If you want Wal-Mart to have a labor force like Trader Joe’s and Costco, you probably want them to have a business model like Trader Joe’s and Costco

From Why Wal-Mart Will Never Pay Like Costco by Megan McArdle.

In other words, Trader Joe’s and Costco are the specialty grocer and warehouse club for an affluent, educated college demographic. They woo this crowd with a stripped-down array of high quality stock-keeping units, and high-quality customer service. The high wages produce the high levels of customer service, and the small number of products are what allow them to pay the high wages. Fewer products to handle (and restock) lowers the labor intensity of your operation. In the case of Trader Joe’s, it also dramatically decreases the amount of space you need for your supermarket ... which in turn is why their revenue per square foot is so high. (Costco solves this problem by leaving the stuff on pallets, so that you can be your own stockboy).

Both these strategies work in part because very few people expect to do all their shopping at Trader Joe’s, and no one expects to do all their shopping at Costco. They don’t need to be comprehensive. Supermarkets, and Wal-Mart, have to devote a lot of shelf space, and labor, to products that don’t turn over that often.

Wal-Mart’s customers expect a very broad array of goods, because they’re a department store, not a specialty retailer; lots of people rely on Wal-Mart for their regular weekly shopping. The retailer has tried to cut the number of SKUs it carries, but ended up having to put them back, because it cost them in complaints, and sales. That means more labor, and lower profits per square foot. It also means that when you ask a clerk where something is, he’s likely to have no idea, because no person could master 108,000 SKUs. Even if Wal-Mart did pay a higher wage, you wouldn’t get the kind of easy, effortless service that you do at Trader Joe’s because the business models are just too different. If your business model inherently requires a lot of low-skill labor, efficiency wages don’t necessarily make financial sense.

That’s not the only reason that the Trader Joe’s/Costco model wouldn’t work for Wal-Mart. For one thing, it’s no accident that the high-wage favorites cited by activists tend to serve the affluent; lower income households can’t afford to pay extra for top-notch service. If it really matters to you whether you pay 50 cents a loaf less for generic bread, you’re not going to go to the specialty store where the organic produce is super-cheap and the clerk gave a cookie to your kid. Every time I write about Wal-Mart (or McDonald's, or [insert store here]), several people will e-mail, or tweet, or come into the comments to say they’d be happy to pay 25 percent more for their Big Mac or their Wal-Mart goods if it means that the workers are well paid. I have taken to asking them how often they go to Wal-Mart or McDonald's. So far, no one has reported going as often as once a week; the modal answer is a sudden disappearance from the conversation. If I had to guess, I’d estimate that most of the people making such statements go to Wal-Mart or McDonald's only on road trips.

However, there are people for whom the McDonald's Dollar Menu is a bit of a splurge, and Wal-Mart’s prices mean an extra pair of shoes for the kids. Those people might theoretically favor high wages, but they do not act on those beliefs -- just witness last Thanksgiving’s union action against Wal-Mart, which featured indifferent crowds streaming past a handful of activists, most of whom did not actually work for Wal-Mart.

If you want Wal-Mart to have a labor force like Trader Joe’s and Costco, you probably want them to have a business model like Trader Joe’s and Costco -- which is to say that you want them to have a customer demographic like Trader Joe’s and Costco. Obviously if you belong to that demographic -- which is to say, if you’re a policy analyst, or a magazine writer -- then this sounds like a splendid idea. To Wal-Mart’s actual customer base, however, it might sound like “take your business somewhere else.”

Excellent article. It touches on something that occurs time and again in arguments around variable outcomes and disparate impact. People argue from false analogies to get to the point that that they want to make without actually understanding the context and causative forces. In McArdle's example, people are arguing that Walmart ought to pay their employees the same way Trader Joes and Costco pay their employees, ignoring or not understanding that they have a false premise and false analogy - Walmart and Costco have different target markets, different business models and therefore different trade-offs that have to be made (see Fred Crawford's Myth of Excellence for a good discussion regarding the different trade-offs required of different business models).

If you want to change outcomes, you have to address the goals and causes of the model, not look at surface similarities. Government policy falls victim to this issue of arguing from false premises and false analogies. In the most recent housing debacle, government policy was aimed at increasing home ownership by reducing the financial requirements for mortgages (no down payments, reduced credit requirements, etc.). The goal was to increase the number of people in the middle class and the assumed premise was that if people look like the middle class (i.e. live in middle class homes), then they would behave like the middle class.

This is of course exactly opposite of reality when you look at the context and causation of outcomes. Nobody assumes that, having observed that the upper middle class tend to drive higher end cars, that you can make people middle class by enabling them to own a higher end car. Causation and context tell you that middle class people are middle class because of their goals and behaviors (work hard, stay married, consume less than you earn, invest in the future, be generous, etc.) not because of the trappings such as home and car. If you want more people to be middle class, reward the behaviors that enable them to be middle class.

Beware false analogies and ignorance of context and causation.