Frontline: Wal-Mart

[Yeahman]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/walmart/

I just watched the Frontline episode on Wal-Mart. What utter crap! It was actually laughably biased in favor of protectionism.

They interviewed exactly one economist and he was the lone voice in favor of free trade. But you should have seen the interviewer's face while the economist was talking. A comical mixture of confusion and disbelief.

At one point the interviewer asked one person rhetorically, "Wal-Mart argues that fierce cost cutting translates into lower prices for the cusomer. Do you buy this?" Do you buy this? It's a matter of fact!

Then there was the statement that Long Beach imports $36 billion of goods from China and exports $3 billion. The interviewer, Hedrick Smith, then calls the US a "3rd world country." The shear stupidity of the guy! Of course he TOTALLY ignores non-manufactured goods like intellectual property and investment. The liberal economist Paul Krugman once satirically offered a solution to America's trade deficit; Spin off NYC as a seperate nation. NYC has a HUGE trade deficit with the rest of the nation and the world. We don't make clothes, food, electronics, appliances, cars, or furniture in NYC and we don't have any natural resources either. Perhaps NYC should start complaining that the rest of the nation is taking jobs away.

Then there was the total out-of-context use of Schumpeter's "creative destruction." The term was explained as a Wal-Mart-like destruction of American jobs in "creative ways." Of course what Schumpeter really meant was that the creation of new jobs replace the destruction of old jobs.

The closing message of the "documentary" was that buying from Wal-Mart is unpatriotic.

Protectionists like Hedrick Smith hurt America and the world. The airing of this documentary will set the US, and particularly the left, back in our journey to economic rationality. It actually gets me heated. Just when I think that we're making some headway in convincing the mainstream of sound economics, someone like Hedrick Smith comes along and in one fell swoop of ignorance-fueled propoganda turns the public against the pratically unanimous opinion of economists of all stripes.

I say we should make US Government and Economics required courses in high school with the same emphasis as math or science. We have kids in high school these days that can work with complex mathematically matrixes but can't tell you who their US Congressional representative is or what the Fed does. Yes, I took both in HS but its coverage was basically limited to a reading of the Constitution and an explanation of supply and demand. These topics affect our lives too much to say that this grazing of the surface should suffice. Hopefully if the public is more educated from the beginning, we won't have people like Hedrick Smith and documentaries like this.

[kimpossible]

i see ye110man running for prez '08

[Yeahman]

The harm this "documentary" is causing can be seen in the messages of viewers on the website...

"I believe that not shopping at Wal-mart is not enough. It is time that all good Americans started striking Wal-mart stores to bring attention to these issues."

"I spent my last dollar at Wal Mart yesterday."

"Two things would help the situation. One, a tax on imported goods that would balance the wholesale cost of US vs. Imported goods. Two, limiting the breadth of businesses a corporation can be involved in."

"I will not shop at Wal-Mart and I encourage everyone to ask for products manufactured in America."

"I feel it is time for a break up of Walmart"

"After watching your program tonight it really made me look down on the company and ashamed to say I work there."

"Wal-mart is obviously a major warrior in the war on American workers."

"I have bought my last item from Walmart and Sam's."

"Wal-Mart is absolutely driving the economy down... I, for one, refuse to purchase anything from Wal-Mart."


Some more rational messages...

"I thought it an extremely interesting program. Just a little too much pandering for my taste. Oh, why all the Walmart people painted in comparatively dark gray backgrounds?"

"PBS stands for Publicly Broadcast Socialism."

"I work for Walmart and even though it may not be the -best- thing in town, at least I can pay my bills. If Walmart didn't exist I really don't know what I would do."

"Instead of complaining about my lot in life, I chose to go back to school and learn a new trade. Now, at age 58, I have the best job that I have ever had. I am a Wal-Mart associate at the Corporate Office in Bentonville, AR."

"When Americans are willing to pay more for items is when we will see manufacturing jobs increase. To blame Wal-Mart for what is going on in the World economy is short sighted."

[kimpossible]

"It's cool because Paris Hilton shopped there! Paris Hilton, on Wal-mart: 'I went to Wal-Mart for the first time. I always thought they sold wallpaper. I didn’t realize it has everything. You can get anything you want there for really, really cheap.' "

And Paris knows about being really, really cheap!

j/k, I actually like her. Well, I like laughing at her.

[tommyhtown]

Thanks for the link. I'll read it and see for myself.

[SunWuKong]

i don't like Walmart either, but not because i want protectionistic trade practices.
hey if they want to strike Walmart, they might as well also strike Target, Costco, Sam's Club, etc etc.

[Banana]

Yet people still don't believe me when I say that the majority of people are stupid and ignorant.

To those posters: A fool that knows he is a fool is for that very reason wise. The fool that believes himself wise is the greatest fool of all.

[fossilfuel]

I don't like Walmart because it's always a filthy store with crap strewn about everywhere.

I wish Target was the evil corporate overlord ruining everyone's lives, at least I'd shop there.

[yoMAMA]

I don't like Walmart because it's always a filthy store with crap strewn about everywhere.

I wish Target was the evil corporate overlord ruining everyone's lives, at least I'd shop there.

LOL....their restrooms are so "clean" as well.........

:frown:

[SunWuKong]

i repeat: shopping at Target is just like shopping at Walmart. except that Target is a tiny bit cleaner.

[Faithless]

Just for a point of clarification:

Objectively, are you pointing out a liberal media bias or something else?

[thaite]

I don't shop at WalMart either. But not for any of those reasons. It's because WalMart sucks.

[Yeahman]

Just for a point of clarification:

Objectively, are you pointing out a liberal media bias or something else?
This doesn't have much to do with liberal vs. conservative except that the viewers of this show will more likely be liberal so the left will probably be infected more.
There are liberal protectionists (ie. Kucinich) and conservative protectionists (ie. Pat Buchanan).

On a related note, I saw a poll of economists before the election. Kerry was seen as the better candidate concerning a variety of economic issues EXCEPT for trade. Bush was favored when it came to trade policy. And the labor unions always support the Democrats believing that they'll be more protectionist. So I guess protectionism is more accepted on the left than it is on the right but there are so many exceptions that I don't know if I would even make the generalization.


Anyway, I wouldn't be so irked if the show focused on Wal-Mart's anti-competitive pratices. But the show critisized Wal-Mart for being TOO competitive! They seem to argue that Wal-Mart is too cheap. Mismanagement at Tubberware is blamed on Wal-Mart! They argue that Wal-Mart should have accepted Tubberware's higher prices.

The outcry against outsourcing is not new. It's been with us for decades. The arguements never change, only the industry. "Cheap Japanese cars are putting Americans out of work and soon nobody will be afford to buy a car anyway! It'll lower our standard of living!" "Those South Korean Nike workers are paid $0.50/hour in slave conditions! Boycott Nike!" Meanwhile GDP is rising, unemployment is declining, and the standard of living is increasing. Will Americans never learn?

[SunWuKong]

Anyway, I wouldn't be so irked if the show focused on Wal-Mart's anti-competitive pratices. But the show critisized Wal-Mart for being TOO competitive! They seem to argue that Wal-Mart is too cheap. Mismanagement at Tubberware is blamed on Wal-Mart! They argue that Wal-Mart should have accepted Tubberware's higher prices.


so basically the show was crying foul over Walmart because it sells imported goods? shit, why don't they do a special on... just about any big retail chains in the US.

