The Walmart model and the human cost of our low-price goods

9/14/12 9:16 AMThe Walmart model and the human cost of our low-price goods | Juan De Lara | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

of 18http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/25/walmart-human-cost-low-price-goods

A sales associate at Walmart. Photograph by Tim Boyle/Getty Images

Giant retail companies like Walmart have fattened their wallets by peddling low-costgoods to consumers across the globe. While Walmart has built its empire through therelentless construction of their now ubiquitous retail stores – more than 10,000worldwide – most shoppers are unaware of the giant factories and vast distributionnetworks that are required in order to deliver the goods into our homes. But recentexposes of the underbelly of our global goods industry have revealed some of thetragedies faced by those who actually make and deliver our products.

For example, reports of labor abuses and high suicide rates among Chinese electronicsworkers – who make products for retailers such as Apple – have forced some of us tothink twice about our role as responsible consumers and ethical global citizens. Muchless visible have been reports from warehouse workers and truck drivers in places likeChicago and southern California, which show how the ruthless pursuit of low-cost goodshas also created a downward spiral for workers who distribute consumer goods in theUnited States.

This wasn't supposed to happen. In fact, after the massive de-industrialization of the1980s, business and policy leaders across the country argued that the goods movementindustry would generate millions of new middle-class jobs for metropolitan regionsreeling from the loss of manufacturing employment. In southern California, andcountless other regions throughout the country, economic boosters and public officials

The Walmart model and the human costof our low-price goodsThe supply chain for big-box retailers was supposed to createmillions of middle-class jobs, not this vicious cycle of exploitation

Juan De Laraguardian.co.uk, Wednesday 25 July 2012 16.30 EDT

http://www.guardiannews.com/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/wal-mart

http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/06/28/us-apple-china-suppliers-idINBRE85R0EA20120628

http://prospect.org/article/shipping-point

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/usa

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/california

http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/juan-de-lara

http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/juan-de-lara

http://www.guardian.co.uk/



pursued an import-based doctrine by using public subsidies and favorable growthpolicies to expand goods-related transportation infrastructure. By 2008 – the height ofour most recent import boom – metropolitan regions such as Los Angeles/Long Beach,New York/New Jersey, Seattle/Tacoma, Savannah, Norfolk, and Houston had allemerged as key hubs in a rapidly expanding global supply chain.

But the industry that was supposed to deliver many blue-collar workers andmetropolitan regions into the 21st century has, instead, created a new class of low-wageworker. In southern California, port truck drivers and temporary warehouse workers,the very people who keep the flow of goods moving, often toil for low wages and underpoor conditions. Many of these workers fly under the radar because they are employedby temporary staffing agencies that funnel the region's emerging Latino and immigrantmajority into a vicious cycle of dead-end, low-wage jobs. Most warehouse occupations ininland southern California pay less than a median hourly wage of $10.50, which, forthose who can scrape together a 40-hour working week, amounts to less than $22,000per year – a far cry from the $47,000 average middle-class wage touted by regionalpolicy-makers.

Giant retailers such as Walmart also use subcontractors and temp agencies to shieldthemselves from taking legal responsibility for what happens inside the warehouses thatdistribute their goods. These hiring practices make it difficult for workers to exercisetheir collective bargaining rights, since existing labor law makes organizing independentcontractors and temp workers a daunting task. Meanwhile, budget cuts to stateregulatory agencies that are supposed to protect workers leave employees morevulnerable to occupational hazards and wage theft. In regions like inland southernCalifornia – where most warehouse workers are poor Latinos and immigrants – theregion's racialized conservative political establishment has been unresponsive, andsometimes hostile, to labor rights issues.

Why should we care about what happens to warehouse workers? We should carebecause improving their economic and social opportunities will have a positive effect onthe rest of society. Every time we hand over our money to a local big-box retailer, eachof us assumes some level of responsibility for what happens along the global supplychain. In 2011, consumers generated $419bn in annual sales for Walmart shareholders.It turns out that buying a cheap pair of socks not only earns Walmart a nice living; italso gives consumers a collective voice that we can use to demand that the people whodeliver and make our goods don't pay a heavy price for our right to buy inexpensiveproducts.

