Gautam Mukunda wrote: > --- Robert Seeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> That sounds pretty strawmannish to me. (I think in >> certain situations >> it may well be true, but I doubt this is the case >> with WalMart.) > > Why? Again, I think of this as Ec 101, so I'm > assuming things that may not always be clear.
Well, I do not have the formal education you have, and I cannot claim to have superior knowledge.<G> But as I understand things, the value of labor is what it can successfully demand. I would define success as not killing the golden goose (or inflicting significant harm upon it either) Now being involved in a labor movement I am at least minimally educated in this regard, even if the gist is a bit biased. (I don't have a problem admitting this. Unlike many blue collar union people, I am willing to at the least listen to those with opposing aims, even if or especially if an unpleasant truth is debated.) Also if WalMart employees were a bit more sophisticated in regards to labor law and economics, we might not be having this discussion at all. In the absence of collective bargaining, there is little chance that these employees have even an opportunity to gain access to the kind of information that might allow them to demand a better compensatory package. > When > WalMart moves into a community, it sells a lot of > stuff. It sells a lot of things more cheaply than > anyone else could do it. This has two wonderful > effects. It allows people to buy stuff that they > couldn't otherwise afford (employing more people > making it, etc.). And it allows them to spend more > money on _other things_ (again, employing more people > mkaing it, selling it, etc.) All WalMart has done is > figured out a bunch of ways to do this more cheaply > than anyone else has. It's literally no different > than me inventing that widget I talked about that can > manufacture cars more cheaply. If you would think > that's a good thing, then you should think WalMart's a > good thing. If I thought WalMart was The Great Satan I would not shop there.<G> I do think they could pay employees more competitively. WalMart does a lot of things right, but I doubt it is one of the best places to work. >> No, but you mention using government to achieve >> ends: > > Sure. What else is it for? It's certainly not an end > in itself. Pray it never becomes so. > > >> There are times when you sound like an >> administration apologist (As >> opposed to John who almost always does). I made this >> comment because >> you sound here as if you are of a different mind than >> the >> administration. > > Heh. No one on this list has ever had the simple > presence of mind to ask who I'm voting for. I think my statement above pretty much says why. From my house you seem to be a dedicated conservative. That IMO is a good thing, mainly because regardless of whether I agree with you or not I find you trustworthy. I could see myself voting for you as the Republican candidate for President. (Unless your opponent was Obama, and then it would be a tough choice. I really really like what I've seen of Obama. If he ever runs...........) >There are > a couple of people who know my feelings about this > election. I'm debating making them more clear. >> It seems to me that "convinced" people on both sides >> of the party line >> reflect this. > > True enough. Oh, what the hell, I'm not going to get > that job anyways. I have no idea who I'm voting for. > I find the Bush Administration to be brutally inept, > almost frighteningly incompetent across a wide variety > of areas, and wrongheaded in a fair number of others. > I think the second President Bush has been the worst > President since Jimmy Carter. That took guts. I can also appreciate that you might not enjoy saying it on the list in that it might seem like an admission of some variety or another. > > Had the Democratic party nominated someone other than > a Massachusetts Senator who has raised political > opportunism to the level of performance art, been > wrong on every major issue of foreign policy in his > entire public career, and believes that four months of > his life 30 years ago are important enough to vote for > him while his entire public life is unimportant...I'd > definitely be voting for him. He wasn't one of the tastier Dem candidates was he? >As it is, I still > would...but the problem is his supporters. There are > plenty of people like that on this list - one might > call them the "no enemies to my left" crowd. Or the > Michael Moore crowd and his enablers. The Michael > Moore crowd is obvious - people who hate the US. Fortunately, no one will be voting for those people, and most of them will have zero effect on policy. (At least we hope) > That's not a very large part of Kerry's supporters. > The far larger problem is the humongous group of his > supporters who are patriotic people who are, > nonetheless, so consumed with hatred for the Bush > Administration that they don't have a problem with > Michael Moore. People who look at Bin Laden and John > Ashcroft and think we should understand Bin Laden and > hate Ashcroft. People who sneer at NASCAR. As > someone without firm partisan commitments, I tend to > look at these people and think, "If these people are > right, I'd rather be wrong." If John Kerry displayed > any sign of coherent principle I'd say, okay, he's a > good guy who's served his country, once he's become > President he'll tell these guys to go to hell. But he > appears to be, in Winston Churchill's marvelous > phrase, "The Spineless Wonder". Since Presidential > candidates cater to their supporters, I fear that he > might actually _do what they want_, and, say, become a > protectionist, stop offshoring, surrender our national > security to our French enemies, and so on. This would > be a problem. So I look at Bush and