[John0101]

Here are some questions that pop into my mind when I think of walmart...

What are the effects of Wal-marts as a monoplistic company in many segments of the low-end retail market? How does this effect pressure such as wages, living standards, and future growth? Is there a market failure and is government intervention justifed?

Walmart reminds me of those multi-national companies who go into Mexico and China for cheap labor and then clearly exploit their labor. Except they are doing this in the United States and they are exploiting many the unskilled labor force in the U.S. who are often poor and are minorities.

Analyzing the effects of Walmart is a highly complex issues, im sure there are tons of book written on it by many bright academics. There are clearly many winners and many losers. To be honest im not sure if im against Walmart or not, I think they help keep inflation under check but just watch the U.S. dollar drop and Walmart profits are gonna start hurting.

[Mr.Lum]

Walmart doesn't need to be cutting costs so long as their stores are so skank nasty.

[nonamerasian]

It was an interesting show.

It didn't make me want to stop shopping at:

Give me a W!

W!

Give me an A!

A!

Give me a L!

L!

Give me a SQUIGGLY!-mart

But it gave insight on to why it's so hated.

[Yeahman]

What are the effects of Wal-marts as a monoplistic company in many segments of the low-end retail market? How does this effect pressure such as wages, living standards, and future growth? Is there a market failure and is government intervention justifed?
Lower average wages in the short run. But that's counter-balanced by lower prices so theoretically the standard of living should remain unchanged overall, though some will suffer and some will prosper. In the long-run, as people move away from manufacturing and retail jobs, everyone benefits.

Walmart reminds me of those multi-national companies who go into Mexico and China for cheap labor and then clearly exploit their labor. Except they are doing this in the United States and they are exploiting many the unskilled labor force in the U.S. who are often poor and are minorities.
In places like Mexico and China, it's a step up. In the US it's a step down (or sideways) which is the big difference. But what is the alternative? Higher wages for some and higher prices for all? Remember that 10 years ago we were saying the same thing about exploiting South Korean and Taiwanese labor and 20 years ago we said the same thing about Japanese labor. Hell, over 200 years ago Adam Smith was dispelling the same arguement about French labor.
I guess the myths of free trade could possibly stem from the notion that economic activity is a zero-sum game; That if a Chinese person works, an American cannot. It's nonsense of course and in practice it hurts everyone, but to the unlearned it makes sense.
We'd like to help 3rd world nations with food aid but we are reluctant to actually provide a way for them to earn a buck. But how long can we continue to supress the economic potential of non-Americans?

Analyzing the effects of Walmart is a highly complex issues, im sure there are tons of book written on it by many bright academics. There are clearly many winners and many losers. To be honest im not sure if im against Walmart or not, I think they help keep inflation under check but just watch the U.S. dollar drop and Walmart profits are gonna start hurting.
Yes, Wal-Mart is currently prospering due largely to a strong dollar. It will inevitably have to change in the (near?) future.

[Fireblade]

It was an interesting show.

It didn't make me want to stop shopping at:

Give me a W!

W!

Give me an A!

A!

Give me a L!

L!

Give me a SQUIGGLY!-mart

But it gave insight on to why it's so hated.

Watched it. I can't believe they actually hold conventions like that, and they all actually chant along like some grade schoolers. :rolleyes:

[raacluse]

Didn't see the program, but I've been aware of some of the controversy about Wal-mart.

Once in a while, I shop at a Wal-mart. Just bought some windshield wipers a couple days ago.

One thing that I noticed is how the one near where I live has lotsa Black and some Latino customers. Also true for my local Target. Whereas, the Wal-mart near my workplace has much fewer of them. So I guess the latter is in a mainly white community.

I guess it's no secret that the Walton family that "owns" the company have become billionaires.

I also shop at a discount grocery store "owned" by billionaires, Aldi. (Aldi = Albrecht Distribution).

(BTW, Aldi owns Trader Joe's.)

I'm cheap, and I'm making the rich folk, richer. :confused:

[One time I shopped at a Wal-mart in Germany, where Aldi is based. It was an exotic experience, cause the products were not generally what you'd find stateside.]

[John0101]

Lower average wages in the short run. But that's counter-balanced by lower prices so theoretically the standard of living should remain unchanged overall, though some will suffer and some will prosper. In the long-run, as people move away from manufacturing and retail jobs, everyone benefits.

It lowers average wages for people who work at Walmart and other related jobs while it will not lower wages for doctors, lawyers, etc. If Walmart has a monoply why would they charge competitive prices for their goods? They would limit suppy and produce where MR=MC thus actually resulting a deadweight loss of welfare. So the poor get stuck in shitty walmart jobs with shitty pay, in turn walmart is operating as a monoply. The only winners so far are working professionals (who really does get a bargin) and walmart. The losers are the working poor and us tax payers who are supporting the poor with social services because Walmart gets to operate as a monoply. Say hello to the living wage movement.


In places like Mexico and China, it's a step up. In the US it's a step down (or sideways) which is the big difference. But what is the alternative? Higher wages for some and higher prices for all? Remember that 10 years ago we were saying the same thing about exploiting South Korean and Taiwanese labor and 20 years ago we said the same thing about Japanese labor. Hell, over 200 years ago Adam Smith was dispelling the same arguement about French labor.
I guess the myths of free trade could possibly stem from the notion that economic activity is a zero-sum game; That if a Chinese person works, an American cannot. It's nonsense of course and in practice it hurts everyone, but to the unlearned it makes sense.
We'd like to help 3rd world nations with food aid but we are reluctant to actually provide a way for them to earn a buck. But how long can we continue to supress the economic potential of non-Americans?

Weren't not on the same page here, your arguement is based on economic efficiency, my statement was based on equality. Related topics, but different.

Yes, Wal-Mart is currently prospering due largely to a strong dollar. It will inevitably have to change in the (near?) future.

yeah, its all about the PPP and the dollar has been failing lately. Have you ever done any calculations of the U.S. GDP of an large open economy? With all those AS/AD curves? I haven't took a macro class since intermediate macro.

[Yeahman]

It lowers average wages for people who work at Walmart and other related jobs while it will not lower wages for doctors, lawyers, etc. If Walmart has a monoply why would they charge competitive prices for their goods? They would limit suppy and produce where MR=MC thus actually resulting a deadweight loss of welfare. So the poor get stuck in shitty walmart jobs with shitty pay, in turn walmart is operating as a monoply. The only winners so far are working professionals (who really does get a bargin) and walmart. The losers are the working poor and us tax payers who are supporting the poor with social services because Walmart gets to operate as a monoply. Say hello to the living wage movement.
Winners also include people in construction, secretaries, teachers, mechanics, waiters, journalists, nurses, students, people on welfare, and everyone else not in low-end retail. These are the real winners. Not doctors or lawyers who don't shop as much at Wal-mart anyway.
And what social services do we provide for Wal-mart employees that they wouldn't receive elsewhere? The low prices keeps the CPI low so that we won't have to spend more money on welfare programs.

Which brings me to another reason why economic progress is stifled in America; an irrational fear of monopolization and higher prices. Monopolies aren't as common as one would think. One would think that cell phone service should be a monopoly. Extremely high barrier to entry and we're stuck with what's available in our area. Same thing with airlines or fast food or airplane manufacturers or car manufacturers. Instead, they're very competitive.

