that many families rely on two incomes just to get by. One partner losing a job can mean financial ruin for a family (even without children). That is why bankruptcy filings are at an all-time high in this time of high-unemployment.

When families need two incomes just to get by and are compelled to spend-spend-spend, then of course the biggest equation is $MONEY.

I think what is overlooked in this discussion is the BASICS. Walmart is good at providing the basics at a very cheap price all in one place. They cannot provide the specialization that many consumers demand in terms of breadth of choice and knowledge.

If you want to buy all-natural, organic hygiene products, you can't get them at Walmart. You have to go to your local organic grocery or co-op. Likewise, if you want nice fabric, you have to go to a JoAnn.

As someone said previously, buying the basics at Walmart leaves extra money for the toys that you would buy somewhere else.

Getting back to what you said, Norton, the problem with Walmart is the same with any (eventual) monopoly. They can control entrance to the market by their competitors because of their market position - both by controlling their suppliers and by undercutting their competitor's prices at a loss. The monopolist will always be able to hold out longest in a loss-leading price war.
posted by PigAlien at 7:25 PM on November 23, 2003

At some stage, we will have to regulate Walmart.

man, you sure do place a lot of faith in the powers that be.
posted by glenwood at 8:45 PM on November 23, 2003

I don't see how Target is any better than wal-mart. They seem the same to me except that prices at Target are higher across the board. Does that make you a better more sophisticated person for shopping there, or just a rube?
posted by Eyegore at 9:39 PM on November 23, 2003

I'm not saying consumers should overpay, but there needs to be an allowance in the consumer mindset for profitabilty.

seems i recall there used to be. what in tarnation do you suppose ever could have eroded it?
posted by quonsar at 9:50 PM on November 23, 2003

I just do not get how all these flag waving middle americans with their in-your-face patriotism are not willing to pay an extra dollar or two for an american made appliance

How else are they supposed to save the money to buy their flags?

It is easier to rally around a symbol than to be consistent in one's beliefs and actions.
posted by DaShiv at 9:59 PM on November 23, 2003

I know theres' always the potential that once wal-mart eats up all it's competition it will raise prices, but then someone else will come along and fill the low-price gap.

amen! just look at all the eager beavers lining up to provide low-price proprietary operating systems to the software industry!
posted by quonsar at 10:06 PM on November 23, 2003

quonsar, there's a difference between having a monopoly and abusing a monopoly. Only one is illegal, for starters. What got Microsoft in "trouble" (ha) was abusing their monopoly, precisely because they way they abused it did prevent others from selling lower-priced proprietary operating systems. WalMart does not even have a monopoly to abuse.
posted by NortonDC at 10:22 PM on November 23, 2003

NortonDC, did you even read what i was responding to?
posted by quonsar at 10:26 PM on November 23, 2003

I find the idea of showing patriotism through buying domestically made goods highly paradoxical.

Is it really better if we kept most of our workforce in factory jobs? How is it patriotic to make your fellow countrymen do your dirty work?

A century ago most of our economy is made up of agriculture. Should we have banned import and machinization of farming so that all of us could still be farmers today? Well no, thank goodness we didn't. Most of the farming population picked up new skills and worked elsewhere, mainly in manufacturing industries.

Likewise today, most of the factory-class workers should and will pick up new skills to work in a different industry, where in the long-run they will be more productive because of the higher amount of investment we make in education, technology, and social safety net compared to third world countries.

Things change, get used to it.
posted by VeGiTo at 10:26 PM on November 23, 2003

man, you sure do place a lot of faith in the powers that be.

In a vibrant Democracy that's where you come in, man!

Unless you're a shareholder of Wal Mart, who's influence is still limited, you sure do place a lot of faith in the executive powers that be Wal Mart.
posted by crasspastor at 10:42 PM on November 23, 2003

davidmsc: I was only suggesting that Eyegore may have been trolling because the only argument offered was the 'it's cheaper' one, and Eyegore ignored all of the many valid reasons that people dislike Wal-Mart and other mega-corporations.

