Wal-Martian Invation??
The article Wal-Martian Invasion by Barbara Ehrenreich, falls short in many ways as a rhetorical argument. Although the article contains relevant and potentially persuasive arguments the author’s style is distracting, it does not match its audience, facts are taken to the extreme, and counter arguments are not addressed.
Ehrenreich’s style of writing seems to push the issue to the extreme and is distracting from the message she is trying to send. She uses a metaphor of comparing Wal-Mart to an alien race that has invaded the world. In the first paragraph a battle between the “Earth people” and “Wal-Martians” is described. Here the author has made an assumption that her audience is supportive of a battle against Wal-Mart and also makes the claim that it could be “the central battle of the 21st century”. This style of writing, especially to an audience as diverse as that of The Baltimore Sun’s, is distracting the reader from her central argument. As a reader my thoughts are drawn to thinking that I haven’t seen any aliens around Wal-Mart, on the contrary every time I enter the store I run into a geriatric handing me a smiley-face sticker. It seems that Ehrenreich is trying to make the issue more serious by using the metaphor of an alien invasion to describe her feelings towards Wal-Mart resulting in a distracting style.
Not only does the author use a distracting style, rash assumptions and descriptions are made throughout the entire argument. In her first paragraph alone she uses phrases such as “torn cities apart” and “engulfed the entire state of Vermont”. She even goes to the extreme of saying that “This could be the central battle of the 21st century”. Exaggeration is also used throughout the paper and in some cases not entirely appropriate. A brief example of this is the statement, “My thumbnail calculation suggests that by the year 4004, every square inch of the United States will be covered by supercenters”. Here the reader is able to envision a world covered by Wal-Marts. But the author’s statement is not factual at all and frankly ignorant. It would be potentially distracting to The Sun’s educated readership. Newspaper readers would most likely tend toward wanting facts about future growth projections instead of statements worthy of the tabloids.
The author bases most of her argument off of the idea that the store is mistreating employees by not paying them enough. Emotional appeals are used by citing how “associates” at the store cannot afford the company’s health insurance. The author establishes her credibility on the conditions at Wal-Mart by informing us that she in fact worked at the store during a “brief stint”. She emotionally describes how a woman who worked there with her was unable to purchase a shirt at the store to wear to work because it cost an hours pay. The author does not address the fact that the store is doing nothing illegal by paying their employees at minimum wage as does thousands of other companies in the United States. She also doesn’t address the idea that if Wal-Mart was forced to pay employees more than in fact their profit margin would fall resulting in them becoming less profitable. And when companies become less profitable they have to raise prices to make up for losses. In turn, this would cause the cost of a $7 shirt to rise making the employee that could not afford the $7 shirt worse off. This would also put a burden on the rest of America by making it that other minimum wage makers would not be able to buy as many products from Wal-Mart as before.
The author does make valid accusations against Wal-Mart by citing how the company has locked employees in stores, not paid for overtime work, and faced lawsuits over sex discrimination. There is a positive affect for the argument of the writer by including these details in the article. It makes the reader realize that Wal-Mart is possibly cheating their employees. Also the reader questions the ethical standards of Wal-Mart with respect to those they employ. These arguments create an emotional response backed with facts that establish the author’s credibility as well as makes the reader feel negative emotions towards Wal-Mart. But in the next paragraph the Ehrenreich describes how Wal-Mart’s management hides from these accusations and does nothing. This would seem to be a stretch to the average newspaper reader. She does not cite a single quotation or source to reinforce her claims. The generalization is made that a “decentralized” company is one that is out of control and crying for help. If that were the case then there are hundreds of companies besides Wal-Mart that are in a similar “out of control” situation. If the author were to back her claims with more convincing and authoritative arguments the earlier emotional argument would be better backed with facts.
Overall the author presents an intriguing argument. The style used to describe the argument takes away from the arguments power as well as distracts the reader. If the style of the paper were more suited for the reader’s audience, those reading The Baltimore Sun, then her argument would have been more effective. Also because of the lack of non-emotional facts it leads the reader to doubt the authors arguments.
