EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Walmartization of America Redux: How the Relentless Drive for Cheap Stuff Undermines Our Economy, Bankrupts Our Soul, and Pillages the Planet
If you want to know why the middle class disappeared and where they went, look no further than your local Walmart. People walked in for the low prices, and walked out with a pile of cheap stuff, but in a figurative sense, they left their wages, jobs, and dignity on the cutting room floor of the House of Cheap.
Welcome to the logical end point of Reagonomics. Welcome to Ayn Rand’s nightmare vision of morality, where we know the price of everything but the value of nothing; where predatory behavior is celebrated and the notion of community is blasphemy.
It’s a sprint to the bottom. Lower wages; dangerous working conditions; more pollution; greater liquidation of natural capital; more global warming; less happiness. (photo: Carlos Fernandez)
In his excellent documentary, Walmart: The High Cost of Low Price, Robert Greenwald carefully documents how Walmart’s giant box stores lower wages across the entire retail sector, impose high social and economic costs on the states and communities in which they operate, and destroy local businesses.
Yet the low prices – which come at such a high cost – are irresistible to American consumers. Walmart has virtually cornered the retail market and amassed astounding wealth in the process.
But it’s not just Walmart. Big box stores now rule across the board in the US retail economy in everything from electronics to pet supplies. And it’s not just retail. The entire US economy is now organized around the notion that getting us cheap stuff – the more the better – is the sine qua non of economic policy.
There was a time when corporations understood that paying their employees a living wage had economic and societal benefits. Henry Ford famously said he wanted his employees to be able to afford to buy the cars they made and launched six decades of prosperity.
The labor movement helped create a social and economic compact in which workers shared the wealth they generated. When workers had enough money to consume, they stimulated economic growth. When production was as important as consumption, the economy flourished, the common worker had dignity, and the means of production were valued.
But that compact has been sacrificed at the Alter of the Cheap, and we no longer produce, we merely consume.
Our main economic activity has become the ceaseless churning and manipulating of the vast capital the old system produced. No value is added, some is skimmed off by the uber rich with each churning. It’s a colossal, self-limiting, Ponzi scheme.
The rich and the corporations have no allegiance to the US or its workers, and so they take the fruits of their skimming and either sit on it, or invest it overseas, where the cheapest goods can be made.
Job creators? Sure. But not good jobs, and not here.
When they’ve skimmed all they can from the US consumer, they’ll focus on the emerging middle class in China, India and elsewhere, leaving us to sit among the decaying detritus of cheap stuff we can no longer afford, searching in vain for the happiness we thought we were buying.
It’s a sprint to the bottom. Lower wages; dangerous working conditions; more pollution; greater liquidation of natural capital; more global warming; less happiness.
Globalization – the handmaiden of Cheap at All Costs – is celebrated as a solution, when it is the problem. And even astute economists seem unable to realize that when another country’s comparative advantage is based on environmental crimes, low pay, and inhuman conditions, then comparative advantage doesn’t operate the way it’s presented in textbooks and abstract econometric models.
Globalization has enabled corporations to leave the old economic compact based on equitably shared wealth behind. For example, in the US, CEO pay is once again soaring, while the average wage earner hasn't kept up with inflation.
Just as Walmart has driven down wages throughout the retail sector, the Doctrine of Cheap has driven down wages for the developed nations, and it will cap them at unjust levels in the developing world.
And the dirty little secret hiding behind the globalization façade is the devastating affect it is having on the environment.
For example, this week, Bejing suffered from air pollution so severe, that the airport was shut down. It’s easy to ignore this kind of environmental insult when it’s “over there.” But the carbon and soot and filth generated in China ultimately reaches us.
At the scale of human economic activity we’ve reached, we suffer the environmental consequences of our purchases no matter how cheaply or how far away they are made. In a world were humans have become a global force of nature, “there” is “here.” Climate change is exhibit A in how insults to our commons affect us all.
But the dirtiest little secret of all, is that we – the 99% -- enable this race to the bottom. Our addiction to cheap stuff and our desire for more, more, more is the fuel that feeds this destructive Ponzi scheme.
But there is good news here, too. If we are the enablers of the Walmartization of America, we have the power to change course.
How?
We are the marketplace, and we decide who wins and who loses by where we park our money, what we invest in, what we choose to buy and who we choose to buy it from.
Think about it. We purchase about $80 billion dollars worth of stuff a day, not including what we spend on our homes, cars and normal household bills.