My major issue with Wal-Mart is the same one I have with many other corporations. They insist that their suppliers should make as close to zero profit as possible while they brag about their double-digit profit increases. The fact of the matter is that they only get those profit increases because they've managed to put their suppliers in a situation where they can't afford to stop servicing the contract even though it doesn't make money.

These mega-corporations regularly put suppliers in positions where they are filling contracts without making any profit at all, but where they have no choice but to fill them anyway. This means that even more of the profit of the business is sent to Wal-Mart executives, instead of being divided evenly between Wal-Mart and it's suppliers.

Some people enjoy helping to widen the gap between the rich and the middle class, personally, I'd rather help raise the level of what's called middle class.
posted by mosch at 11:08 PM on November 23, 2003

quonsar: Sure did. What do you think I missed?
posted by NortonDC at 11:15 PM on November 23, 2003

The reality is that while some workers lose steel jobs and move to McDonald’s, the larger trend is higher-paying service-sector jobs squeezing out lower-paid manufacturing jobs.

This is simply false. Look at the largest employers of Americans: service jobs and temp agencies. Then, of course, there's the bigger problem: once you've exported the manufacturing jobs, most CEO's will look for new ways to edge out their competitors, and out-source any service jobs they can. You can see this already with call-centers and tech support work being farmed out to India.

The reality is that U.S. manufacturing production has soared, decade after decade. Imports from China equal only 5 per cent of U.S. manufacturing.

Really? Where are the plants that produce televisions? Where are the plants that produce our clothing? Where are the plants that produce our electronic goods? I don't see them in my neck of the woods. What I do see is article upon article commenting on a factory that's been shut down and production transferred to foriegn soils. That I see a lot of. And your 5% figure is useless without historical perspective. I wonder what it was 10 years ago?

In reality, China’s successes have been concentrated in low-end manufacturing.

Not true. Examining just the tiniest bit of history shows that this is how the Asian tigers all started. First with production of simple goods, then escalating to higher-tech as production lines mature. The truth is that last year China's leading exports to the United States were computers and electronic equipment. Do you own a CD burner or a DVD player? Companies like Apex and LiteOn weren't even on the map five years ago. Now they dominate their sectors.

And this I love: China ... lost 15 million jobs in that period, vs. America's loss of just two million."

Did it occur to you that China also has about 6 times the population of the U.S.?
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 1:51 AM on November 24, 2003

reminds me of
Marshall brain's essays
Robat nation ect.

Whats going to happen when a large portion of the population cant afford anything.
posted by Iax at 3:09 AM on November 24, 2003

It is important to recall that a monolithic company dictating foreign policy is not a new beast. Wal-Mart is only applying a new spin to an old favourite.

My prediction is a period of sustained growth followed by slow steady decline and then years later, a wonderful book will be written using Wal Mart as the baddy. Much like this book but probably with less Latin.

I could be wrong re: growth/decline cycle.
posted by Dagobert at 3:22 AM on November 24, 2003

Stop bitching about how walmart causes jobs to be farmed off to China.

Without such jobs that country would die.

Who the hell are you to tell those people they should be back to working rice paddies rather than working at a factory?

And, hell, before you suggest how horrible it must be that these people in these chinese factories are "enslaved", think about this: If it weren't for that, a lot of those people would be dying on the streets. I've asked immigrants to Canada who have worked in such hellholes. It was a big step up from street living. Nothing beats being able to afford to eat.

So, again, I ask, who the hell are you to question why they should be working those jobs in China? As a developing country, they are literally STARVED for such jobs. They NEED these jobs. What they don't need is bleeding heart pity. Pity doesn't put food on the table.

Wal Mart is probably doing the best thing possible for the world: Distributing the huge amount of wealth centered in this one place to other countries. And they're doing it and making people happy at the same time. Win-win.
posted by shepd at 4:03 AM on November 24, 2003

here troll, troll... CHOMP!
Wal Mart is probably doing the best thing possible for the world: Distributing the huge amount of wealth centered in this one place to other countries.