Consuming mountains of cheap goods has also produced huge environmental costs,particularly for poor communities located close to distribution hubs. According to theCalifornia Air Resources Board, an estimated 3,700 Californians die every year becauseof medical issues related to the diesel ships, trucks and trains that deliver the goods weconsume.

All of this proves that our seemingly individual and private decisions to buy cheapproducts can generate huge social costs. But history tells us that blue-collar warehousework doesn't have to mean poverty wages and bad working conditions. In fact, workershave often turned blue-collar jobs into decent employment by organizing for safeconditions and fair pay. As consumers, we can help these efforts by demanding that

http://escholarship.org/uc/item/8rn2h9ch

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/poverty



StaffContributor

Share

Recommend (134)

Responses (1)

Report

Share

Recommend (88)

Responses (0)

Report

Recommend (72)

Responses (1)

Report

Walmart and other retailers adopt ethical labor and environmental standards, for bothforeign suppliers and domestic distribution workers. Walmart certainly isn't the onlycompany to employ poor hiring practices, but its massive global reach and sophisticateddistribution innovations have made it a powerful force in the global goods movementindustry.

Walmart purports to act on its customers' behalf in order to "save people money so theycan live better". It's time for Walmart, and other mega-retailers, to make sure that theirworkers also have the opportunity to live better.

Comments142 comments, displaying Oldest first

Comments on this page are now closed.

isthisnameanygood25 July 2012 9:38PM

Walmart is owned by the Walton family. They are estimated tobe worth $90 billion.

This family controls more wealth than the entire bottom 50% ofAmericans.

It's obscene, it's disgusting and it's immoral.

How long are we going to let people like this destroy society?

KelvinYearwood25 July 2012 9:40PM

Walmart's level of exploitation is quite remarkable. Walmart isan engine for syphoning money from the poor and funnelling itinto the pockets of the rich.

It's poverty wages are subsidised by the US tax-payer while itmakes multi-billion dollar profits for its major shareholders:

http://spydersden.wordpress.com/2012/07/24/walmarts-high-cost-of-low-prices/

When are the US people going to organise and rebel against thisoppressive system?

pollystyrene25 July 2012 9:40PM

http://www.guardian.co.uk/discussion/comment-permalink/17335042

http://www.guardian.co.uk/discussion/report-abuse/comment/17335042




http://www.walmartstores.com/sites/AnnualReport/2011/mission.aspx

http://www.guardian.co.uk/discussion/user/id/10232327


http://spydersden.wordpress.com/2012/07/24/walmarts-high-cost-of-low-prices/




Share

Share

Recommend (52)

Responses (1)

Report

Share

Recommend (47)

Responses (5)

Report

Share

Recommend (37)

Responses (0)

Report

Share

Recommend (22)

Responses (0)

Report

Recommend (92)

Responses (0)

Why are you so surprised that if you buy extremely cheap goodsfrom a retailer who makes a healthy profit, the suppliers aregetting screwed? It seems bleeding obvious to me.

jungist25 July 2012 9:40PM

In fact, after the massive de-industrialization of the1980s, business and policy leaders across the countryargued that the goods movement industry wouldgenerate millions of new middle-class jobs formetropolitan regions reeling from the loss ofmanufacturing employment.

They also stated that the IT sector would also provide middleclass jobs, which have also now gone east.

Good job we still have finance or the 1% would have truly f#ckedus over.

RogerINtheUSA25 July 2012 9:44PM

Do you have low-cost chain stores in the UK, or does everybodyact humanely and buy their clothes at the finest stores?


Response to jungist, 25 July 2012 9:40PM

Good job we still have finance or the 1% would havetruly f#cked us over.

Superb. So funny on so many levels!

thegreatfatsby25 July 2012 9:47PM

Bangles, beads and geegaws were shipped by the boat load to theupper and lowernew worlds. To buy the natives off (and then systematically killthem) Our enthrallment to crap we don't need, more geegaws, more trinkets, isubiquitous and complete.



















