Reader Response # 5: “The Wal-Mart You Don’t Know"

Through the use of examples and statistics, Charles Fishman has made many strong points about the negative impact of Wal-Mart on America economy; Wal-Mart could help increase sale production, but the cheap prices brought devastating profit to its suppliers, resulting in more employment cutoffs. By beginning his essay with the discussion of Vlasic’s gallon-sized pickle jar, Fishman not only efficiently attracts readers’ attentions, but it also allows him to transit from a small problem to a global one. Beside Vlasic, other suppliers of Wal-Mart are also financially at lost; With the low price, these companies would be making little or no profits and would eventually closed out, and if they are not closing out, they would use cheap, foreign labors like those in China to cut off labor expenses. In either case, Fishman highlights that they all would results in thousands of employments in America. Moreover, Fishman reveals in paragraph 31 that he is struggling with finding corroborated sources to support his points, but it does not weakened his claim about Wal-Mart. Instead, it strengthens it. By revealing that Wal-Mart and its suppliers do not want to be interviewed or shared information, Fisherman demonstrates that Wal-Mart wanted to hide their bad business conducts from its consumers.

Although I sometimes shop at Wal-Mart because it is closed to my home, I decide to stop shopping at Wal-Mart after reading Fishman’s article. I agree with him that as consumers of Wal-Mart, we are helping it to hurt the economy. With more consumers, Wal-Mart would gain more power and eventually becomes the biggest monopoly in the America’s capitalist economy. With Wal-Mart being the biggest monopoly, there would be no competitions between companies and without competitions in the business market, there would not be any qualified products. Yet, if there are qualified products, it would come with a price and that price is unemployment and cheap labor, a form of human oppression.

Reader Response # 4: Social Connection

Steven Johnson’s essay, “Social Connection,” is an interesting argument in which it raises readers’ consciousness about the impact of technology on our social connection. It is also a strong argument, because Johnson addresses the other side of the opposing argument with personal experience, and logic. For instance, Johnson begins his essay with Thomas Friedman’s side of argument about how technology likes iPod prevents people from communicating and interacting with each other. Then, based on his 15 years of commuting on subways and other arguments, he honestly admits that phones and earplugs do stop people from having a conversation with those nearby, and logically responds that people from the past, when Apple was not in the tech market, still disengaged themselves from social interaction.

Like Johnson, I believe that technology does not stop social connection, but the people; there would be no social connection if people only engage in their own world and are not willing to initiate the conversation. I also agree with him that technology, such as the internet, is an important tool that facilitates social connection. I agree with him that websites like Facebook, Yahoo, and Blogger are good environment for people to start, discuss, and present controversial ideas. Although it lacks face-to-face interaction, this missing feature of social connection can be a positive; as Johnson mentions in the last paragraph of his essay, such conversation is the most intensive and in-depth conversation than he has ever encountered with any stranger on the subway. Face-to-face conversation is necessary in our daily life, for it helps to influence and to detect credibility and truthfulness of the speakers through facial expression and vocal variation. However, it can be a hindrance for people to truthfully express their ideas, especially when presenting controversial ideas on censored topic in front of their peers. For example, I engage in more conversation and present more controversial ideas through writing on paper or typing on a blog than speaking in front of peers. When standing among their peers or confronting people face-to-face, the individuals will be obligated to the view of majority of the group, because they want to belong within that group. Therefore, face-to-face conversation creates a more constricted environment, whereas, online conversation provides a more open-ended environment for people to exchange controversial ideas with each other.

Reader Response # 3: The Singer Solution to World Poverty

“The Singer Solution to World Poverty” is interesting essay in that Peter Singer describes and explains theoretical scenarios to reveal the ethical issue of not donating to charity. To persuade his readers to donate to charity, Singer uses emotional appeal in his theatrical scenarios to make his audiences, especially those who rarely or never donate their money to charity, feel guilty about their action. Although his theoretical scenario is interesting and captivating in its moral discussion, this strategy to convey his audiences weakens his purpose when the whole argument entirely based upon it. In another word, Singer commits the logical fallacies of emotionally charged language, either-or reasoning, and circular reasoning.

Singer commits the fallacy of emotionally charged language when he accuses people who do not donate money to charity as “morally wrong”. Moreover, Singer proposes two sides to the issue of poverty and assumes that his is the only possible correct one. He is arguing that if Americans does not donate money to charity to help save children lives oversea, then they are morally wrong. The implication is that “either you donate the money to charity to save the lives of children oversea or you are morally wrong by causing their deaths”. The two-side situation he presents is illogical, for children overseas are not likely to die of poverty if they do not have support from donations.

Although Singer responds to his audiences’ concern with the reliability of charity organization, he bases his response on circular reasoning or begging the question. He replies to their concern by saying “Nobody who knows the world of overseas aid can doubt that such uncertainties exist. But Unger’s figure of $200 to save a child’s life was reached after he had made conservative assumptions about the proportion of the money donated that will actually reach its target” (328). Singer is basically responding to the question by rephrasing it; he replies that “trust me, the money will reach the children” when his audiences ask why do they have to trust him and the charity organization.

Similar to Singer, I also believe that human beings should help one another but not to such an extent as donating $20,000 out of $50,000 or $70,000 out of $100,000 likes he have mentioned in his argument (330). Donating such large amount of money, 40% to 70% of household income, is impractical since people needs to save their money in case of emergency. For example, a middle-class man earns approximately an annual income of $50,000, and spends $25,000 on necessities likes rent and utility bills. Suddenly, he discovers that he a tumor in his colon and needs immediate surgery or else it will spread rapidly and become cancerous. If he donates $20,000 to charity, then he will not have enough money to pay expensive surgery because most of his annual income has been depleted.

Furthermore, I also disagree with Singer that we should not spend money on luxuries. I believe that people have to work hard to earn money for a living, and that they have the right to use some of those money on luxuries to reward themselves, to remind them the product of their hard work. In addition, what will happen to the American economy when the businesses cannot sell their products, because people spend money on only the necessities? The answer is that businesses eventually will close out and many people will become unemployed, without an income and without money for charity work. Therefore, the “Singer Solution” is not the solution to world poverty.