This is an archive of the old Stones Cry Out site. For the current site, click here.
« Terms of the Debate | Main | Rick Warren Saves a Life »
March 14, 2005
Re: Obscene Wealth
I was rather busy over the weekend, so it was not until this morning that I saw my colleague Rick's post on the "obscene" wealth of some Americans. Rick raises a few interesting points, and I would like to respond to them in this space.
I will quickly concede to the wisdom that to whom much is given much is expected. Yet I will refuse to attack any one person's level of wealth; what a man does with his money is between him and God, and perhaps his pastor. I will not suggest that one person has reached a limit to his or her wealth. That road has been travelled before. Whatever the abuses of some corporations, I find it treacherous to argue that one man is too rich on the basis of some abstract principle. Likewise do I repudiate the notion that Scripture forbids a certain level of wealth. Scripture clearly places guidelines in the lives of believers - do we even know the faith of these rich people? - but there is no salary cap in the life of the Christian.
Concerning the Walton family, readers of this site and of my personal blog will know that I have very little use for Wal-Mart. I find it ugly, crowded and rude. It is a place to be avoided, at least in the towns that I frequent. I find Wal-Mart's business tactics to be deplorable. For example, its use of emminent domain, sweetheart deals with local governments, undercutting of prices, etc. are rather obnoxious. As a free market conservative, I can oppose these policies. As a traditional conservative, I can oppose shopping at Wal-Mart and stores of its ilk on the grounds that superstores harm the community. Yes, there is a certain level of convenience that comes with these businesses, but there is a loss, as well. Local hardware stores, local record stores, local automotive stores...all of these establishments help mark a community in a way that Wal-Mart cannot. I grudgingly accept Wal-Mart's presence in my community, but I prefer to spend my dollars elsewhere as often as I can, in order to support those businesses that help make my community something special.
However, I think it's time to get over our assumptions that working at local stores is a paradise. I've worked at both a local grocery store and a local record store. The record store job was an absolute blast, mainly because I was a college kid working at a record store. The grocery store was...not so much. I was paid far less than a Wal-Mart employee of my own age, and my employers were strangely aloof about the lives of teenage employees during the late 1990s. My major comfort in working there was that it was still a relatively small business, which thankfully prevented from becoming another brick in the corporate wall. (By this I refer to my ability to ask for time off or call in sick)
Rick notes that Save Mart, a store with perhaps the most generic name ever, "has been serving local customers and providing solid paying jobs to the communities for years." Indeed, I have little doubt that local customers have been served, and I assume that Rick means that these was a certain ambiance about the service. I understand this, and I still find such service at regional Southern chains like Western, Piggly-Wiggly and the stores formerly owned by the Bruno family (Food World, FoodMax, etc.). Yet I'm curious about these "solid paying" jobs? Is that a fact? The cashiers and bagboys were making "solid pay?" I'll believe that the butchers and florists and managers at these stores make solid money. But truthfully, they probably do the same at Wal-Mart or Target. Cashiers and baggers tend to be young people, and while I feel a certain degree of Christian sympathy for grown adults working such jobs, no company should make those folks the crux of company policy.
Rick closes with the following statement:
I’m for free market competition, but Wal-Mart does not compete with local supermarkets, they annihilate them. So you save a few bucks buying cheap Chinese goods, the Walton family runs off with the cash, and hard working breadwinners are sent packing. Hey, if you can honestly rejoice in that as a victory for capitalism, go for it - but I can't.
It is true that Wal-Mart does not compete, but again I refer to the cases of imminent domain, government payouts for roads and stoplights and juicy tax breaks. That is where the competition stops. If Wal-Mart was denied those things and still crushed its competitors, I would have little room to argue on economic grounds. (Aesthetics are another matter) Yet Rick falls into a fit of rhetoric when he suggests that Wal-Mart shoppers are "buying cheap Chinese goods" while the Waltons get rich and the little guy shuts down. On the matter of Chinese goods, this may be true for clothes. However far more people buy food and household goods at Wal-Mart than they do clothes or furntiture. The fact is that the Waltons have been rich for decades. They're not getting rich on the backs of poor shop keepers; they became rich filling in a niche. I stand by my belief that Wal-Mart has reached a tipping point and is doing more harm than good, but let's do away with the myth that the lots of people are hurt financially. Most small businesses only employ a handful of workers, the majority of which are part-time. Then again, so are many of Wal-Mart's employees, which hurts the notion that a shiny new Wal-Mart will provide health insurance for an entire community.
