I was happy to see some response to my earlier blog on the “Social Justice Crowd.”  Here I would like to offer some clarifications and responses to the responses.   Let me say first that Bert Wheeler gave an excellent rejoinder regarding one of the major benefits of enterprises such as Walmart:  It substantially increases the well-being of many people who otherwise would be unable to afford certain goods.  Jonathan also raised some important questions which I will address.

Jonathan questions the overall “cost-benefit” calculus, arguing that perhaps (probably?) I overestimated the benefits of having Walmart but more importantly I failed to consider costs: “(managers discouraged from processing overtime, off-the-clock non-compensated work, disallowing unionizing, etc). That doesn’t account for its routine EPA fines, overseas outsourcing, troubling conditions for manufacturing employees, political influence, and questionable expansion tactics.”  Let’s consider these elements.  I do agree that if it is true that managers are discouraged from the top from processing overtime, this is certainly an ethical, possible legal, lapse.  Off the clock work may be done, but if employees are willing I see no problem at all with it.  If they are forced then of course it is a problem.

Unionizing is a big problem for me.  As I see it, unions have largely outlived their usefulness.  And a business ought to be able to legally express its opposition to unions.  Now if a union wishes to form, I have no intrinsic opposition to that, but it should not thereby be able to strike or foreclose vocalization of opposition to it.  Of course I do not support violence or coercion on either side of that issue.  Nevertheless, it seems that unions today take a great deal of money in dues from their members (often coerced to join by virtue of state laws allowing the “closed shop”) but spend it on their own leaders and support issues far beyond the well-being of their members, in fact often opposed to the actual benefit of members, not to mention the wage inflation they create at the consumers’ expense.  So if Walmart is legally able to disallow unions, I think everyone would be better off, not worse.

As for EPA fines, I ask, what big company has NOT been fined by the EPA.  I believe even I could be fined by the EPA, not knowing I had done anything wrong until the inspector showed up.  The EPA is one of the most overly bureaucratized and arbitrary agencies in existence.  Now if Walmart knowingly violates EPA regulations, they are of course liable, but that also doesn’t change the problem that the EPA itself is the main problem.  It too has seen its best days, having become a giant imperialistic bureaucracy existing mainly for its own preservation and captured by environmental radicalism.

About outsourcing.  There seems to be a contradiction here when on the one hand people claim concern for the poor and then oppose giving jobs to those in other nations who are desperately poor.  And to anticipate criticism here, yes, wages will be lower in those nations.  But they will also be both higher than the alternative and be real jobs with dignity.  Anticipating another objection, what about the sweatshop criticism?  One has to be careful here.  I don’t support dangerous conditions, but neither do I uncritically accept the assertion that every workplace in poor countries is likely a sweatshop.  What does and ought it mean to say a workplace is a sweatshop—that it doesn’t meet the same standards as an American workplace?  I think not.

Now as to political influence, to the extent that happens it is cronyism and it should not occur.  It is economically bad and it is unethical.  But it cannot be solved by expecting Walmart to suddenly “get religion.” We need systemic change on this one—and the sooner the better.  So I am in agreement on that.

Finally, I am not sure what is meant by “questionable expansion tactics.” If cronyism, political influence, is meant, then I agree.  But if it is simply going into a town to build a store, I call foul on that criticism.  As much as I like the “mom and pop” stores and tradition, I know that the consumer, particularly the less well-off consumer, is more important.  Moreover, I would like to see the traditional establishments become more entrepreneurial rather than just complain they are being undercut.  Again, think about real people benefited by Walmart.  Not just a few, but millions.  They have a decidedly better life than they might have.

Now we can argue all day about whether people really “need” all the things they want or purchase.  That is an important cultural and religious issue, but stores like Walmart are not implicated in that.  They are simply responding to demand.  To get at the bigger cultural-religious issue, one must change hearts, something a business is not in business to do and really can’t do.

Once again, I ask, what happens if Walmarts simply disappeared and there were no other similar alternatives?  Can we say we really care about those who are poor if we would knowingly support a situation in which they would pay much higher prices or not be able to obtain many goods at all?  Walmart, believe it or not, is one important way to care for the poor.