Share

Report

Share

Recommend (35)

Responses (0)

Report

Share

Recommend (106)

Responses (1)

Report

Response to RogerINtheUSA, 25 July 2012 9:44PM

Do you have low-cost chain stores in the UK, or doeseverybody act humanely and buy their clothes at thefinest stores?

Yes, but most people have no choice, they can only afford thecheap shit anyway.

Our bosses shaft us just as much as yours do.

justamug25 July 2012 9:59PM

All of this proves that our seemingly individual andprivate decisions to buy cheap products can generatehuge social costs.

Whilst I agree that we should pay more attention to theconsequences of our consumption (battery hen farming alsosprings to mind), I don't think you can blame it all onconsumers. You need also to look at how profit is shared betweensenior execs and share holders. The savings gained by big boxretailers haven't all been passed on to the consumer, have they?There is also the whole issue of business culture As Thorstein Veblen says:

It is always sound business to take any obtainable netgain, at any cost and at any risk to the rest of thecommunity.

And then of course we have, both here and in the US, theconstant villification of unions undermining any chance ofworkers getting a fair share of productivity gains.



Do you have low-cost chain stores in the UK

Yes, they recently fired full time staff and replaced them withpeople who work for .

£72 JSA (unemployment benefit) / 36 hours = £2.00

The National UK Minimum Wage rates £6.08, making a savingof £4.08 per employee.













Share

Recommend (40)

Responses (0)

Report

Share

Recommend (22)

Responses (5)

Report

Share

Recommend (8)

Responses (0)

Report

Share

Recommend (5)

Responses (0)

Report

dredscott25 July 2012 10:04PM

"...According to the California Air Resources Board, an estimated3,700 Californians die every year because of medical issuesrelated to the diesel ships, trucks and trains that deliver thegoods we consume..."

Oh please. I hate WalMart business practises as much as anyonewith a conscience but they actually didnt shoot JFK or sink theLusitania.

What do you think, 'ethical', retailers use to deliver their goods?

Solar powered bicycles?

SLOJohnny25 July 2012 10:09PM

Walmart leaves money in consumers' wallets by offering lowerprices; just as Dollar Tree and Family Dollar. Consumers thenhave more money to spend on other things like rent, fuel,restaurants, other discretionary spending. This creates jobs.

The same arguements were made a 120 years ago whenWoolworths, Sears, and JC Penny were created. The ludditesolution of returning to less efficient business models doesn'tlead to greater prosperity. How many of you still visit a localshoemaker and buy a pair of $300 shoes rather than buy asimilar pair of shoes from a large retailer at a fraction of theprice?.

Nutter625 July 2012 10:11PM

i like the vast array of different topics on show in the guardianthe last couple of days, it makes me confused as to if i hate theOlympics or not lol


its scary that a few fat cats at the heads of these cheap immoralretailers for throw away garbage have the well being and interesthands and workers livelihoods at their disposal. The top of somany industries needs reform and fast or we could all feel thefloor shake with a financial collapse that dwarfs the GreatDepression.















Share

Recommend (64)

Responses (0)

Report

Share

Recommend (3)

Responses (0)

Report

Share

Recommend (40)

Responses (0)

Report

Share

Recommend (41)

Responses (1)

Report

dirkbruere25 July 2012 10:16PM

All jobs will eventually trend towards minimum wage, the cost ofoutsourcing workers in Asia, or importing them into the UK. The 1% will get much richer.


also hating on the man always remind's us of the deep gulf that isbetween us and the super rich it really makes you know yourplace in the grand scheme of things, im even loosing interest inrivalling and creating my own business.

whimsicaleye25 July 2012 10:20PM

The 'free' market for the majority is just another word fortyranny. It does not value labour and there is always downwardpressure on the wages of those at the bottom of the pay scale dueto the never ending supply of desperate people. Add to this awelfare system that incentivises employers to pay crap wages dueto state business subsidies bringing up the wages of the lowestpaid to a 'livable' standard and you have a nightmare world ofcorporate exploitation. A tax system that rewards good corporate behavior, eg say a 5%corporate tax rate if the lowest paid employee is paid 30% abovethe legal minimum or living wage would be a good start. Thecurrent economic model simply rewards exploitation.

mschin25 July 2012 10:23PM

The dominance of corporations in every area of life fromsupermarkets to big pharma has been well documented for years.Remember Susan George’s ‘How the other half dies’? The Nestleproduct boycott over supplying formula baby milk to developingcountries? Christain Aid’s 1995 report into environmental andsocial destruction caused by prawn farming on the coast of India,all to supply the supermarkets in the UK? The Barbie dolls madein the Asian Tiger economies by women who could never affordone for their children? These big businesses have even boughtand patented seeds, for chrissakes.

