Stones Cry Out

Not only are the Waltons rich, but at least two of the women have husbands who are wealthy in their own right. I don't recall who's married to who, except that one of them is married to Stan Kroenke, who owns several sports teams (Denver Nuggets, Colorado Avalanche, and I think the St. Louis Rams.) He's not quite in the top 20, but he's easily in the top 200.

I have to ask... what makes you think they're "running off with the cash" or hoarding it? It might not end up in the hands of Wal-Mart employees, but I'd imagine a lot of it is invested in something, somewhere. Does that create jobs? I know the construction of the Pepsi Center employed a lot of people in Denver...

That doesn't make it particularly ethical that they underpay their employees, but it does take away some of the bite of your argument when you realize the money isn't disappearing.

The title for this post says it all: “obscene wealth”! Not necessarily in terms of the size of the wealth involved or how it may exist as investments. The crux of the matter is the means by which it is generated through ruthless tactics of competition.

It brings to mind the “robber barons” like John D. Rockefeller who in an earlier era used monopolistic power to drive his competitors out of business. The laws against monopolies curbed some of the excesses; a bit late, but a response was made in the form of anti-trust legislation. It’s said that “big business” learned to fear the consequences of unchecked avarice and exploitation of workers. There’s an old expression: “There ought to be a law!” I don’t have one handy to suggest, but, where Wal-Mart is concerned, the time to find one may have arrived.

Join the club.
We can witness in our lifetime the consequences of built-in tensions in the marketplace. As shareholders, we want companies to return the biggest profits possible. But as customers we want to buy at the lowest possible price. These two expectations are mutually at odds.

Add to that a transnational dynamic and we see large companies getting products made cheaper in other countries, leading to the elimination of jobs in the U.S. All the while, otherwise patriotic Americans are lining up to buy the very products that are putting their neighbors into the unemployment line.

Big fish eat the little ones. Home Depot puts local hardware stores out of business. Grocery delis put free-standng delis out of business. And Walmart puts everyone out of business.

For years I dealt with a similar contradiction working a cafeteria line. Everyone wants the line to move quickly, until it is their turn to be served. The person being served must never be "rushed." If you want to see the dark side of human behavior, just try it.

WalMart whining again? So if we don't get to have free markets who gets to control the market?

How many mom and pop grocers did SaveMart put out of business? Why is a large national corporation that started out small but had the drive, ambition and desire to grow the bad guy but the small regional grocer who probably put plenty of sole proprietorship grocers out business the good guy?

Not defending Wal-Mart - just pointing out an inconcistentcy in this particular argument.

I used to work for a large consumer products company that had Wal-Mart as its number one customer. Because of that, my corporation was able to employ a lot of people and was forced to be innovative to compete for shelf space.

My concern is primarily with the pay of employees. If you are making billions off the backs of the employees, just because the market dictates $7/hr or so, doesn't mean that it's ethical or moral to pay market rate. I don't mind Save Mart closing, so long as the jobs and pay are roughly equivalent. The owner of Save Mart (check the link) makes a decent living. So do all his full time employees. They are a team and they provide a jobs and a service. Wal Mart comes in and it's impossible to compete. I'm not all that concerned with what happens to Save Mart's owner. Just his employees. I don't mind the Waltons being rich, but to be this rich while the employees are paid so poorly, is immoral. Well, that's my view anyway.

Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart said regarding obscenity, "I'll know it when I see it." Is there a magic threshold for obscenity? No. Is there a magic ratio of wealth to pay for employees from who the wealth is derived? No. But, we should know it when we see it and, for me, the Walton's have cleared the Stewart threshold.

"All things to me are lawful, but all things are not profitable; all things to me are lawful, but all things do not build up." 1 Cor. 10:23.

It may be technically okay to pay employees minimum wage just because the "divine" market dictates it, and I can understand paying minimum wage when your business is just making it (I'm a qualified opponent of the minimum wage), but when you have a net worth of $90 billion, I can't say that what you are doing, although legal, and perhaps even "ethical" from a market ethics standpoint, is Biblically appropriate or moral.

Badger 87,
"I would argue the whole area of executive compensation needs to be addressed and the issue is not merely confined to Wal-mart."

True, true. But I suppose it's easiest to use the biggest offenders to shape public opinion. I think the Walton family is the most obvious example, even more so than Enron, of corporate greed and predatory business practices. But, yes Badger 87, point well taken.

How much has the net worth of the Waltons increased in the past year?

Would it be unethical if they put the wages at such a level that they held exactly even in net worth (making nothing from Wal-Mart)? They'd still have gazillions of dollars of net worth, and they'd still be paying fairly low wages.

Would it be unethical if they fired 1/4 of their employees and gave the rest a pay increase so that their expenses were the same?

1) Given their low wages, most Walmart employees qualify for welfare, particularly health benefits. Some get it. So, taxpayers in part subsidize Walmart's wage levels.

2) 80% of Walmart's non-perishable goods come from mainland China. China keeps their yuan currency about 40% below true market value, which means that Walmart's pricing is artificially low, which, together with tax-subsidized employee wage levels, allows them to drive out competition and still make enormous profits. These tax and currency subsidies to Walmart contribute significantly to the huge U.S. trade deficit (the transfer of material wealth out of the U.S.) as well as the Walton family assets. So, U.S. goods can't be exported to China at fair market rates. Meanwhile, China makes huge export profits (based on 35 years of rabidly focused, state-sponsored theft of U.S. patents and industrial processes through large-scale espionage), profits that China reinvests in an economy that's grown at +9% per year, more than 3x faster than the U.S. and Europe, for about 10 years. PLUS they're buying up assets world-wide, including U.S. commercial real estate, businesses, especially banks. At this rate, China's economy will pass the U.S. in less than one generation. So, who's winning and which side of this economic war are the Waltons on? Think they're lobbying Congress to increase minimum wage and pressure China to revalue the yuan? Or maybe the Waltons are an ordinary family, whose founder succeeded by implementing fair-minded, all-American values that just happened to make them twice as wealthy as Bill Gates. If not, how did they get that rich? How did it happen?