Wal-Mart Comes To Town

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.)

Welcome!

I’m off to college next year. It’s time to start figuring out what kind of life I want to lead. Do I want to live my life altruistically and make as big an impact on the world as humanly possible? Or should my primary goal be to forge a career path for myself and simply to live a happy, ethical life? 

Would I rather be off in some failed state or be working comfortably in a Manhattan high-rise? Yes, those are extreme and unlikely examples. But they’re both hypothetically possible for someone with my set of interests. I recognize that the answer will, in all likelihood, lie somewhere in between.

This should be a forum for me to do my own thinking, and I hope you’ll keep checking back for the ride. It should be interesting.

Ancient religious doctrines from ahimsa to zakat speak to the value of altruistic behavior. Machiavelli said infamously that all men are essentially self-interested and evil; zoologists have observed altruistic behavior in the animal kingdom; psychological egoists hold that we give merely for our own self-gain, even if only for that small “reward” we feel when we place a one-dollar bill in a donation jar or hold a door open for a stranger. A surprising number of people take a stance on altruism as it relates to human behavior.

Some have argued that it’s best to just embrace self-interest. If everyone acts in their own self-interest, it is best for the system. The Scottish economist Adam Smith wrote of an “invisible hand” that would enable the forces of self-interest in a free market to benefit all of society; the concept of realism in international relations is little more than a nerdy glorification of self-interest. 

So as far as this blog goes, topics will run the gamut from my personal observations to international news, but it will all be viewed through a lens of altruism versus self-interest.  Some topics will be light-hearted and some will be a little more weighty. (I have a hunch that a wildly amusing YouTube video entitled “MUST WATCH -- ALTRUISTIC CATS! (Part 3/7)” will be more readily available than one on psychology of self-interest as it pertains to international relations theory.) But if it doesn’t interest me, I won’t waste your time with it.