The Brothers Austrian

Nickel and Dimed vs. Life at Wal-Mart by Charles Platt

I was recently having a conversation about insurance costs with a friend who is a senior at Rutgers University. Somehow the conversation digressed to the topic of Wal-Mart. The Rutgers student listed all the classic knocks on Wal-Mart: they treat their employees like a crap, pay them nothing, do nothing good for American manufacturing. This commentary sounded all too familiar. My freshman year at Syracuse University I had similar opinions of Wal-Mart after reading Nickel and Dimed.  My very first college paper was based on the book (man, if I could only find that assignment to post here). Nickel and Dimed is essentially a tale of how hard it can be to live off minimum wage and how companies exploit laborers … it’s modern day, The Jungle. After reading the author’s tale I had a classic case of rational ignorance. The story seemed to make a well researched “Wal-Mart is evil” argument, so was it really worth my time to find other sources on working life at Wal-Mart? The books thesis was in line with what seemed to academics a consensus view; at the time that good enough for me. About two years later I watched what I consider to be one of the best South Park episodes ever: Something Wal-Mart This Way Comes. Again…Wal-Mart… evil.

Fast forward 7 years to a time where I am more in tune with various economic schools of thought and viewpoints. I came a across a podcast on Econtalk with Russ Roberts in which he was interviewing a man who was retired editor. Roberts’ guest had decided to take up position at Wal-Mart and subsequently written various articles on his experiences (Life at Wal-Mart by Charles Platt). Here is a synopsis of the podcast:

Charles Platt, author and journalist, talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts what it was like to apply for a job at Wal-Mart, get one, and work there. He discusses the hiring process, the training process, and the degree of autonomy Wal-Mart employees have to change prices. The conversation concludes with a discussion of attitudes toward Wal-Mart.

What Platt had to say seemed to make sense.  His points were further supported by Robert’s commentary on the general economics of Wal-Mart. I started piecing my Wal-Mart experiences together in my head. All in all, I would have to say I enjoy Wal-Mart. One stop shop, low prices, and great service. So, is there enough evidence that Wal-Mart exploits it labor for me to shun Wal-Mart?

The stigma is that Wal-Mart workers are treated like crap and are unhappy. After hearing about Platt’s experience, I now pay attention to the demeanor of Wal-Mart employees when I shop there. From my experience going to Wal-Mart, their employees, so far, have seemed pretty happy in general. Now, after reading Nickel and Dimed there were a few years that shopping there gave me the heaby jeebies but I didn’t shop there any less. There has always seemed to be some a disconnect, for me, between the experience that I read about in Nickel and Dimed and my personal experiences at Wal-Mart.

I would guess that good portion of recent liberal arts graduates have read some version of a “Nickel and Dimed”. I think Nickel and Dimed misses the human aspects of why people work at Wal-Mart, in other words, what their living situation before the enter employment with the company.  Therefore, it tends to mislead readers into believing that most other Wal-Mart employees dislike their job as much as the author of the book did. Certainly there are people struggling to get by that work at Wal-Mart, but is it right to pin the blame for their struggles on Wal-Mart? I think not. The Platt article may change your mind on Wal-Mart and it may not, but either way it is worth getting another viewpoint on the “Evil Wal-Mart” story that seems to so prevalent in university lecture halls across the country.

MisesBeliever General austrian school, Charles Ploot, Economics, education, Nickel and Dimed, Russ Roberts, working at Wal-Mart

If spending is the new conservatism, please label me a liberal. I consider myself a liberal in the classical sense of the word. Below is excerpt from Amity Shales “The Forgotten Man”, an absolute must read.

On August 3rd 1938 George Gallup, the pollster reported that Willkie would have the edge over Roosevelt if the election was held that day…Back home in Elwood, before a crowd of 200,000 and with weather 102 degrees in the shade, Willkie asked the public to think about what it meant to be liberal . Was being liberal merely a left progressive? OR was a liberal someone that believed in liberalism in the classic sense, in the primacy of the individual and his freedom? Willkie railed against Roosevelt’s “philosophy of distributed scarcity.” …and he argued, speaking of both the United States and Europe, it a was a weakness ”that people reached for dictators and concentrated government power…”

Currently it seems to me that both Democrats and Republicans have both headed down the path of concentrated government power and away from liberialism and ultimately liberty. Classical liberalism is making a comeback and has been an undertone to the recent tea parties. The libertarian movement, which is ultiminately one in the same with Austrian economic policy , is not a conservative undertaking in my eyes (as most pundits seem to think), rather the movement embodies what it truly means to be “liberal”.

MisesBeliever Uncategorized