Most Americans Wild for Walmart

June 28, 2006 11:31 AM

Most Americans Wild for Walmart
A Rasmussen Reports survey of 1,000 adults found that sixty-nine percent (69%) of Americans have a favorable opinion of Walmart, including 29% who have a very favorable opinion of the retail giant.

The reviews are even better among those who have worked for Walmart (or have family members who have been employed by the firm). Among these workers, 79% have a favorable opinion of the company.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood (100 comments total)

200 words on a small survey of opinions about Wal-Mart? Seriously?
posted by monju_bosatsu at 11:33 AM on June 28, 2006

This is the result of an ill-informed, dumbed down populace.
posted by wsg at 11:34 AM on June 28, 2006

Well, I don't have access to a Wal-Mart, but since I can get better prices on most things they sell at another retailer, I don't buy too much there when I do go.
posted by oaf at 11:34 AM on June 28, 2006

I went to the Walmart and the Target in Riverhead, New York (on Long Island) this weekend. Despite being less than a mile apart, and having pretty similar prices, the clientele was surprisingly different. Target's marketing department is clearly failing to reach the toothless crackhead demographic in a big way.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 11:36 AM on June 28, 2006

Jason Furman and Barbara Ehrenreich are discussing Walmart at Slate. I wonder what they might make of this.

1,000 people is not too bad for a survey like this, I think.
posted by grobstein at 11:36 AM on June 28, 2006

They are also reported to be just wild about Harry, and coo-coo for Cocoa Puffs.
posted by jonmc at 11:38 AM on June 28, 2006

I am amazed that the biggest retailer in the world is loved by most people. I thought most people were loathe to spend their money there opposed to all the other options.
posted by Keith Talent at 11:38 AM on June 28, 2006

It's significant that 25% say they never shop at a Walmart and 29% say that Walmart is generally bad for the community. Those are not numbers that a corporation likes to see.
posted by blucevalo at 11:39 AM on June 28, 2006

This is the result of an ill-informed, dumbed down populace.

elitist snob
posted by poppo at 11:40 AM on June 28, 2006

Animation of walmart growth from 1962-2004 (YouTube link).
posted by madamjujujive at 11:43 AM on June 28, 2006 [1 favorite]

Hey, let's find a 200-word opinion poll writeup that proves popular music and McDonald's food is good, too.
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 11:43 AM on June 28, 2006

That's a bad analogy unless you think the socially relevant question is, Is Walmart in good taste?
posted by grobstein at 11:45 AM on June 28, 2006

Also, Target appears to have cornered the market on local teenage hottie checkout clerks. Based on an admittedly small sample size, I can only assume that Walmart's health care plan provides better coverage for morbidly obese dyslexics, a valuable contribution to be sure.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 11:45 AM on June 28, 2006 [1 favorite]

This is the result of an ill-informed, dumbed down populace.

A bit, but it's more the result of the vast wage disparity in America, which most of us here on Metafilter prefer not to think about too much.
posted by Ryvar at 11:47 AM on June 28, 2006

In general Wal-Mart provides a decent shopping experience and decent prices. Leaving aside their politics, business manuevers, oppression of minorities, and their well-known history of child-abuse, they are a great store!
posted by blue_beetle at 11:48 AM on June 28, 2006

Not sure how it's a bad analogy. This poll "clearly" "proves" that something's popularity has nothing at all to do with its quality.
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 11:50 AM on June 28, 2006

If you saw how is the tomato sauce made you would think TWICE about eating it, but that hasn't stopped you from buying it.

The problem is the usual, old, big one : ignorance.
posted by elpapacito at 11:54 AM on June 28, 2006

Personally, I'm just wild about Harry.
posted by keswick at 11:54 AM on June 28, 2006

"Lower and middle income Americans are more likely to have a favorable opinion of Walmart than upper income Americans"


posted by mr_crash_davis at 11:55 AM on June 28, 2006

That animation is creepy, as I live at Wal-Mart "ground zero." I remember as a tyke being taken to one of the few Wal-Mart stores in the world (at that time they were considered an inferior, low-class knockoff of KMart).