These TNCs / multinationals have sunk their teeth intohumanity, bought our governments and wrecked our















Share

Recommend (33)

Responses (1)

Report

Share

Recommend (17)

Responses (0)

Report

Share

Recommend (27)

Responses (0)

Report

Recommend (22)

Responses (0)

democracies. The stench of their greed is rampant.


Response to SLOJohnny, 25 July 2012 10:09PM

How many of you still visit a local shoemaker and buya pair of $300 shoes

Maybe we should. Do we need 10 pairs of shoes - surely one pairper season would do? At some point we are all going to have toaddress over-consumption. Why do we need so much stuff? Whydo we work long hours for low pay to buy it? Why don't we spendlocally so that our incomes keep our own local economiesvibrant, rather than the current system where the majority of ourincomes wing their way to London where they get invested insome financial product or other? I don't know how we make theshift given that capitalism requires on average 3% growth perannum, hence the necessity for ever growing consumption, but Iam hoping someone (or more likely somebodies) will come upwith an alternative. Mind you I don't know why I am telling you.I imagine you think I am a bit of a dickhead for not lovingcapitalism.

bigbadcanuk25 July 2012 10:32PM

walmart is cheapthats why i go there....

whimsicaleye25 July 2012 10:33PM

Response to mschin, 25 July 2012 10:23PM

These big businesses have even bought and patentedseeds, for chrissakes.

The privatisation of food is next on the agenda, that's what GMOis all about, nothing to do with feeding the poor and everythingto do with controlling every aspect of the food chain so that if wechoose to grow a tomato in the garden we have to pay acorporation for the privilege. Once the corporates own thepatent/copyright and can make a profit out of eg spinach thenwe'll get commercials telling us to buy and eat spinach.

RogerINtheUSA25 July 2012 10:35PM















Share

Report

Share

Recommend (17)

Responses (1)

Report

Share

Recommend (13)

Responses (4)

Report

Share

Recommend (17)

Responses (1)

Report


*jungist

25 July 2012 10:04PMResponse to RogerINtheUSA, 25 July 2012 9:44PM

Do you have low-cost chain stores in the UK

Yes, they recently fired full time staff and replacedthem with people who work for .

£72 JSA (unemployment benefit) / 36 hours = £2.00

The National UK Minimum Wage rates £6.08,making a saving of £4.08 per employee.

Good day, ma'am. I'm your Tesco greeter. How may I serf youtoday?

thelonggrass25 July 2012 10:41PM

What would you like people poorer than you pay for their food?

Arizona1225 July 2012 10:41PM

As consumers, we can help these efforts by demanding thatWalmart and other retailers adopt ethical labor andenvironmental standards, for both foreign suppliers anddomestic distribution workers.

This article is very misleading as the author has omitted severalimportant facts.

For starters, there is no shortage of people willing work for WalMart or its distribution and warehouse centers. If conditions andwages were truly so bad at Wal Mart these workers would goelsewhere. In fact, there are often more job applicants at WalMarts than there are positions available.

Secondly, all Americans - poor, middle class, whoever - benefitgreatly from Wal Mart's low prices. In these tough times manyAmericans can't afford to shop anywhere else.

Northe1rn25 July 2012 10:41PM

They couldn't do it if people didn't buy from them.















Share

Recommend (20)

Responses (1)

Report

Share

Recommend (13)

Responses (5)

Report

The vast majority of customers leave their conscience at the doorif they ever had one.


Response to justamug, 25 July 2012 10:31PM

Maybe we should. Do we need 10 pairs of shoes -surely one pair per season would do?

