Walmart's Impact: Comparing Mallaby's Defense and Greenwald's Critique

Introduction and Source Overview

Over the past weeks, the retail giant Walmart has been the focus of study, particularly the tension between its motto of "Always Low Prices" and the broader consequences of its business practices. During economic recessions, lower and middle class consumers are eager to save money by purchasing cheaper products, making Walmart's prosperity appear to be an inevitable consequence of capitalism. However, Walmart has grown so powerful and influential that its obsession with lower prices has arguably harmed global society as a whole. Some critics defend Walmart and claim that it benefits the poor, while others argue the opposite. This essay compares two sources with opposing views: "Progressive Walmart. Really?" by Sebastian Mallaby, published in They Say / I Say, and the documentary film Walmart: The High Cost of Low Price directed by Robert Greenwald and Brave New Films. By analyzing how each source presents evidence and constructs its argument, this essay evaluates the credibility and persuasiveness of both perspectives.

Mallaby's Defense of Walmart

Sebastian Mallaby's article "Progressive Walmart. Really?" defends Walmart against a variety of criticisms. Mallaby argues that the public depicts Walmart worse than it actually is, since the low prices essentially benefit consumers. He counters claims that Walmart is bad for poor Americans by noting that Walmart saves consumers a substantial amount of money by offering food and other necessities at reasonable, low prices. Mallaby addresses multiple disputes surrounding the company, including accusations that Walmart contains health costs, is responsible for the loss of wages for retail workers, acts as a parasite on taxpayers, and suppresses wages in China. The article concludes by discussing how any successful business would have rivals and critics, especially in today's society. Mallaby acknowledges that "Companies like Walmart are not run by saints," yet argues that the benefits outweigh the negative aspects (Mallaby 622).

Greenwald's Critical Documentary

In contrast, the film Walmart: The High Cost of Low Price by Robert Greenwald presents a negative picture of Walmart to enlighten Americans about the effects this major company has on society. The documentary illustrates how Walmart takes over retail in communities, exploits its workers both in the United States and abroad, and watches small retailers fail when the chain moves into town. Greenwald depicts Walmart's business practices through interviews with former employees, small business owners, and footage of Walmart executives. Throughout his documentary, Greenwald uses firsthand accounts from people negatively affected by Walmart to appeal to his audience's emotions. The main purpose of the documentary is to show Americans why they get such low prices at Walmart—and at what human cost.

Comparative Analysis: Consumer Benefits and Hidden Costs

Both sources address a central question: Do Walmart's low prices justify the company's practices? A critic from New York University cited in the article, Jason Furman, points out that "Walmart discounting on food alone boosts the welfare of American shoppers by at least $50 billion a year." He suggests this amount could possibly be five times higher if accounting for all Walmart merchandise. Moreover, the exchange of goods at low prices benefits consumers and provides more choice. Walmart's low-price model has undeniably changed retail expectations and consumer purchasing power. However, the documentary asserts that these low prices are available only because people have suffered, starting with Chinese workers and ending with U.S. employees.

The two sources diverge sharply on the question of worker welfare. Mallaby states that although critics allege Walmart is bad for poor Americans, Walmart saves consumers money by offering food and necessities at reasonable, low prices. The documentary, however, discloses that Chinese workers earn pennies per day sewing cheap apparel for Walmart. Mallaby counters that no studies have proven whether Walmart suppresses wages in China or elsewhere. He also suggests that garment workers are better off at Walmart's subcontractors since they are primarily migrants from farms where they earn much less. This argument illustrates how each source selects evidence to support its narrative: Mallaby emphasizes consumer benefit, while Greenwald emphasizes worker suffering.

The documentary's opening sequence tells the story of a family that used to own a hardware store. Unable to compete with Walmart's lower prices, they went out of business—a sad story from the family's perspective. The documentary presents other accounts of people who couldn't attract customers as well as Walmart, concluding that Walmart is bad for small business. Mallaby does not hide the fact that Walmart tries to put rivals out of business; instead, he argues that every large retail store tends to run smaller companies out of business. This statement also leads to job loss, as reported by the documentary.

Employment and Economic Impact

However, Mallaby presents contrasting evidence. When Walmart opened a new store in Glendale, Arizona, they received twelve times more job applications than needed for the low-benefit, unattractive jobs they had posted. Out of approximately 8,000 applications for only 525 available jobs, many people were willing to take employment regardless of pay and benefits. This evidence is striking because it reflects the realities of unemployment rates at historically high percentages. The fact that Walmart employs so many people may offset the job losses that result from Walmart moving into towns, even if those jobs offer low wages.

Regarding compensation, the documentary states that Walmart's wages are so low that most employees, even full-time workers, are underpaid. Many employees' dependents qualify for public assistance including welfare and Medicaid, meaning taxpayers subsidize Walmart's workforce. Mallaby explains that "The average Walmart customer earns $35,000 a year," and the average Walmart employee "may take home less pay, but their purchasing power probably still grows thanks to Walmart's low prices" (622). Even though customers and employees earn modest incomes, Walmart's prices help them purchase more food and necessities for their families than they could afford at other retail stores. Mallaby also notes that Walmart saves consumers $200 billion every year on purchases, while federal food stamp programs were worth only $33 billion—suggesting Walmart functions as a larger welfare provider than government assistance.