I stand by my cricisms of Wal-Mart. Throw Target in there, too, though they get a fair amount of my money for reasons of proximity and neccesity at this stage in my life. I still find both stores to be aesthetically displeasing and catering to a dangerous whim in the American mind: the notion that convenience and dollar-value are more important than community and aesthetics. That's a hill I'll die on, but not the dangerous and slippery idea that the CEOs are "too rich."
Posted by Matt at March 14, 2005 06:24 PM
Trackback Pings
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Re: Obscene Wealth:
» Morning Links 3/15 from Pseudo-Polymath
I'm running a weird schedule today. I worked out in the morning, came to work late. In the mid-afternoon, I'm going to be driving to Dayton for a few days. Blogging may be sporadic, but ... I've still to write... [Read More]
Tracked on March 15, 2005 11:53 AM
Comments
I think you missed my point entirely Matt. But, thanks for the post.
Posted by: Rick Brady at March 15, 2005 12:20 AM
i'm curious to hear you explain your point more clearly, rick??
I seemed to miss your point too.
Posted by: skibrian at March 15, 2005 12:44 PM
There's a reason why I discussed Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, but did not criticize them. Their wealth isn't obscene. They are making their fortunes and providing a valuable service to the economy by expanding well paying job opportunities. I can't see how a Christian could ever justify or excuse others for paying pittances to employees while making billions just because it's ethical according to market standards. I don't serve the god of capitalism or any market god. Markets aren't perfect, in fact, they are highly flawed - just like the government is highly flawed. They are flawed because people are flawed (e.g., one of the fundamental assumptions to market economics is that consumers and producers have full knoweldge. Last time I checked, only God was omniscient.) God calls us to have higher standards than those of the world. It is frightening how my fellow brothers and sisters can't look at the Walton income and employee pay disparity and conclude that what they are doing is perfectly okay just because "this is capitalism baby!"
Posted by: Rick Brady at March 15, 2005 02:12 PM
Fair point, but could you please demonstrate how Wal-Mart should make changes?
Posted by: Matt at March 15, 2005 02:59 PM
Rick,
are you making sure to account for the fact that many of those involved own corporations other than Wal-Mart? For example, I happen to know of two Walton sisters (Bud Walton's daughters) whose families own pro sports teams. (News Story) Stan and Ann (Walton) Kroenke, and Bill and Nancy (Walton) Laurie, own a number of sports teams between them.
What other companies do some or all of the Waltons own? Are they, like Bill Gates, expanding well-paying job opportunities through ventures other than Wal-Mart? It's easy to look at the most visible part of their wealth and notice that their employees are mostly minimum-wage, but it doesn't seem like we have the complete picture if we don't account for other things they've invested in and other companies they run.
Posted by: LotharBot at March 15, 2005 05:40 PM
Matt, simple. Pay their people better. I'm a huge believer in profit sharing. They should establish a percentage of annual profit and disburse as bonuses that could be tied to performance (attendance, accuracy, customer service ratings, etc). In fact, I think profit sharing is the appropriate Christian model for companies. Why horde it and act like "labor" is just one line item in a P&L statement?
LotharBot, I don't have the time now, but it's not a coincidence that the Waltons are each worth $18 billion (+/- $.3 billion). Wal-Mart is the breadwinner in their family.
Posted by: Rick Brady at March 15, 2005 05:52 PM
I always find the complaint about Walmart's "undercutting of prices" fascinating. Would it be more ethical for them to overcharge their customers instead?
Posted by: Pete The Elder at March 15, 2005 06:14 PM
Sorry, Rick, but I don't buy that argument. A high school kid fetching buggies and ringing up diapers shouldn't be paid much more than 6 bucks an hour, at least in my part of the country. Paying much more is just plain bad business. Management is another matter, but I know of managers who have made upwards of six figures.
Posted by: Matt at March 15, 2005 06:26 PM
We just see the world differently, Matt. By saying that paying more than that is "bad business" you seem to be reverting back to that nasty market god.
Have you heard of In N Out Burger? A Christian owned company that prints Bible verses under every cup. They are a phenomenally successful business here in CA and they pay their burger flippers roughly 25% more than McDonalds or Burger King to start. They do so, I believe, because they are Christian owned, and they know that God has brought them labor so that they can prosper - therefore they should share their prosperity with their labor. They also know that by printing verses on their cups, they are being watched - and they know they are called to a higher standard than that which "good business" dictates. Since they honor God, God honors their business - now that's good business!
