Wal-Mart has many benefits that primarily help the poor: their products are cheaper, through innovation they drive competition, they help make products cheaper at other stores by competing with those stores, their market model caters more to those who have less income, and many other benefits.
But one of my favorite benefits of Wal-Mart, a benefit that I think they don’t get enough credit for, is bringing in employment to areas that are otherwise in desperate need of it:
(Crain’s) — The new Wal-Mart Stores Inc. location opening Friday in suburban Evergreen Park received a record 25,000 applications for 325 positions, the highest for any one location in the retailer’s history, a company official says….
Wal-Mart’s Chicago-area manager Chad Donath said generally stores receive between 3,000 and 4,000 applications for about 300 to 450 positions. He says Wal-Mart has been participating in job fairs and advertising the positions as it does in other communities but this time “we got an amazing response.”
“That incredible number of applications shows the community thinks Wal-Mart is a great place to work,” Mr. Donath says.
He says 90% of the applications came from Chicago residents. The new 140,000-square-foot store, which is set to open at 7 a.m. Friday, sits by the border of Evergreen Park and Chicago.
He said the 325 jobs include cashier, stocking, sales and back office positions. The average pay for non-management full-time positions is $10.99 an hour.
Wal-Mart said more than 70% of the new positions will be full-time.
Although some union members are skeptical at the very large number of applicants, the overall high number of applicants for a few limited jobs is not unique to this location. The San Franciso Chronicle reports:
Want a Wal-Mart job? Join the crowd
11,000 apply for 400 openings at retailer’s new Oakland storeFor all the criticism that Wal-Mart receives for its low wages and minimal health benefits, the retail giant says more than 11,000 people in the Bay Area are clamoring to get a job at its new Oakland store.
The country’s largest employer plans to welcome customers into its 148, 000-square-foot store on Edgewater Drive next Wednesday, and it says it already has filled 350 of its 400 openings.
Here is what some of the future employees said:
On Tuesday, Wal-Mart workers gathered together for their daily meeting filled with motivational speeches and a Wal-Mart cheer, which involves a few loud hoots and a wiggle.
Yolanda Williams, 48, of Oakland, started her job at the store five weeks ago, helping to set it up. On Tuesday, she was setting up the lingerie department, which she heads as a manager.
Williams previously worked as a senior computer operator for the city of Oakland and a cook at the city’s jail before it closed. She said she is happy to be working for Wal-Mart.
“I felt I was lucky because I’ve never been a manager in retail,” she said.
Lisa Jackson, 34, a Wal-Mart employee for nine years, working as a cashier, truck unloader and overnight stock clerk, is now a manager of the electronics department at the new Oakland store.
“I love my job,” Jackson said. “I like the people, and I love what I do.” …
“I think this is a good place to work,” said Brown, 52, who dropped off his application on Tuesday for an overnight maintenance position. “It seems like everybody gets along well with everybody.”
Brown has been looking for a job for six months. He said he could live with the wages that Wal-Mart is offering.
“It’s best to accept what you can get,” he said. “You start low and aim high. First you gotta get your foot in the door.”
Or to give yet another example, try this store in Glendale, Arizona:
New York University economist Jason Furman notes that a recent store opening in Glendale, Arizona, received 8,000 applicants for 525 jobs. The number of applications suggests, Furman writes, that “A Harvard applicant has a higher chance of being accepted than a person applying for a job at that Wal-Mart.”
The full articles can be found here, here and here.
There is a common understanding in economics that whenever there is a shortage or a surplus of something, a price control is somewhere nearby since supply and demand was not allowed to reach its equilibrium point. What is that price control in this situation? That price control is uppity liberals who think they know more than the market and approve minimum wage laws, generous labor laws, heavy taxes, burdensome regulations, etc…all things that raise the price of labor and primarily hurt the poor areas the most - areas that need the help most. So your left with areas that may have generous minimum wage laws, generous labor standards, but yet have very limited amount of jobs, hence the high number of applicants when a place does open up. Wal-Mart, on the other hand, has a business model that allows it to break through this barrier, and in many cases, open up to long lines of people who are in desperate need of a job. In short, Wal-Mart is not bad for the area, Wal-Mart is a God sent, just ask the people applying for a job there.
Either way you look at it though, whether you think Wal-Mart is good or whether you think Wal-Mart is bad, there is one thing we can all agree on: it is much better for these workers to be employed by Wal-Mart than to be employed by the unions, see here.
