The Wal-Mart Effect on Society and Individuals

Wal-Mart is definitely a “Big-Box Boogeyman” (editorial, Feb. 22). I beg to differ with The Times’ assessment that “banning one company” won’t solve the societal problems of this kind of company paying “low wages, paltry benefits and outsourc[ing] manufacturing.” Being that it is the largest of those companies that would sell out their own country, Wal-Mart is the perfect one with which to start a rigorous campaign to defeat its unethical practices.

We as a caring society must feel obligated, with the help of our government representatives, to root out this cancerous evil, which has spread in epidemic proportions, in terms of the harm it has done to ordinary people simply trying to make a decent, healthy living for themselves and their families. Wal-Mart and these other turncoat, renegade outfits do not represent the American way.

Robert C. Lutes

Temple City

*

I applaud your editorial. As your series on Wal-Mart revealed, it is certainly a rotten apple, but not the only one in the barrel. There are many other companies that devalue the very resource, their employees, that can provide the companies a sustaining competitive edge in today’s global marketplace. This is a societal problem. And we cannot depend solely on the legal and legislative bodies to address it. For creative change to occur, it will also take the efforts of the citizenry.

Karl Strandberg

Long Beach

*

I disagree with the group of L.A. City Council members who are proposing a ban on Wal-Mart “supercenters.” I do agree with the editorial that there needs to be further public comment on the situation. The City Council members claim they are trying to “retain middle-class jobs and protect small businesses from these negative effects.” I have been to Wal-Mart many times, and I also shop at regular supermarkets as well. Wal-Mart is a more customer-friendly place than a Ralphs or Albertsons. Also, Wal-Mart’s prices are not that much cheaper than the grocery stores’.

Patrick Soriano

Palmdale