![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
hopefulnebulaJust got back from dinner. I sat next to Zeke, who has loathed Wal-Mart with a passion ever since he was in elementary school and they built a superstore on his dead great-aunt's property. He was doing the crossword so I took the other section of the paper. There wasn't much, but I found a rather interesting (and by interesting, I mean perversely hilarious) editorial piece.
It wasn't on the paper's website so I googled for it. It's here.
May 10, 2005
The Latest Liberal Crusade
By Thomas Sowell
The latest liberal crusade is against the Wal-Mart stores.
I'll say.
A big headline on a long article in The New York Times asks "Can't A Retail Behemoth Pay More?"
See this? Awfully long article.
Of course they can pay more. The New York Times could pay its own employees more. We could all pay more for whatever we buy or rent. Don't tell me you couldn't have paid a dime more for this newspaper. But why should any of us pay more than we have to?
I don't know... charity? Kindness? Belief in the common good?
According to The New York Times, there is a book "by a group of scholars" due to be published this fall, arguing that Wal-Mart has an "obligation" to "treat its employees better."
Well, yeah. No benefits, no union, barely minimum wage, the knowledge that you're working for a soul sucking monster that keeps its prices down by ensuring that its workers can't afford to shop anywhere else... it must be paradise!
This can hardly be called news. Nothing is easier than to find a group of academics -- "scholars" if you agree with them -- to advocate virtually anything on any subject. Nor is this notion of an "obligation" new.
For decades, there has been lofty talk about the "social responsibility" of businesses or about a "social contract" between the generations when it comes to Social Security. Do you remember signing any such contract? I don't.
$10 says this guy is Christian. Want me to point out Bible verses about social responsibility?
What all this pious talk amounts to is that when third parties want somebody else to pay for something, they simply call it a "social responsibility," an "obligation" or a "social contract."
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Wait a second. Where does the third party come in? Wal-Mart employees want decent wages and benefits, so they publicize that need... nope. Don't see that. The third party here is a vehicle, not the instigator.
So long as we keep buying this kind of stuff, they will keep selling it.
Funny; as long as Wal-Mart keeps selling cheap shit, we'll keep buying.
In order to make such demands look like more than just the arbitrary notions of busybodies -- which they are -- some of these busybodies refer to the official poverty level, as if it were something objective, rather than what it is in fact, simply an arbitrary line based on the notions of government bureaucrats.
Again with the busybodies. Gnrrr?
According to The New York Times, Wal-Mart's average employee earns an income that is above the poverty line for a family of three but below the poverty line for a family of four. What are we supposed to conclude from this?
I don't know. Possibly that if you work at Wally World and have more than one kid to support, you definitely won't have enough money to do it? But wait, here it comes:
The fashionable notion of "a living wage" is a wage that will support a family of four. And, sure enough, The New York Times finds a Wal-Mart employee who complains that he is not making "a living wage."
How is he living, if he is not making a living wage?
*head goes 'splodey* This is so many levels of stupid I'm going to have to build steps. First off. A Wal-Mart employee. How about the thousands who are attempting to unionize? Don't they want a living wage? Second. I thought the workers weren't complaining, and it was all the work of us busybodies. Third. I don't think I'm going to justify that last sentence with a comment, except to poke at the twisted remains of his logic.
Should people be paid according to what they "need" instead of according to what their work is worth? Should they decide how big a family they want and then put the cost of paying to support that family on somebody else?
If their work is not worth enough to pay for what they want, is it up to others to make up the difference, rather than up to them to upgrade their skills in order to earn what they want?
Okay, this guy has obviously not looked for a job in the past... oh... six years. There are people with Ph.Ds who flip burgers for minimum wage because they've lost their job to budget cuts and rent is due in a week. Should they have to "upgrade their skills?" How much more does a McManager earn than a McBurgerFlipper, anyway? Isn't it not a whole lot?
Are they supposed to be subsidized by Wal-Mart's customers through higher prices or subsidized by Wal-Mart's stockholders through lower earnings? After all, much of the stock in even a rich company is often owned by pension funds belonging to teachers, policemen and others who are far from rich.
How about the Waltons hold off on buying that Mercedes for now and let trickle-down economics do its thing, eh?
Why should other people have to retire on less money, in order that Wal-Mart employees can be paid what The New York Times wants them paid, instead of what their labor is worth in the marketplace? After all, they wouldn't be working for Wal-Mart if someone else valued their labor more.