Or maybe the country would be better served by an effective jobs program.
Also keep in mind that the giant store will probably drive smaller businesses out, causing people to lose their jobs for 0 growth total….nice try with the argument though.
As someone who lost their business when Walmart put in stores on the north and south end of town…I find your argument specious. They put people to work who lost better paying jobs with more benefits at other businesses. Look at the businesses in town we supported- printers, banks, cleaning services, small local manufacturers, landscapers etc. etc. They all lost our business.
Walmart doesn’t hire in house security. They call our police for every pack of gum shoplifted.
My favorite thing about Wal Mart is how they help keep the communist China economy strong. By importing over 90% of their products they not only garuantee low low everyday prices, they also help the low low wage workers in China.
And lets not forget that in shutting down local busienss, the profits of running a business and selling goods are shipped out of state to walmart headquarters and to the pockets of its major institutional shareholders. These are profits that would and could otherwise be reinvested into the local community. The analysis of this post is poor. Adding low wage jobs to a community hardly offsets the crushing blow to local ownership and teh aility of a community to sustain more than the lowest of the low paying jobs.
Let’s not forget Wal-Marts policy of corporate welfare. Approximately 20% of my states Medicade money goes to Wal-Mart employees who have no other insurance. I believe that it’s time for them to pay their fair share.
I’m going to take this from the other end, that being a consumer. I live near one of the first Wal-Marts opened in a medium large city. There are also 2 other recently opened Wal-Marts in nearby suburbs one working class the other a bit more up-scale. What I have seen is that the inner-city Wal-mart has higher prices, less selection and older merchendise than it’s suburban counterparts. I can say with some knowlegde because my purchases are mostly non-perishable food and household items and we buy the same things at different Wal-Marts. Also it should be noted that end-of-season reduced price items are whisked from the urban store (before) price reduction to the suburban stores. So if Wal-Mart was really going to be of benifit to the poor they could even out their pricing and product distribution and no Wal-Mart is hardly the only chain store that uses these practices.
Why do people continue to write this kind of puff-piece propaganda that shills for Wal-Mart? Methinks our lovable Hispano-pundit needs a bit more education before he opines on subjects of this magnitude.
First off, it’s rather incorrect to think of Wal-Mart as a store, or even as a company. It functions more like a small country. It employs more people than the U.S. Army. It can virtually destroy any enterprise it deems worthy of anhiliation. And it has done exactly this on a number of occasions, as it did with Pillow-Tex.
MadMatt has good point above in comment #1. Yes, Wal-Mart creates jobs, but they’re shit jobs, at minimum wage, with abysmal benefits. Most analysts estimate that for every job Wal-Mart creates, 1.5 are lost from the local economy. Remember that Wal-Mart almost never hires an employee at a 40 hour workweek. They are assiduous in keeping most at 38 hrs weekly if possible to keep hires at “part-time” status. Then, in most cases, the “part-timer” has to work unpaid overtime off the books or risk being fired. Good ol’ Wal-Mart!
I think that CostCo offers the better big-box business model. They pay much better than W-M and offer excellent benefits. Turnover is less than a fifth of W-Ms, and they make a tidy profit. The key difference here is that Wal-Mart does not HAVE TO treat its employees as disposable animals, it simply chooses to do so because it wants to.
Because state governments are forced to subsidize some 40% of Wal-Mart’s workers’ healthcare through Medicare payments, we all pay through taxes an extra slice of Wal-Mart profit. As companies like Clausen discovered, every year W-M demands a better price for the same product. So what happens is that first the jobs that create the product are priced down, then shipped overseas, and finally quality is cut.
Wal-Mart ruins local economies, turns downtown shopping districts into boarded up, blighted ghettoes, offers dead-end jobs at wages slightly below subsistance, guts our domestic manufacturing and fills our world with cheap, plastic Chinese-made crap.
It’s the worst company in the world.
I saw the recent documentary about Wal-Mart — the one about how they demand that their suppliers bring down prices every year without fail. Every time I think of that, I think of my job going to China where corrput politicians let factory owners get away with paying their employees 25 cents/hour (with plenty of unpaid overtime) and turn their eyes away if those factories dump hazardous wastes in the rivers. Thanks Wal-Mart!
There are so many things here all mixed in, I will try to separate each objection and respond to each one individually.
