Also, the stores in the suburbs may also be chain stores, although locally or regionally based, rather than nationally-based chains like Wal-Mart. Consumers do not feel the same connection to these establishments, they way they might to old-fashioned mom-and-pop stores, or corner urban bodegas. One further irony of Wal-Mart's employee policy is that even employees who are angry at the company they work for, who are being most hurt by its practices, may still shop at Wal-Mart. This is not because Wal-Mart offers good employee discounts, but because these consumers are usually on the lowest rungs of the economic ladder, and do not have the luxury of refusing to buy inexpensive goods for ethical reasons, given the size of their paychecks. The Wal-Mart hiring practice essentially creates a community of captive, low-wage consumers. And as society grows more expensive to live in because of the rising price of fuel and as the standards of consumer status become even more expensive, middle-class consumers begin to feel poor, and justify skimping on essentials and buying essential goods from less ethical sources. They do this in the interest of 'keeping up with the Jones' and to increase the disposable part of their incomes by shopping at discount stores for basic products.

This economic analysis may seem to suggest that the Wal-Mart juggernaut of success is nearly unstoppable. However, it should be noted that this is not always the case. First of all, some consumers, for certain goods, may associate low prices with low quality. Perhaps this is why Wal-Mart has succeeded with brand name goods, because people can be assured of the fact that the Pampers they buy at Wal-Mart will be of comparable quality to the same brand they buy at the slightly more expensive local supermarket chain. In contrast, luxury goods have an inverse relationship between price and consumer demand. But beyond the allure of such luxury goods, Wal-Mart has struggled in some countries with different buying habits and priorities, such...

For example, the franchised standardization of employee manners, which proved so successful, not just for Wal-Mart but for other franchises such as McDonald's infamous "Have a nice day" did not translate well to Germany, where excessive smiling is seen as being flirtatious.
Wal-Mart's German failure highlights the fact that different nations have different economic cultures. For example, Germans are more willing to pay higher prices and taxes for social services that benefit the indigent, and thus the public is more apt to react negatively against a company that is perceived as being unfair to unions and to workers in general (Landler & Barbaro, 2006:2). Workers were outraged in Europe when stores were shut down and executives were forced to move without the company consulting with them. Although this is routine in the U.S. many German Wal-Mart managers simply quit at such a sign of disrespect. Worst of all, Wal-Mart found it difficult to offer the lowest prices on groceries, given that Europeans shop more frequently for fresh produce, which they can buy just as cheaply at locally-run discount stores and market. Europeans and other foreign nationals are less likely to stock up on processed goods. Fresh food is important, and is seen as worth spending the extra time on shopping for in other nations (Landler & Barbaro, 2006:2). Thus, Wal-Mart's success is not inevitable, even in America, but to ensure that Wal-Marts, and Wal-Mart attitudes to employees, do not take over America, Americans must rethink the way they view their social responsibilities as consumers, the ways they shop, and how they buy goods.

Works Cited

Landler, Mark & Michael Barbaro. "Wal-Mart Finds That Its Formula Doesn't Fit Every

Culture." The New York Times. 2 Aug 2006. 24 Jul 2007. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/02/business/worldbusiness/02walmart.html?ex=1312171200&en=e01e99c3081724c5&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt