In Defense of Wal-Mart, or at Least Its Heiress: Michael KinsleyMichael Kinsley
In cultural commentary about the American economy, one company at a time always seems to be the goat. Everything it does is interpreted as evil.
In the 1950s, it was General Motors. GM’s CEO, Charles “Engine Charlie” Wilson, became a national figure of ridicule for telling a congressional committee, “What’s good for General Motors is good for America.” Except that he actually said, “For years I thought that what was good for the country was good for General Motors and vice versa” -- which is quite a different proposition.
In the 1990s, the goat was Microsoft. That antitrust case looks a bit silly in retrospect, don’t you think? Turns out it wasn’t Microsoft that was about to take over the world: It was Google. (And just so you know, I once worked for Microsoft.)
Who is the goat today? Clearly it’s Wal-Mart. Does anybody really love Wal-Mart? Well, I’m a pretty big fan. It’s fun to roam the aisles and see what people are buying. Nineteen-inch flat-screen TVs for $98! That’s pretty great. Wish I needed one.
Last week, my colleague Jeffrey Goldberg launched a ferocious attack on Sam Walton’s daughter, Alice (net worth: $21 billion), for building a billion-dollar art museum in Bentonville, Arkansas, where Wal-Mart has its headquarters, and stocking it with American art. He calls it a “moral tragedy.” Why? Because Alice Walton’s money is tainted by its source: Wal-Mart.
What is Wal-Mart doing that’s so wrong? Critics like Goldberg say that Wal-Mart employees are underpaid and that many don’t get health care. They see the museum as a symbol of the growing gap between the haves and the have-nots.
As for what Walton can do about any of this, Goldberg suggests she could fund day-care centers or mobile dental clinics for employees. This smacks of Lady Bountiful delivering turkeys to the serfs at Christmastime. Wal-Mart is a profitable business. It shouldn’t get subsidized by charity. Nor should its employees have to depend on charity. I also suspect that most of them are thrilled to have the new museum in town, and don’t see it as a symbol of income inequality.
The growing income gap is a big problem, but how is Wal-Mart contributing to it? Presumably Wal-Mart pays what it has to in order to attract workers, and doesn’t pay a lot more if it can be avoided. Presumably, Wal-Mart scours the globe looking for bargains, and if China is the cheapest producer, China gets the business. That’s capitalism, and if we don’t like the results, we can use the tools of government, primarily the tax code, to improve them. True, Wal-Mart has a reputation for being especially ruthless in its dealings with employees and suppliers. Goldberg talked to one employee who said she was paid so little that she had to live in her car. Did he talk to no one who said he or she liked working for Wal-Mart?
As for benefits, no company is obliged to offer health care. Critics often note that Wal-Mart doesn’t offer health insurance to employees who work less than 24 hours a week. You could turn that around and say that Wal-Mart does offer health care to employees who work at least 24 hours a week. Check with your own company. My experience is that you become eligible for benefits at about half-time. That would be 20 hours. So is 24 hours so unreasonable? It’s also true that Wal-Mart is raising the premiums for many employees who do get health insurance. But most companies in the U.S. are probably planning to increase the employee contribution in the coming year. Certainly it’s nothing unique to Wal-Mart.
There are those whose objections to Wal-Mart are more aesthetic than economic: the barnlike quality of the stores, the impact of a Wal-Mart on old downtowns, even the whole culture of consumption that some people find distasteful. They’re welcome to those views as long as they acknowledge that higher prices at non-Wal-Mart stores are bad for consumers -- especially poor consumers.
Wal-Mart’s employees seem to me at least as cheerful as those in Target or Costco. But perhaps the company has hypnotized them -- or possibly me -- in some sort of Stepford Wives scenario.
Big companies make fat targets, but a more deserving target might be small companies. Instead, we have the ever-inflating myth of small business. Small businesses come and go, creating and eliminating jobs along the way. Yes, they are an important part of the economy, and often they come with inspiring tales of hard-working immigrants and so on. But they’re in it to make a profit, just like Wal-Mart. And I doubt that many offer health care to people working less than 24 hours a week. A successful small-business owner is more likely to be in the notorious 1 percent than an employee (or even a stockholder) of a big corporation. They don’t need to be coddled with special tax breaks.
Walton could have put her museum in New York, where this sort of thing belongs. Most of us don’t get to Bentonville as often as we’d like. Or she could have decided not to build it at all, for fear that journalists would start comparing her to Marie Antoinette. Would that have been better?
(Michael Kinsley is a Bloomberg View columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.)
Click on “Send Comment” in sidebar display to send a letter to the editor.
To contact the writer of this article: Michael Kinsley at firstname.lastname@example.org.
To contact the editor of this article: Michael Newman at email@example.com.
To continue reading this article you must be a Bloomberg Professional Service Subscriber.
If you believe that you may have received this message in error please let us know.