You also assume that a loss in one industry translates into a loss forever. So that maybe if we lost many industries say... cars, textiles, electronics, and appliances, the US will have ultra-high unemployment and much lower median wages. So why hasn't that happened?

[Chad]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/walmart/
They interviewed exactly one economist and he was the lone voice in favor of free trade. But you should have seen the interviewer's face while the economist was talking. A comical mixture of confusion and disbelief.

At one point the interviewer asked one person rhetorically, "Wal-Mart argues that fierce cost cutting translates into lower prices for the cusomer. Do you buy this?" Do you buy this? It's a matter of fact!
Something most economists don't understand due to their education (or lack thereof) is real cost.
Example: A Wal-Mart opens in your neighborhood and you can now buy widgets there for only $4 each, as opposed to the cost at the locally-owned store for $4.50 each. You save 50 cents. But now the locally-owned store will go out of business, traffic congestion increases threefold in your neighborhood due to all consumers traveling to one big location rather than many smaller locations, crime rates increase in your neighborhood. Wal-Mart doesn't re-invest money into your community. The profits they make go out of your neighborhood, instead of staying in as they did with the locally-owned business. Local service workers are working non-standard work hours which prevents them from socializing regularly. Community atmosphere all but dies.The overall quality of life decreases.
Of course I realize that concepts of "community atmosphere" etc. are foreign to most economists and like-minded thinkers. So let me use another example:
Your country figures out that it can save money on foreign oil if it simply seizes foreign oil reserves rather than buying it. So now the oil will be free instead of not free. Cheaper, right? Saves money, right? But in order to do this you need to conquer a country, this means defeating their military and then battling an insurgency that is capable of blowing up pipelines (evil geniuses, huh?). In addition to this, the whole world hates you for being an asshole. You end up paying more for the war than you did for the oil to begin with.

[Yeahman]

Something most economists don't understand due to their education (or lack thereof) is real cost.
Example: A Wal-Mart opens in your neighborhood and you can now buy widgets there for only $4 each, as opposed to the cost at the locally-owned store for $4.50 each. You save 50 cents. But now the locally-owned store will go out of business, traffic congestion increases threefold in your neighborhood due to all consumers traveling to one big location rather than many smaller locations, crime rates increase in your neighborhood. Wal-Mart doesn't re-invest money into your community. The profits they make go out of your neighborhood, instead of staying in as they did with the locally-owned business. Local service workers are working non-standard work hours which prevents them from socializing regularly. Community atmosphere all but dies.The overall quality of life decreases.
Crime rates increase? How did you get to that one?
The profits go into investments and investors which both stimulate economic activity. It doesn't just disappear.
And I don't see why working hours would change.
If less traffic was such a valuable commodity then there would be demand for more convenient stores. People may be willing to drive 30 minutes to buy a cheaper TV but they won't drive that long to buy a cheaper soda. So long as it is economically worthwhile for people to brave the traffic, the benefits will outweight the costs.
Quality of life increases for the majority of people since they are getting cheaper goods.

Let's suppose for a second that what you say is all true. So that self-sustaining communities maintain a quality of life above that which corporations can provide. We have a small town we'll call "Smallville" in which there are only family-owned small businesses. All money spent in Smallville, stays in Smallville. Naturally, prices are higher here. That, I assume, you will concede. People get less for their buck then they would elsewhere. At the same time, people aren't making a bigger profit. By almost any measure, the majority of the residents in Smallville are worse off.

Of course I realize that concepts of "community atmosphere" etc. are foreign to most economists and like-minded thinkers.
It's just overrated. Yes, it's nice to go into a local store where "everybody knows your name." There's a local pizzaria in my area that I go to just about every day. The guys know what I want without me having to say a word. I get free samples and I'm sure if I ever needed to I could buy on credit. But if a pizza chain owned up next door selling the same things for less, guess where I'm buying my chicken rolls from then on. "Community atmosphere" is like the drive-through movie theater; a perk of a bygone era that will surely be missed but one that I won't be losing much sleep over.

Your country figures out that it can save money on foreign oil if it simply seizes foreign oil reserves rather than buying it. So now the oil will be free instead of not free. Cheaper, right? Saves money, right? But in order to do this you need to conquer a country, this means defeating their military and then battling an insurgency that is capable of blowing up pipelines (evil geniuses, huh?). In addition to this, the whole world hates you for being an asshole. You end up paying more for the war than you did for the oil to begin with.
You are assuming that nations are stupid and wage war for money not realizing that it would cost more money to wage the war than it would actually make.
You failed to show how Wal-Mart creates a net loss in society.

[SunWuKong]

Crime rates increase? How did you get to that one?
The profits go into investments and investors which both stimulate economic activity. It doesn't just disappear.
And I don't see why working hours would change.
If less traffic was such a valuable commodity then there would be demand for more convenient stores. People may be willing to drive 30 minutes to buy a cheaper TV but they won't drive that long to buy a cheaper soda. So long as it is economically worthwhile for people to brave the traffic, the benefits will outweight the costs.

well he's talking about the specific area around the Walmart. there would be an increase in traffic because people would congregate there. i've seen this happen when they don't open a location at huge shopping centers, but instead open a location at small to medium sized strip malls. traffic can really increase. when they open at huge shopping centers though, it doesn't really cause any big traffic problems that weren't already there, because those locations were built to handle huge volumes of traffic. and theoretically when activity and population in a certain area increase, crime also increases. i don't know how true that is, but i can certainly see it happening in poorer neighborhoods.


It's just overrated. Yes, it's nice to go into a local store where "everybody knows your name." There's a local pizzaria in my area that I go to just about every day. The guys know what I want without me having to say a word. I get free samples and I'm sure if I ever needed to I could buy on credit. But if a pizza chain owned up next door selling the same things for less, guess where I'm buying my chicken rolls from then on. "Community atmosphere" is like the drive-through movie theater; a perk of a bygone era that will surely be missed but one that I won't be losing much sleep over.

i agree. i'd rather pay less for my things and have convenient shopping locations than having to drive all over the place for stores that have "community atmosphere".


You are assuming that nations are stupid and wage war for money not realizing that it would cost more money to wage the war than it would actually make.
You failed to show how Wal-Mart creates a net loss in society.

yes, but he's talking about his idea of "real cost", such as loss of human lives, loss of international reputation, etc etc.

[Chad]

Economists only know money numbers. It's a valuable discipline but economists cannot be left to run things unfettered.
What I speak of when I say "community atmosphere" is not found necessarily in the stores or places of business but in the community itself; the places of dwelling and conducting daily activities or leisure. I will illustrate..
When I lived in a large city (Dallas), I knew almost nobody in my apartment block or my neighborhood. If burglars were coming and going from my apartment, none of my neighbors would know because they didn't know who lived there and who didn't. My friends in the city were scattered throughout, not centralized at any particular location in the city. This is because I met my friends at work, school, or through other friends. Going to school or work required driving a car and you don't meet people while driving a car. Most interactions you have with people while driving are likely to be hostile in nature. My neighbors all worked different jobs and went to different schools. They did their shopping in different places, which they drove their cars to. I might as well have had aliens living next door.
Then I moved to a smaller city (Denton) which is arranged differently. Instead of vast expanses of housing developments, huge shopping and industrial districts, there is the whole lot of it mixed in. The sectors are not geographically separated. This allows me to do my shopping on foot or bicycle. I have not owned a car for the past two years and I haven't needed one. My neighbors also run their errands on foot or bicycle, although some of them have cars. But the places we go are so nearby that I become familiar with them since I'm likely to run into them and speak with them more than once a week, and sometimes more than once in a day. An encounter with someone on foot is much different than an encounter by car. You are not likely to cause their death by colliding with them, so the nature of the encounter will be more relaxed and friendly. The result of this is that I know most of the people who live in my apartment block. I have 30 or more friends within a 5-mile radius of me. Almost everything I could possibly need to buy is within walking or bicycle distance. In Dallas I would have to drive half an hour just to visit one friend.
Better urban planning will lead to a better quality of life for everyone. Huge mega-stores with parking lots the size of several football fields do not make good social space. Wal-Mart caters to car culture.

