they are in the top ten for the wealthiest business in america.

Sure is, and as well they should be. After all, as Milton Friedman said, “The most important single central fact about a free market is that no exchange takes place unless both parties benefit.” In other words, Wal-Mart got wealthy by providing society with goods it deems desirable. I highlight two of those goods here - cheap products and job creation.

All they care about is profit ,profit ,profit and at any cost,

What company does not care solely about profit? Do you honestly think that Starbucks, Vons, Ralphs, and so forth pay their employees more because they feel charitable? Of course not. They base their pay on the same thing Wal-Mart does - supply and demand. Yet, contrary to what you may think, this does not mean Wal-Mart treats its employees bad…on the contrary, the Wal-Mart work place is one of the safest and continuously ranks among the best places for minorities to work, see here, here, here, and here.

all the jobs out sourcing to china could have been here in america. Therefore jobs are lost, and walmart is creating a better economy in China not in the USA.

This assumes that job creation is a zero sum game when in fact it is not. Outsourcing, economists are in universal agreement, does not harm an economy, on the contrary, it benefits both parties involved. So Wal-Mart, by outsourcing, is benefiting China and the United States.

I’d like to make another point here before moving on. As I said above, job creation is not zero sum and I truly believe that it is not. Outsourcing benefits both the source and destination country involved. However, for the sake of argument, let us assume that outsourcing is a zero sum game - that outsourcing to China helps China at our expense. Even if this is true, which it isn’t but for arguments sake, wouldn’t that still be a reason to support outsourcing? Think about this - the United States is clearly the richest country in the world and China is one of the poorest so shouldn’t any kind hearted person (especially those who believe in economic redistribution, as the left does) consider it a good thing to take some from the rich country and give it to the poor one? Wouldn’t restricting such actions be an afront on humanity itself? So even under a false assumption, arguing against outsourcing would be like arguing that we should take food from the plates of the very poor in order to fuel our BMW’s…

Starbucks is a much smaller business than walmart but they pay higher wages, and everybody has insurance full or part time.

Objections like this are common yet they don’t consider two important differences from Wal-Mart.

The first being that Wal-Mart caters to a very different market than Starbucks does. Starbucks, being the premier coffee shop, caters to an economic class significantly higher than Wal-Mart does. So you would expect their workers to have higher productivity. Just imagine how profitable a Starbucks would be if you walked into one and the profitability of the workers was similar to Wal-Marts workers. Where the worker could have a hard time speaking english, might have had a criminal record, might be a high school drop out. Starbucks would surely lose many more customers than Wal-Mart would under similar circumstances. The higher the economic class a company caters to, the more profitability it demands of its workers, and the higher it has to pay them. This is also why In N Out workers are higher paid than, say, Mc Donalds workers. Both companies are calculating the same suppy vs. demand curve, it just the one catering to a higher economic class must have more productive workers…so it has to pay more to get the productivity it needs.

The second and most important thing is that there really are two mutually exclusive scenarios we are dealing with here (based on the firm principle that no company, nobody, is going to hire someone at a loss - to get lower productivity than what their pay demands, see more here): On the one hand, you have the Starbucks model that pays its employees higher wages, but as a result gives you economic models that tailor to the middle class and primarily employ middle class workers. On the other hand, you have the Wal-Mart model that pays its employees lower wages but as a result also employs less productive employees (the most neglected segment of society), operates in poor areas, and provides the poor and minority with two very essential necessities - jobs and cheaper products. Which scenario do you think is better for the poor? I contend that it is the Wal-Mart model. Yes, Wal-Mart pays lower wages than Starbucks but because of such Wal-Mart hires a less productive group of workers.

i dont mind paying higher prices for clothes or food if the workers are getting paid reasonable wages.

Of course you don’t mind, because you have the luxury to choose. But many of the poor do not have the same luxury and given that Wal-Mart employs many of the poors family and friends - especially compared to Starbucks - they get twice the benefit…cheap products and more employment.

I love people and it hurts me to see poor people get taken advantage of, and they think walmart is the best they can do for themselves and that is the furtherst from the truth.

Poor areas main problem, atleast from my experience, is not good jobs vs. bad jobs….it’s bad jobs vs. no jobs. Because of minimum wage laws, regulations, crime, lower productivity, and all sorts of other issues, poor areas have a really hard time finding companies that are willing to operate there. In my home town you can drive around one square block and easily find more empty lots than you can count with your hands. Wal-Mart more than any other company, and especially more than Starbucks, In N Out, Vons, Ralphs, and others, has found an economic model that allows it to operate in such areas, employ the workers there, provide them with affordable goods and yet still make a profit. This is great news indeed! And this is something that should be encouraged, not discouraged. In other words, if there is criticism to be given here, it should be towards Starbucks and other higher end outlets who have an economic model that makes it unprofitable to operate in poor neighborhoods.

In short, economist Arnold Kling’s comments ring true:

My own thinking is that we should be happy with Wal-Mart, not only for lowering prices for consumers, but for finding employment for low-skilled workers. If those workers are being paid according to the value of their output, then artificially raising their wages will cause them to lose their jobs. On the other hand, if they are not being paid as much as the value of their output, then what they need are other employers willing to hire them. I would say that what they need are more Wal-Marts.

Good point Urbanleftbehind!

You can cash your paycheck there (for a fee, of course), wire money to other countries, eat at McDonald’s (if you are into that), do your taxes during tax season, get your eyeglasses and buy some prescriptions for $4–All without leaving the store!

You can cash your paycheck there (for a fee, of course), wire money to other countries, eat at McDonald’s (if you are into that), do your taxes during tax season, get your eyeglasses and buy some prescriptions for $4–All without leaving the store.

Your response reminds me of why I like Wal-Mart so much.

Wal-Mart caters to the poor in so many different ways than other chains - be it cheaper products or simply jobs, that it is hard not noticing the stark difference when you enter a Wal-Mart and compare it to the other chains.

Which again, is why this subtlety is missed by the limousine liberals and those who have no experience with the problems of poverty (hint: a big one is jobs!).

I shop at the WM in Oxnard every so often and its always a good show. Lots of different characters. Although I have noticed that they have serious inventory problems at that store for some reason. Almost no one speaks English, including the staff. Mostly Spanish but you often hear other languages like Tagalog, Mandarin, and Hindi. It is truly an amazing site to visit.

I went to the Wal-Mart in Simi Valley once and it was a truly scary thing. Lots of Mullets, Tattoos, and dirty looks everywhere. Definitely trailer park types.