I also remember old Sam making himself known around town, as he was an avid fisherman and that's what folks do here (in addition to trumpeting American values without actually buying anything American).
posted by sourwookie at 11:56 AM on June 28, 2006

S@L's posting strategy:

1. Find article that will rile up usual lefty Mefite emotions
2. Make popcorn
3. Watch thread descend into useless bickering about, in this case, quality of Walmart shopping experience and Walmart politics.
4. ???
5. Profit!

Don't get me wrong S@L, I'm just as entertained by it as you are ;)
posted by eyeballkid at 11:57 AM on June 28, 2006

Granted, my previous post is too simple and broad simple an explanation, but if you only get your news from the paper and TV, which is where most folks get the bulk of their news, you're not getting the whole story - not even close.
posted by wsg at 11:58 AM on June 28, 2006

Strasbourg: Sure it does, if by "quality" you mean cheap goods sold at a single location. That's what most people want...and central AC.
posted by Pacheco at 11:58 AM on June 28, 2006

I went to Sears the other day and damn if I didn't buy two pairs of really nice shorts.
posted by bardic at 12:00 PM on June 28, 2006

it's more the result of the vast wage disparity in America, which most of us here on Metafilter prefer not to think about too much.

Bingo. It's easy to sneer at WalMart shoppers if you can afford to shop elsewhere. I don't like the place either, but it sells stuff at prices almost everyone can afford. Ah, if MeFi ran America: "No, madam, you most certainly cannot have rat cheese for $1.50. You can, however, have organic Brie at Union-Friendly LocalStore for just $12.99!"
posted by languagehat at 12:01 PM on June 28, 2006

Sears? I try not to buy clothes at the same place I buy car batteries.
posted by jonmc at 12:02 PM on June 28, 2006

My sister is Wild about potato chips, cheap beer, cigarettes, rabid stray dogs, and sex with strangers alleys.

Some polls are just as unhealthy for the populace as what they are polling about.
posted by Sir BoBoMonkey Pooflinger Esquire III at 12:03 PM on June 28, 2006

I don't like shopping in walmart so I don't shop there, but walmart saves the people that shop there a considerable amount of money. Walmart isn't perfect, they are able to exercise monopsyny power which can lead to market inefficiency. Still I think that walmart does, on the balance, more good than harm.
posted by I Foody at 12:05 PM on June 28, 2006

Bingo. It's easy to sneer at WalMart shoppers if you can afford to shop elsewhere. I don't like the place either, but it sells stuff at prices almost everyone can afford.

I have, in emergencies, shopped at Wal-Mart. I will give them one thing: it's nice to be able to buy a pipe wrench at 11:30 PM. However, I don't find their prices to be any better than those of their competitors. In fact, that same pipe wrench was $3.00 cheaper at an Ace Hardware.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 12:05 PM on June 28, 2006

potato chips I understand...but you go way over the line when you start knocking cheap beer, buddy.
posted by Pacheco at 12:05 PM on June 28, 2006

I have flagged keswick's joke as "totally ripping off jonmc's joke".
posted by poppo at 12:07 PM on June 28, 2006

I'd rather put my dick in a beehive than step foot in a Wal-Mart.*

*colloquial expression provided for those cross surveyed that also approve of NASCAR, Fox News, and "Jesus is my copilot" airbrushed license plates..
posted by The Jesse Helms at 12:08 PM on June 28, 2006

languagehat writes "It's easy to sneer at WalMart shoppers if you can afford to shop elsewhere"

I guess It's easier to sneer if you can afford and do shop at Walmart ; instead of focusing at the abstract discussion "Walmart generally sucks" which is true , but inconsequential, one should just look and comparare wtf one can actually buy at Walmart , while not falling for the hooka-shot "it's convenient all the time!"

For a simple reason, there will be cheap product used to bait the customers (the specials, the whatever) in hope he will fall for the inescapeable supermarket effect and buy more ; other product will be of cheap quality, but better looks and will be priced more then cheap bait, for the simple economical reason that people pay MORE for it so there is no reason not to sell them for less. Walmart is certainly a monopsony and it makes sure its customer know, so that the customer believes he is paying less BECAUSE Walmart can buy immense quantity and command lower price.