We hold a total of $17.5 trillion in retirement funds – the single biggest source of money the big banks, Wall Street, fat cats, and assorted other speculators use to play their very own version of hi-risk Texas hold ‘em.
The real power in our economic and political system resides with us, the 99%, if we have but the wit, wisdom and courage to seize it.
So forget Wall Street. Let’s occupy the whole damn marketplace. Let’s vote with our dollars and our values. That’s an election they can’t buy.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
78 Comments so far
Show AllAnd we charged Bill Clinton the man that gave us Walmart with the job of rebuilding Haiti, no wonder nothing has been accomplished for the people of Haiti. They're just ex-slaves anyway.
Bill Clinton's Commodities Futures Modernization Act gave the corporations an opportunity (not mentioned in the author's list of what the wealthy are doing with their money) to speculate on food, energy and other essential commodities, thereby fueling inflation for the rest of us and creating more bubbles and busts.
AND NAFTA!!!
And he forgave the criminal Marc Rich, who should have rotted in jail.
hahaha thats right now she speaks about the right of women ..get a life HC.1,000.000 widows she has left in IRAQ no sanitation no drinkable water in Bagdad out side the green zone ..no homes just fkn wasted broken rubble in which to care for childen! and,just like Palestine .think Walmart wil start up over there seeing as there is very little money hitting their registers from the USA these days ??? hahaha what a disgusting mess Washington has created around the world.Happy Chrissy? good wishes 2012 :)
Hard to shop at Sachs or anywhere else when you can only afford Walmart and there are no other alternatives. Most of us have to budget to afford our utilities and gasoline prices. We have to shop for groceries and underwear at the place that offers them for the lowest price, we no longer have many choices. I know where I live all the department stores, dime stores and most of the hardware and grocery stores no longer exist. I shop online most of the time except for things like toilet paper. I seek the lowest price. That's all I can afford to do.
This is a problem in small towns across America where during the past 10 to 15 years Walmart came in, drove the local supermarkets and hardware stores out of business, leaving Walmart as the only game in town.
I have to totally agree with you. I live in the very small town of Laurel, Montana. I would shop at the local IGA but the prices are almost twice what they are at Walmart, I simply cannot afford to shop at the only non-"megachain" store in town. I garden in the summer but our summers are maybe 3 or 4 months. I can barely afford to get what we need to eat much less extras. I despise the fact that I'm stuck supporting Walmart and my conscience aches for it but I don't have a choice. I look around and it's hard to imagine that things will ever really change for the better. I'm a lucky duck to live in the USA - I would never deny that but I don't appreciate the way things are headed, here, globally, environmentally, ethically, morally...
indyroxx, try organizing a small cooperative with friends and neighbors. It is possible to eat well and inexpensively without supporting walmart. They are the bad guys.
My husband calls it "The Great Wall ..........................................Mart."
I often wonder why articles like this (not your response) don't mention the correlation between most people being vastly underpaid compared to the wealthy-and shopping at the Walmarts of the world.
This "strategy" is being executed now all over Europe. One place that I am aware that Walmart did not succeed was Germany !!! Any one surprised? Well I am No, Germans were not taken in and I suspect they made it very hard for Walmart to do business. That means that the collective good was more important than just for the few.
We've been scammed. Years ago K-Mart and Wallmart were the camel's nose under the tent. Now the monster is in the room and our poverty imprisons us to shop the company store. Once more.
And isn't it interesting how, historically, religions that promote just wars and endless babymaking work hand-in-hand with the banksters.
Maybe we need a new god.
You know, it really helps the cause of leftism to pour a little bit more salt on someone who's already wounded.
I've never shopped at Walmart because it's not close by. There are other "chain" type stores, whether national or just regional or state.
The other day I traveled to the "local" Walmart. I went through the entire store and took bargains pretty much whenever I saw them. My findings with the products were (a) the Walmart brands were a rip-off. They were not the same quality as name-brand products imitated and I lost quite a bit of money; (b) I saved quite a bit of money on specific name-brand products - but clearly you had to know what you were shopping for - in my case, the savings were enough to make the travel worth it; (c) the staff at the local Walmart where I am was more diverse than the staff at the other "local" or national chains -- they hired older workers and minorities; (d) the staff was more courteous altogether. Walmart, overall, wasn't necessarily a better place to shop for your dollars - but if you knew what you were looking for, it was, and they appeared to be providing jobs in ways that other community "members" weren't.