If you had said "Distributing the huge amount of wealth that has been accumulated (over the past 50 years by the middle class) to (the millionaires of) other countries," I'd agree with you 100%.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 4:47 AM on November 24, 2003

Civil_Disobedient - Did it occur to you that China also has about 6 times the population of the U.S.?

6 times the population and 7.5 times the job loss. That still indicates China has been hit harder than the US by the decline in manufacturing jobs.

As for the other figures, after a peak at the author's bio, I've got to say that I'm more inclined to lend weight to his take than yours. If you've got reliably sourced stats that directly contradict his numbers across the entire manufacturing sectors of the nations in question, please share them.
posted by NortonDC at 5:22 AM on November 24, 2003

Live by mouthing the corporate cock, die by mouthing the corporate cock, I always say.

(Not to anyone specifically in this thread, of course. I just like to say it once in a while, you know, when folks seem a little too thrilled at the vigorous capitalist savour of the members over which they're so blithely slobbering.)

The only thing sadder than an abused child is the child who loves the abuser with all its bruised little heart.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:44 AM on November 24, 2003

Time for a little unionization.

What WalMart hates most is what would do the most good for the most people.

Their suppliers would do well to also form a collective and I suppose it would require government intervention to curb the appetite for overseas slave labor. Fair trade, not free trade.
posted by nofundy at 6:01 AM on November 24, 2003

>Time for a little unionization.
>What WalMart hates most is what would do the most good for the most people.

Hah!

Today unions are only good for delaying disputes between you and the employer by years, and for organizing wildcat strikes against democratically elected governments.

I'd rather work for McDonald's than be told I can't cut round holes because I'm a square hole cutter. More freedom there (at least you can decide if the burger gets two or three pickles, rather than your union boss telling you to "slow down, you're working way too hard, making the other guys look bad").

>If you had said "Distributing the huge amount of wealth that has been accumulated (over the past 50 years by the middle class) to (the millionaires of) other countries," I'd agree with you 100%.

Well, that's not what I said and not what I meant. Too bad you don't agree, but you seem to lack a counter argument...

It's a tough pill to swallow, but these workers in those countries are going through the growing pains every first world country had to go through at one time or another. They're just lucky that they have a helping hand (WalMart, et al) to lead them into an improved economic status.
posted by shepd at 6:14 AM on November 24, 2003

There's a lot to dislike about Wal-Mart (and I even worked there in high school, don't get me started on the Wal-Mart cheer). The irony to me is that a lot of small businesses go to Sam's, which is part of the Wal-Mart family, to get their supplies. These are supposedly the same mom and pops Wal-Mart's always accused of crushing.

My wife and I run a neighborhood bakery and Sam's is our first choice for ingredients. Quite frankly, they're of higher quality, fresher and cheaper than we can find anywhere else, including wholesalers and local producers. This enables us to make a much, much better product than the baked crap Wal-Mart and Sam's put out, which are pumped full of oil, margarine and shortening, and sell it at a reasonable price.

We're not threatened by Wal-Mart in the least. In fact, it works in our favor. We can never compete on price but we can more than make up for it in quality and personalization.
posted by Atom12 at 8:01 AM on November 24, 2003

"Myth three: The rise of the service sector at the expense of the manufacturing sector means that Americans are being forced out of high-paying manufacturing jobs and into low-paying service jobs. The reality is that while some workers lose steel jobs and move to McDonald’s, the larger trend is higher-paying service-sector jobs squeezing out lower-paid manufacturing jobs." (nortonDC)

NortonDC - I agree with most of your "myth explosions", but does your "Myth 3" actually amount to a myth construction? - since 1970, the bottom quintile of American wage earners has lost economic ground in terms of real wages (measured in adjusted dollars) and a strong case can be made that the next quintile has also lost ground. This may not be attributable to Wal-Mart, but the reality is that a substantial percentage of Americans are now doing less well, in raw economic terms, than two or three decades ago.

