I resonate with what you're saying here. I think that there is even a deeper issue. I think it is legitimate to refer to Wal-Mart as a token of certain characteristics, with regard to its operating principles, its success, its average customer, and the ramifications of their choices, reasonable or otherwise, on all of us. For example, there is a legitimate point to be made about where Wal-Mart sources its products, the comparative quality of its offerings, its compensation and benefits for its employees, etc. Wal-Mart does represent specific things, and I think that the extent to which many find a site like People of Wal-Mart acceptable as humor (and like you, I'm not saying it is or is not acceptable) has got to be, to some extent, attributable to these dichotomies of reality that Wal-Mart represents:
- Successful but to some extent due to strategies and tactics that some people find objectionable;
- Affordable but to some extent due to strategies and tactics that some people believe are a depressive force on innovation and rarefied quality;
- An employer of many but to some extent due to strategies and tactics that some people sacrifice a fewer number of, but arguably better, jobs.
I think Wal-Mart is as much a token of something far bigger than most folks allow themselves to believe, just as McDonald's was in the 1960s (as a force for changing the way Americans eat, arguably not for the better). I could easily rattle off another half dozen such tokens that came in from underneath to have a not-very-much-talked-about-until-later impact on America.
Many of them were frequent contexts for ridicule, perhaps a nervous reaction to what people had a feel for what was happening under the surface.
And to be clear, not making a judgment (at least not in this case) with regard to "good" or "bad".
And
I don't apologize for being a buzz-kill.