AppId is over the quota
In "Wal-Mart: The Bully of Bentonville - How the High Cost of Everyday Low Prices Is Hurting America," Author Anthony Bianco made an argument about the predicament that Wal-Mart is in.... Should we agree with his argument? Agree or not, Bianco's argument painted an interesting future of American society? Interestingly, 'interesting future' in Chinese figure of speech usually denotes "people living in hard times (e.g., the Great Depression or the Russian Revolution).
In a nutshell, Bianco is arguing that Wal-Mart's bullying tactics of ensuring 'everyday low prices produces a high cost that is hurting America.' The remedy he offered can be interpreted as the need for Wal-Mart to replace its present business model with a new business model; stop squeezing employees and suppliers, and charge customers a little more (Businessweek.com, 2007).
Alas, Mr. Bianco portrayed Wal-Mart as 'a leopard that cannot (in this case, will not) change its spots.' In basketball parlance, Wal-Mart lives or dies by its jump shots. Quoting Bianco, "it simply knows no other way to compete and seems no more capable of altering its path now than a hammer can avoid the nail it was made to pound" (Bianco, 2007, p. 289).
As a matter of fact, Wal-Mart knows it is at a crossroad in its development as a corporation. However, Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott thinks that his company doesn't need a new business plan instead the U.S. Government needs a new public policy plan. In deed, Scott "declared Wal-Mart's support for an increase in the federal minimum wage of $5.15" (Bianco, 2007, p. 288). At first glance, an observer would speculate that Wal-Mart is pulling something new out of its nefarious bag of tricks. It would be like the Neo-conservatives adopting the golden rule, 'the meek shall inherit the earth,' than the iron rule, 'might make right.' What is the reason for Scott's paradoxical position? Let's hear it from Scott, himself: "We can see first-hand at Wal-Mart how many of our customers are struggling to get by.... Our customers simply don't have the money to buy basic necessities between pay checks. There are global forces at work flattening pay scales" (Bianco, 2007, p. 288).
Bianco's view is that Wal-Mart is one (the most powerful) of the global forces that is at work flattening pay scales because of its low-price, low-wage image - an image that sets the standard for the world economy (Bianco, 2007).
I'm in total agreement with Bianco's argument about Wal-Mart's predicament and the crossroad it finds itself. Hopefully, Wal-Mart will tinker (for the better) with its business plan as it tries to sell more organic food and fashionable apparel to capitalize on their higher margins profit. Thus, it will have an incentive to stop squeezing its employees since it will be charging (actually, it is at the current moment) more for the high-end products (Businessweek.com, 2007).
If Wal-Mart should adopt my recommendation given in the preceding paragraph, it will impede the global forces that are at work flattening pay scales. In fact, Wal-Mart would remake (for the better) its low-price, low-wage image into a fair-price, fair-wage image - an image that will set a new standard for the world economy (Bianco, 2007).
If not, the future of American society will witness a Wal-Mart self-destructing like General Motors and the Steel Industry. Verily, the self-professed unsinkable Wal-Mart would crash into the iceberg (the need for a new business plan) of reality. Unfortunately, American society will be a passenger on Wal-Mart's sinking Titanic, and like the employees of General Motors and the Steel Industry they will suffer the consequences of Wal-Mart's hubris.
In conclusion, I described Bianco's argument that Wal-Mart has to make the change that matters - the need to replace its low-price, low-wage image with a fair-price, fair-wage image - in order to get itself out of its predicament. In turn, I produced arguments of my own that agrees with Bianco's conclusion, and the importance of Wal-Mart's compliance to ensure a better future for American society.
In the role of a devil's advocate, I once entertained the thought that Wal-Mart's present business plan might be a benefit to the pharmaceutical industry. For example, American society would benefit from the low prices that a Wal-Mart would force upon its pharmaceutical suppliers. After all, the pharmaceutical industry notoriously shares a spot in 'the axis of evil (including the healthcare industry)' that tries 'to squeeze the blood out of the turnip.' (For example, Michael Moore's Sicko provides great documentation on the preceding sentence). Then, I asked myself wouldn't the Wal-Mart induced pharmaceutical low prices produce a high cost that would in turn hurt America?
ไม่มีความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น