[Yeahman]

I don't think better urban planning will solve the problem. It may help, but it's only part of it.
I have been living in the same house for 9 years now. The neighborhood has not changed at all. But the atmosphere certainly has. At first I thought it was just because I was getting older. But then I realized that I don't even see the neighborhood kids playing together outside anymore. You can see this happening all other the place. In suburbs and cities. I actually saw a documentary about it concentrating on a city block in Manhattan. A guy moves back to the apartment of his childhood to live in the company of this "street family." But it's all changed. The "community atmosphere" is gone.
I think that the major reason is increased technology in the home. People these days stay at home and play video games, watch their cable TV with their 400 channels, watch DVD's, and chat online with friends that don't live in the same neighborhood. And in the summer when more people should be out conversing, we now have AC and would rather say in.

[tint]

Better urban planning will lead to a better quality of life for everyone.
I do not see how your example leads to a better quality of life.

Huge mega-stores with parking lots the size of several football fields do not make good social space. Wal-Mart caters to car culture.
Wal-Mart doesn't create "car culture." Virtually, every American already drives a car to get around. Ain't no one's stopping you from walking to Wal-Mart.

Wal-Mart is innovation. Americans are able to buy more with their dollar. That is a good thing.

[ellsworth81]

maybe it's just the walmarts i've been to, but it seems the clientele is overwhemingly poor(er) compared to others. walmart allows them to buy lots of cheap shit that may not be necessary and useful for them to get ahead in society (equity, paying bills on time, education, etc).

from that standpoint, walmart is harmful ... but i guess that's not really *their* fault persay ...

[Mr.Lum]

maybe it's just the walmarts i've been to, but it seems the clientele is overwhemingly poor(er) compared to others. walmart allows them to buy lots of cheap shit that may not be necessary and useful for them to get ahead in society (equity, paying bills on time, education, etc).

from that standpoint, walmart is harmful ... but i guess that's not really *their* fault persay ...
Yeah, I hate the Walmart here, and all the ones I've been to. They're not clean. Cut costs when you have clean stores. Not when they're dirty as hell and provide poor service. I don't want a bunch of cheap garbage. Walmart messed up our plaza. They don't make their employees clean up. I'd prefer the old store that was locally owned and there before. It was a little more expensive, but it was clean, had good customer service and all of the stuff was top of the line. Walmart stuff is inferior compared to it...I miss Cohen's Centermart. :frown: :frown:

[younggiftedandblack]

Wal-Mart sells the same crap every other store sells. Noone forces people to abandon their favorite stores to save a few bucks.

[Napoleon Chynamite]

Well after reading all this I'm not sure I understand...why pick on Walmart? The chain hardly seems to present itself as an exception in comparison to other retail outlets. Re: cleanliness or whatever, it seems to vary from store to store (and neighborhood to neighborhood), but then again, I haven't exactly been putting forth efforts to tour all the locations in my region.

[Mr.Lum]

Wal-Mart sells the same crap every other store sells. Noone forces people to abandon their favorite stores to save a few bucks.

Well, no they don't. They tend to have knock off style stuff or low quality stuff thats just cheaper. There is no paralell in terms of quality. It's just quantity.

Well after reading all this I'm not sure I understand...why pick on Walmart? The chain hardly seems to present itself as an exception in comparison to other retail outlets. Re: cleanliness or whatever, it seems to vary from store to store (and neighborhood to neighborhood), but then again, I haven't exactly been putting forth efforts to tour all the locations in my region.
Its like Target and all those other megastores only they advertise as if they'er a quality place and they're not. I cannot stand dirty shit. Walmart is dirty. Target isn't much better but at least it's frigging clean. But, I don't shop at either one. I'd rather pay more than shop in a dirty store and get inferior services.

[younggiftedandblack]

I think it's like Gumby said it depends on what Wal-Mart you go to. I've been to some ok ones and I've seen some that were really nice.

As far as their products go, they sell name brand as well as off brand or their own brand of products. Every major retailer does this.

[nonamerasian]

I think it's like Gumby said it depends on what Wal-Mart you go to. I've been to some ok ones and I've seen some that were really nice.

True.

I've been to several Wal-Marts and they haven't been dirty.

The two Targets I've been to do seem cleaner, but I think it may be because they were more roomy and bright than the Wal-Marts.

[SunWuKong]

Walmart and Target are the same! except Target seems to be a little bit cleaner. it's only a matter of time before Target starts opening Target "supercenters" that include supermarkets inside.

[rice cracker]

Walmart and Target are the same! except Target seems to be a little bit cleaner. it's only a matter of time before Target starts opening Target "supercenters" that include supermarkets inside.

Those already exist.

Also, Target's store brands are better quality and design.

[SunWuKong]

Those already exist.

Also, Target's store brands are better quality and design.

better packaging design, sure, but their quality is just like any other generic brands.

[rice cracker]

better packaging design, sure, but their quality is just like any other generic brands.

No, it's better. When was the last time you went in a Wal-Mart?

[SunWuKong]

No, it's better. When was the last time you went in a Wal-Mart?

i don't remember. but Target brand tissues don't seem to be that different from CVS brand tissues.

[nola]

Target is much cleaner and better quality especially with houseware, decorating and clothes.

[rice cracker]

Target is much cleaner and better quality especially with houseware, decorating and clothes.

Thank you, that is exactly right.

[TB4000]

And you won't find Mossimo at Wal Mart, am I right?

[kitty]

Target's a little more expensive, but it doesn't have the K-mart feel... everything's relatively more classier and more stylish, whereas both Walmart and K-mart have this 'really huge dollar store where we don't sell things for a dollar' feel.

[SunWuKong]

Target's a little more expensive, but it doesn't have the K-mart feel... everything's relatively more classier and more stylish, whereas both Walmart and K-mart have this 'really huge dollar store where we don't sell things for a dollar' feel.

eh. it's all just packaging.

[TB4000]

If I'm buying bathroom items like razors, gel, toothpaste or whatever, then yeah, Wal Mart is the place to go for sheer price alone. If i'm looking for electronics or food, then I'll go to Target.

[deez nuts]

target has better quality stuff than walmart.

there's also kohls.

i'm more a costco man.

[kimpossible]

i'm more a costco man.
someone said Costco...

I love Costco. I love RT Mart, too.

[SunWuKong]

someone said Costco...

I love Costco. I love RT Mart, too.

i would go to Costco, too, if there was one closer to where i live. but the down-side to Costco is that sometimes it's not that great for buying for just one or two people. i could buy a box of oranges and have them go bad before i eat them all.

