Okay, follow me here for a bit. Here is where we get into a guessing game.
Just from an operational standpoint: Do you suppose that you have better knowledge than Walmart about what it takes to implement and oversee the construction and implementation of six brand new 125,000 square ft. retail stores? Not one store, not two, but six of them—in the same area. Further, do you suppose that a small group of local city council members knows more about exactly how to do that than you as an lone individual do? My guess is that, they don’t know anymore about how to pull that off than you or I do.
It’s quite easy to sit back and do armchair quarterbacking about what Walmart can theoretically afford to spend when expanding their own business because you aren’t directly in charge of their operating costs. It’s super-easy as a third party individual to read their quarterly profit reports—and their CEO salary reports—and say, “Oh, well, they can easily afford to pay their workers X amount of dollars in X amount of stores since they make Y amount in profits as a company and they pay their executives Y amount of dollars”, because you aren’t tasked with managing all of that. It’s beyond easy to say what a company should be able to do within their budget, given all the profits they generate. Hell, it’s mad easy to float the idea that Walmart could, in theory, directly subsidize thousands of destitute poor people with direct cash injections. Fuck, just go all in with , “***WALMART COULD JUST MAKE IT RAIN ON 3000 POOR PEOPLE AND CHANGE THEIR LIVES FOREVER!***” But shit doesn’t work that way, not if the goal of them remaining profitable is what we want.
I mean, think about the absurdity of that. A layperson telling an expert how to conduct their core business. You know more than Chris G about playing UMvC3? You telling Walmart how much they can spend when creating six brand new stores is more or less like you telling Chris G how to play MorriDoom more efficiently than he already does. As if Walmart doesn’t already have an objective, proven track record of successful business and profitability in the same way that Chris G consistently bodies fools in Marvel. “But Muff Daddy, Walmart exploits their workers and pays them shitty wages in the same way that pot monsters enter tournaments to eventually get bodied by Chris G.” Yeah, that’s almost a solid analogy, until you realize that you’ve completely removed the element of human agency and choice out of the equation. Walmart doesn’t force people to work there any more than top players force unexperienced players to enter tournaments to go two and out. “But Muff Daddy, that’s not the same thing. People work at Walmart to earn actual money, games are just games yo.” No, stop excluding human action from the equation. You can study up in school to get beyond the prospect of working at Walmart in the same way that you can level up your game before having to face Chris G. You can work at Walmart temporarily to get at least some money up in the interim in the same way that you can go to tournaments and lose however many money matches it takes to learn what you need to know.
We’ve seen the word “gouging” twice in the last few posts. This idea that an individual who isn’t directly in charge of Walmart’s finances, or a group of city council members who are just as ignorant of the same, knows better than Walmart about what it takes to massively expand its business in a given area, and still remain profitable—and anything less than what your cost estimate is is considered gouging. I don’t like the implicit claim people make on someone else’s money. Is there even an official word for that? A lot of people would interject here and say, “Yeah, that word is fairness bro.” And yeah, I get where you’re coming from with that sentiment, but does the fact that you can make an emotional argument automatically mean that you are better able to make decisions about what a billion dollar company should and shouldn’t do with its money, more so than say, the guy who actually has to map out their business plan such that they continue to be profitable going forward in the future? I don’t see that being the case. There’s no clear line that extends from you seeing their profit margins to you knowing how to do their job better than they do. What I see are emotional reactions to the overall situation. Emotional reactions to some perceived injustice (Walmarts Among Us). The emotional nature of the judgement is noticeable in the language of the statement. “I don’t trust Walmart.” Why? Isn’t that a matter of perspective? If you were an investor sitting on a fuckton of cash looking to buy stock in a company, why would you look at Walmart and say, “Hmm, that’s not a good investment”, when they consistently turn a profit year after year?
See, that’s the guessing game. It’s this posture some of us take where we presume to know what a company can afford to expend in wage costs while still remaining profitable. As if we’re the business experts. As if we’re directly in charge of managing the company’s money. Like we’re the Director of Regional Business Expansion. And it’s not like we claim to know how much they can pay workers and still be profitable because we have access to the actual numbers. No, we guesstimate and armchair quarterback that shit. “Well, all I know is that they make a fucking motherfuckton of money so, like, they can afford to pay their workers a little more—is all I’m saying.” But see, that sentiment comes from a different place than a straight numbers place, doesn’t it? That’s coming from an emotional place, just some moral, basic fairness type shit. The, “Oh my god how can you not see the basic unfairness of this shit?”, place. And what happens is that any considerations to the contrary, any real life numbers dealing with actual financial feasibility, are tossed aside—because fairness. Because how can you make all this money, and how can you pay workers this small pittance, you monster. Because do the right thing. Now we’re back to where we started. Now you’re a city council member trying to pass a living wage bill. Now you have to deal with the fact that Walmart doesn’t think you know as much as you think you know about what the fuck Walmart does. What Walmart do. Now you’re faced with the prospect of what you voted to make Walmart do is creating six or seven hundred jobs, as opposed to 1800 of them. It all goes back to you thinking you know how things should be run, regardless of your good intentions; regardless of whether or not your proposed solution is actually causing more problems than it seeks to remedy.
