Another case against Wal-Mart (and corporatism)
More often than not, these days, The New Republic irritates rather than enlightens me. It's making a gradual shift to the right at a time when there are ever-fewer voices to represent the left in the public forum. The articles are increasingly opinion pieces, rather than hard news. I always liked them for their ability to give pages to sensible proponents of both the left and the right side of an issue. That's disappearing, too.
But this is a worthwhile article. Something that no one realizes in the Wal-Mart debate is that there are serious economic consequences to the corporate practices of the world's largest retailer. That also makes them a massive employer in this country. The debate has usually been about low prices vs. preserving Main Street, but that's only a part of the equation.
When a corporation that employs over 930,000 people, its practices affect the national economy. When that company denies employees benefits while paying low wages, more people depend on government services to keep them afloat. Simply put, the larger Wal-Mart becomes, the more tax revenue we need to give these people basic human services, like health care. The more Wal-Mart outsources manufacturing overseas (I've seen estimates that 70% of their goods are made in China), the fewer living-wage union jobs there are in America. And those jobs are replaced with low-paying jobs that give Wal-Mart more corporate profit, but cost American taxpayers more money. Our tax dollars are subsidizing CEO salaries. And executives currently earn 475 as much as the typical worker in this country.
This should be an easy issue for Democrats to flog-- after all, wildly unpopular Pennsylvania senator Rick "Spreading" Santorum (among other GOP stalwarts) has taken rides on Wal-Mart corporate jets. How about this? "Wal-Mart, a company that claims to be patriotic and earns the support of Republican congressmen, sends thousands of good jobs overseas, and repays America with poverty-wage jobs and no employee benefits." How about this simple question: "Is a CEO worth 475 workers?" Or this: "Should a company fire a thousand workers, or two executives to make it more competitive?"
But this is a worthwhile article. Something that no one realizes in the Wal-Mart debate is that there are serious economic consequences to the corporate practices of the world's largest retailer. That also makes them a massive employer in this country. The debate has usually been about low prices vs. preserving Main Street, but that's only a part of the equation.
When a corporation that employs over 930,000 people, its practices affect the national economy. When that company denies employees benefits while paying low wages, more people depend on government services to keep them afloat. Simply put, the larger Wal-Mart becomes, the more tax revenue we need to give these people basic human services, like health care. The more Wal-Mart outsources manufacturing overseas (I've seen estimates that 70% of their goods are made in China), the fewer living-wage union jobs there are in America. And those jobs are replaced with low-paying jobs that give Wal-Mart more corporate profit, but cost American taxpayers more money. Our tax dollars are subsidizing CEO salaries. And executives currently earn 475 as much as the typical worker in this country.
This should be an easy issue for Democrats to flog-- after all, wildly unpopular Pennsylvania senator Rick "Spreading" Santorum (among other GOP stalwarts) has taken rides on Wal-Mart corporate jets. How about this? "Wal-Mart, a company that claims to be patriotic and earns the support of Republican congressmen, sends thousands of good jobs overseas, and repays America with poverty-wage jobs and no employee benefits." How about this simple question: "Is a CEO worth 475 workers?" Or this: "Should a company fire a thousand workers, or two executives to make it more competitive?"
posted by Matt Sandwich | 6:02 PM
<< Home