I intend to go back for the following items and will continue, as long as their prices are better (but I won't if their prices aren't): Mouthwash (2-3 dollars less on bottles bought regularly for dental conditions not covered by insurance), pizza (almost 1/2 price on a brand), bananas, tomatoes, picture frames (price temporary), contact lens solution, cat food (1/2 the price on the only brand kitty likes). If their contact lens solution prices are good enough, that might be enough for me, along with the mouthwash and cat food. Hey, if it's the same brand or company, why shouldn't I get it at Walmart instead of another store if I get a much better deal? I can save quite a bit of money on that one product. I am low income. I love Michael Moore, but who is he to tell me otherwise about where to shop with his income?
I agree with encouraging others to compete. As a member of my community, I need people willing to hire people like myself without discriminating, and I need lower prices.
show me the money, as tommy cruise said. If more people took that attitude we would change all that is protested in the name of walmart.
(and next time I will look at their cotton underwear and socks, too. Because those prices are otherwise ridiculous in the other places.)
absolutely. I have driving across the south and see town after town with the ubiquitous Dollar stores every where. That and Walmart. The guts have been ripped out of this country. I understand looking for the best deal and appreciate that opinion.
And the UN contractor in Haiti who was supposed to truck away human waste polluted the river and thousands of people have contracted cholera and several hundreds have died.
The likelihood of this proposal being implemented: zero. Why, then, make it--except that it makes him feel that he has made an important contribution.
The Altar of the Cheap?
What about the Altar of the Pregnant? The Cult of the Baby?
Three additional children are born every second on this planet, and that is never mentioned in this hand-wringing, pearl clutching litanies about the horrors of shopping at Wal Mart.
So stop having kids, and then we can talk about buying quality and expensive.
I'm in agreement with you. It's too bad limiting population growth is such a sensitive subject. Humans are blindly self-righteous and pathetically unwilling to give up any amenities and luxuries in order to alleviate the pressure on the limited (yes people, limited) resources of the earth - one of these luxuries is reproduction. I'm sure I'll get verbally whipped for mentioning the idea of giving up your 'God-given' (I'm an atheist) right to procreate. But, it's going to be a subject even the most self-serving human will have to face at some point in the future. Fair warning given.
For the record I do not have any children and at my current age of 38, along with the fact that my partner is 'fixed' - I will not be procreating in the future either. As a woman, it's been a emotional and spiritual journey of mourning due to the fact that I will never be a mother. But, as a proponent of ZPG (Zero Population Growth), I have at least honored my commitment in the legacy of my existence here on this planet.
I have always said, "mindless propagation" is our worst enemy. They call me a racist. Hispanics represent 16% of the total population but they produced 42% of new births in 2009. I don't think it's race but either religious or having a child every 2 years you never have to work. When you try to find out why they will call you a racist.
I have one child (he's 40) and he says he can't afford to have a child. Most of the people having children three and four children can least afford to raise them.
Part of the issue is because the simplistic and bigoted response to a statement like yours (and no, I'm not saying I agree with this at all because I don't) is to then conclude that without Hispanics, the birth rate would be lower and therefore problem solved (or at least reduced).
Well yes, you're a racist.
Yes you are a racist. I am a mexican woman 34 years old married to a white american for 8 years and don't have any children. So your generalization is racist and wrong.
I work with those hispanics you despise and the women are not empowered. Besides if they want their children born in the usa is because of the opportunities denied to them back at home thanks to the interventions of your country in Latin America. So thank your government's foreign policy for the spike in birth rates for Hispanics.
"What about the Altar of the Pregnant? The Cult of the Baby?"
No.
"Three additional children are born every second on this planet, and that is never mentioned in this hand-wringing, pearl clutching litanies about the horrors of shopping at Wal Mart."
Because it is irrelevant.
"So stop having kids, and then we can talk about buying quality and expensive."
No.
Amen!
queerplanet... Maybe your comment is sexist. You fail to recognize the maternal instinct which some - not all- have. This instinct is one of the most powerful of all human and non-human animal forces - far more powerful than the drive for sex - for some, not all. Adoption is not the answer for those on the bottom of the economic scale.