What is the point of buying a solid platinum yacht after retirement? Granted, I'd rather have one of those than have to subsist on Ramen noodles and mac'n'cheese from when I'm 65 on, but still. I'd feel rather shitty knowing that with this boat, I could have kept God knows how many people from having to do that.
And let's go back to that Ph.D., shall we? Just as a hypothetical, of course. The biotech company he had worked for laid him off because he worked with stem cells and they were under governmental pressure to cut it out. They valued his labor very much, but they had to let him go because otherwise they were risking being shut down, and embryonic research is his specialty.
Nor are they confined to Wal-Mart for life. For many, entry-level jobs are a stepping-stone, whether within a given company or as experience that gets them a better job with another company.
I repeat, this guy obviously hasn't looked for work recently. I hear they used to make "help wanted" signs... imagine that. And I differ on the "confined for life" bit, too. Wal-Mart is a soul-sucking behemoth that doesn't let you leave.
Think about it: What the busybodies are saying is that third parties like themselves -- who are paying nothing to anybody -- should be determining how much somebody else should be paying those who work for them.
Again, what third parties?
It would be devastating to the egos of the intelligentsia to realize, much less admit, that businesses have done more to reduce poverty than all the intellectuals put together. Ultimately it is only wealth that can reduce poverty and most of the intelligentsia have no interest whatever in finding out what actions and policies increase the national wealth.
Whoa, wha? Yeah, wealth reduces poverty. Just not "making the wealthy wealthier." Wealth reduces poverty, but excess causes it, and I can't think of a bigger example of "excess" than Wal-Mart. I've said it before and will say it again. Supply side economics are a steaming pile of shit that only attracts flies like this and occasionally dogs.
They certainly don't feel any "obligation" to learn economics, out of a sense of "social responsibility," much less because of any "social contract" requiring them to know what they are talking about before spouting off with self-righteous rhetoric.
And he's obviously not "obligated" to learn that when someone disagrees with him, it doesn't mean they don't know what they're talking about. And he's complaining about us being self-righteous? Eh?
It wasn't on the paper's website so I googled for it. It's here.
May 10, 2005
The Latest Liberal Crusade
By Thomas Sowell
The latest liberal crusade is against the Wal-Mart stores.
I'll say.
A big headline on a long article in The New York Times asks "Can't A Retail Behemoth Pay More?"
See this? Awfully long article.
Of course they can pay more. The New York Times could pay its own employees more. We could all pay more for whatever we buy or rent. Don't tell me you couldn't have paid a dime more for this newspaper. But why should any of us pay more than we have to?
I don't know... charity? Kindness? Belief in the common good?
According to The New York Times, there is a book "by a group of scholars" due to be published this fall, arguing that Wal-Mart has an "obligation" to "treat its employees better."
Well, yeah. No benefits, no union, barely minimum wage, the knowledge that you're working for a soul sucking monster that keeps its prices down by ensuring that its workers can't afford to shop anywhere else... it must be paradise!
This can hardly be called news. Nothing is easier than to find a group of academics -- "scholars" if you agree with them -- to advocate virtually anything on any subject. Nor is this notion of an "obligation" new.
For decades, there has been lofty talk about the "social responsibility" of businesses or about a "social contract" between the generations when it comes to Social Security. Do you remember signing any such contract? I don't.
$10 says this guy is Christian. Want me to point out Bible verses about social responsibility?
What all this pious talk amounts to is that when third parties want somebody else to pay for something, they simply call it a "social responsibility," an "obligation" or a "social contract."
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Wait a second. Where does the third party come in? Wal-Mart employees want decent wages and benefits, so they publicize that need... nope. Don't see that. The third party here is a vehicle, not the instigator.
So long as we keep buying this kind of stuff, they will keep selling it.
Funny; as long as Wal-Mart keeps selling cheap shit, we'll keep buying.
In order to make such demands look like more than just the arbitrary notions of busybodies -- which they are -- some of these busybodies refer to the official poverty level, as if it were something objective, rather than what it is in fact, simply an arbitrary line based on the notions of government bureaucrats.
Again with the busybodies. Gnrrr?
According to The New York Times, Wal-Mart's average employee earns an income that is above the poverty line for a family of three but below the poverty line for a family of four. What are we supposed to conclude from this?
I don't know. Possibly that if you work at Wally World and have more than one kid to support, you definitely won't have enough money to do it? But wait, here it comes:
The fashionable notion of "a living wage" is a wage that will support a family of four. And, sure enough, The New York Times finds a Wal-Mart employee who complains that he is not making "a living wage."
