Walmart - The Consumers Speak

April 9, 2004

In a Los Angeles Times editorial this morning, Jay Nordlinger berates the people of Inglewood, CA for voting to prevent a WalMart store from opening in their town. According to Nordlinger, those who are against WalMart are "Democratic politicians, union leaders, left-wing pundits, a few right-wing pundits (concerned for localism), snobs, sentimentalists, economic ignoramuses."

Who's the economic ignoramus here?

The entirety of Nordlinger's argument rests on the concept that consumers are motivated completely by the bottom line - we are soulless purchasing automatons who will sacrifice any and all social benefits in exchange for the lowest prices. I think this is a pretty dim view of human nature. I also think it's untrue. And apparently, so do the people of Inglewood.

There are plenty of non-economic drawbacks to WalMart, such as the fact that it doesn't pay a living wage to its workers, it forces its suppliers to outsource overseas causing unemployment in the USA and poor working conditions overseas, not to mention the effects on the local community such as increased traffic and the crowding out of smaller locally-owned businesses. According to Nordlinger's reasoning, none of these factors should matter as long as the consumer can save a few cents on a package of toilet paper.

Nordlinger's economic analysis also falls short by looking only at the economic impact on the individual, and not on the community as a whole. Sure it's great that the average consumer will save money by shopping at WalMart, but what about all those people who lost their jobs when WalMart came in and pushed out the existing stores? They get to earn on average $8.21 per hour, with minimal health coverage. Nordlinger suggests that those without coverage from WalMart can get coverage from Medicare instead. But who pays for that Medicare? Why, you do Mr. Nordlinger. You, and me, and every other taxpayer. The same people who get to pay for the unemployment benefits that go to all the people who lost their jobs when WalMart moved in and put their employers out of business.

Nordlinger's most outrageous claim is that opponents of WalMart are somehow unAmerican. I've got news for Nordlinger - the basic foundation of America is the concept of Democracy. You know, the idea that the people can vote for and against the issues that matter to them. Well, the citizens of Inglewood voted, and they voted against WalMart. How can you get any more American than by exercising your basic Constitutional rights? Nordlinger's article is a prime example of the conservative movement's conceited paternalism: the voters are wrong because they don't know what's good for them. Mr. Nordlinger, I think the people of Inglewood are capable of making their own decisions.

Daniel Gross posits that WalMart is a symptom of a larger problem with consumerism, rather than the cause of all the problems that fall in it's wake. Ultimately, it's the WalMart customers who enable WalMart to become so powerful. "Stores don't kill economies, consumers do." The consumers in Inglewood are fighting back.