--- Robert Seeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Gautam Mukunda wrote: > > > > There is undoubtedly sex discrimination at > WalMart, as > > there is at most companies. There's _no_ evidence > that > > this was a corporate policy, though. Have they > done > > bad things? Sure. The government should police > them, > > as it does every other company. Are those bad > things > > a matter of corporate policy? I somehow don't > think > > Sam Walton was telling people to lock up his > stores at > > night. > > Exactly! > > > >I do love the trumping of CostCo, though. It > > kind of proves my point. CostCo has the > wealthiest > > demographics of any of the large discount chains, > by a > > huge amount. CostCo is basically the rich man's > > WalMart. So of course limousine liberals like it > - > > they shop at CostCo. It's those icky poor people > who > > shop at WalMart. > > And a rich republican would /never/ shop at CostCo > because they like > to shop with poor icky people.
No, but they wouldn't try to _screw over_ those poor people by harming WalMart, a vastly different scale of things. > > > > > WalMart is (for example) according to a McKinsey > > study, responsible for (I believe) _20%_ of the > growth > > in US productivity in the 1990s. Not WalMart and > its > > competitors. Just WalMart all by itself. WalMart > may > > be the last major company in America where a high > > school graduate can get a six figure salary - > because > > everyone at WalMart starts out on the floor and > works > > their way up. > > That is some interesting stuff. > > > > I actually think this may be another > > reason the > > > chattering classes > > <Blatant uneccessary insult> ??? "Chattering classes" is a fairly well known phrase. > > >don't like it, actually, > > because it degrades the value of the educational > > credentials that they tend to confuse with moral > > worth. > > I think you are arguing that the class warfare > people keep telling me > doesn't exist actually does exist. Class warfare? I don't know about that. Do the rich often try to screw the poor over? Sure. It's just not the way that liberal elites want us to believe. It's most often by restricting economic activity that would help the poor because it offends their sensibilities. It's about derogatory comments about NASCAR or trailer parks. This is perhaps the single best argument for limiting the power of the government. The rich are far more able than the poor to use the government to their advantage. A limited government has much less power to be used by the rich against the poor. > > > >WalMart does more to get the poor and lower > > middle class in this country cheap (and high > quality) > > food, clothing, and basic necessities than every > > charitable organization combined, and the growth > of > > WalMart has done more for the well-being of the > poor > > in America than any economic program of my > lifetime. > > I shop at WalMart. But saving a few cents here and > there and the > occasional dollar is not in any way equivilent to > having an income or > having your income supplimented. > The above statement is ridiculous in the extreme. No, it's not. It's Economics 101. WalMart has given many of the poor and uneducated jobs that they could never have gotten without it. This is a huge benefit to the poor. It's allowed enormous numbers of the poor - many of whom _don't work_ at WalMart - access to food and clothing that fits within their budget. There are two ways to help the poor. One is to give them more money. The second is to make what they need cheaper. WalMart does the second better than any other company in history. It has the thinnest profit margins of any major retailer (IIRC). It forces its suppliers to become more efficient - and then passes those savings on to the consumer instead of pocketing the difference. The few cents you save from shopping at WalMart might not make much of a difference. Try raising a family of four on $18,000 a year (the disgracefully low national poverty line) and see if your attitude changes a bit. > > This, of course, means it's inevitable that it's > > attacked by self-proclaimed advocates of the poor. > > But, as Caitlin Flanagan brilliantly commented in > a > > discussion on Slate on this topic, those advocates > may > > complain about it, but when she talks to _actual > poor > > people_, "they love WalMart". Because, of course, > it > > gets them what they need at prices that they can > > afford and, > > People also love WalMart because they are huge, and > you can get almost > anything you need. It is handy for > one-stop-shopping. Yeah, but that's a lot more important when you're rich than when you're poor (time value of money). > >when you get down to it, that's the real > > problem that people have with it. > > It replaces all > > those charming small stores that were only too > > expensive for the poor to use. > > People are always nostalgic for the things that > were. I remember the > neighborhood drugstore/5&dime/malt shop. When I was > a kid I would go > there to hang out and read comic books, buy candy or > milkshakes, and > just generally hang out. I knew the owners and the > employees well and > they knew me just as they knew everyone in the hood. > It was a safe place to spend part of a summer day or > to visit after > school. > > Think you can ascribe some sort of evil liberal > agenda to my > nostalgia? No. But your antipathy to WalMart that is driven by that nostalgia would, if it were enacted in legislation, harm the poor more than almost any other likely legislative change (the only thing that could even come close is the onset of protectionism). Nostalgia is something you can afford when you're rich. When you're poor, you're worried about feeding your family. Again, class issues drive politics and, again, it's the (relatively) wealthy gaining a small benefit for them (assuaging their nostalgia) on the backs of the poor, whose food and clothing they make more expensive. An evil liberal agenda? I don't know about evil. But a selfish one, driven by snobbery and economic ignorance? Absolutely. > > > > But it didn't bother > > those elites, so what does that matter? > > The problem with these kinds of top-down-view > arguments is that they > are /all/ elitist. > You totally miss the point by ascribing these views > only to the > affluent liberals when the same views are held by > affluent > conservatives, middle class *and* the poor. The conservatives have those views, but they don't operationalize them to _harm_ the poor. So what their particular beliefs are is no skin off my nose. As for the middle class and poor? If they held those views...they wouldn't shop at WalMart. > > One can love shopping at WalMart and can still decry > the loss of the > corner/storefront shop at the same time. Yes, but when you try and retard WalMart because of that loss, then you're saying that the expensive goods that you want are more important than helping the poor and lower middle class get what they need. If you feel that way, then feel that way, but don't pretend it's some sort of moral principle on behalf of the poor. > > There is no binary choice involved. No, there really is. > > xponent > Lets See What He Snips Maru > rob Not a word. Except the Brin-L sig, I think. ===== Gautam Mukunda [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Freedom is not free" http://www.mukunda.blogspot.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