How is he living, if he is not making a living wage?
*head goes 'splodey* This is so many levels of stupid I'm going to have to build steps. First off. A Wal-Mart employee. How about the thousands who are attempting to unionize? Don't they want a living wage? Second. I thought the workers weren't complaining, and it was all the work of us busybodies. Third. I don't think I'm going to justify that last sentence with a comment, except to poke at the twisted remains of his logic.
Should people be paid according to what they "need" instead of according to what their work is worth? Should they decide how big a family they want and then put the cost of paying to support that family on somebody else?
If their work is not worth enough to pay for what they want, is it up to others to make up the difference, rather than up to them to upgrade their skills in order to earn what they want?
Okay, this guy has obviously not looked for a job in the past... oh... six years. There are people with Ph.Ds who flip burgers for minimum wage because they've lost their job to budget cuts and rent is due in a week. Should they have to "upgrade their skills?" How much more does a McManager earn than a McBurgerFlipper, anyway? Isn't it not a whole lot?
Are they supposed to be subsidized by Wal-Mart's customers through higher prices or subsidized by Wal-Mart's stockholders through lower earnings? After all, much of the stock in even a rich company is often owned by pension funds belonging to teachers, policemen and others who are far from rich.
How about the Waltons hold off on buying that Mercedes for now and let trickle-down economics do its thing, eh?
Why should other people have to retire on less money, in order that Wal-Mart employees can be paid what The New York Times wants them paid, instead of what their labor is worth in the marketplace? After all, they wouldn't be working for Wal-Mart if someone else valued their labor more.
What is the point of buying a solid platinum yacht after retirement? Granted, I'd rather have one of those than have to subsist on Ramen noodles and mac'n'cheese from when I'm 65 on, but still. I'd feel rather shitty knowing that with this boat, I could have kept God knows how many people from having to do that.
And let's go back to that Ph.D., shall we? Just as a hypothetical, of course. The biotech company he had worked for laid him off because he worked with stem cells and they were under governmental pressure to cut it out. They valued his labor very much, but they had to let him go because otherwise they were risking being shut down, and embryonic research is his specialty.
Nor are they confined to Wal-Mart for life. For many, entry-level jobs are a stepping-stone, whether within a given company or as experience that gets them a better job with another company.
I repeat, this guy obviously hasn't looked for work recently. I hear they used to make "help wanted" signs... imagine that. And I differ on the "confined for life" bit, too. Wal-Mart is a soul-sucking behemoth that doesn't let you leave.
Think about it: What the busybodies are saying is that third parties like themselves -- who are paying nothing to anybody -- should be determining how much somebody else should be paying those who work for them.
Again, what third parties?
It would be devastating to the egos of the intelligentsia to realize, much less admit, that businesses have done more to reduce poverty than all the intellectuals put together. Ultimately it is only wealth that can reduce poverty and most of the intelligentsia have no interest whatever in finding out what actions and policies increase the national wealth.
Whoa, wha? Yeah, wealth reduces poverty. Just not "making the wealthy wealthier." Wealth reduces poverty, but excess causes it, and I can't think of a bigger example of "excess" than Wal-Mart. I've said it before and will say it again. Supply side economics are a steaming pile of shit that only attracts flies like this and occasionally dogs.
They certainly don't feel any "obligation" to learn economics, out of a sense of "social responsibility," much less because of any "social contract" requiring them to know what they are talking about before spouting off with self-righteous rhetoric.
And he's obviously not "obligated" to learn that when someone disagrees with him, it doesn't mean they don't know what they're talking about. And he's complaining about us being self-righteous? Eh?
no subject
Date: 2005-05-13 09:39 pm (UTC)Danville does have a newspaper. http://www.amnews.com/
I don't know how good of one it is, but it has one. I should see if I can get one from Lamoni, IA so we can compare the two.
no subject
Date: 2005-05-13 09:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-05-14 08:50 am (UTC)Thing is, once you retire you require quite a bit more to just get by then when you were a young healthy twentysomething. Light and heat will cost more, etc. Though I suppose sure, if you want to be terribly ethical you could return to work in just such a minimum wage job to provide yourself with income.
Never mind the states, by changing demographics something horrible is going to happen govt. pensions in Europe over the next few decades (ageing populations, fewer new workers) so if you don't go private, then what do you do?