The shrinking US Middle Class" - this is an old graph, but the trend continues - "In 1973 private sector worker in the United States were paid on average $9.08 an hour. Today, in real wages, they are paid $8.33 an hour - more than 8 percent lower." Further, An estimated 75 million Americans were without health insurance at some point during the last two years, amounting to nearly a third of all Americans younger than 65, a study has found....The study suggests that being uninsured is far more common — and much more of a mainstream problem." (NYT, 3/2003)

Another telling index, or window, into this phenomenon is the recent explosion in rates of child poverty in the US : "During the 1960s the number of American children in poverty was reduced by 45 percent. Over the period from 1970 to 1991, on the other hand, the number of American children in poverty increased by over 37 percent. These trends reflect different combinations of economic growth and social policy which have existed during the past three decades.".

Though this Tufts study doesn't cover mosat of the Clinton years (when poverty in the US declined substantially, including among shildren) recent US census bureau data reveal a recent, sharp increase in US poverty rates

Further, extreme poverty in the US is up sharply. At least 3 million more Americans are living in poverty since GW Bush took office (Officially) but you might not be able to discern the true extent of poverty in the US from US Census Bureau data.

We may be heading towards the LAization of America - "Los Angeles is often cited as a prime example of the large global city with a population polarizing into two segments separated by a shrinking middle class. At the high end, an elite group of college-educated workers flourishes in the growing knowledge-based sector of the economy, while, at the low end, an even larger group of poorly educated workers - composed largely of immigrants and minorities - holds low paying service and manual labor jobs. "

At least some of this trend can be, apparently, attributed to changes in the US tax code under Republican administrations. As of 1992 after twelve years of Bush and Reagan republican government, researchers at Syracuse University observed that "cyclical factors in the late 1980s reduced the upward mobility of lower-income households and increased the downward mobility of many in the lower range of the middle of the income distribution. This coupled with the gains to upper income households generated by the 1986 Federal Tax Reform enlarged the number of households at both ends of the income distribution at the expense of the middle class. Moreover, the authors find that prime-age adults who began the 1980s in the middle-income category had a greater probability of falling to the lower class than of rising to the upper class."

Paul Krugman gives a nice overview of all this in "For Richer". Here are Krugman's data sources

Meanwhile - despite their apparently worsening economic fortunes, the poor in the US have recently become more generous while the rich have become stingier

BTW - Trader Joe's beats the crap out of Wal-Mart any day, and it doesn't treat it's workers like subhuman worker-bees.
posted by troutfishing at 8:29 AM on November 24, 2003

... Chief Executive H. Lee Scott Jr., is the keeper of Mr. Sam's vision. Like all Wal-Mart executives, he empties his own trash and shares budget hotel rooms when traveling.

This is such a false economy. Scott makes $34.24 a minute, 24 X 7 X 365 on salary/bonuses alone. If it takes him 3 minutes to empty his own garbage he just cost Wal-mart $100. They could hire a janitor for two days everytime he takes out the garbage.
posted by Mitheral at 9:56 AM on November 24, 2003

there was a businessweek cover story on wal-mart a little while back and before that a fortune article on the growing influence of wal-mart.

and just to put it in a little context there was also another businessweek article this week about the "wal-martization of america" and i guess now the myth of upward mobility, placing the blame at the feet of dead-end jobs and the high cost of college.

but to place it further in a global (and perhaps a little bit more hopeful :) context, foreign policy recently published a paper on the role of remittances in helping developing countries, well, develop in what doug henwood has called doing "glabalization one better," where the left, migrant workers and native peoples can turn globalization to their advantage!

one of the keys to sustainable development listed in hardt & negri's empire is the right of migration or, stated more ambitiously, the right to global citizenship. there is i think perhaps nothing more democratic that voting with one's feet and it seems only fair that if capital is guaranteed certain rights, freedoms and protections across borders then so also should people be put on the same footing as citizens.
posted by kliuless at 11:27 AM on November 24, 2003

Good job missing words troutfishing.