That is TRUE of course, but that doesn't imply that they need to share their saving with their customers. It's pure NONSENSE from a corporative point of view, if the suckers wants to pay more let him believe he is paying less.
posted by elpapacito at 12:10 PM on June 28, 2006

Isn't it the shopper's fault for being the sucker?
posted by Pacheco at 12:13 PM on June 28, 2006

YOGA PANTSED VEGGIE EATING ORGANIC ENDORSING NPR LISTENING NEW YORK TIMES BESTSELLER READING GLOBAL MUSIC LISTENING AUTHORITY ENDORSING YUPPIE SCUM (.pdf)
posted by LimePi at 12:13 PM on June 28, 2006

dick in a beehive

Finally, someone explains it in words I can understand!
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:14 PM on June 28, 2006

Meh, I shop at Wal-Mart.
Are they a scuzzy company?
Sure.
Do they sell quality jeans at low prices, everyday?
Always.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 12:15 PM on June 28, 2006

How did I miss jonmc's joke? :(
posted by keswick at 12:16 PM on June 28, 2006

And 50% or more Americans voted for George W. Bush
posted by Postroad at 12:16 PM on June 28, 2006

THE END
posted by Pacheco at 12:18 PM on June 28, 2006

My sister is Wild about potato chips, cheap beer, cigarettes, rabid stray dogs, and sex with strangers alleys.

This sister of yours, Pooflinger? Any chance of her phone number?
posted by PeterMcDermott at 12:18 PM on June 28, 2006

I'm simply to fast for ya, kid.
posted by jonmc at 12:19 PM on June 28, 2006

Remember in the late 1980s when Wal-Mart proudly trumpeted their "Made In The USA" campaign? Then it's like they suddenly flipped us over on our stomach and broke out the Crisco.
posted by rolypolyman at 12:19 PM on June 28, 2006

Pacheco writes "Isn't it the shopper's fault for being the sucker?"

Nope everybody is born ignorant and it's incredibly hard to learn. Example: I use to practice what I preach and experiment what I say I experiment, so I bought myself some of that cheap bait junk, including a carpenter tool. For all practical purposes the tool worked, but by using another tool on it in a legitimate combination of use the vibration introduced were such that the tool went literally in pieces.

Literally. And it seems solid metal, and it felt solid metal. Further examination revealed it's some cheap metal, comparable to the cheap price I paid. Another more expensive, but still not very expensive tool is still lasting and is more or less 20 years old.

Why did I buy the junk ? Because I wanted to believe it was not junk and I was having a good deal ! Now I am much more attentive about some tools I buy, but I had to pay to learn I bought shit and I learned it by pure chance, not by methid. That isn't good.
posted by elpapacito at 12:20 PM on June 28, 2006

Still I think that walmart does, on the balance, more good than harm.

I am not a social scientist or whatever title would fit best, but there are many things to factor into this statement. If the total healthcare costs of WalMart's employees (considering W-M, doesn't cover as much as the jobs they're switching from), lost jobs of their small competitors going out of business, the forced cut in profits from the companies selling to W-M, the moving of jobs overseas, etc. etc. ...When all of this gets factored in, I'm not so sure Wal-Mart may be doing "more good than harm." The way I understand it, is that W-M is a silent strain on our economy. Sure there are those that are screaming bloody murder, but just as with the people screaming bloody murder about the current administration in the US, they are labeled as kooks with tinfoil hats painted with daisies while hugging trees and killing babies, etc. And, perhaps I'm wrong. But then again I think it would benefit the country more to just raise the minimum wage by a couple bucks. Then all these people could afford an extra $0.23 for a twelve pack of Beefaroni.
posted by Sir BoBoMonkey Pooflinger Esquire III at 12:20 PM on June 28, 2006

Do they sell quality jeans at low prices, everyday?

Yes. Once every couple years or so, I venture in there to buy some $12 jeans, and that's pretty much it.
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:21 PM on June 28, 2006

jonmc writes "Sears? I try not to buy clothes at the same place I buy car batteries."

You're safe in Canada jonmc, they eliminated their auto departments here.
posted by Mitheral at 12:22 PM on June 28, 2006

Then it's like they suddenly flipped us over on our stomach and broke out the Crisco.