Fist of all, I would like to make clear that everybody wants the same goal here, everybody wants poor areas to have better paying jobs, higher benefits, and an overall better life. Were not disagreeing on the goal, were disagreeing on the means of accomplishing that goal.
Wal-Mart, by providing jobs that these workers would have not otherwise had, is in fact increasing their standard of living. These workers would not be working at Wal-Mart if Wal-Mart was not the best option available to them. Sure it would be great if Wal-Mart could somehow pay all of these workers more, but like any business, they are restricted by supply and demand, and their specific business model. But this is not unique to Wal-Mart, all other companies have the same restraints. Ahh, but other companies pay higher wages you say. Other companies give higher benefits, you complain. Yes, but again, these other companies also have a very different business model (For example, see the comparison to Costco here). They either A. Cater to a higher income level of customers, and/or B. tend not to primarily operate in poor low job areas.
So that is the real problem with Wal-Mart. You can’t praise Wal-Mart’s business model of marketing to lower income customers and operating in low employment areas on the one hand, yet in the other hand demand that the company pay higher wages and higher benefits. The two are mutually exclusive. The only way you can get Wal-Mart to pay higher wages is by having the company do other, much more harmful, things to compensate for the higher wages. Wal-Mart will hire less people, or replace more workers with speedy check out lanes, or work people longer hours, or even worse, simply not open up shop in those areas. So on net total, those areas will have less job opportunities, not more, thereby hurting most the low skilled, and often times unemployed, citizens.
Now, as far as overall job gains in an area goes, some have said that the overall job gain is zero, Wal-Mart is just replacing well paying jobs with bad ones. This is clearly not true, for example here, and factually more opposite of what really happens. Wal-Mart, because of its economy of scale, has the ability to out compete many small businesses and yes, cause some to go bankrupt because of the competition, but it is important to remember that Wal-Marts median pay is significantly higher than the pay of small businesses, see here. So when Wal-Mart replaces jobs, they tend to be higher paying jobs than were there previously. In addition, as this shows, there is also a net increase in the amount of jobs.
As far as state sponsored health care goes, and Wal-Marts supposed benefit from it, well, that is more of an argument to remove state sponsored health care than it is an argument against Wal-Mart. Remember, had Wal-Mart not opened up in the area the amount of people on state sponsored health care would not reduce, it would (probably significantly) increase, thereby causing the state even more money. If you don’t believe me, take liberal blogger Matthew Yglesias’s word for it, he responds to that argument in more detail here.
As far as whether or not Wal-Mart really truly has lower prices that benefit the poor, there is no greater rebuttal than to visit a Wal-Mart yourself. When you walk in, you don’t primarily see rich white customers, what you see is primarily poor minority customers, certainly more so than at any other grocery store. Why would these poor minorities shop there if not for the better prices?
As far free trade arguments go, in order to keep the discussion focused, I am going to leave that discussion for another day, if you want to know more about why economists overwhelmingly support free trade, go here. Or read this great article on it by the very liberal economist Paul Krugman. For now, suffice it to say that free trade is as close to a win-win situation as you can get. It not only helps the United States, but in the process helps an often times much poorer country lift itself out of poverty. So free trade becomes good policy both on economic grounds, and more importantly, on humanitarian grounds. This is why it was the Democrat icon himself, Bill Clinton that created NAFTA and free trade with China.
I hope I have answered every objection, if not, feel free to point out what I left out.
I just want to respond to GodBlessCommies about his China comment.
What is a good alternative to helping the so called PRC move away from a socialist system???
Do we say, “you’re too poor to trade with” and “we will not trade with you until your economy is as modern and developed as ours is”?
Do we really expect China’s militant hardline Marxists to melt away without a little shove in the form of economic development through the opening of markets and trade and investment? They are even entrenched in America’s academic community, lucky for us though, we started out with a form of government that protects us against the full effects of economic ignorance.
Think of China and Taiwan like Hawaii and the United States and imagine people saying that only Taiwan should be free because there are too many people in the rest of the country. Why should the size of a nation determine whether or not it has liberty? A country cannot be too big for freedom, and neither can a planet.
Free-market economics gets resources going to their most value productive employments. The implications of this fundamental premise is that the attempt to contradict that must result in waste, and not only in material, but human potential.
