The liberal anti-anti-Wal-Mart backlash. I’ve expressed my comparatively pro-Wal-Mart feelings before here. I grew up in a Louisiana town too small for a Wal-Mart — and trust me, the town fathers would have killed to get one.
My biggest problem with Wal-Mart critics is that their real complaints often aren’t about labor practices or trade with China or employee health care. They’re about class, pure and simple: a disdain for poor rural people and the things associated with them. Throw a thin veneer of “style” and hipsterness on top of it — in other words, call it “Target” instead of “Wal-Mart” — and they’ll gladly rave about the convenience and bargains. It’s the same bullshit reflex that afflicted so many of the people I went to Yale with.
I have relatives who have tried really hard to get jobs at Wal-Mart because they’re considered a better place to work than the other options available. When I lived in Louisiana, I did a ton of shopping there. I just went to the newly opened Wal-Mart supermarket in my Dallas neighborhood for the first time, and let me tell you — it was miles nicer than the safely middlebrow Albertsons I’ve shopped at for four years.
As one guy puts it in the comments to that post: “boy…talk about some typical, ignorant, stereotypical limousine liberal comments on this thread…as someone who actually grew up poor…fuck you.”
3 thoughts on “anti-anti-wal-mart backlash”
Comments are closed.
Your anti-anti-WalMart criticism is completely valid. Here in Seattle, home of Costco (which does have a membership fee, of course), we can point to Costco’s remarkable ability to offer most of its employees health care, have great prices and decent selection, and pay an almost livable wage.
Here in the North Country aka Toledo Ohio, the complaint is about wages, unfair labor practices and health care. Pure and Simple.
how are Target workers compensated compared to Walmart workers?
hi josh, just checking in on you. hope you are well!
best
antrim