1 pair of Dr Martens a year for domestic use ( 4 or five miles aday) and 2 pairs (steel toes) for work (mandatory).

I have 2 pairs of good leather shoes for weddings etc, 10 and 13years old.

There are some training shoes and flip flops somewhere, whichare hardly used.

sparrow1025 July 2012 10:45PM

Response to isthisnameanygood, 25 July 2012 9:38PM

isthisnameanygood

25 July 2012 9:38PM

Walmart is owned by the Walton family. They areestimated to be worth $90 billion.

This family controls more wealth than the entirebottom 50% of Americans.

It's obscene, it's disgusting and it's immoral.

How long are we going to let people like this destroysociety?

Sounds like a very successful family, perhaps we in the UK needmore families like the Waltons. Just look how impoverishedTesco shareholders are.

Every little helps, but for most Tesco shareholders (you know,those people who actually own the Company) it's more a case ofVery Little helps.

Back to the Walton's,it may be, just perhaps may be that theWalton's are better value to the US economy than the bottom50% of other Americans.

In this world, no two people are equal, some are cleverer thanothers, some better looking than others, some even richer thanothers. Yes, I know some may say this is unfair, but this is the











Share

Recommend (11)

Responses (1)

Report

Share

Recommend (11)

Responses (0)

Report

Share

Recommend (4)

Responses (0)

Report

Share

Recommend (12)

Responses (1)

Report

history of mankind on planet Earth, wake upGuardianistas to the real world, not that of Islington



Good for you, my mom used to get so exasperated with my dadon the issue of clothes. He thought it would make so much moresense if we all got a good set of hard wearing overalls and havedone with it.

Floatingvote0125 July 2012 10:57PM

Response to pollystyrene, 25 July 2012 9:40PM

Totally agree, people will need to understand that a t shirt for 3quid or a whole chicken for four quid is not going to leave muchfat in the deal for workers (or chickens..). You get what you payfor.


Response to justamug, 25 July 2012 10:50PM

Good for you, my mom used to get so exasperatedwith my dad on the issue of clothes. He thought itwould make so much more sense if we all got a goodset of hard wearing overalls and have done with it.

I stretched to 3 good suits as well (6 years and 2 that are 10 tearsold), cheaper hard wearing jeans, good quality shirts and teeshirts annually.

But I acknowledge your point, my wife and two daughterswouldn't wear anything twice if they can help it and put labelsbefore (real) quality.

sparrow1025 July 2012 10:59PM

Response to Arizona12, 25 July 2012 10:41PM

Arizona12

25 July 2012 10:41PM

As consumers, we can help these efforts bydemanding that Walmart and other retailers adopt



















Share

Recommend (9)

Responses (0)

Report

Share

Recommend (2)

Responses (0)

Report

Share

Recommend (35)

Responses (1)

Report

ethical labor and environmental standards, for bothforeign suppliers and domestic distribution workers.

This article is very misleading as the author hasomitted several important facts.

For starters, there is no shortage of people willingwork for Wal Mart or its distribution and warehousecenters. If conditions and wages were truly so bad atWal Mart these workers would go elsewhere. In fact,there are often more job applicants at Wal Marts thanthere are positions available.

Secondly, all Americans - poor, middle class, whoever- benefit greatly from Wal Mart's low prices. In thesetough times many Americans can't afford to shopanywhere else.

To bring it home to the UK, we can compare Walmart ( in theUS) with Tesco (British operations)

1. My local Tesco Store advertised 50 vacancies, last month,many as a result of the Tesco change in stategy.

2. All these vacancies were filled within 7 days, most of the newstaff are in post. My store, a fairly recent Tesco store hascurrently NO Vacancies.

3. All British people, poor, middle class, whoever - benefit greatlyfrom Tesco's low prices. In these tough times many Britishpeople can't afford to shop anywhere else. Sad, very Sad but true.

iLinda25 July 2012 11:03PM

People who shop at Walmart don't care a fig about the greatergood hence the business is so successful. The handful of the restof us who don't go into those stores are a blip on that radar andhence we are the insignificant ones.

francoisP25 July 2012 11:09PM

what do you expect? it is the natural progression of capitalism.We know this-how do you change it though?

kentgoldings25 July 2012 11:35PM

Why is everything run by sociopaths?