For example: If Group A can provide beans or sweaters for $2/lb, so to speak, and Group B can provide the same for $1./lb, which one are people going to prefer to patronize?
Now, if Group B is not a free nation, that doesn’t negate the laws of economics, it negates the government of Group B and that is another matter.
As Joseph Salerno put it “Capital flowing out of a nation, to other areas where its more productive, to the third world countries, enormously develops the productivity of labor in [those countries] and increases the market for our goods while raising wages and profits in the export industry.”
If one business, whether large or small, fails in terms of being the best provider of consumer needs and wants, it is likely to disappear. What of the people who were displaced? Rather than try to prohibit/prevent competition of a more successful business, because of the anthropomorphic “smallness” of a failing business, we should focus on dealing with the most overall beneficial “relocation” of the displaced “worker.”
Many people don’t think “what can I add or contribute?” they think “who is gonna give me their money if I grace them with my presence?” They are the ones who usually have the most trouble, period. Trying to repeal economic law through legislative fiat doesn’t help the situation it adds to the difficulties that have to be dealt with.
Great comments SV, thanks for chiming in. I especially liked the George Reisman quote, he has written, by far, one of the best books on capitalism in the english language (which can be read for free here).
Why would a conservative cheer Wal-Mart?
Wal-Mart uses the power of eminent domain
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2005/02/25/carollloyd.DTL
http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/23/news/fortune500/retail_eminentdomain/
And Wal-Mart partners with the totalitarian state of China.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/12/29/BUG4IAI7MH1.DTL&type=business
http://www.china-labour.org.hk/public/contents/news?revision_id=17749&item_id=17748
It amusing to see the term ‘free market’ used so carelessly since the U.S. is a regulated economy. The power of the state to intervene in the market is so apparent that only the blind can not see it: crop subsidies, Export-Import financing, an extended copyright law, a Federal Reserve that sets interest rates, and numerous pork-barrel projects funded by taxpayers which benefit corporations are merely a few instances that discredit the notion that the U.S. is a free-market economy.
Regarding the pro Wal-Mart posts here reminds me of the old definition:
“Miser: A person who knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing.”
The Wal-Marts in our area have managed to drive out a lot of the small family run businesses in our area that provided decent jobs for my neighbors. Now, there is a surplus of dead end jobs and community money leaving towards Bentonville and China instead of circulating among the community.
You may decide you patronize Wal-Mart, it’s your right of course. But for me, I’m more than willing to spend a little bit more in order to help my neighbors stay in business; for me any other course of action is not only foolish, but immoral.
Sirc_Valence wrote:
“Do we really expect China’s militant hardline Marxists to melt away without a little shove in the form of economic development through the opening of markets and trade and investment?”
Equating China’s totalitarian regime to anything Marx envisioned is using guilt by association. Marx had little to say about how a communist state should function and he certainly did not believe that it should torture its citizens.
I think when people refer to the USA as free-market, they mean it in terms of comparisons to other countries, meaning that the USA in general, tends to be more free market than other countries.
As far as whether Wal-Mart is a net gain of jobs to an area, I answered that already above. Study after study has shown that even after Wal-Mart has driven out some competition, Wal-Mart continues to provide a net positive gain of jobs to the area.
Besides, this is irrelevant to my post, this post shows Wal-Mart going to areas that are already dried up of jobs, which is why they always get so many applicants, and all of this before even Wal-Mart opened up to compete with others.
As far as defending Wal-Mart goes, I am only defending Wal-Mart in this area, clearly there are areas of Wal-Mart practices that I am against and I have even spoken out against the company in some of those instances, for example, here.
Hispanic Pundit wrote:
“I think when people refer to the USA as free-market, they mean it in terms of comparisons to other countries, meaning that the USA in general, tends to be more free market than other countries.”
Poor explanation; for example you want to find a no cost checking account and compare three banks. One offers an account for $10 a month, another for $7.50 a month and the last one offers ‘free checking.’ You take the later offer but your first bank statement contains a $5 service fee. When you complain to the bank manager, she tells you that “they mean it in terms of comparisons to other banks, meaning that our in general, our checking account tends to be more free than other banks.”
Hil-aarious blog! Just about bust a gut!
Thank God for Wal-Mart! The savior of poor people and the jobless! Hoorah!
Seriously, dude, A1 tree-mendous satire. Congrats.
Sadly, there are always a few who don’t seem to get the joke. Don’t let them discourage you.