This Wal-Mart person that you're acquainted with, rolypolyman? Any chance of his phone number?
posted by PeterMcDermott at 12:22 PM on June 28, 2006

Remember in the late 1980s when Wal-Mart proudly trumpeted their "Made In The USA" campaign? Then it's like they suddenly flipped us over on our stomach and broke out the Crisco.

Actually, they broke out the Quisko, an Eastern Bloc knock-off made from rendered baby seal fat and sold in 50 gallon drums.
posted by jonmc at 12:23 PM on June 28, 2006

The Wal-Mart Effect

*

Hidden Cost of Wal-Mart Jobs (.pdf)

*

The True Cost of Wal-Mart's Low Prices

*

you most certainly cannot have rat cheese for $1.50

if you work for them, you can snack on it when Wal-Mart locks you in! a tasty treat!

having said that, it's impossible not to appreciate the irony of the beautiful reversal -- the proletariat buying from capitalists (for cheap, of course) the rope to hang themselves. how times change, comrades
posted by matteo at 12:23 PM on June 28, 2006

This beehive... it vibrates?
posted by brundlefly at 12:24 PM on June 28, 2006

Has anybody actually studied just the oft-touted price superiority of Wal-Mart? I'm not talking about how much do they save people vs. how much do they depress wages, I'm talking about just straight up price comparisons on things people are interested in buying before they enter the store (not, e.g, DVD's with four lesser-known John Wayne movies in a cardboard sleeve for $4.99). And if so, has anyone connected the price differences to quality differences?

The reason I ask is that my experience is not that Wal-Mart has better prices than other discount stores, or even other retailers in general. I say this as part of a couple with a combined income in the low $20K's -- there are plenty of non-political/moral reasons for my wife and I not to shop at Wal-Mart.
posted by aaronetc at 12:28 PM on June 28, 2006

Granted, my previous post is too simple and broad simple an explanation, but if you only get your news from the paper and TV, which is where most folks get the bulk of their news, you're not getting the whole story - not even close.

Yeah, if only they listened to AirAmerica and read Le Monde's international edition they wouldn't be so poor and stupid as to have to shop at Walmart. You obviously have no conception of the material reality for the majority of Americans.

I do get that you may be saying that people are only aware of the cheap prices and not aware of the potential negative impact of Walmart because they don't read the Guardian or whatever, but again, when you are broke and working a lot and have a family and kids, you have sparse leisure time. Your "average American=dumbshit=that's why they like Walmart" point of view is really facile.
posted by Falconetti at 12:31 PM on June 28, 2006

having said that, it's impossible not to appreciate the irony of the beautiful reversal -- the proletariat buying from capitalists (for cheap, of course) the rope to hang themselves. how times change, comrades

It is ironic that the actual world continually gets in the way of history's inevitable and inexorable march towards a communist utopia.
posted by Falconetti at 12:33 PM on June 28, 2006

but I had to pay to learn I bought shit and I learned it by pure chance, not by methid.

Actually, the method was that you observed it break. Now you know what most know...don't buy cheap tools if you want to use them for very long.
posted by Pacheco at 12:34 PM on June 28, 2006

A Rasmussen Reports survey of 1,000 adults found that sixty-nine percent (69%) of Americans have a favorable opinion of Walmart, including 29% who have a very favorable opinion of the retail giant.

Yes, and a depressingly large percentage of the American populace was convinced that Saddam had WMDs and played a part in the planning of 9-11. What, may I ask, is your point?
posted by Afroblanco at 12:36 PM on June 28, 2006

I do get that you may be saying that people are only aware of the cheap prices and not aware of the potential negative impact of Walmart because they don't read the Guardian or whatever, but again, when you are broke and working a lot and have a family and kids, you have sparse leisure time.

NTM, most people prefer to use their leisure time for, well, leisure, not researching and agonizing over the potential impact my purchase of a pack of gum will have in Lower Slobovia.
posted by jonmc at 12:38 PM on June 28, 2006

Hell, its good rope matteo.
And cheap too!
Some buy at WalMart because they work at WalMart and thus can't afford anywhere else.

You smokin' crack today jonmc? Your one liners just keep 'a coming!