Posted by: Rick Brady at March 15, 2005 08:04 PM
Yes, I've heard of In-N-Out Burger. I saw Pulp Fiction. And I'm delighted that they print Bible verses on their cups. But you're assuming Wal-Mart is "Christian owned." Since Sam Walton has been dead, I've never been under the impression that it was. Frankly, I think targetting (ha!) Wal-Mart in all of this is rather odd - they've never, ever been regarded as a Christian business. If they were professin' Jesus, your point would be valid, but since they're not, I can't tell where you're going with this whole thing. Your example of In-N-Out is somewhat flawed, anyway; they're primarily a regional company, and that does affect their business operations.
And where are your statistics suggesting that Wal-Mart is any worse (in terms of wages) to their workers than Target or Home Depot? I've already established my disdain for Wal-Mart, but I can't see how they're under any sort of moral obligation to pay 50 cents more an hour to a kid bagging groceries.
Chick Fil-A is also a Christian owned company, and I believe they treat their folks well. One of the reasons is that Truett Cathy still has a major role in the company. Were he to die or retire, and the company be run by a CEO and corporate board, things would change. It really seems like you're railing against something that isn't workth the effort.
Posted by: Matt at March 15, 2005 10:11 PM
Matt, again you miss my point. If Wal-Mart were Christian run, I'd be criticizing them for being a bad witness. I'm criticizing them for immoral corporate business practices, although I admit that they engage in "ethical" behaviour if the market economy is the standard. I think you make my point for me:
"Chick Fil-A is also a Christian owned company, and I believe they treat their folks well. One of the reasons is that Truett Cathy still has a major role in the company. Were he to die or retire, and the company be run by a CEO and corporate board, things would change."
You seem to be saying that, Chick Fil-A, if it didn't treat their employees well, or at least didn't treat them better than how the market economy would treat them, then you would have no problem. That is, if the company were run by a CEO and corporate board, things would change, and that wouldn't be a bad thing so long as they complied with the law.
I say, people should always treat people, especially their employees, "well," and it should make no difference whether it is Christian run or an athiest CEO and a board. Moral is moral and immoral is immoral. As a Christian, I cannot look to a company that exploits the "ethics" of flawed capitalism and ever condone their behavior.
Dave Ramsey tonight provides an example and I'll be posting on it in a few minutes. If you know Dave Ramsey, he's an absolute advocate for personal responsibility. But, he is railing against the Republican bankruptcy bill because it is bought and paid for by immoral corporate predatory lenders. The lenders prey on people and entice them through marketing and gimmicks to get them into debt, then buy legislation that makes it harder for people to get a clean slate. If you take a hard lined, logical, and principled market-based, Horatio Alger pick 'em up by yer bootstraps, take responsibility for your actions mentality, then sure - there should never be bankruptcy; after all, you signed on the line and you should pay!!!! But thank God there is, and thank God for Dave Ramsey to speak up for what we should as Christians know is not right.
Too many Christians let their political ideology obfuscate right and wrong.
It doesn't take much checking to realize that Wal-Mart engages in a lot of shady practices. http://www.pbs.org/itvs/storewars/stores3.html That's only one, there are tons more.
My last word on the subject: If you think that saving a few bucks is worth all the shady things that go on behind the scenes, then go ahead and give the Waltons your money. I know I will be held accountable by God for how I spend my money and I would rather be safe than sorry. The Waltons won't get my money. Now, if only I could convince my wife... :-)
Posted by: Rick Brady at March 16, 2005 01:44 AM
I understand what you're saying. I just don't think it's feasible at all. I wasn't defending Wal-Mart so much as it trying to demonstrate that they're no different from anyone else. But again, how are we to demonstrate what sort of pay is moral and what is not?
Should I shop at GAP because they pay more than Old Navy? I know this because I was a GAP employee for four years (off and on). Where do we draw the line? Of course, both stores are owned by GAP, Inc., but I think you see my point. J. Crew pays better wages than American Eagle. Should I only shop at J. Crew? (I do, but that's besides the point). We're in some pretty muddy water, hombre.
Posted by: Matt at March 16, 2005 11:20 AM
Actually, Old Navy employee's can make more than Gap employee's; this is 100% true in terms of managment. The Old Navy brand is far more lucrative and harder to manage than Gap or Bannana due to high volume sales and more square footage.
Also, due to the Wal-Marts of the world, a pay cap has been implemented which has resulted in the inability for Gap Inc employee's to recieve a raise without a promotion if he or she reaches the cap.
Posted by: old navy employee at July 22, 2006 03:09 PM