think - this guy > is a D- President. And I look at Kerry and think, > this guy _wants to be_ an F President. So who do I > vote for? I honestly have no idea. If you are making any mistake with this analysis, I think that is you are letting the sideshow determine your opinion of the circus. But that is quite arguable I would think. (Had to stop here to watch The Venture Bros. Tonight it started with the death of Race Bannon from the old Johnny Quest show. What a concept!!!!) >> For what it is worth I was wrong here. WalMart >> employess who work >> 32hrs/wk *are* eligible for insurance. Bad >> information on my part and >> bad interpretation of what I was told otherwise. >> >> My apologies and an admission of a head-up-the-ass >> event on my part. > > Hey, no need to apologize. Everybody makes mistakes. > Dan didn't like my 90% statistic. I know that they > don't necessarily get it from WalMart. So what? A > large part of that is because WalMart (very > intelligently) has decided to do things like offer > jobs to senior citizens, who are covered by Medicare. > Good for them. Who cares where the health insurance > comes from, as long as it's there? Now, if we can find a way to get the other 45 million covered........... > >> I want to think about this some, do a bit of >> research. But in the case >> of CA I would think that WalMart undercuts the >> prevailing wage. I'll >> get back if I find anything of interest. > > Maybe. But they hire different people, and they > create a huge amount of economic benefit while doing > so. Different people? Different from what exactly? >> >> The irony occurs to me that WalMart constantly wraps >> itself in the >> American flag, yet keeps it's employees as poor as >> possible. >> Eventually this may undo their model. > > I don't think they do that, that's the thing. Maybe it's just down here, but the stores are covered with flags. They almost treat it like it's their corporate logo or something. >I think > they pay what the market will bear, and get cheap > goods to people who need them. The first is morally > neutral, the second morally positive. If you _don't > like_ what the market will bear (and I've _never_ said > that I do), then I've already proposed one change that > would help a lot (immigration reform). I would qualify that by saying they "pay as little as the market will bear". That *is* a bit different and makes the equation come out a bit less than neutral. > A second would > be further expanding the EITC. But don't blame > WalMart for doing what a business is supposed to do as > well or better than any business in history. If it were up to me, people below the poverty line and retired people who don't work would pay no taxes. I would be willing to pay more to enable this. > >> I'm not the first to say that this statement is >> silly. Walmart is not >> a business "in addition to" all other businesses. If >> WalMart did not >> exist then other companies would fill those markets, >> and if they did >> so less efficiently, then even more people would be >> hired. > > I talked about this above. The problem is that it > expresses a static conception of the labor market. > It's the same idea that caused the French to legislate > 35 hour work weeks. There's only so much work to do, > so you have to spread it around. But the labor market > is _dynamic_, not static, and when WalMart does what > it does, it creates a huge amount of wealth. In > technical terms, when you pay money for goods, most of > the time there's a surplus created, right? You would > have paid more for the good (even if it's only a > little bit more). And the store would have sold it to > you for less (even if it's only a little bit less). Sure, but isn't WalMarts surplus mostly directed to expanding into new markets? > That's why economic exchanges are value-positive, not > value neutral. The point here, though, is that that > surplus is split between two people - the consumer and > the producer. The producer surplus is the profit that > the store makes. The consumer surplus is where you > are better off - because you got something for less > than you valued it. I think you are oversimplifying here by calling WalMart a producer. WalMart is a distributor who buys from other distributors and from producers. Their model is based on volume discounts that enable lower consumer costs. Plus they have a history of strongarming producers and distributors into lower pricing in order to improve WalMarts bottom line for investors. I'm not going to demonize WalMart for that because it is nearly a zero sum game for everyone but the consumer in many respects. >WalMart is better than any other > company in the world today at taking producer surplus > and shifting it to consumers. This is a _great_ > thing. The most important difference between the > American economy and the European economies is that we > are oriented around the welfare of consumers. The way I would state that is "The American system utilizes more of an enlightened form of capitalism than the models used in other developed nations". I think this follows from the "Golden Goose" manner in which we are used to thinking about such things. > Shifting surplus towards consumers is wonderful > (unless you're a businessman, of course, in which case > it sucks). We should applaud them for their ability > to do that. I am more than happy to let the businessmen fight that battle among themselves. I have been exposed to enough salesmen and purchasing agents (in a work setting) to appreciate the wheeling and dealing that forms the consensual market in the capitalist economy. > > Again, the truncation. Weird. Yahoo must not like me.<G> Luckily it is pretty easy to tell when I get cut short. I'll just keep resending when you point it out. xponent Money Talk Maru rob _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