Harper's has a good WalMart article this month BTW.
posted by nofundy at 12:39 PM on June 28, 2006

"Why must I be surrounded by frickin' idiots!"
posted by blastrid at 12:39 PM on June 28, 2006

Even more people have a favorable opinion of American Idol.
I rest my case.
posted by 2sheets at 12:40 PM on June 28, 2006

when you are broke and working a lot

ah, now things get interesting.

let's see, how is it possible that you're broke if you have a job, and not only that, if you're working a lot? seriously.

communistic, surrender-monkey ideas like a living wage, public health care (so that you don't go bankrupt because of medical bills the way it happens to half of Americans who declare bankruptcy), effective unions (so you don't really have your boss lock you in at night, etc) have been dreamed up by communistic surrender-monkeys people who didn't really want to live in a world where the words "working poor" are not a sick joke but a sick reality.

just that.

so, to finish your sentence, when you are broke and working a lot you should try to take five minutes off and start thinking, why is that? why am I broke if I work hard?
posted by matteo at 12:43 PM on June 28, 2006

why am I broke if I work hard?

Because no one values the work you provide any more than what you're already getting paid?
posted by monju_bosatsu at 12:46 PM on June 28, 2006

communistic, surrender-monkey ideas like a living wage, public health care

I think you'll find that most people are in favor of such things, matteo. I think Falconetti's point was that an overworked underpaid person might be disinclined to spend his sparse leisure time researching politics, since a) there's more fun things to do, and b) most of the writing on the subject is either , depressing shrill, impenetrable or openly hostile (culturally speaking) to him and people like him. Can't say I blame 'em.
posted by jonmc at 12:46 PM on June 28, 2006

In order to determine whether walmart is good or bad there are some big philosophical questions that need to be asked.

1. Is wealth weighted linearly? Walmart is clearly an efficient company and is able to do more with its labor and capital inputs than other companies are so it clearly produces wealth better than what came before it. Sure there's a question of the quantitative impacts of monopsony power but those likely pale compared to the efficiency of the logistical walmart machine. If wealth is weighted equally regardless of who gets it than walmart is definitely good. If wealth is weighted more if it goes to the poor than if it goes to the rich than walmart might be bad. Sure the shoppers that benefit most from walmarts low prices are poor but so are most of its workers that might be getting a better deal (if there was an elsewhere) and domestic workers who couldn't meat the always low prices gurantee.

2.Who's on your team in robber's cave: if we include the Chinese who work at the low paying jobs that displace american jobs then we get more winners. They are working a low wage job that is better than anything else they can get. This might be viewed as a pure bad if you are only looking at the US but it isn't if your looking at the world economy.

3. If walmart wasn't here how many of its workers who are going without healthcare would have it? Seriously most of the grocery stores and department stores and family businesses that walpart hedges out don't offer particularly great healthcare. It is flat out unreasonable to assume that people who work at walmart would be better off working for someone else. I'm not saying that they would be worse off but it is a possibility. These studies that find walmart is a drain on the economy require testing against a fantasy world. Needless to say 'meanwhile in candyland' doesn't amount to a decent control variable.
posted by I Foody at 12:48 PM on June 28, 2006

"You smokin' crack today jonmc?"

You say that like it would be unusual.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 12:48 PM on June 28, 2006

let's see, how is it possible that you're broke if you have a job, and not only that, if you're working a lot? seriously.

Whether its communists or catholics, when you're poor, everybody wants to save your soul, but nobody wants to save your life.
posted by Falconetti at 12:49 PM on June 28, 2006

Has anybody actually studied just the oft-touted price superiority of Wal-Mart?

Rob at cockeyed.com declares that Wal-Mart is cheaper than Target over a set of twenty items, but not by much. About the same thing from a survey of California stores (17 items).

There's a monograph on grocery prices from the University of Wisconsin's Food Systems Research Group that suggests that any savings achieved by supercenters and mergers among grocery retailers aren't being passed on to consumers. [extremely tangentially related: items that end with a .99 cent value don't tend to be the lowest prices for that item (paper at SpringerLink)].

The Kenai Penninsula Economic Development District has also compiled a longish list of information relating to this Wal-Mart cost benefit discussion. I haven't spent any time assessing the veracity or peer-reviewedness of said information.
posted by iceberg273 at 12:52 PM on June 28, 2006

Has anybody actually studied just the oft-touted price superiority of Wal-Mart?