Here’s an idea for your next one: “Child Labor Laws Unfair to Nation’s Youth.” Take it — it’s yours. In your capable hands, I’m sure we’ll all be screaming with laughter soon.
Oh and the best part of the ‘joke’ is my primary proof that Wal-Mart helps the poor: Just walk into a Wal-Mart and look around.
When you walk in, you don’t primarily see rich white customers like you do in other grocery stores, what you see is primarily poor minority customers, certainly more so than at any other grocery store. Why would these poor minorities shop there in such large numbers if not for the better prices and better benefits Wal-Mart gives?
…when you se that, you realize, this isn’t a joke.
Hahaha. Oso hearts Jim.
Richard Thomas, (hopefully you’re still around)
The isolationist approach is not going to work with China. I acknowledge that reasonable people can disagree with what I’m going to say, but I don’t believe that a company doing business with China is a mark against it. The reason is that China is too big to leave to totalitarian control. True, China’s economic expansion and advances enable it become more powerful militarily, and threatening to its own citizens and its neighbors. Trading with China is a two-edged sword for this reason, but we have to have faith in the process of liberalization and that the future of China, which are the reformers, the capitalists, the new generations. We have to help them make their case and make the transition into a prosperous and peaceful China. To shut the doors of economic cooperation with that nation wouldn’t be smart.
You mentioned the Kelo case in your Wal-Mart is bad comment, but notice that it was not the conservatives on the court who supported that ruling. But I think that you strengthen the case for Wal-Mart in a strange way, quoting from your link: “Cash-strapped cities often use eminent domain in the context of making deals with big business–car dealerships, big-box stores like Wal-Mart and Costco, casinos, football stadiums or any number of developers with plans for upscale housing, hotels or retail.” The economic impact of this application of eminent domain by state and local governments appears to be positive, but that is really unfair and wrong. Now, the fact that Wal-Mart provides cheap goods (to be honest I don’t really go there often) and doesn’t unionize (people don’t marry their job and politicize it) seems great to me.
Also, I don’ t think that I’m being unfair by associating Marx’s call for a workers jihad with the totalitarian regimes that Marxism produces. The damage that Marx caused stems directly from his economic ignorance based fanaticism. Calling for the abolition of property and the right of the individual to be the captain of their own destiny was plain playing God. Regardless of how much you identify or sympathize with his rhetoric, you have to measure its actual value.
Marx argues that free-market economics “compels all nations, on pain of extinction, to adopt the bourgeois mode of production; it compels them to introduce what it calls civilisation into their midst, i.e., to become bourgeois themselves. In one word, it creates a world after its own image….” I wouldn’t call the statement hypocritical, but self-evidently schizophrenic.
The man just didn’t understand economics, for instance: “The bourgeoisie keeps more and more doing away with the scattered state of the population, of the means of production, and of property. It has agglomerated population, centralised the means of production, and has concentrated property in a few hands.” Marx/Engels, social scientists no doubt, made some serious conceptual errors which it is difficult for anyone, especially post-modernists, to untangle.
Let me try.
First, there will always be “concentrated property in a few hands” which does not necessarily harm us, because as individuals we make discoveries about our environment sovereignly. And that in turn reflects only the fact that for every cause there is an effect. Imagine kindergarteners revolting against their teacher who has “concentrated property” in the form of her intellectual and personal belongings demanding to abolish the fact of her posession. The epistemology here is just absurd. Does everyone have to own a car dealership, an oil refinery, a television station, an airport, a shipyard, a club, to feel good about themselves or for life to finally be fair?
Second, when Marx/Engels spoke of the means of production, they had a static view of its dynamics. How are we supposed to make progress if we are told that the proletarian revolution can only happen if we fight against the constant refinement of the processes of production? The Marxist doctrine, lest we forget, calls for that action, ignoring the laws of economics and following fantasies about them; hence the material and technological backwardness of Marxist nations, which in turn intensify the hardships of individuals who have deal with the moral conundrums of life.
Another glaring example of economic ignorance is the constant railing against centralization from the godfather of intellectually sanctioned oligarchy. This is not hyperbole, see Ludwig von Mises’ Liberty & Property for the what and how.
