He's getting better and better, folks:
Wal-Mart has dramatically upgraded the nature of retail work in America.I think his direct attack on the UFCW is effective. This speech is much better than his recent TV appearances.Here�s why. The fallacy of the critics is to argue as if Wal-Mart�s growth has somehow come at the expense of better-paying jobs elsewhere in the economy. The truth is that retailing as a sector has consistently accounted for about one of every seven jobs in the U.S. for the last 30 years.
Wal-Mart�s growth (as with the growth of other larger retailers) has basically come within this overall retail pie. And the increasing share of retail jobs supplied by larger, more professional and growing companies such as Wal-Mart has meant (1) more stable employment, (2) unprecedented opportunities for training and career advancement, and (3) the kind of health care, retirement and other benefits that small, financially struggling retailers could never afford to offer.
And don't miss this one:
When our critics cry, �a company with $10 billion in profits can do better,� it sure sounds like we should. But with sales of $285 billion last year, Wal-Mart earned a return of 3.6 percent � as compared to 8.5 percent for Exxon-Mobil. Seen another way, retailing�s more labor-intensive business model means that in 2004 Wal-Mart earned roughly $6,000 in profit per associate; Microsoft, by contrast, earned $143,000 per associate. For General Motors, the number was almost $12,000.I think a lot of people will agree that he's demolishing WM opponents' arguments.
Posted by Kevin on February, 26 2005 at 11:47 AM
