ExiledInIllinois Posted November 27, 2005 Posted November 27, 2005 That doesn't mean that slavery should still exist. I hope you were drunk when you typed that because it is insane. Of course working for free isn't the best, do you work for free? Do you want to? Of course you don't, so NO working for free isn't the best. 513301[/snapback] I never said that slavery SHOULD still exist. I said that slavery WOULD exist. Big difference. It (slavery) in the world exists today. When compared to other eras... Slaves in the world today are the cheapest to attain than any other period. This isn't about what is best for me. I was talking about what is best for the EMPLOYER. Isn't the best thing for them to pay their labor as little as possible? Go back and reread my post. I thought I made it clear. I am sorry for not making that clear.
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 27, 2005 Posted November 27, 2005 2. You have government aid and the impact of wages and jobs backwards. A given labour market DOES NOT require government assistance, but government assistance changes the dynamics of the market. People work at Wal-Mart for less than they otherwise would BECAUSE they can also get government assistance. If they could not live on the wages provided by Wal-Mart they would not work there, they would seek better wages elsewhere. in order to avoid going out of business Wal-Mart would offer a higher wage to overcome labour shortfalls. Government subsidies in this case lower wages by shifting the burden from the employer to taxpayers, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. 513301[/snapback] Who sets the wages here, Wal-Mart or labor? Just because the governement gives assistance doesn't mean that Wal-Mart should lower it's wages so its labor can take advantage of them. It can of course and does. So you are telling me that Wal-Mart purposely pays people less because they know that they (their labor) can feed off the tit of the governement and the taxpayers? Again, who sets the wages? Why would Wal-Mart go below that threshold and continue to drive things down. Aren't they harming everybody by being that dishonest? And don't say that is what the market dictates. True it is what the market CAN dictate. Why cross that line and head down that destructive path? Wal-Mart is in control here. They are bound to nothing, except what is best for them. Not sure if you are in the US or not? Special interests will always defect from what is best for EVERYBODY and get theirs. Wal-Mart is propagating a classic "tradgedy of commons." In the end we all suffer, trying to keep up with their race. Usually, the first ones to defect will fare the best though.
colin Posted November 28, 2005 Posted November 28, 2005 I never said that slavery SHOULD still exist. I said that slavery WOULD exist. Big difference. It (slavery) in the world exists today. When compared to other eras... Slaves in the world today are the cheapest to attain than any other period. This isn't about what is best for me. I was talking about what is best for the EMPLOYER. Isn't the best thing for them to pay their labor as little as possible? Go back and reread my post. I thought I made it clear. I am sorry for not making that clear. 513717[/snapback] no the comment i made that you responded to with your working for free nonsense was that people deserve to get paid WHAT THEY CAN. this means they "deserve" whatever they can get. the piont is there is no such thing as a fair wage, because if you are willing to accept the job then you are willing to accept the wage.
colin Posted November 28, 2005 Posted November 28, 2005 Who sets the wages here, Wal-Mart or labor? Just because the governement gives assistance doesn't mean that Wal-Mart should lower it's wages so its labor can take advantage of them. It can of course and does. So you are telling me that Wal-Mart purposely pays people less because they know that they (their labor) can feed off the tit of the governement and the taxpayers? Again, who sets the wages? Why would Wal-Mart go below that threshold and continue to drive things down. Aren't they harming everybody by being that dishonest? And don't say that is what the market dictates. True it is what the market CAN dictate. Why cross that line and head down that destructive path? Wal-Mart is in control here. They are bound to nothing, except what is best for them. Not sure if you are in the US or not? Special interests will always defect from what is best for EVERYBODY and get theirs. Wal-Mart is propagating a classic "tradgedy of commons." In the end we all suffer, trying to keep up with their race. Usually, the first ones to defect will fare the best though. 513736[/snapback] you still have things backwards. walmart is a business and sells to consumers who won't buy from them if they just magically set their prices to whatever they'd like without considering what people on the other side of the transaction would accept. of course they'd like to charge more but they can't on the other side of their business, they can only pay workers whatever the workers will accept. they'd like to pay as little as possible but can't because people won't work for free. your point of walmart "Again, who sets the wages? Why would Wal-Mart go below that threshold and continue to drive things down. Aren't they harming everybody by being that dishonest? And don't say that is what the market dictates. True it is what the market CAN dictate. Why cross that line and head down that destructive path? is silly. what is that supposed to mean? do you think walmart can just dictate labour prices by fiat alone? what the hell destructive path are you on about anyhow? walmart can no more just lower their wages paid any more than they can just raise prices on their goods: they can but they have to bear the impact of their decisions. the same way that ford and gm are shutting down plants in north america because they agreed to silly wages and benefits any employer will answer to the market if they f@#k up. you are pointing your finger in the wrong direction when it comes to tragedies of the commons. individual market players will be corrected if they make an error and will pay for their own mistakes. when you have pork and worker handouts in the form of unions and subsidies to corporations, you have things like gm going out of business and american unskilled laborours surprised that they are losing the job a child could do to people in far off countries who will do it better and cheaper.