There are tens of millions of fully employed Americans who today earn, in inflation adjusted-dollars, less money than they received 30 years ago.

The 1973 inflation rate was 6.20. The wage of $9.08 an hour is now worth $56.30 an hour. Hello? That puts that resource to shame... $56.30 an hour is an absolutely insane amount to be paid an hour. You'd get paid that to run an entire company, sure. But middle class? No frigging way.

Extreme poverty increases as the proliferation of "Help Wanted" signs for jobs requiring no resume increases?

It isn't the LAization of America, it's the LAzy-ization of America.

Nice try troutfishing, the "sharp increase" article is titled:

Poverty, Income See Slight Changes; Child Poverty Rate Unchanged

I'm tired of this. You seem to have chosen some *really* bum links to support your hypothesis. Beats me why.
posted by shepd at 12:12 PM on November 24, 2003

The 1973 inflation rate was 6.20. The wage of $9.08 an hour is now worth $56.30 an hour. Hello?

Uh, shep, when they say inflation-adjusted, it means it was adjusted the other way, to equalize the value between years. And that 6.20 you quoted is a percentage not a multiplier. What they're saying is that a 12/31/73 dollar was worth 1/(1 + .062) as much as a 1/1/73 dollar, or about 94 cents.
posted by boaz at 12:35 PM on November 24, 2003

MetaFilter: Math lessons for the LAZY-fied
posted by billsaysthis at 2:45 PM on November 24, 2003

Trader Joe's beats the crap out of Wal-Mart any day

Really? I had no idea TJ's sold motor oil, socks, furniture, and telephones.
posted by kindall at 3:21 PM on November 24, 2003

Please note that higher wages and lower prices are essentially the same thing. So if cheap goods are coming from China, then our country gets wealthier.

Jobs lost in one sector are picked up in another. It has been going on for centuries. For instance, in 1840, around 70% of the American workforce was in agriculture. This figure dropped below 50% in 1880, and today only 2% of the workforce is in farm labor.

Wal-mart is great. They invested in information technology when it was still super-expensive in the 70's and the 80's, forcing suppliers to join their electronic data systems, improving order accuracy, paving the way for the tech boom of the 90's.

They know where all of their goods are at all times, allowing for "cross-docking," where a truck can be unloaded and then loaded with goods needed in other areas, increasing efficiency and reducing stockouts.

Don't buy American. Buy whatever is the best value.
posted by MarkO at 4:29 PM on November 24, 2003

Kliuless hit the nail on the head with a big, fat fucking hammer. The problem is that capital is free to move in the world where it gets the most value, but labor isn't. Quite frankly, I'd gladly move to somewhere like India and work for less money, but that's simply not possible because of racism. That's essentially what it boils down to. "You're not good enough to come live and work here, but we'll take your money." Shit, if you're willing to take our money or goods, take our people too. That's the problem in this world. If we had the same freedom of movement for people that we do for money, we wouldn't be having all these problems.
posted by PigAlien at 6:14 PM on November 24, 2003

And my previous post applies to immigrants coming to America as well...
posted by PigAlien at 6:15 PM on November 24, 2003

And heck, while we're on it, people are worried about illegal aliens coming to america and stealing their jobs, but they can steal our jobs without ever coming to america, so why not let them in anyway? At least our products would be manufactured in this country and be even cheaper because they wouldn't have to be transported halfway around the world! How's that for economies of scale?
posted by PigAlien at 6:16 PM on November 24, 2003

people are worried about illegal aliens coming to america and stealing their jobs, but they can steal our jobs without ever coming to america, so why not let them in anyway?

