|
Wal-Mart: The Unknown Ideal Lauren Bodie 28 February 2006 We, as Libertarians, are socially liberal and fiscally conservative. That being said, it would not do for us to support any measure forcing the most successful company in the world to place large sums of their money in the hands of undoubtedly one of the worst stewards of all-time: the government. Let’s face it — Wal-Mart is an easy target. Some years they get sued at the alarming rate of almost once every two hours. It has been considered at times both the best and worse case scenario of a dynamic free market economy. But for us, the issue here is not whether Wal-Mart is inherently good or evil. The issue is the ineffectiveness of government intervention in achieving socials aims through private industry, and the threat such intrusion poses to the rights of the individual. It should not be surprising that Wal-Mart does not meet the 8% payroll minimum for healthcare. This figure would be undoubtedly easy to reach if their average store associate wasn’t making nearly twice the minimum wage or if the majority of its employees weren’t senior citizens, college students, and people working other jobs who already have access to insurance. With a waiting period on health insurance and a turnover rate of 44%, it’s no wonder they’re paying out a disproportionate amount in wages to healthcare. The problem is that with over 1,000,000 employees nationwide and 17,000 in Maryland, people are taking Wal-Mart’s compensation package over anything else they’ve been offered. It could be the flexible schedules or maybe the blue aprons, but either way, Wal-Mart has no incentive to offer any more of an attractive package than it currently does. Proponents of this bill believe that assessing punitive damages for offering a wide range of goods at low prices will help more working Marylanders get the health coverage they need. Little do they realize that advocating this sort of measure only serves to further impoverish the very groups they attempt to aid. Wal-Mart did not become the success that it is by making poor business decisions. There are only so many ways they can respond to this forced philanthropy. They can either pay into the fund, or increase the amount spent on healthcare to 8%. It sounds simple, but let’s take a moment to think this through. If Wal-Mart pays into the fund, it may increase prices to offset the cost, thus passing the costs on to consumers, many of which are low wage earners whose budgets demand access to low priced goods. It may cut employment to compensate. It may cut wages to increase the percentage of payroll it spends on healthcare. It may stop hiring senior citizens because they have access to Medicare. But best-case scenario, Wal-Mart starts offering more benefits, a higher subsidy percentage, and better plans. This only makes small businesses less able to compete with large companies for good help than they were before. Now we must choose between hurting small businesses, consumers, or employees, as another legislative backfire wreaks havoc on Maryland families.
We support a
worker’s right to choose where he works and accept the compensation package he
deems most beneficial to his situation. We support a consumer’s right to shop
where he pleases for the products he wants at the prices he can afford. But we
also support the business owner’s right to make good and profitable business
decisions for himself and his company. Business growth, wages, and product
variety should be determined by the preference of the consumer and by the labor
market — not the mandate of the government. And it is for this reason that we should not
only expect, but demand a person to take advantage of a free market economy
without government interference. Both our choices and our right to make those
choices need protection from the well meaning, but detrimental meddling of the
government.
Lauren Bodie served as the Membership Chair of the College Libertarians of Towson,
2006; and President, 2007. |