Comments on: Wages at Wal-Mart

By: vikingvista

vikingvista — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 07:00:00 +0000

I like to think Sam Walton, economist that he was, is rolling in his grave. This is a clear example of a powerful force for good turning to the dark side.

By: megapolisomancy

megapolisomancy — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 07:00:00 +0000

This is a fine example of people on both sides of the issue having a valid perspective. Wal-Mart is not the evil employer as critics and unions portray it. On the other hand, such corporations do lobby for regulation that mainly benefits them at the expense of competitors.

See:
Undercover at Wal-Mart

By: Jeremy

Jeremy — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 07:00:00 +0000

I can't fault a company for acting in its own best interests. Wal-mart believes that backing a mandate is its dominant strategy, given the current climate. Who am I to say it's not?

To be sure, I don't believe that a health insurance mandate is the socially-optimal outcome, just as I don't believe that socialized medicine is the optimal outcome. But it's possible that private interests don't coincide with public interests. In fact, private interests are the only reason that anybody would suggest an insurance mandate or a socialized medicine scheme in the first place.

By: Dave

Dave — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 07:00:00 +0000

Political pressure and coercion may be the primary reasons for Wal-Mart's stance. Here's another possible explanation, although it begs the question of why Wal-Mart didn't back this policy before now (were they waiting for a Democrat to be in office?). Another point which may be relevant is that Wal-Mart has a pharmacy business, and more insured workers means more potential business.

Certainly an interesting change of heart.

By: Ike

Ike — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 07:00:00 +0000

Russ — know anyone who might care to tackle a longitudinal study to determine how much upward mobility those Walmart employees might enjoy within their own company?