Yes, they have, and it's not true. Walmart makes sure there's one low-priced item in every category, and prominently displays that item to create the illusion that Walmart is universally cheap, but it's not. You can buy your rat cheese for $1.50, but if you want any other kind of cheese, you'll most likely pay more than you would at your local grocer, if it's even still in business.
posted by scottreynen at 12:52 PM on June 28, 2006

I don't personally like Wal-Mart (we call it Wal-Marde around here) but I do buy jeans there because they're cheap and I know they have jeans that fit me... since I came back to Canada I realized that 5+ years in the US made me, well, American-sized.
posted by clevershark at 12:53 PM on June 28, 2006

Polls have wildly varying degrees of accuracy. This shouldn't be treated as an accurate depiction of how favorably Wal-Mart is regarded.
Nice bicker grenade, though.
posted by cows of industry at 12:57 PM on June 28, 2006 [1 favorite]

Observation: Most other people don't share my opinions and beliefs about Walmart, religion, meat, politics, music, etc.

Conclusion: All of those people are idiots.
posted by rocket88 at 12:57 PM on June 28, 2006

Metafilter: Nice bicker grenade, though.
posted by Hat Maui at 1:01 PM on June 28, 2006 [1 favorite]

but if you only get your news from the paper and TV, which is where most folks get the bulk of their news

Er, yeah, that's where I get all of my news. Well, that and the radio. Where the devil do you get yours? (If you say weblogs, I reserve the right to giggle uncontrollably.)
posted by jack_mo at 1:03 PM on June 28, 2006

scottreynen: that's not very scientific and doesn't constitute proof that walmart doesn't typically have lower prices. It just mentions a trick that walmart uses to create the impression of low prices. Studies tend to show that walmart does tend to have lower prices.

I don't shop at walmart because I don't like the store. I shop elsewhere but at least I don't have the gal to pat myself on the back for spending 23 cents more on beeforoni because I know if I was a better person the optimal solution would to donate the money I saved at more efficient walmart to charity.
posted by I Foody at 1:04 PM on June 28, 2006

WP:

More than 80 percent of the 6,000 factories in Wal-Mart's worldwide database of suppliers are in China. Wal-Mart estimates it spent $15 billion on Chinese-made products last year, accounting for nearly one-eighth of all Chinese exports to the United States. If the company that Sam Walton built with his "Made in America" ad campaign were itself a separate nation, it would rank as China's fifth-largest export market, ahead of Germany and Britain.

Could a Chinese retailer move into the US and sell strictly Chinese goods or is there some protectionist mechanism to prevent this?
posted by pracowity at 1:05 PM on June 28, 2006

That's not an ironic reversal, matteo. It's the same old story.
posted by notyou at 1:08 PM on June 28, 2006

Agenda Myth, meet reality.
posted by HTuttle at 1:08 PM on June 28, 2006

you can be poor and still have ethics.

people don't need to shop at Wal-Mart. they do so out of ignorance and convenience.
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 1:11 PM on June 28, 2006

Big deal. Nobody doesn't like Sara Lee.

I want to see Cheney in a beehive.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 1:17 PM on June 28, 2006

I think you'll find that most people are in favor of such things, matteo

they don't really go to vote, then. unlike, say, the Fetus Folk.


Because no one values the work you provide any more than what you're already getting paid?

a nice way to describe exploitation, M_b -- your definition also works perfectly for child sex workers in the Third World.
because, God forbid, maybe the game is a little rigged against the uninsured two-jobs American workers? and liberal American voters are painfully unable to do anything to change that, assuming -- for the sake of their argument -- that they care?

Whether its communists or catholics, when you're poor, everybody wants to save your soul, but nobody wants to save your life.

are these Billy Bragg lyrics? a Zen koan? a riddle?
posted by matteo at 1:21 PM on June 28, 2006

I'm willing to pay a little more to not feel like I've been loaded onto a cattle car.

That said, what Optimus Chyme said--in terms of stuff that I actually buy on a regular basis (music, electronics, socks and underwear), I don't consider them to be that much of a bargain. I'll pay more for something if it's going to last me longer, effectively making it cheaper.