Share

Recommend (19)

Responses (2)

Report

Share

Recommend (8)

Responses (0)

Report

sunnyinspain25 July 2012 11:43PM

Asda became a subsidiary of the American retail giant Wal-Mart, the world’s largest retailer,[2] in 1999,[3] and is the UK'ssecond largest chain by market share after Tesco.[4] InDecember 2010, Asda's share of the UK grocery market stood at16.5%I thought this was pretty well known.Morrisons in the UK have been bought by the COOP- on myvisits to the UK they seem to offer a pretty good selection of lowpriced goods, with an ethical promise. I found fair trade tea andcoffee, fair trade wine there, all at prices that compare well withTesco and Asda. So why shop at Tesco and Asda? Is there reallyanyone reading this thread who has no choice in this matter?Never mind talking about " the poor" - why would YOU choose tobuy from a firm that has no ethics at all?r

Menger25 July 2012 11:50PM

The supply chain for big-box retailers was supposed to createmillions of middle-class jobs

It sounds to me like you would be a supporter of Bastiat's"Negative Railway" . Written in 1845 it is quite remarkable howlittle economic reasoning has taken root ....

I have said that when, unfortunately, one has regardto the interest of the producer — and not to that ofthe consumer — it is impossible to avoid runningcounter to the general interest, because the demandof the producer as such is only for efforts, wants, andobstacles.

I find a remarkable illustration of this in a Bordeauxnewspaper.

Mr. Simiot proposes this question:

Should the proposed railway from Paris to Madridoffer a break of continuity at Bordeaux?He answers the question in the affirmative, and givesa multiplicity of reasons, which I shall not stop toexamine except this one:

The railway from Paris to Bayonne should have abreak at Bordeaux for if goods and passengers areforced to stop at that town, profits will accrue tobargemen, porters, commissionaires, hotel-keepers,









Share

Recommend (43)

Responses (1)

Report

etc.Here we have clearly the interest of labor put beforethe interest of consumers.

But if Bordeaux has a right to profit by a gap in theline of railway, and if such profit is consistent withthe public interest, then Angouleme, Poitiers, Tours,Orleans, nay, more — all the intermediate places(Ruffec, Chatellerault, etc.) — should also demandgaps as being for the general interest and, of course,for the interest of national industry. For the morethese breaks in the line are multiplied, the greaterwill be the increase of consignments, commissions,trans-shipments, etc., along the whole extent of therailway.

In this way, we shall succeed in having a line ofrailway composed of successive gaps, and which maybe denominated a Negative Railway.

Let the protectionists say what they will, it is not lesscertain that the principle of restriction is the verysame as the principle of gaps: the sacrifice of theconsumer's interest to that of the producer — in otherwords, the sacrifice of the end to the means.

http://mises.org/daily/5201

afancdogge26 July 2012 12:01AM


Hello Roger

Indeed we have low-cost chain stores and expoitative employers.We have lots of unemployed people and workers on belowsubsistence wages. As poverty rises more and more people lookfor cheaper food and other goods. As incomes fall the bigprofiteers suffer a fall off in trade - to maintain profits theyfurther reduce wages and worsen employment conditions - sothe poor in one country are struggling to pay for goods made bythe poor in another.

Of course the owners of the companies do ok - they take theirprofits from both the exploited workers and the poor consumerswho find their money buying less each week. To lower prices tohelp stimulate demand the quality of goods - including food - isfurther reduced.

quite a scam hey ? Inhumanity is not the preserve of the USA.







Share

Recommend (19)

Responses (0)

Report

Share

Recommend (3)

Responses (0)

Report

Share

Recommend (22)

Responses (0)

Report

Share

Recommend (8)

Responses (0)

Report

Share

Recommend (9)

Responses (0)

Report

Leni

afancdogge26 July 2012 12:10AM

For those who are not aware - Asda is Wallmart here in uk. L

Seren12326 July 2012 12:41AM

The uk is just as bad. Have a look at this report commissionedlast year by the gmb.

http://www.gmb.org.uk/PDF/Surveillance%20technologies%20and%20the%20workplace%20-%20September%202011%20v2%20-f.pdf

oldefarte26 July 2012 1:04AM

For those who are not aware - Asda is Wallmart herein uk. L

ASDA were fined £850000 in 2006 for general bullying tacticsleading up to a strike ballot and offering workers a pay rise inreturn for giving up their right to join a union. It was a completePR disaster for them. I did laugh.

