2008 Woodie Awards
Super Wal-Mart is a big fish in a small bowl
Do all of the protests have any merit?
Kevin Showkat
Issue date: 2/18/05 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 1
What's big, boxy, and has a distorted reputation for wiping out all shades of competition? It is Wal-Mart's much-disdained Supercenter, and it's coming to a Lodi near you!
In all earnestness, many have much to say about the imminent Supercenter. Pending the end of perfunctory political stalling, a Supercenter will be erected at the intersection of Kettleman Lane and Lower Sacramento Road; much less clear will be its effect on local grocery stores and nearby agricultural land.
Many predict-some more passionately than others-that grocery vendors will suffer the most damage. Barring Wal-Mart entry is the only option for Lodi, these groups claim.
While I agree Wal-Mart may have a negative impact on local Lodi businesses, I strongly disagree in the act of preventing a company entry into a market based solely on the premonition that local businesses may suffer.
Steve Herum, the Stockton attorney representing an anti-Wal-Mart group called Lodi First, warns that the project would be "introducing low-paying jobs without benefits and driving out high-paying jobs with benefits."
Such assumptions are just that: assumptions. Wal-Mart would inevitably have to fill high-paying managerial jobs similar to the ones they would supposedly evict, so making inflated, doomsday claims that Wal-Mart will eliminate all wages above the living standard is reckless.
The U.S. runs a mixed-market economy, one that fosters competition in the assurance that consumers will benefit from lower prices and higher quality. Which begs the question: Why is it that Wal-Mart is such a distinct threat?
When it comes to available goods at lower prices, consumers act in predictable ways. Is there any incentive to buy higher-priced carrots at Food4Less when you can get them at the Supercenter for 10 cents cheaper? The answer is no.
Some companies are inherently "better." Be it through the efficient use of resources or capable management, some businesses are simply more adept at what they do. Punishing a corporation simply because they provide a good or service at a lower price is wrong, fundamentally.
When any business takes a dive, do they make absurd claims of competitors "cheating," merely because they were able to sell cheaper?
No, and they shouldn't. In the end, the consumer always wins.
In terms of public opinion, I know that my adopted stance is not the sexiest. But denying a business the right to profit is against the ideals of capitalism. As brutish as it may sound, the strong survive, but it is to the boon of the consumer.
In all earnestness, many have much to say about the imminent Supercenter. Pending the end of perfunctory political stalling, a Supercenter will be erected at the intersection of Kettleman Lane and Lower Sacramento Road; much less clear will be its effect on local grocery stores and nearby agricultural land.
Many predict-some more passionately than others-that grocery vendors will suffer the most damage. Barring Wal-Mart entry is the only option for Lodi, these groups claim.
While I agree Wal-Mart may have a negative impact on local Lodi businesses, I strongly disagree in the act of preventing a company entry into a market based solely on the premonition that local businesses may suffer.
Steve Herum, the Stockton attorney representing an anti-Wal-Mart group called Lodi First, warns that the project would be "introducing low-paying jobs without benefits and driving out high-paying jobs with benefits."
Such assumptions are just that: assumptions. Wal-Mart would inevitably have to fill high-paying managerial jobs similar to the ones they would supposedly evict, so making inflated, doomsday claims that Wal-Mart will eliminate all wages above the living standard is reckless.
The U.S. runs a mixed-market economy, one that fosters competition in the assurance that consumers will benefit from lower prices and higher quality. Which begs the question: Why is it that Wal-Mart is such a distinct threat?
When it comes to available goods at lower prices, consumers act in predictable ways. Is there any incentive to buy higher-priced carrots at Food4Less when you can get them at the Supercenter for 10 cents cheaper? The answer is no.
Some companies are inherently "better." Be it through the efficient use of resources or capable management, some businesses are simply more adept at what they do. Punishing a corporation simply because they provide a good or service at a lower price is wrong, fundamentally.
When any business takes a dive, do they make absurd claims of competitors "cheating," merely because they were able to sell cheaper?
No, and they shouldn't. In the end, the consumer always wins.
In terms of public opinion, I know that my adopted stance is not the sexiest. But denying a business the right to profit is against the ideals of capitalism. As brutish as it may sound, the strong survive, but it is to the boon of the consumer.