From the standpoint of value and atmosphere, I don't understand why anyone would shop there regularly. They do have decent sales on things sometimes. But that's another peeve of mine--man those places reek, mostly of decaying animal fat wafting from the McDonalds or Lil Caesars or whatever fast food disaster they stuff into those places.

I'm telling you, Sears baby. We should start a club. Nice and clean. Craftsman tools. What's not to love?
posted by bardic at 1:21 PM on June 28, 2006

let's see, how is it possible that you're broke if you have a job, and not only that, if you're working a lot? seriously.

only someone who has lived a relatively privileged life could consider this a valid question. seriously.
posted by giantfist at 1:21 PM on June 28, 2006

people don't need to shop at Wal-Mart. they do so out of ignorance and convenience.

Isn't convenience a perfectly rational reason for shopping at Wal-Mart? Convenience /= ignorance.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 1:21 PM on June 28, 2006

I think how ghetto walmart is varies by location. In my home town, the walmart is pretty nice... certainly not much worse than anywhere else in town and nicer than some other places. On the other hand, when I was in southern California, they were undeniably ghetto.

I think it depends on the number and quality of alternatives. In a city, you have all kinds of places to shop; there are specialty stores for everything, and department stores both higher and lower class, so walmart tends to get the lowest common denominator. Here, there are few decent alternatives, so everyone tends to go, keeping the ghettoness away.
posted by Mitrovarr at 1:22 PM on June 28, 2006

I wrote: Because no one values the work you provide any more than what you're already getting paid?

matteo replied: a nice way to describe exploitation, M_b -- your definition also works perfectly for child sex workers in the Third World.

No. You're confusing pricing mechanism with the lawfulness of the service good.

because, God forbid, maybe the game is a little rigged against the uninsured two-jobs American workers?

How is the game rigged? Are you suggesting that the pricing mechanism for labor is broken? In what way?
posted by monju_bosatsu at 1:26 PM on June 28, 2006

they don't really go to vote, then. unlike, say, the Fetus Folk.

they may not even be aware of what policies can help them, and this is often aggravated by the fact that the people who ostensibly want to spread the word seem to do everything in their power to alienate them.

(full disclosure: I've only bought one thing in a Wal-Mart, a bag of Fritos. They were out of the Doritos that I wnet in there for. But when I was young we bought clothes at Marshall's and TJ Maxx and places like that and bout household goods at places like Caldor and Bradlees. I'm sure there's ethical problems with all of them, but you could also make the case that Trader Joe's, Whole Foods, Urban Outfitters etc, are merely overpriced pseudo-PC Wal-Marts for a different audience. Pretty much every consumer choice you make is gonna upset somebody so just do what you want).
posted by jonmc at 1:29 PM on June 28, 2006

let's see, how is it possible that you're broke if you have a job, and not only that, if you're working a lot? seriously.

only someone who has lived a relatively privileged life could consider this a valid question. seriously.


In matteo's defence, I don't think you are reading what he said correctly. He is pointing out the irony that such a condition exists, not standing befuddled at the statement.
posted by Falconetti at 1:30 PM on June 28, 2006

It's easy to sneer at WalMart shoppers if you can afford to shop elsewhere.

Jesus. How oddly stupid. If a Wal-Mart and a Target are both in the same town (and often they are), then tell me about the ENORMOUS PRICE DISPARITY between the two.

Fact: there isn't one. It's a myth. The truth is, for the same exact item, the price at one is close if not identical. The "upscale" feel of Target is due to the fact that they: 1) Clean the stores daily and 2) Actually sell a selection of quality items.
posted by grubi at 1:34 PM on June 28, 2006

you can be poor and still have ethics.

people don't need to shop at Wal-Mart. they do so out of ignorance and convenience.


Not to sound snotty, but this is true. I can speak from personal experience that I've been both poor and resisted Wal-Mart simultaneously. Therefore it must be something in the positive perception bit that makes people shop there, and not just the everyday low prices and the amusement park buffet atmosphere.
posted by hoborg at 1:35 PM on June 28, 2006

This post was deleted for the following reason: not exactly big news

posted by I Love Tacos at 1:36 PM on June 28, 2006

scottreynen: that's not very scientific and doesn't constitute proof

Phew! I'm sure glad I didn't claim it did. But where is the proof that Walmart has lower prices? There's unscientific evidence on the one hand, and advertising on the other. I'll go with the unscientific evidence.