[kimpossible]

i could buy a box of oranges and have them go bad before i eat them all.
split it with a friend. i'm always trading food with my girlfriends.

[Arex]

You can't beat Costco's return policy. Right now I'm pondering (ab)using it on a little Sharpvision DLP projector ($899). It'd be nice to get a cheapish projector knowing you never have to worry about paying for bulbs. But that's a discussion for another thread.

Given that Walmart gets a bad rap primarily for its labor practices, does anyone know how the other discounters really stack up in terms of wages, benefits and unions? Myself, I wouldn't mind paying a few cents or dollars more knowing that the employees are being better taken care of (or aren't getting as shafted).

RX

[SunWuKong]

Given that Walmart gets a bad rap primarily for its labor practices, does anyone know how the other discounters really stack up in terms of wages, benefits and unions? Myself, I wouldn't mind paying a few cents or dollars more knowing that the employees are being better taken care of (or aren't getting as shafted).

i think Fortune 500 prints a long list of companies that treat their employees best. you can check if any of these large retailers are on the list.

[kitty]

You can't beat Costco's return policy. Right now I'm pondering (ab)using it on a little Sharpvision DLP projector ($899). It'd be nice to get a cheapish projector knowing you never have to worry about paying for bulbs. But that's a discussion for another thread.

Given that Walmart gets a bad rap primarily for its labor practices, does anyone know how the other discounters really stack up in terms of wages, benefits and unions? Myself, I wouldn't mind paying a few cents or dollars more knowing that the employees are being better taken care of (or aren't getting as shafted).

RX

I had afriend who worked security at a local Target. She said the wages and benefits were okay, but that the manager was shady.

[hooligan]

http://www.walmartwatch.com/

hi, this is walmart watch. it's pretty comprehensive in listing the effects of walmarts on communities and its labor practices that allows it to abuse workers and shaft competition. good bye.

woo hoo, and there isn't much on that site. : \

I do not see how your example leads to a better quality of life.


Wal-Mart doesn't create "car culture." Virtually, every American already drives a car to get around. Ain't no one's stopping you from walking to Wal-Mart.

Wal-Mart is innovation. Americans are able to buy more with their dollar. That is a good thing. speaking as a friend of an urban planner, he tells me that urban planning is making sure a community has what it needs to survive. in doing so, they prepare drafts of where schools, shopping centers, zones for development should be (depending on their job and project). they make sure that communities have what they need to thrive. better urban planning ensures that this happens.

he didn't say that wal mart creates a car culture, but rather caters to one. i don't think americans are better off buying more with their dollar. i think americans are better off buying quality items at fair prices. the only reason that foreign markets are undercutting domestic markets is simply for the fact that the same laws that we have in the states do not protect foreign workers.

now, if everyone respected these markets and countries and forced them to conform to labor laws and human rights we wouldn't have issues such as sweatshops and child labor now? it's bullshit to say that as americans we need to find the best deals when we consume more than half of this planet's resources. it shouldn't be about me, me, me. like a lot of the foreign posters here, it should be about us, us, us and making sure that we're being fair in the long run with everything.

none of this dumb ass attitude about getting mine and mine alone. go ahead and do us all a favor and move to some country where america is pushing around and see how people are living there.

it also begs the question: is there such thing as a socially responsible corporation? the only businesses i can think of are :

http://www.americanapparelstore.com/ and patagonia.

[Yeahman]

i don't think americans are better off buying more with their dollar.
Which labor union are you a member of?

i think americans are better off buying quality items at fair prices.
The difference in quality of the items is minimal. How much better than a roll of toilet paper get?
And what is a "fair price"?

the only reason that foreign markets are undercutting domestic markets is simply for the fact that the same laws that we have in the states do not protect foreign workers.
That's not the only reason. The Asian currencies are undervalued. That is a MAJOR reason.
Also the standard of living in other nations is lower and so they can afford to pay lower wages. This is also a MAJOR reason.
The least of the reasons is the difference of laws. And of course our laws shouldn't affect foreign workers. Can you imagine if China was required to have a minimum wage law equal to that of the US? Goodbye China.

now, if everyone respected these markets and countries and forced them to conform to labor laws and human rights we wouldn't have issues such as sweatshops and child labor now?
How did you manage to use "respect" and "force" in the same sentence like that without deleting it?
Sweatshops are an "issue"? They are the first signs of economic growth.

it's bullshit to say that as americans we need to find the best deals when we consume more than half of this planet's resources. it shouldn't be about me, me, me. like a lot of the foreign posters here, it should be about us, us, us and making sure that we're being fair in the long run with everything.
Free trade is the most "us" you can get! "Fair" trade is the selfish philosophy. You got it reversed.

Free trade says that the best man willing to accept the lowest pay, gets the job whereever in the world he may live. "Fair" trade says that 3rd world and developing nations are doomed because they do not have the resources to maintain the standard of living demanded by the US in order to participate in trade.

none of this dumb ass attitude about getting mine and mine alone. go ahead and do us all a favor and move to some country where america is pushing around and see how people are living there.
South Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines and Japan are doing just fine thanks to the sweatshops the US established there in the past. Everything you have posted were objections raised against trade with those nations, in the past.

it also begs the question: is there such thing as a socially responsible corporation? the only businesses i can think of are :

http://www.americanapparelstore.com/ and patagonia.
My definition of "socially responsible" does not include air conditioned factories in Asia where people work 40 hour weeks and get paid $7/hour just because "America's doing it." Socially responsibility includes the reponsibility of corporations to reward the efficient. Why should we prevent citizens of other nations from holding jobs in American companies? You do realize that what you are proposing would devastate developing nations by putting millions out of work.

I honestly don't even see this as a debatable matter of opinion. It is an economic certainty. Free trade equalizes the playing field by allowing developing nations to compete and grow. As they grow, standards of living rise. How do you think all those Asian nations grew? They didn't do it by copying American labor standards. Artifically raising labor standards should be avoided whenever possible. Of course government should step in to ban things like slave labor. But overdo it and you increase unemployment and decrease investment as seen in nations like France.

I know that you're just trying to do the right thing. My goal and your goal is identical. But your proposed method to achieve it is just flat-out wrong as proven by economic theory and history.

[hooligan]

Which labor union are you a member of?

The difference in quality of the items is minimal. How much better than a roll of toilet paper get?
And what is a "fair price"?

That's not the only reason. The Asian currencies are undervalued. That is a MAJOR reason. Also the standard of living in other nations is lower and so they can afford to pay lower wages. This is also a MAJOR reason.
The least of the reasons is the difference of laws. And of course our laws shouldn't affect foreign workers. Can you imagine if China was required to have a minimum wage law equal to that of the US? Goodbye China.

How did you manage to use "respect" and "force" in the same sentence like that without deleting it?
Sweatshops are an "issue"? They are the first signs of economic growth.

Free trade is the most "us" you can get! "Fair" trade is the selfish philosophy. You got it reversed.

Free trade says that the best man willing to accept the lowest pay, gets the job whereever in the world he may live. "Fair" trade says that 3rd world and developing nations are doomed because they do not have the resources to maintain the standard of living demanded by the US in order to participate in trade.


South Korea, Taiwan, the Philippines and Japan are doing just fine thanks to the sweatshops the US established there in the past. Everything you have posted were objections raised against trade with those nations, in the past.