RalphDemming26 July 2012 1:04AM

Giant retail companies like Walmart have fattenedtheir wallets by peddling low-cost goods toconsumers across the globe.

SHOCKING

RalphDemming26 July 2012 1:08AM

Response to afancdogge, 26 July 2012 12:01AM

Indeed we have low-cost chain stores and expoitativeemployers. We have lots of unemployed people andworkers on below subsistence wages. As poverty risesmore and more people look for cheaper food andother goods. As incomes fall the big profiteers suffer afall off in trade - to maintain profits they furtherreduce wages and worsen employment conditions - so













http://www.gmb.org.uk/PDF/Surveillance%20technologies%20and%20the%20workplace%20-%20September%202011%20v2%20-f.pdf







Share

Recommend (12)

Responses (0)

Report

Share

Recommend (44)

Responses (1)

Report

Share

Recommend (7)

Responses (7)

Report

Share

Recommend (39)

Responses (0)

Report

the poor in one country are struggling to pay forgoods made by the poor in another.

This correct global income inequality.

The average income is about 4400 pounds annually. The Chineseare well below this and the Brits are well above it. Walmart isactually helping resolve global income inequality, a most nobleeffort.

dada12326 July 2012 1:55AM

Considering how big Walmart are I do not find them cheap at all.You would think that they would be cheaper than a much smallerfirm like Aldi but they are not because they are screwing theircustomers and suppliers all together.

thebadbuddha26 July 2012 2:11AM

Response to sparrow10, 25 July 2012 10:45PM

Back to the Walton's,it may be, just perhaps may bethat the Walton's are better value to the US economythan the bottom 50% of other Americans.

This is the most extraordinary comment I have ever read on CIF,and I hope I never see its like again.

DrChris26 July 2012 2:16AM

People who take these low paid jobs haven't bothered to acquirethe skills that would enable them to contribute more to societyand earn significantly more money. Nobody can be expected tobe paid unless they can generate enough income for theemployer to be worth it. Become a driving instructor, learn alanguage and become a translator, start a catering business, get adegree, whatever - only people with no marketable skills end upin this miserable position.

themissing26 July 2012 2:31AM

Response to DrChris, 26 July 2012 2:16AM

Someone has to do the jobs at the bottom end.

Should they be so poorly paid?

















Share

Recommend (15)

Responses (0)

Report

Share

Recommend (30)

Responses (0)

Report

Share

Recommend (28)

Responses (0)

Report

Share

Recommend (4)

Responses (1)

Report

Comments on this page are now closed.

© 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.

If the Walmart workers were paid more, that money would goback into the economy.

Whereas the money just goes into the coffers of the Walmartowners and out of the economy.

I'd drop the doctor bit as no one believes you.

acorn781726 July 2012 2:33AM

Putting "HOW MAY I HELP YOU" in huge letters on a humanbeing's back is both humiliating and depreciating, i'm sure he'scapable of finding customers to help and the very act of wearinga uniform would indicate to even the dimmest of customers thathe is a shop employee available to answer any questions, itshouldn't be allowed, human beings should not be "branded" asif they were cattle.

dada12326 July 2012 2:35AM


Nobody can be expected to be paid unless they can generateenough income for the employer to be worth it.

The people working in Walmart are obviously generating billionsof dollars,so why are they paid so little? If they were not therethen Walmart would not have anyone to serve customers or helpthem.

dada12326 July 2012 2:37AM


get a degree,

Tell it to all the unemployed graduates at the moment.

heavyrail26 July 2012 2:38AM

Walmart is not to blame for the lack of better jobs available.

















;

The Walmart model and the human cost of our low-price goods

Documents

Transcript of The Walmart model and the human cost of our low-price goods