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.