My definition of "socially responsible" does not include air conditioned factories in Asia where people work 40 hour weeks and get paid $7/hour just because "America's doing it." Socially responsibility includes the reponsibility of corporations to reward the efficient. Why should we prevent citizens of other nations from holding jobs in American companies? You do realize that what you are proposing would devastate developing nations by putting millions out of work.

I honestly don't even see this as a debatable matter of opinion. It is an economic certainty. Free trade equalizes the playing field by allowing developing nations to compete and grow. As they grow, standards of living rise. How do you think all those Asian nations grew? They didn't do it by copying American labor standards. Artifically raising labor standards should be avoided whenever possible. Of course government should step in to ban things like slave labor. But overdo it and you increase unemployment and decrease investment as seen in nations like France.

I know that you're just trying to do the right thing. My goal and your goal is identical. But your proposed method to achieve it is just flat-out wrong as proven by economic theory and history.
Economic theory is totally wrong about the real costs of these things that you point out. Why is it that America has spent its way into debt. You can spew and spew all this rhetoric but when you break it down, I don't want my parents, my friend's parents, strangers in America or any other country to work in a sweatshop. Please, economic theory does not take into account human right's abuses and the such.

There's no such things are 3rd world countries anymore. Stop using rhetoric of the 80s. I'm not going to argue with your skewed rhetoric because it simply is beyond my capacity to argue. The simple truth is that as consumers we still have to be responsible with how we spend our money. That also means holding the corporations that control business accountable, that means holding our government accountable and ultimately holding the world accountable.

I just realized something Yell0. You sound just like my republican apartmentmate. They read ALL these things that they think are credible. That are regurgitated by experts and pundits from all these (conservative) journals and they really think they actually have a clue on how communities that these policies affect work? Please, cough up some credibility or continue to be viewed as just another talking head.

Repeating exactly what the magazines tells us to say.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v143/hooliganucla/yellowworld/wtf.jpg

i'm rock lee and i approve this message.

[SunWuKong]

even if manufacturing plants that are set up in foreign countries pay their workers fair wages and provide them with good working conditions, operations there will still cost less than they will here in the US. everything just cost less in developing nations. that may be "undercutting" the domestic economy, but hey, it's just how free trade works. at the same time, i think it would be naive to think that there aren't any manufacturing plants in developing nations with horrible working conditions. some CEOs make 7 or 8 figure salaries. i think they can afford to pay their foreign workers a little more without affecting sales that much. i do think they should make sure these factories are paying their workers fair wages and giving them good working conditions, but to continually repeat the rhetoric of how they're paid $1 an hour or something and that it means corporations are evil is just foolish. because $1 an hour could be a fair wage in some countries.

[Yeahman]

Economic theory is totally wrong about the real costs of these things that you point out.
And reality is wrong too? History, hooligan, history.

Why is it that America has spent its way into debt.
Because our spending outweighs our revenue. What does this have to do with anything?

You can spew and spew all this rhetoric but when you break it down, I don't want my parents, my friend's parents, strangers in America or any other country to work in a sweatshop.
If the alternative was scavenging through garbage dumps as is often the case? I would have to disagree. Why do you want your friends and family living in garbage dumps?

Please, economic theory does not take into account human right's abuses and the such.
I don't consider voluntary work, a "human right's abuse."

There's no such things are 3rd world countries anymore. Stop using rhetoric of the 80s. I'm not going to argue with your skewed rhetoric because it simply is beyond my capacity to argue. The simple truth is that as consumers we still have to be responsible with how we spend our money. That also means holding the corporations that control business accountable, that means holding our government accountable and ultimately holding the world accountable.
Accoutable for what? Forced labor? I agree. $7/hour minimum wages? I disagree. That only hurts the world.

I just realized something Yell0. You sound just like my republican apartmentmate. They read ALL these things that they think are credible. That are regurgitated by experts and pundits from all these (conservative) journals and they really think they actually have a clue on how communities that these policies affect work? Please, cough up some credibility or continue to be viewed as just another talking head.

Repeating exactly what the magazines tells us to say.
I am in the company of liberals like Paul Krugman, Thomas Freidman and well... just about everyone who knows how the world turns. This isn't a liberal/conservative issue. This is a matter of fact. But you continue to ignore the academic world and reality.

Trust me, I know exactly how you feel. I've heard it before and I've even thought it before. But actually doing the research (inspired by the liberal Paul Krugman) opened my eyes. I was wrong. And so are you. I never tell someone that their opinions are flat-out wrong but this is not a matter of opinion. Since I see that you have a distrust of conservatives, I suggest that you start off with some reading by the liberals. You'd probably enjoy Krugman since he attacks the Republicans while defending free trade at the same time. Friedman has a pretty good documentary on outsourcing if you can find it.

Some Krugman articles...
http://www.pkarchive.org/

We share the same desire to better people's lives. But your way just doesn't work, not only in theory but historically.

Like I this sacrastic quote from Krugman, "We must stop the WTO, or those charming natives might get a shot at bettering themselves!"

[Arex]

Socially responsibility includes the reponsibility of corporations to reward the efficient. Why should we prevent citizens of other nations from holding jobs in American companies? You do realize that what you are proposing would devastate developing nations by putting millions out of work.How so? Obviously it's unrealistic and unreasonable to demand that foreign laborers working for American companies be paid the American federal minimum wage. But you're assuming that American corporations will stop conducting business with these developing countries if the American public demands that the corporations enforce certain minimum labor standards in their overseas factories. They won't because, until the developing country's economy catches up to the U.S., foreign labor can still be paid less because the cost of living is less. Even if we demand foreign laborers be limited to a "reasonable" work week and enforce a minimum working age, it will still be cheaper to use foreign labor. Yes, corporations' profit margins will take a hit or they will have to reduce their foreign labor force, reduce wages and salaries domestically and/or the American public will simply have to pay more for their goods. It's just a matter of redistribution. We do it here in the states by enforcing our own labor laws. Why is that such a bad thing? "Efficiency" should not be who can best exploit the foreign workforce in ways that we would never do within our own borders.

RX

[Yeahman]

^ What you're proposing has the same economic effect as tariffs. Fewer goods are sold and BOTH nations suffer. You answered your own "how so?" by saying "they will have to reduce their foreign labor force."

Now, I'm not saying that we should allow things that are just morally unacceptable such as forced labor. But I don't see what's so morally unacceptable about letting people voluntarily work even if the conditions are not so great. Why should we, in essence, ban these people from working?

Frances labor laws are much more pro-labor than those of the US. Should France say "US labor laws are subpar. We will not trade with them until they conform to our labor laws which has resulted in our high unemployment and low private investment."?

[Arex]

^ What you're proposing has the same economic effect as tariffs. Fewer goods are sold and BOTH nations suffer. You answered your own "how so?" by saying "they will have to reduce their foreign labor force."It kind of depends on what your definition of "suffer" is. Assuming American companies are still interested in utilizing the cheapest possible labor while still enforcing certain minimum acceptable labor conditions/reasonable wages, they will still employ foreign laborers because they will still be cheaper. Yes, to compensate for the extra expense of improving labor conditions overseas, American companies will either have to take a cut in profits, lower domestic salaries, increase prices for American consumers, reduce the number of overseas workers, or a combination of one or more of the above. Even if it's not the most efficient solution economically, like I said before, we're already enforcing labor standards domestically. Hell, any standard enforced by the govt. has the effect of injecting inefficiencies into the equation, so we're already living in a less than "efficient" economy. I'm willing to give up some level of efficiency to strive for a more level playing field in the shorter term. Obviously you're not.