How is the game rigged?

It equates money and value. For most sane people, the two are not the same.

Are you suggesting that the pricing mechanism for labor is broken?

I am.

In what way?

People die from lack of affordable health care. There is no shortage of available health care driving up the price. It's an artificial scarcity. The pricing mechanism for labor does not prevent price surges based on artificial scarcity. But even if the scarcity weren't artificial, the scarcity of something as important as health care should not determine the price. The market is not an infallible deity, and we shouldn't worship it over important things like keeping people healthy.
posted by scottreynen at 1:45 PM on June 28, 2006

Personally, I'm just wild about saffron. But that could be the electric banana speaking.
posted by Sparx at 1:45 PM on June 28, 2006

One admittedly good thing about Walmart is that they don't require you to have a "personal data conglomeration tracking card" to get the sale items, like every other supermarket.
posted by smackfu at 1:48 PM on June 28, 2006

People die from lack of affordable health care.

Wait, a minute, when did we start taking about insurance? I may or may not agree with you about the economic cause of the high price of health care and insurance, but that's not the pricing mechanism I'm talking about. I'm talking about the mechanism that determines the market value of a particular job and the corresponding wages holders of that job are paid. Is that broken? How?
posted by monju_bosatsu at 1:49 PM on June 28, 2006

The "upscale" feel of Target is due to the fact that they: 1) Clean the stores daily and 2) Actually sell a selection of quality items.

3) Don't have as many people in the store as Walmart
posted by Arch_Stanton at 1:51 PM on June 28, 2006

In matteo's defence, I don't think you are reading what he said correctly.


I think you're right. Sorry, matteo.
posted by giantfist at 1:54 PM on June 28, 2006

Yes, and a depressingly large percentage of the American populace was convinced that Saddam had WMDs and played a part in the planning of 9-11. What, may I ask, is your point?
posted by Afroblanco

The first is a fact. Ignoring it is ignorance. The second is opinion. Sure, majority opinion on metafilter, but not in the big picture. So you really don't have a point, afroblanco.

Fact: there isn't one. It's a myth. The truth is, for the same exact item, the price at one is close if not identical. The "upscale" feel of Target is due to the fact that they: 1) Clean the stores daily and 2) Actually sell a selection of quality items.
posted by grubi

For 3 years in college I lived in a town with basically only a walmart and a target. I bought the same groceries and cleaning products, etc. etc. I every week for 3 years. It only took a month to find out I saved 20 - 25 bucks a week at walmart. That's a lot of money for a poor college student. So, on topic, you're wrong.

Haven't we done this before? Like 4 times? But you got matteo talking about communism. Mission accomplished ;)
posted by Dennis Murphy at 1:55 PM on June 28, 2006

m_b, we started talking about insurance when matteo wrote "because, God forbid, maybe the game is a little rigged against the uninsured two-jobs American workers?" That's what you were responding to when you suggested the market is infallible. Insurance is part of the market. Sure, if you take away everything wrong with the market, it's perfect. But that's not how the real world works.
posted by scottreynen at 1:55 PM on June 28, 2006

giantfist writes "only someone who has lived a relatively privileged life could consider this a valid question. seriously."

I'm pretty sure it was a rhetorical question. The man's not a huge fan of global capitalism.
posted by mr_roboto at 1:57 PM on June 28, 2006

That's what you were responding to when you suggested the market is infallible.

No, it wasn't. I was responding to his earlier rhetorical question: "why am I broke if I work hard?" Which, of course, has little to do with insurance. matteo threw that in his later response as a red herring.

I also never asserted that the market was infallible. The market is, of course, subject to market failures. Indeed, that was my precise question: what is the failure in the market for domestic labor? No one appears to have an answer to my question.

A corollary to my question is this: Why must low wages be viewed as a market failure? Isn't it plausible that the value of the labor provided by a worker might not be very high?
posted by monju_bosatsu at 2:01 PM on June 28, 2006