The real answer might be, not to stop having babies, but to stop having rich, white babies and then raising them to be super-consumers. (This debate is like criticizing someone for using incandescent light bulbs, but then supporting NASCAR, recreational aviation, and yachting.)
queerplanet, your constant posts regarding non-reproduction are irritating only because they are so idiotic. Should I argue that homosexuals should stop spreading the damn HIV around? After all, my publicly funded healthcare doesn't need the added expense of anti-retroviral meds, constant nurse supervision and other associated costs. Of course not, both arguments are simplistic to the point of idiocy. Most humans are hardwired to procreate, and even many who aren't heterosexual still have a strong parental instinct, opting for artificial means or adoption. Procreation is the means of cultural transmission and also a means of survival for many. Who will take care of the elderly, the infirm? We need new blood to take care of the old. Also, interactions with children are enriching, rewarding and often inspirational in terms of lifestyle change. People not having kids will never happen, nor should it. To suggest it is to suggest planned self-extinction. It is anti-human and little better than those that suggest humans should be eradicated to save the planet. I would ask, is your carbon footprint zero? Do you contribute to over consumption? If you haven't achieved this I would question the validity of your suggestion.
This person really thinks that not having babies is the solution before stopping the proliferation Wal-Mart type over-consumption?! Thus they want to eliminate people & babies before eliminating WalMarts, Monsantos, McDonalds, etc; as if eliminating people won't eliminate Walmarts, Monsantos, McDonalds, etc?! - That's some real pretzel logic! Folks who really believe that would lead be example by Eliminating Themselves, other than that either they're just running off at the mouth & maybe just need to SHUT-UP! -OR- They're advocating a hidden EUGENICS Agenda - something that many {white} Power Elites [& their mouth-pieces] seem obsessed with!
If you ask how would they impose & implement a 1-Child or No-Child policy &/or drastically & rapidly cut the current population- usually they avoid giving a straight answer..., Because to impose & enforce such a policy would require such a Globalized Extremely Draconian Police-State / 1984 / Brave New World- Type Regime - It Would Horrify the Average Decent Human-Being!!!
IMO: Folks who continue to scream that the real problem is people having babies [DUH UH] more so than excessive over-consumption- are likely folks who don't really like babies nor people- especially poor people of color! So they'd rather eliminate 'those' babies & people rather than check & moderate their wasteful 'life-styles'!
"I would ask, is your carbon footprint zero? "
Definitely not, but it is most probably lower than yours.
In a 1-child/monogamous family system, the total number of people related by blood or marriage over 3 generations will be 5.
Now count your family members over 3 generations and tell me the count and then ask who is the problem.
Your (and others) statement that humans are hardwired to procreate is specious. Consider that an even greater instinct is to compete, meaning that the drive to compete for finite resources (via war) far outweighs our desire for sex and children. So by stating that we should always give in to our instincts makes you, by definition, a war-monger.
As humanity evolves into an increasingly sentient and compassionate species, it is hoped that our need for war and children will decline and maybe vanish. People who do not evolve will always be considered sub-human. I prefer the term knuckle-draggers.
'queerplanet' is right about the problem as one of over-population, the White population of the world, that consumes far more than its share.
The romans consumed more than their share as they ruled. We are ruling at this point. It is a natural situation. The chinese will be and probably are now close to doing so. Peter Drucker wrote about the population situation. He said that Europe was not replacing itself and that the Anglo populations were in decline. Israel is also not replacing itself and they even admitted that they have lost the war in the bedroom.
Affluent societies "can not afford" to have children. This has been the argument. Malthus was correct. We are breeding ourselves out of food and this will eventually come to roost...all the Pope can say is "have more ".
We have time, we have our health; neither is sold at walmart. Most shopping is a waste of time and makes you sick. Goodwill has a better selection of stuff and it's cheaper.
Sadly, in many areas of the country Walmart is the only game in town. I so agree that many many people go to Walmart because they cannot afford to shop at the more expensive stores. And the cycle continues. I notice that the poorer the area is, the more Walmarts there are. There are no Walmarts in upscale areas. I agree with the author that Walmart is awful -- we all get that. What I don't agree with is that we all have the ability to make the choice not to shop at Walmart. Clearly, people who can afford it can easily choose not to shop there. (That is an easy one. I feel awful any time I go into a Walmart.) But what about people who do not have that choice? I think the only way to change this is to educate people. Teach people how to grow and cook their own food, etc. But I do not think it is good to make people feel guilty for going to Walmart if they have no other place to shop. Really, what we need to do is to bring back the small Mom and Pop grocery stores. As a stimulus and jobs creation program, the government should give funds to people who create their own small local businesses.
