Wal-Mart has
expressed its desire to open a 150,000 square-foot store in my hometown.
While some welcome the idea, hundreds—if not thousands—of “NO WAL-MART” signs
have cropped up all over town in the past few weeks. The village government has
held some public forum meetings to discuss the heated issue.
Just for a little context: the Illinois suburb which I call home can be described as relatively wealthy. A few years ago, when we did not allow Costco to open up shop on the border edge of our town, Costco instead built its store in what is technically part of a neighboring village. So for all intents and purposes, our town still has a Costco... but not the tax revenue. The nearest Wal-Mart is 13 miles from my house.
Many
arguments, including the ones pertaining to Wal-Mart, can be underpinned simultaneously by both genuine altruistic desires
and by self-interested motivations. I decided to break down the
arguments I’ve heard in this debate and separate the altruistic ones from the
self-interested ones.
Here it goes:
The self-interested Wal-Mart oppositionist says:
“Wal-Mart would
create more traffic, which would be a nuisance to me.”
(Homeowner says:) “Wal-Mart would lower the value
of my home!”
(Local
business owner says:) “Wal-Mart would drive me out of business!”
“Wal-Marts
are such eyesores. Yuck.”
“Wal-Mart
will increase the crime rate. This will put a burden on the local police force,
costing the taxpayer. Something could happen to me! ” (Interesting: click here)
The altruistic Wal-Mart oppositionist says:
“Yes, a
150,000 square-foot big box store might offer lower prices than the local
grocery store. But I am willing to
forego low prices because I believe in local business.”
“Wal-Mart
will increase the crime rate. Somebody else could get hurt!”
“Wal-Mart’s
ethics are questionable. They treat their workers poorly, are environmentally unfriendly,
etc. To me, morals outweigh low prices.”
The self-interested Wal-Mart advocate says:
“It’s
unfortunate that local businesses will lose revenue if Wal-Mart comes to town,
but above all, I want the lowest possible prices. And hey, it’s the free
market.”
“I need a
job. I hope Wal-Mart comes to town and hires me.”
“Wal-Mart
will be a big source of income for local government. Maybe if they had the
money, the village could finally fix up the park/library/downtown that I go to
all the time.”
The altruistic Wal-Mart advocate says.
(Wealthy
person says:) “It is true that a local Wal-Mart would be a nuisance to us all, and
might even drop my property value. There are a lot of affluent people in our
community, like myself, who might be able to afford the higher prices at local
businesses. But there are also a lot of people who are not as fortunate. It’s
easy to forget that relatively poor people exist in our town. People in our community who don’t have much money
would certainly welcome Wal-Mart for its low prices and job opportunities.”
What do you
think? Which of the four lines of argumentation above, if any, is the best? The worst?
(Image of Wal-Mart from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walmart.)
Just a quick thought: it seems to me that both altruistic and self-interested arguments are used by either side. People seem to deploy the altruistic arguments as an answer to the question, "Why don't you want Walmart?" They more frequently use the self-interested category of arguments to convince others as to why Walmart is bad.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Derek that the self-interested arguments and the altruistic arguments are largely similar, but phrased and focused differently. (I hope I'm not mischaracterizing your argument.) However, to me, I would think that the altruistic arguments are far more effective than the self-interested arguments, simply because, as Dale Carnegie said, nobody will do something unless they want to, and to persuade someone of your point of view, one has to make it relevant to that person. The self-interested argument is, by definition, focused on the self over the others and is thus less likely to convince someone than the altruistic argument.
ReplyDeleteA lot of the time, people with vested interests try to make their self-interested arguments look like altruistic ones. Saying buzzwords like "I believe in local business" is often just a secret way of saying that it will lower your home value without seeming selfish. Or maybe I am just too cynical about politicians and the like.
ReplyDeleteI find it very interesting that there seems to be a sort of façade of altruism in most effective arguments when they are almost always selfish at the core. To me, this also raises questions about thought process of the so-called "judge" of these arguments. This judge, although presumably unbiased, has to be tuned in to the phrasing of the arguments and what is really at stake for the individual oppositionists and advocates. How difficult is that?
ReplyDeleteIn addition, I would be interested in exploring just why altruism is so revered by society. Of course, it is an indication of a "nicer" person, but biologically it does not give people much of a survival advantage. If everyone advocated for themselves, could it be the equally as, if not more effective as everybody advocating for someone else?