more on wal-mart

it speaks to the idea that wal-mart is just part of a healthy functioning free market. if wal-mart is able to exert such pressure on suppliers that it's life or death for them, so that they can charge a price far lower than people's willingness to pay, simply to improve the company's image and buy customer loyalty, then that's a deficiency in the market.

the point of this article, to me, comes near the end:

In the end, of course, it is we as shoppers who have the power, and who have given that power to Wal-Mart. Part of Wal-Mart's dominance, part of its insight, and part of its arrogance, is that it presumes to speak for American shoppers.

If Wal-Mart doesn't like the pricing on something, says Andrew Whitman, who helped service Wal-Mart for years when he worked at General Foods and Kraft, they simply say, "At that price we no longer think it's a good value to our shopper. Therefore, we don't think we should carry it."

Wal-Mart has also lulled shoppers into ignoring the difference between the price of something and the cost. Its unending focus on price underscores something that Americans are only starting to realize about globalization: Ever-cheaper prices have consequences. Says Steve Dobbins, president of thread maker Carolina Mills: "We want clean air, clear water, good living conditions, the best health care in the world--yet we aren't willing to pay for anything manufactured under those restrictions."

in other words, to buy into that awful analogy, wal-mart is our proxy for our "vote" on our willingness to pay. we figure, "if the price of a gallon jar of pickles is $2.97, then it must not cost more than that to produce, so why the hell would i pay more?" we trust wal-mart to give us goods at their actual cost, but we don't realize that wal-mart is forcing the cost down at the expense of workers.

if more people understood this, would more people stop shopping at wal-mart? unfortunately i don't think so. i think the carolina mills guy is right.