Now, I'm not saying that we should allow things that are just morally unacceptable such as forced labor. But I don't see what's so morally unacceptable about letting people voluntarily work even if the conditions are not so great.It's unacceptable because we won't allow people to work under such conditions stateside. Seems kinda fucked up to make something illegal here, but to allow an American to engage in the illegal activity in a country where it is legal, and bring the fruits of the domestically illegal act home. If something's deemed exploitative, illegal and morally repugnant here, I don't see why one's point of view should change just because one crosses a border somewhere. For example, Child pornography is illegal here. But suppose child porn was legal in country X, and the children in country X willingly and enthusiastically participated in the thriving child porn industry there. Should the American public be perfectly okay with the fact that some American corporation is engaged in the highly profitable child porn industry in country X thereby making its American shareholders mucho $$$? You may be, but I'm not.

Why should we, in essence, ban these people from working?We're not banning anyone from working ('cept perhaps the underage workers). We're requiring their employers (and the American corporations to whom they answer) to satisfy minimum standards for working conditions. And they will because there will still be a demand for their still cheaper labor. If that means higher prices to sustain that, so be it. If that means a smaller foreign workforce, so be it. At least I know the people who did land those jobs weren't treated like dogs (even if they wouldn't have minded). The unlikely, but best case, scenario would simply mean smaller salaries for American CEOs and smaller corporate profits, without substantially affecting the size of the foreign workforce, or the prices of our goods. If people acted a little less selfishly, that might actually be the result.

RX

[hooligan]

I think your worst assumption in this situation is your belief in the ability of economic markets to change the world for the better. I think that the reason the world is in its current state is due to these markets.

[SunWuKong]

ye110man, i do agree with most of what you're saying, but not all of it. you do realise that the US itself didn't develop a big middle class without some socialist measures to curb the powers of big corporations, right? things like minimum wage and child labour laws for example. competitive wages at the level of menial labour simply doesn't exist, or doesn't exist yet, as can be seen by the fact that many companies only pay as much as minimum wage. sure, they would turn a bigger profit if they didn't have to adhere to minimum wage laws, but there is no guarantee that those profits wouldn't just go to giving CEOs a raise. a company turning more profit doesn't necessarily mean it will compensate its menial workers equivalently. this is evident especially in the early 1900s before certain legislation was drawn to provide more workers' rights. the only thing that happened was that the gap between the rich and the poor widened. likewise, without certain restrictions and enforcement, there's no guarantee that these foreign factories will progressively make people's lives better. these factories could continually keep their wages and working condition extremely low. that doesn't help the workers at all.

there's no reason why big corps can't raise the salaries and working conditions of their foreign factories without turning a bigger profit than if those operations were in the US. they can perfectly afford it. what will lower is their profit margin, not their revenue. so in essense they are keeping wages and working conditions low for a bigger profit margin, not because they couldn't afford these foreign operations otherwise.

[Yeahman]

It kind of depends on what your definition of "suffer" is. Assuming American companies are still interested in utilizing the cheapest possible labor while still enforcing certain minimum acceptable labor conditions/reasonable wages, they will still employ foreign laborers because they will still be cheaper. Yes, to compensate for the extra expense of improving labor conditions overseas, American companies will either have to take a cut in profits, lower domestic salaries, increase prices for American consumers, reduce the number of overseas workers, or a combination of one or more of the above. Even if it's not the most efficient solution economically, like I said before, we're already enforcing labor standards domestically. Hell, any standard enforced by the govt. has the effect of injecting inefficiencies into the equation, so we're already living in a less than "efficient" economy. I'm willing to give up some level of efficiency to strive for a more level playing field in the shorter term. Obviously you're not.
But you assume that this will have a positive effect.
According to the "fair" trade theory if every nation in the world had the labor standards of the strictest nation, then everyone would be better off. But that's simply not true. The result would be that consumption plummets and people become worse off.

It's unacceptable because we won't allow people to work under such conditions stateside. Seems kinda fucked up to make something illegal here, but to allow an American to engage in the illegal activity in a country where it is legal, and bring the fruits of the domestically illegal act home. If something's deemed exploitative, illegal and morally repugnant here, I don't see why one's point of view should change just because one crosses a border somewhere.
But we do it here in the US! California's minimum wage isn't applicable in other states. Different states have different labor laws.
I'm not saying that I agree with US labor laws either. Let's take sweatshops. Some people find them exploitative, morally repugnant, and they are illegal in the US. If the workers were forced against their will, then that would be a legitament concern. But these people fail to see the alternative to sweatshops; unemployment. So which is worse; working at a sweatshop or digging through garbage for food?

For example, Child pornography is illegal here. But suppose child porn was legal in country X, and the children in country X willingly and enthusiastically participated in the thriving child porn industry there. Should the American public be perfectly okay with the fact that some American corporation is engaged in the highly profitable child porn industry in country X thereby making its American shareholders mucho $$$? You may be, but I'm not.
We as a nation do not accept the consent of minors as legally binding and so kiddie porn is illegal. What minimum age we find acceptable is debatable. But any "willing and enthusiastic participation" before the age of consent, can still be considered forced labor.

We're not banning anyone from working ('cept perhaps the underage workers). We're requiring their employers (and the American corporations to whom they answer) to satisfy minimum standards for working conditions. And they will because there will still be a demand for their still cheaper labor. If that means higher prices to sustain that, so be it. If that means a smaller foreign workforce, so be it. At least I know the people who did land those jobs weren't treated like dogs (even if they wouldn't have minded). The unlikely, but best case, scenario would simply mean smaller salaries for American CEOs and smaller corporate profits, without substantially affecting the size of the foreign workforce, or the prices of our goods. If people acted a little less selfishly, that might actually be the result.
Again, I would ask you to keep in mind that the result would be higher unemployment. You would be protecting the income and comfort of the few. The result would be the exact opposite of what you intended.

I think your worst assumption in this situation is your belief in the ability of economic markets to change the world for the better. I think that the reason the world is in its current state is due to these markets.
History has proven you wrong but I understand that you don't like to look at history.

[kitty]

You sound just like my republican apartmentmate. They read ALL these things that they think are credible. That are regurgitated by experts and pundits from all these (conservative) journals and they really think they actually have a clue on how communities that these policies affect work? Please, cough up some credibility or continue to be viewed as just another talking head.


History has proven you wrong but I understand that you don't like to look at history.

Great discussion. A friendly reminder: let's keep things above the belt? :)

[kimpossible]

i <3 The Rev

[Yeahman]

ye110man, i do agree with most of what you're saying, but not all of it. you do realise that the US itself didn't develop a big middle class without some socialist measures to curb the powers of big corporations, right? things like minimum wage and child labour laws for example. competitive wages at the level of menial labour simply doesn't exist, or doesn't exist yet, as can be seen by the fact that many companies only pay as much as minimum wage. sure, they would turn a bigger profit if they didn't have to adhere to minimum wage laws, but there is no guarantee that those profits wouldn't just go to giving CEOs a raise. a company turning more profit doesn't necessarily mean it will compensate its menial workers equivalently. this is evident especially in the early 1900s before certain legislation was drawn to provide more workers' rights. the only thing that happened was that the gap between the rich and the poor widened. likewise, without certain restrictions and enforcement, there's no guarantee that these foreign factories will progressively make people's lives better. these factories could continually keep their wages and working condition extremely low. that doesn't help the workers at all.
Germany, Austria, Denmark, and Sweden are among the nations without a minimum wage. So long as there is a right to unionize, even menial labor can be competitive.
Minimum wage inevitably leads to unemployment. France has a minimum wage of over $10/hour and a max work week of 35 hours. These seem to be the kind of labor laws that some Americans want. The result for France has been doubt digit unemployment.