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 28, 2005 Posted November 28, 2005 no the comment i made that you responded to with your working for free nonsense was that people deserve to get paid WHAT THEY CAN. this means they "deserve" whatever they can get. the piont is there is no such thing as a fair wage, because if you are willing to accept the job then you are willing to accept the wage. 513937[/snapback] What happens if the market is driven down (persumably by fierce competitiors like Wal-Mart) and people can only get paid subpar wages that don't allow them to adequately support themselves? Do they still deserve it?
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 28, 2005 Posted November 28, 2005 you still have things backwards. walmart is a business and sells to consumers who won't buy from them if they just magically set their prices to whatever they'd like without considering what people on the other side of the transaction would accept. of course they'd like to charge more but they can't on the other side of their business, they can only pay workers whatever the workers will accept. they'd like to pay as little as possible but can't because people won't work for free. your point of walmart "Again, who sets the wages? Why would Wal-Mart go below that threshold and continue to drive things down. Aren't they harming everybody by being that dishonest? And don't say that is what the market dictates. True it is what the market CAN dictate. Why cross that line and head down that destructive path? is silly. what is that supposed to mean? do you think walmart can just dictate labour prices by fiat alone? what the hell destructive path are you on about anyhow?walmart can no more just lower their wages paid any more than they can just raise prices on their goods: they can but they have to bear the impact of their decisions. the same way that ford and gm are shutting down plants in north america because they agreed to silly wages and benefits any employer will answer to the market if they f@#k up. you are pointing your finger in the wrong direction when it comes to tragedies of the commons. individual market players will be corrected if they make an error and will pay for their own mistakes. when you have pork and worker handouts in the form of unions and subsidies to corporations, you have things like gm going out of business and american unskilled laborours surprised that they are losing the job a child could do to people in far off countries who will do it better and cheaper. 513956[/snapback] I guess you are right, they can't. The game has already begun, we will just have to see how it plays out. (Blue part)Wal-Mart is the largest company in the country (and I presume the world). They turned the volume up on this race, the sure the hell can turn it down even at the company's expense?? Call that fiat if you want. What I mean by that is that they are effing people in the process. Not that they created the atomsphere but, they really turned up the heat on others. Just as that first farmer begins to exercise his cows on common pasture. Fine, if he is the only one. Not so fine if more farmers jump in and begin to use the same practices in order to compete and survive. By that time it is too late and the arrangement is ruined. Do you see this?
