Why working for Walmart is like taking a vow of poverty.
Yet another Walmart loves human misery article is out from the AP now. What’s different to me about this one though is that it raises more questions than it answers. Here’s one interesting part:
Rather than assume shoppers will flock to the lowest price items, [Chief Marketing Officer Stephen] Quinn said Wal-Mart customers are using the broad range of items available at the store to sustain their standard of living while still cutting back. For instance, Ben & Jerry’s ice cream sales are up. On its face that seems strange but the top-shelf ice cream is a bargain if it is replacing a trip to an ice cream parlor.
Doesn’t “Save Money Live Better” mean customers actually have to save real money? Anyone can save money if they assume what they haven’t spent is actually savings. I’m not taking that trip to Mauritius I always wanted to take this year. Does that mean I have an extra ten grand to spend at Walmart now?
Here’s the real keeper from the article though:
Speeding checkout times, having cleaner stores and friendlier clerks is an important element to making the stores more attractive. Wal-Mart has essentially the same people in its stores as it did two or three years ago, [chief operations officer Bill] Simon said. To motivate them, the company emphasized that employees are helping families live better – long a mantra of Wal-Mart – and that faster, cleaner and friendlier were the way to carry out that mission.
[Emphasis added.]
Why raise salaries when you can tell your workers they’re actually doing charity work and make them do it for free? Oh yeah, that’s just going to work great. Doesn’t everybody want to be like Mother Theresa? Certainly not the Walton family.
Here’s what I’m wondering though: Does Walmart think it’s pulling a fast one on its customers who read this article or do they actually believe their own line of B.S.?
If I go to Chili’s three times a week for a year with friends. Every trip I spend $25 on dinner including the tip. Then I decide that I will eat a Value Meal from McD’s instead of Chili’s twice a week. If the Value Meal cost $8; isn’t that an actual saving for me? Although I am spending money…I am spending much less than I normally do. Instead of $75 per week, I am spending $41 and still maintaining a habit of not cooking.
So to me as a customer this trade-off did save me money, because I have more in the bank account at the end of the week and didn’t sacrifice too much. I don’t understand your point.
Also, a statement from Sen. Joe Biden was posted saying work was more than wages, it is about pride. As soon as Wal-Mart says the same thing to their employees, to make them proud of their impact on families, you say it is all about wages.
Lawnmowerman:
1. Consuming less is not saving money. It is merely consuming less. Saving money means you don’t spend it at Walmart or anywhere else.
2. Wages and respect are related. When companies like Walmart try to instill your employees with pride in what your employees are doing without paying them adequately you are not putting your money where your mouth is. If you don’t do that, all the propaganda in the world won’t do what you want it to do.
So the gap in consumption is not a surplus/saving? The money you are not spending on the same/similar goods and services would be savings.
If I bought a hamburger at Chili’s for $12 and then trade to McD hamburger for $5…I am still consuming the same amount, but paying less for it.
The example above said, if I spent $10 a month on ice cream at the local shop…but now I am spending $5 on the same amount of ice cream, but I am buying them at a retailer and fixing it myself. How is that not a dollar saving for me? I am not spending that $5.
Lawnmowerman:
When I go to the Ralph Lauren store in the outlet mall I always see the same Polo shirts for $50. They are accompanied by a sign that says 50% off. I need to buy clothing eventually. Therefore, am I saving $50 by buying them?
So they are $100 shirts? If you usually consume $100 shirts, then I’d say you are saving $50. And if you go buy the Faded Glory shirt at Wal-Mart on clearance, you can save $97.
I think you are getting caught up in the semantics. You can save money on a good or service by trading down and/or paying less and spend it on something else. Here the savings is not literally savings in an economic sense, but you do get more utility out of your money. Alternatively, I can take the $97 I saved buy buying the Wal-Mart shirt instead of my usual shirt at Ralph Lauren and put that in a savings account. I think that’s the “savings” you are getting at.
Someone — bingo. If you are buying more, and spending more, you are not saving…but if you are trading down in that cost (in the article Ice Cream Palor ice cream for Ben & Jerry’s) it creates a savings, unlike a 50% gimmick that is always “50% off”. Why not create a blog about Ralph Lauren, he sounds evil.
But another explanation may be that the tough economy and Joe Biden empty speeches are making America depressed and they need more ice cream to fill the void.
When you give up overpriced goods for cheaper goods you are only saving money in Fantasyland. I hope you two are both very wealthy otherwise you will both go bankrupt if you manage your money in this manner.
Jonathan,
Perhaps you can tell me how to save money in the real world. I wouldn’t want the pittance Wal-Mart pays me to go to waste.
JR,
I too would like a simple example of how to save money. Since social security won’t be around I will need all my personal savings I can hold on to. Thanks for your help.
Buy less. Put the money you would spend in a bank or an investment account.
I think I see the problem. Back to the shirt example above: No one is advocating buying the shirt just because it is on sale. The assumption is that it is replacing the shirt you would have bought at a higher price.
To put it another way, say I pay $100/month for cable with all the bells and whistles. I enjoy cable but feel that I can still get comparable results with the basic package for $50/month, so I call the cable company to set that up. Now I am still paying $50 each month, but I am also saving money by spending less than I was. I have two options to help me “live better.” 1. I can go and spend the money, say to eat out at Chili’s twice a month. In this case I am not saving money – I am spending the same amount – but I am using it more efficiently for my enjoyment. 2. I can put the $50 into an IRA. Here I am saving money for retirement.
Are we on the same page now?
Let’s say I need to go out and buy three shirts for bowling night. Last time I did this, I went out and bought three shirts at $10 each, so I plan on spending $30.
Now, I go out and I see two different styles of shirt that I like. One’s twenty dollars and one is $5.
I could “buy less” shorts and get two of the more expensive $20 shirts. I bought one less shirt and spent $10 more.
I could “spend less” and get four of the $5 shirts. I get one more shirt than I had planned, but have saved $10 over what I had alloted to spend.
Now, I could “buy less” _and_ “spend less”, only getting two of the $5 shirts, getting one less shirt than I had originally planned and saving $20 over what I originally planned to spend.
Buying less doesn’t mean saving money. Spending less does.
Lordy, lordy, lordy, what has this thread become?
First of all, the observation I made at the beginning of this post is nowhere near as important as the second. That’s why it’s titled the way it is. Second, for a company that claims it can beat any competitor’s price to start bragging that its stuff is cheaper than luxury goods is just plain strange. Saving money ought to mean comparing your price to a comparable good. This is what they call in football moving the goal posts.
Perhaps a better line of analysis would have been this one: Walmart helps the downwardly mobile deny reality. People who are downwardly mobile shouldn’t start substituting cheap plastic crap and fatty meat for expensive crap and file mignon, they should examine their entire budget and reassess their entire lifestyle.
PS Why did Robert have to go on vacation when I really need him?
Jonathan:
The lesson you should have taken away from the above exchange is… Never try to argue your point, or reason with a Pro Wal-Mart Troll! Easier said than done I realize.
[...] would like to thank my friends in the comments here [Yes "Screwed," they are my friends, not trolls.] for helping me realize the true significance of [...]