Fabulous Idea. We made lousy trade agreements. Too big to fail. Too big to eat right. Too big to care. I saw a program on future urban architecture. It planned whole floor in the middle of a high rise building for farming. We have to plane it.
"Really, what we need to do is to bring back the small Mom and Pop grocery stores. As a stimulus and jobs creation program, the government should give funds to people who create their own small local businesses."
or... the US could nationalize the walmart chain and redistribute it's profits to it's employees and to it's suppliers. walmart is a very efficient way to distribute goods in mass across america. the problem is in the distribution of the profits and the treatment of the workers (let alone human rights violations).
the wealth of the walton family could be taxed at a 90% margin. they still would be fabulously, sickly rich... but we all would benefit.
or the government could take over the walmart brand (say after the next economic downturn in the business cycle) and maintain the distribution system w/ rail and electric transport.
it will be interesting living in a world post peak oil,
i see walmart as the corporate prototype of a national distribution system (like usaid).
...peace...
It should be noted that the primary reason for 'unchecked population growth' is the lack of female empowerment. The reason that the population is growing, is that it is confined to an area of the world in which women have no rights. The population everywhere in the developed world is declining and has been ever since woman have been empowered. Despite stupid comments I read and hear about people wanting to procreate (as if everyone in the third world are a bunch of nymphomaniacs) the truth is that women get pregnant because men force themselves upon them. Even in the U.S. half of the pregnancies are unwanted (http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-698X/9/17) but unlike the underdeveloped world, options exist. A recent survey asked a huge sampling of women around the world asked if their 'second' child was planned and over 80% said that they never wanted a second child. Once a society establishes a strong system of justice in which women actually have control over their reproductive rights, statistics show that a new problem emerges almost immediately... rapid population decline. Therefore the problem of unchecked overpopulation growth is rooted in democracy, universal human rights and of course a woman's right to say "no" to men who desire sex. Because the U.S. is determined to promote vicious dictatorships around the world to facilitate the sale of arms, the extraction of the country's natural resources and to exploit labor, it is a far more complex problem than most people realize. Anyone who is serious about ending the population explosion should therefore be focusing on empowering women around the world and stop blaming it on overactive libidos.
I absolutely totally love this post. Thanks, Space Cadet
I wish there was a way I could bump your post to the top. You've made great points.
Thank you for pointing out to those that want easy answers that there's more to it than the "close your legs" mentality. Yes, there are those who continue to have babies in order to stay on public assistance. Yes, there are those who have large families because of religious directives. These are a small part of the bigger picture, and as long as the "close your legs" attitude persists, no real change will come.
As for shopping at the Evil Empire, even within Walmart there are options. Buy American whenever you can. The cheapest brand of socks there are American-made. Take the time to read labels and packaging, and even in places where Walmart has driven out everyone else, changes can begin. It is possible to start the ball rolling on repealing the laws, tax incentives and trade agreements that reward businesses for taking jobs out of this country and gutting our economy. A large avalanche can be started with a snowball.
Very good comments, Space Cadet, and very much on-target. Thank you for posting.
Thank you Space Cadet for mentioning this. There are some nations that are trying to make this happen and that is where I see both some progress and being less afflicted by the impact of disaster capitalism gone global. As far as the USA is concerned, when it comes to women and their rights to controlling their own bodies, most options that are safe have been made either illegal or cost prohibitive almost to the point where there is no difference between this nation and US-backed dictatorship regimes.
Additionally the Republican Party is working very hard to repeal "Roe versus Wade". The Republicans have been working on doing this ever since the Supreme Court handed down its verdict. Currently the Republican Party has been pushing "voter fraud" as a reason to restrict the right to vote as far as possible through "Voter Picture ID" requirements. Even if you've been voting for the past half century, under the Republican proposals a lot of Americans, mostly poor, minorities, or elderly would lose the right to vote. The requirements are about the same as the "National ID" system that was proposed a while back and could be even stricter. The idea of course is to prevent people who would likely vote Democratic from being able to vote in 2012. This way the Republicans can win elections by disqualifying as many Democratic voters as is possible. Giving us the same sort of voting systems as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton acused the Russians of doing in their recent election...
I agree with you that what the Republicans are doing is no longer covert but blatantly despicable. However, the Democrats are failures for not standing up to this let alone succeed in reversing the long term damage already done. As of this writing, Roe v Wade has been chipped away to the point that it is as if it no longer exists.