I completely agree. Plus, you get the added benefit that people working under out system at least have a semblence of protection and rights. I've found in the crap jobs that I've had that also employed Hispanic immigrants, those workers busted their asses a hell of a lot more than their indigenous counterparts. By a large margain. Plus, they're willing (or have no other choice but) to settle down and raise families in "dangerous" areas long before they become gentrified; in fact, it's usually these citizens-to-be that start the gentrification process (that I've personally seen in New York and Boston). Immigrants are what make this country great, so I say, "Bring 'em on over here."
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 2:25 AM on November 25, 2003

MarkO - ("Jobs lost in one sector are picked up in another. It has been going on for centuries.") - The cheaper goods provided by WalMart and other such retailers do not completely compensate for the ongoing decline in American middle class wages. It is simplistic to lay ALL the blame on WalMart, but - regardless - the three-decade decline of the US middle class is, at this point, well documented. At this point in US economic history, high paying jobs are being replaced with lower paying ones. (did you bother to check out those links I supplied? )
posted by troutfishing at 7:46 AM on November 25, 2003

And - meanwhile - other goods and services long considered crucial to the US middle class lifestyle such as health care, college educations, and home ownership have been outstripping the inflation rate for decades and so are becoming less and less affordable to the majority of Americans.
posted by troutfishing at 7:52 AM on November 25, 2003

Statements from this thread that are part of the reason I left the US.

- In the end, the wealth of a consumer is determined by the amount of stuff he has, not by his stockpile of paper money or digits in the bank account.

- Community center, in the absence of an actual Main Street, the Wal-Mart becomes the place to see and be seen. This is pretty depressing to us urban small-town fetishists, but the social connections fostered in a Wal-Mart should not be discounted.

- Overall experience: like going to the mall, you can make it a day's entertainment.

- I think its unfortunate, but our current ideas about smoke breaks, health insurance, benefits, minumum wage etc are what move the jobs over there in the first place.


Shopping as entertainment. Shopping as socialization. Things as worth. Work so money-focused that it forgets in things like quality of life and meaning beyond dollars.
posted by jopreacher at 10:19 AM on November 25, 2003

jopreacher - I generally agree with your attitude, but statement #2 I take to be merely clinical, while #3 I see as sarcastic. Like you, I'm appalled by #1 and #4

Per #1 - Wealth measured in terms of the possession of STUFF? How about wealth measured in terms of love and richness of human interconnections, wealth measured in human relationships? Wealth in terms of how much we can give? Wealth in terms of diverse life experience and acquired wisdom? Wealth of spirit?

The material posessions don't last long in the US, especially in the current era. Computers last 2-4 years, furniture distegrates after 10......and even if stuff remains intact and workable, it's loses it's fungible value and goes to the dump anyway.
posted by troutfishing at 12:40 PM on November 25, 2003

jopreacher - I generally agree with your attitude, but statement #2 I take to be merely clinical, while #3 I see as sarcastic. Like you, I'm appalled by #1 and #4

Per #1 - Wealth measured in terms of the possession of STUFF? How about wealth measured in terms of love and richness of human interconnections, wealth measured in human relationships? Wealth in terms of how much we can give? Wealth in terms of diverse life experience and acquired wisdom? Wealth of spirit?

The material posessions don't last long in the US, especially in the current era. Computers last 2-4 years, furniture distegrates after 10......and even if stuff remains intact and workable, it's loses it's fungible value and goes to the dump anyway. We'd be better off purchasing less of this stuff, valuing it more, and indulging in it less.

Humans are always more fun - singing, dancing, playing music, beating on drums, playing sports............
posted by troutfishing at 12:43 PM on November 25, 2003

other goods and services long considered crucial to the US middle class lifestyle such as health care, college educations, and home ownership have been outstripping the inflation rate for decades and so are becoming less and less affordable to the majority of Americans

Add to this the (over)willingness of banks to facilitate you living off credit and sinking into further into debt (after all those college loan payments start kicking in), and a culture that constantly reminds you (on TV, radio, magazines, etc.) that happiness can only come from buying new stuff, and you have a recipe for a total economic meltdown. The Romans were conquered by the Visigoths, we'll get destroyed by Visas.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 1:53 PM on November 25, 2003

I hope it is sarcasm Troutfishing, I hope.
posted by jopreacher at 3:53 PM on November 25, 2003