Time Magazine reports that Wal-Mart has a plan: to put as many of its remaining competitors out of business as it can. And financial writer Jeff Hwang at Motley Fool notes that Wal-Mart already exerts an emormous amount of leverage over its suppliers:
“Wal-Mart accounts for 28% of Dial’s sales, 24% of Del Monte Foods’ sales, and 23% of Clorox’s sales. If Wal-Mart has too much power over these companies now, what will happen when Wal-Mart’s share hits 50% at the end of this decade?”
That’s every corporation’s dream: to eliminate all the competition and dominate your suppliers. It’s also called a monopoly, and last time I checked it was illegal. Yet the Wal-Mart juggernaut apparently goes on without much concern from regulators.
What’s a consumer to do? Wal-Mart’s prices are tempting, even in the face of moral convictions.
When it comes to food, what my wife and I can’t buy at farmer’s markets, we buy at a locally-owned grocery store. The quality is far better, and we’re willing to pay the price. And we use another store’s pharmacy because we find the service better and the lines much shorter than Wal-Mart.
But for many items like toilet paper or soap, where there’s absolutely no difference between Wal-Mart and a more expensive chain store, it’s hard to justify paying more for the same item. When we just need one such item, we buy it at whatever store we’re at. But when we need to stock up, it’s off to Wally World.
Unless you’re motivated by an overpowering issue, such as unionization or environmental concerns (or unless you’re one of the few who doesn’t have a Wal-Mart close by), you probably buy some of your needs at Wal-Mart regularly. It’s hard to say you shouldn’t when my wife and I do ourselves, and when any impact on the community is indirect at best.
But for those items that are made or grown locally, there is a payoff for buying from a local source: local jobs and a more vibrant economy, which in turn means your job (whatever that may be) is more secure. So buy what you can locally, and feel good.