colin Posted November 28, 2005 Posted November 28, 2005 I guess you are right, they can't. The game has already begun, we will just have to see how it plays out. (Blue part)Wal-Mart is the largest company in the country (and I presume the world). They turned the volume up on this race, the sure the hell can turn it down even at the company's expense?? Call that fiat if you want. What I mean by that is that they are effing people in the process. Not that they created the atomsphere but, they really turned up the heat on others. Just as that first farmer begins to exercise his cows on common pasture. Fine, if he is the only one. Not so fine if more farmers jump in and begin to use the same practices in order to compete and survive. By that time it is too late and the arrangement is ruined. Do you see this? 513988[/snapback] no, your common pastures analagy is backwards. the only thing walmart is doing (beyond jockying for position with the government which is the other side of the union/minimum wage/worker pork equation from the government that costs the consumer) is trying to compete as a business and manage their work force. they aren't effing anyone, if you don't want to work there then don't. walmart employs the least skilled, least experience people in their markets. they do so in order to keep costs down so they can sell products at the cheapest price they can. the common pastures analagy might apply AGAINST your position. minimum wages, unions, and so on SEEM to support workers, but in order to attempt to offset it (or just for politicians to play the game really) the government provides pork and tarriffs for corporations. this is where the tragedy of the commons can occur, everyone is trying to beat each other out for the helping hand from the government. what you end up with is underemployement, inflated wages for some people in unproductive unskilled jobs and inflated costs, a lack of innovation and a stagnant economy. if you want to see what would happen with more unions and protectionism in the US, look to france, italy or germany. if you want to see what an equal effort in macro policy does, look to japan. the solution is less government intervention, not more.
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 28, 2005 Posted November 28, 2005 no, your common pastures analagy is backwards. the only thing walmart is doing (beyond jockying for position with the government which is the other side of the union/minimum wage/worker pork equation from the government that costs the consumer) is trying to compete as a business and manage their work force. they aren't effing anyone, if you don't want to work there then don't. walmart employs the least skilled, least experience people in their markets. they do so in order to keep costs down so they can sell products at the cheapest price they can. the common pastures analagy might apply AGAINST your position. minimum wages, unions, and so on SEEM to support workers, but in order to attempt to offset it (or just for politicians to play the game really) the government provides pork and tarriffs for corporations. this is where the tragedy of the commons can occur, everyone is trying to beat each other out for the helping hand from the government. what you end up with is underemployement, inflated wages for some people in unproductive unskilled jobs and inflated costs, a lack of innovation and a stagnant economy. if you want to see what would happen with more unions and protectionism in the US, look to france, italy or germany. if you want to see what an equal effort in macro policy does, look to japan. the solution is less government intervention, not more. 513992[/snapback] So Wal-Mart selling gasoline at a loss in order to pinch out competition isn't effing anyone? I guess I just have to agree to disagree with you.
ExiledInIllinois Posted November 28, 2005 Posted November 28, 2005 I need to add... Once that competition is eliminated, they raise their prices. I find it hard to believe that they are just trying to "compete and manage their workforce" and sweep their predatory practices under the rug. I guess that is what is all about? Again, I just have to respectively agree to disagree with you. Time will tell.
colin Posted November 28, 2005 Posted November 28, 2005 walmart sells gas as a loss leader, they want you to buy products in their store and try to get you there with gas. the idea that walmart walks into towns and shuts them down is silly. all they do is move out bad business. they aren't exactly a monopoly, they can't just raise prices after "shutting down" bad business. they have a tough time competing with other large retailers and with internet and specialty shops they don't exactly have a whole lot of room to increase prices because they "eliminated" competition. you sound like you just walked out of a mike moore movie, you are missing the forrest for the trees. sure it sucks to work for walmart, and if you can't afford to shop anywhere else AND you just happen to live in a tiny hamlet that has no other business (which means you are very rural isolated place) then maybe you should consider moving. crying over the terrible society we would all live in if the entry level positions at the least discriminating employers don't pay a multiple of what they otherwise would is a bit like crying about how the dragons under the bed will eat you if you don't get your new playstation game thiw christmass. it's wrong and is borne of a sense of entitlement.
RI Bills Fan Posted November 28, 2005 Posted November 28, 2005 walmart sells gas as a loss leader, they want you to buy products in their store and try to get you there with gas. the idea that walmart walks into towns and shuts them down is silly. all they do is move out bad business. they aren't exactly a monopoly, they can't just raise prices after "shutting down" bad business. they have a tough time competing with other large retailers and with internet and specialty shops they don't exactly have a whole lot of room to increase prices because they "eliminated" competition. you sound like you just walked out of a mike moore movie, you are missing the forrest for the trees. sure it sucks to work for walmart, and if you can't afford to shop anywhere else AND you just happen to live in a tiny hamlet that has no other business (which means you are very rural isolated place) then maybe you should consider moving. crying over the terrible society we would all live in if the entry level positions at the least discriminating employers don't pay a multiple of what they otherwise would is a bit like crying about how the dragons under the bed will eat you if you don't get your new playstation game thiw christmass. it's wrong and is borne of a sense of entitlement. 514210[/snapback] Got It! Big Bizness GOOD! Union BAD! Talking Points GOOD! Independant Thought BAD! CEO's w/Billion Dollar Salaries GOOD! Working Class People Making a Living Wage BAD! colin on ignore GOOD! 'Nuff Said!