As far as voting is concerned, we are already disenfranchised by both parties. Ralph Nader, Rocky Anderson, Green Party, etc... are being prevented from getting on the air waves, presidential debates, or even the ballots and such people are principled progressives that the poor, minorities, women, elderly, etc... can benefit from. Very few Democrats come close to them.
Though your point is somewhat valid [certainly far more so than those who just rail on & on that over-population {rather than unbridled GREED} is the 'Root of All Evil']- IMO there's a bit more to it than that. In regions [IE: Africa & the Global South] where the average fertility rate is 2Xs - 3Xs than in the US & Europe- these folks' infant / child mortality rates are also often 3Xs - 5Xs higher & life expectancy is often 1/2 that in the US & Europe - Due To POVERTY! For that reason Poverty tends to drive up fertility rates to compensate for those loses, though twice the fertility rate does NOT necessarily mean twice the over-all rate of population growth [due to increased infant / child mortality & decreased life-expectancy under impoverished conditions]! Thus Poverty [which is closely linked to illiteracy] dis-empowers everyone concerned- both Women & Men & Children! A truly humane prog to mitigate population growth [which is often over-hyped anyway] Must Include Eliminating Poverty [NOT the same as Eliminating Poor People] & Illiteracy [= improving better quality of life conditions] - which would Empower ALL- both Men, Women & Children! And such a prog would also encourage these people to stay on the land- rather driving them into over-crowded / over-populated cities & slums!
BUT- This has too often NOT been the case! Socio-Econ Progs by Corp, IMF, World Bank, WTO, GATT, NAFTA, etc [as alluded to in this article] have tended to maintain or even Worsen Poverty in Africa & the Global South [& increasingly in the US too]!... While implementing a population control regime [FYI: USAID & UN Population agencies have been funded Family-Planning progs in Africa & so-called 3rd World since at-least the 1970s- if not before]! And they've also tended to drive the people of these regions off of their lands [where they often have greater self-sufficiency / self-reliance] into over-crowded / over-populated city-slums thus tending to increase population pressures as well as poverty & dependency!
I made my living for several years as a young adult playing popular songs in nightclubs...
I got laid alot by unmistakably willing women, frequently just met, many of whom divulged they had 'significant others'...
things haven't changed that much...
humans are children of nature, not the other way 'round...
the sex drive is not limited to one or the other sex...
this post in no way discounts, nor dismisses, sexual crime...
physical trends are toward increasing sterility and erroneous fetal development...
are we aware of these trends?
how do we reconcile these trends with our predictions regarding population?
"... the establishment can't admit [that] it is human rights violations that make ... countries attractive to business -- so history has to be fudged, including denial of our support of regimes of terror and the practices that provide favorable climates of investment, and our destabilization of democracies that [don't] meet [the] standard of service to the transnational corporation..."
Edward Herman, economist and media analyst
"We must find new lands from which we can easily obtain raw materials and at the same time exploit the cheap slave labor that is available from the natives of the colonies. The colonies would also provide a dumping ground for the surplus goods produced in our factories."
Cecil Rhodes, 1853-1902, British imperialist and "founder" of Rhodesia (Zimbabwe)
One thing that never made sense to me is why local businesses - at least where I live in Canada - always support the conservative right wing 'pro business' corporate agenda and not the unions and working people in their communities. It's like they do not understand that 'big business' does not at all have the same interests as small/medium sized business.
Structurally, the economy is a total mess and while I know it's always better to support local businesses which I do when possible -- I find it hard to feel sorry for them when they are the primary architects of their own misfortune in this regard (WalMart) having spent a lot of money and effort to keep right wing governments in power all these years.
I digressed from the main article as I focused on the 'population explosion' however the Walmartization of America should be addressed as well. To begin with, the unionization of American workers will not happen anytime soon as the ideology of the 1% (unions are bad!) has cemented itself into the minds of the general population for several decades. However a move to raise the minimum wage for retail workers (I'd suggest $18 an hour) would have a minimal effect on the price of our cheap imported Chinese goods while having a huge impact on the standard of living for tens of millions of Americans. I am not so naive to believe that the current corporate parties would even discuss such a proposal, but if the population can replace the current batch of corporate psychopaths making up our Executive Branch, Supreme Court and Congress with progressives who serve the public interest, a simple piece of labor legislation like the one I have just mentioned would go a long way to closing the wealth gap between the 1% and the rest of us.
Great posts, both this one and your first one. We do know, however, that retail workers will get $18 an hour when the good witches of Oz occupy Congress.