Robert goes on to claim that “Today’s economy offers us a Faustian bargain: it can give consumers deals largely because it hammers workers and communities.” He obviously wants to present this as evidence to why you should not shop at Wal-Mart because they over-work and under-pay their employees. If what he is claiming is accurate, he should have then after lead to the opposite conclusion: that you should shop at Wal-Mart and buy cheap goods because it is a good way to save money. There is no convincing evidence to go along with this statement and it is puzzling to the reader.
The author’s article is not only lacking evidence, but is also unclear. In paragraph nine Robert states “the choices we make in the market don’t fully reflect our values as workers or citizens. Later in the paragraph he carries on saying that he isn’t fond of what is happening to airline workers but is still willing to buy plane tickets for the cheapest fare available. How are airline workers’ jobs comparable to citizen’s values as workers? This statement does not relate to our standards, he is stating that he feels blameworthy once he purchases an inexpensive airline ticket.
Above I have mainly focused on ‘evidence’ that Robert offers in aid of his claim that Wal-Mart is taking away from lesser companies. Overall, his case in opposition to Wal-Mart is unconvincing because he offers many opinions claiming as to why Wal-Mart is an evil company. Any facts that he did state seemed questionable. Robert Reich failed to convince me that Wal-Mart is an economy exploiting corporation.
The tone of “Don’t Blame Wal-Mart” is not only inefficient, but inappropriate. A sensitive subject such as this should be successful in the sense of persuading your audience about your subject. I feel as if Robert is almost bashing his audience when he says “But isn’t Wal-Mart really being punished for our sins?” The article should be focusing more on the corporation and his most important points, rather than spotlighting how people have failed to lure themselves away from big business.
The major point of the article is difficult to point out. It seems as if he has many opinions but they are jumbled throughout the article. I believe that Robert’s essay would have been more efficient if he would have organized his thoughts more proficiently. For example, in article ten it seems as if his paragraph is focusing on worker laws and regulations. However, he goes on to say that “my inner consumer won’t like that very much, but the worker in me thinks it is a fair price to pay.” This paragraph was confusing to me because that sentence just seemed thrown into a section. His directional flow was unclear. A better alternative to this would be to give examples of worker laws and rights (such as minimum wage and working conditions). Showing obvious evidence that you are aware of worker laws and regulations would have been much more effective.
Not only is Robert’s article unimpressive, but it needs organization, there is a lack of evidence, and he seems to lose his focus through out the body of work. This type of essay requires knowledge of the subject. To me I get the impression that he has a general knowledge of the subject, he just has no evidence to support approximately every thought he has. There are no connections between his ideas and it is hard to point out the main point of the article.
Robert Reich, in his article, “Don’t Blame Wal-Mart”, sets out to convince his audience that Wal-Mart is an enormous corporation “sucking business away from small retailers.” Certainly his audience is consumers of the New York Times (a large corporation in itself). Surely, the content of Robert’s article is not enough to prevent an educated adult from saving money at Wal-Mart. The argument would have been much more efficient if all of Robert’s ideas were linked together and were all well supported. The article as a whole seems opinionated rather than backed up with convincing facts; which is essential in an argument. Robert could have made this article much more successful and I believe that it failed to persuade myself, as a reader of anything he acknowledged throughout his piece of writing