The argument was made that capitalism was inherently corrupt because it was based on the feudal society. Someone should have reminded Marx/Engels/Marxists that rhetoric is not necessarily logic. There have always been conflicts of interest and people with different views (eg. Marxists vs Capitalists), but the division of the human universe between burgeois and proletariat was simplistic ideation that followed from genuine observations and frustrations.
The left’s faith is that life is a senseless pursuit of self-gratification. Thus the inordinate mortification of the call to defend civilization whenever it is threatened- the cloaking of fear with idealism. Thus the utopian impatience and attachment to Marxist misconceptions.
Marx’s criticisms and prescriptions turned out not to be constructive, but quite the opposite. Anyone can criticize the world, but if we don’t understand the way that it works we have to be careful with the way that we go about trying to improve it. Not all of us can make a contribution in the way that we like, and it takes maturity to realize that.
Marx, like Muhammed, called for revolution without solution, and that is always dangerous and irresponsible. If I envision an omelette on my plate and I keep getting botulinum toxin instead, something is wrong with my recipe.
I agree with you, in a sense, about America not being a free-market economy in as much as there are and have been people who oppose free market economics in this nation. The essense of the American enterprise is liberty, but we are still in the middle of “growing pains” which are comprised of misunderstandings and some social incoherence. Yet, the economy of the United States was meant to be and still is fundamentally driven by free-market economics, people power, not socialism. That is the qualification for my characterization of the American economy as a free-market economy.
Since we’re sharing views here, I’ll say that “communism” is a unity in vision, and Marx’s was fundamentally flawed. He couldn’t get past the materialist’s epistemological problem of what a human being really is; if we are simply machines then of course we need dictators to improve upon “it”.. but don’t mistake the alternative of that approach to be the opposition to improvement.
The American form of government is really the pinnacle of civilization, you are not even forced to subscribe to the faith and values that form its invisible foundations.
“Phlegyas deposits them at a great Iron Gate which they find to be guarded by Rebellious Angels. These creatures of Ultimate Evil, rebel against God Himself, refuse to let the poets pass. Even Virgil is powerless against them, for Human Reason by itself cannot cope with the essence of Evil. Only Divine Aid can bring hope. Virgil accordingly sends up a prayer for assistance and waits anxiously for a Heavenly Messenger to appear.” –John Ciardi describing Canto VIII, The Inferno
HP, I have to admit, I haven’t finished reading Capitalism (only the intro), but I recall being very impressed with George Reisman’s essays, which lead me to reading some Mises on my lunch hours at old oddjobs. I ordered the book, which I bought back when I used to be a carpinter’s assistant. I would have gone into economics if it wasn’t for 9-11 and Islamofascism. Had to rearrange plans a bit, but I look forward to getting back to economics and finishing up on that book.
wal-mart is a company driven by customers…without the cusomters there would be no businesss…there are good things and bad things about wal-mart, but every policy that wal-mart has is supposed to be good. All of the negative things that people keep saying happen at wal-mart happen in all compines. you will never have a company that does not have corruption in some of its stores. I have worked for wal-mart for over five years, and i have not seen half of the things that people complain about here.
-big corporations have far to many rights, more then a average U.S. citizen. But there are many pros and cons to having a Wal-mart. I Think they’d be best in a commercial area (or large city[s]).
Many of the applicants for Wal-Mart could not get a job anywhere else except for Wal-Mart. Many people are very eager to get a job at Wal-Mart even though most Wal-Marts pay 6 dollars an hour starting. Wal-Mart also offers a great way to work your way up. Most of the Wal-Mart Assistant Managers are without a college degree making 38K a year, which is very good, and decent for someone with a degree.
Wal-Mart follows the law. Capitalism is 100% legal. If Wal-Mart ever breaks a rule, we hear about it and they are brought to justice. Don’t worry.
Someone said that a complaint about wal-mart is that they call the police for every peice of gum. I think you forget out NYC became from number 1 crime city to one of the lowest crime for big cities. They charged everyone who littered, everyone who broke a window, everyone who did anything they brought them to justice. It’s actually petty that you say that Wal-Mart can’t call the cops for someone who is breaking the law. If someone steals anything from me by god I call the police no matter what they steal. When someone steals from Wal-Mart they are stealing from the associates and the custumers. Wal-Mart actually changes their prices based on how bad they shrink out. The associates get a profit share based on profit and shrinkage.
You can say what you like, but Wal-Mart is legit. Wal-Mart can force any mom and pops shop out…. It’s legal and ethical