X. Benedict Posted November 28, 2005 Posted November 28, 2005 Got It! Big Bizness GOOD! Union BAD! Talking Points GOOD! Independant Thought BAD! CEO's w/Billion Dollar Salaries GOOD! Working Class People Making a Living Wage BAD! colin on ignore GOOD! 'Nuff Said! 514336[/snapback] You don't by any chance own a limosine, do you?
RI Bills Fan Posted November 28, 2005 Posted November 28, 2005 You don't by any chance own a limosine, do you? 514347[/snapback] Chevy Silverado Pickup Truck complete with an "Easy Rider Rifle Rack"
X. Benedict Posted November 28, 2005 Posted November 28, 2005 Chevy Silverado Pickup Truck complete with an "Easy Rider Rifle Rack" 514363[/snapback] filling that thing up must cost ya.
RI Bills Fan Posted November 28, 2005 Posted November 28, 2005 filling that thing up must cost ya. 514398[/snapback] Yep, Good thing I've got a union job that pays me way more than I'm worth.
colin Posted November 28, 2005 Posted November 28, 2005 Got It! Big Bizness GOOD! Union BAD! Talking Points GOOD! Independant Thought BAD! CEO's w/Billion Dollar Salaries GOOD! Working Class People Making a Living Wage BAD! colin on ignore GOOD! 'Nuff Said! 514336[/snapback] way to keep your head in the sand on things you'd rather not bother to think about. i didn't mention ceo salaries, i certainly haven't said big business is good in fact i did write about pork, cronyism, big business digging themselves this hole, but since you can't see beyond the edges of your copy of the daily worker. and economic ignorance isn't independant thought, it is just wrong.
RI Bills Fan Posted November 28, 2005 Posted November 28, 2005 Just a couple of general questions: 1. Is our economy driven by production or consumption? 2. Which country consumes the largest per capita share of the world's goods and services? 3. Is that good or bad for the world in general? 4. How does driving wages and benifits down in the US affect the answers to the above questions? OBTW, answering questions with counter-questions = failing grade
colin Posted November 28, 2005 Posted November 28, 2005 Just a couple of general questions: 1. Is our economy driven by production or consumption? 2. Which country consumes the largest per capita share of the world's goods and services? 3. Is that good or bad for the world in general? 4. How does driving wages and benifits down in the US affect the answers to the above questions? OBTW, answering questions with counter-questions = failing grade 514474[/snapback] 1. both of course. if you want to make a chicken and egg argument out of it demand drives production so you might say consumption drives the economy, but you can't have one without the other. 2. Canada consumes more resources per capita than the US. The UEA prolly tops all, but if your point is that the US consumes more than other nations, sure. 3. It is good for the world. The world is better off for the US being a productive economy. if you are getting at resource scarcity and environmental impact, sure that is an issue, but it is superior to the alternative of (more) poverty. 4. Wages don't decrease in a vacuum, and not all wages decrease, and wages decreasing isn't exactly a bad thing. if innovation, outsourcing of unskilled labour and competition lower prices of goods more than wages, then one's lower wages are worth more. did i pass?
GG Posted November 28, 2005 Posted November 28, 2005 did i pass? 514618[/snapback] I wouldn't bet your house on it, with this crew.
Alaska Darin Posted November 28, 2005 Posted November 28, 2005 Got It! Big Bizness GOOD! Union BAD! Talking Points GOOD! Independant Thought BAD! CEO's w/Billion Dollar Salaries GOOD! Working Class People Making a Living Wage BAD! colin on ignore GOOD! 'Nuff Said! 514336[/snapback] Amazing rant for someone who loves big government - far and away the worst big business on the planet. Nice hypocrisy - as usual.
Recommended Posts