I am not opposed to a minimum wage, BTW. It's a very American concept. We believe that an honest day's work should at least keep us out of poverty. That's why I think $5.15/hour is still sufficient. It's the least a single person can make and still remain above the poverty line. It wouldn't keep single parents out of poverty but that problem is dealt with much better by welfare than by raising the min wage.

there's no reason why big corps can't raise the salaries and working conditions of their foreign factories without turning a bigger profit than if those operations were in the US. they can perfectly afford it. what will lower is their profit margin, not their revenue. so in essense they are keeping wages and working conditions low for a bigger profit margin, not because they couldn't afford these foreign operations otherwise.
Not all profits go to CEO's. Profits are MOSTLY reinvested creating more jobs.
And this isn't just about mutli-national corporations. Take a small business generating $35,000/year for the owner who hires an employee making $5.15/hour. Suppose that the minimum wage is raised to $10/hour. The small business owner can no longer afford to keep his employee. Result: unemployment.

[SunWuKong]

Germany, Austria, Denmark, and Sweden are among the nations without a minimum wage. So long as there is a right to unionize, even menial labor can be competitive.

i would consider the right to unionise a part of those socialist measures that i was talking about. i'm not saying you absolutely must have minimum wage. anyway, as it stands, many corporations actually don't allow unions. and then there are countries like China where if you want to belong to a union, it's got to be the state-sponsored union - and we all know that China is very pro-business right now.

actually i'm more of the mind that the powers of a union are too easily abused. i went to school in Pittsburgh and i remember even the cafeteria workers had a union where the union members dictate what time they want to work, and in what areas they'll work, etc etc. that's just ridiculous. Pittsburgh has a tradition of unionising because it used to be a steel town.

Not all profits go to CEO's. Profits are MOSTLY reinvested creating more jobs.
And this isn't just about mutli-national corporations. Take a small business generating $35,000/year for the owner who hires an employee making $5.15/hour. Suppose that the minimum wage is raised to $10/hour. The small business owner can no longer afford to keep his employee. Result: unemployment.


oh sure. i myself am opposed to raising minimum wage. at any rate, i'm not talking about small businesses. you can't say that there's a guarantee that big corps will use their profits to the benefit of their workers, especially their overseas workers. is it really that relevant that profits are mostly reinvested to creating more jobs? the question is, what is their intent? sure, more people will be employed, but if there are no measures to enforce it, those people aren't guaranteed fair wages and working conditions. with certain countries, the demand for factory jobs far outweighs the number of factory jobs available. there's really no incentive for these big corps to treat their workers that well because many of these jobs don't require special skills and the number of their workers is easily replenished if those workers leave. besides all that, the fact is still that you can cut a few million off some CEOs' salaries and give most of their developing nation factories' workers a raise. big corps aren't looking out for the interests of their menial workers - they only do so if it is to their own benefit, and it is not always to their benefit to do so. i'm not opposed to big corps opening factories in developing nations at all. i just want some measure of assurance that their workers are treated fairly, but definitely not measures that'll result in those factories closing down.

But these people fail to see the alternative to sweatshops; unemployment. So which is worse; working at a sweatshop or digging through garbage for food?

actually what i fail to see is how people see it as black-and-white like that. i think there's a lot of room between raising wages and working conditions in these factories, and causing these factories to close down because of operational costs.

[Arex]

But you assume that this will have a positive effect.
According to the "fair" trade theory if every nation in the world had the labor standards of the strictest nation, then everyone would be better off. But that's simply not true. The result would be that consumption plummets and people become worse off.But you're wrong. Only some people become worse off, i.e., those at the top (us) who rely on the cheap labor of those on the bottom to maintain their high standard of living. Admittedly, some number of those on the bottom may be forced out of their cushy American sweatshop jobs, depending on how the corporation chooses to deal with the added cost. Many of those at the bottom will benefit, however. And even though the cost of the shirt on my back will go up in price, I'll benefit in knowing my $ wasn't spent in perpetuating horrid working conditions abroad that I would not accept here.

Of course, this all assumes that there will be no new innovation to offset the added cost of ensuring decent working conditions abroad. Each time a new labor standard or manufacturing regulation is imposed on businesses, businesses cry that it'll be the end of them. But it never is because they always find new ways to flourish despite the added restrictions.

And this is not to say it should be up to the govt. to regulate this. The preferable, and more economically efficient way of doing this is with our pocketbooks. Reward those companies who engage in ethical business practices with our money.

We as a nation do not accept the consent of minors as legally binding and so kiddie porn is illegal. What minimum age we find acceptable is debatable. But any "willing and enthusiastic participation" before the age of consent, can still be considered forced labor.Nice dodge. You didn't even answer the question. A lot of us also just find the notion of children in porn to be morally repugnant, the same way we feel about children working in factories, aside from the consent issue. Let's assume the age of consent in that country is 8, and the children are not forced into the industry. Then what? Is it okay for an American company to participate in that frowned-upon industry for the sake of American shareholders? Would you purchase stock in that company?

Again, I would ask you to keep in mind that the result would be higher unemployment. You would be protecting the income and comfort of the few. The result would be the exact opposite of what you intended.Two things: 1) it would potentially mean higher unemployment for those seeking jobs at American sweatshops. Since I'm primarily concerned with the perpetuation of unacceptable labor conditions abroad by Americans, they can still be exploited in non-American owned factories if they want to be. At least I know the employees working at factories run off my $ will be taken care of. 2) You're assuming I'm not comfortable with unemployment. I accept a certain level of unemployment stateside because I believe that there are certain labor standards that all American businesses should abide by domestically. Why shouldn't I accept the risk of similar unemployment worldwide to ensure fair working conditions for the individuals who manufacture the products I enjoy? Because it'll raise my prices?? Big fucking deal, I say.

You say this would be protecting the income and comfort of "the few." Again whether prices or unemployment will go up all depends on the actions of the American businesses and the people who spend their $$$ supporting them. If more people placed some sort of value on the underlying business practices that led up to the creation of the goods we buy, then people would be willing to pay more for the items produced "ethically," and unemployment would not have to increase. Unfortunately, not enough of us do. That's the only reason why insisting on improved labor conditions abroad might result in what you consider to be economic inefficiency. Aside from that, the efficient choice doesn't necessarily have to be the unethical one. And cheaper does not necessarily mean more efficient.

RX

[Yeahman]

But you're wrong. Only some people become worse off, i.e., those at the top (us) who rely on the cheap labor of those on the bottom to maintain their high standard of living. Admittedly, some number of those on the bottom may be forced out of their cushy American sweatshop jobs, depending on how the corporation chooses to deal with the added cost.
Actually the biggest losers will be the min wage workers. Those at the top will not lose their jobs. Those on the bottom will. You proposal works against the poor.
Even if corporations bite the bullet and take the profit hit and keep all their employees, there are other factors! It's not only that costs increase, revenue decreases. When revenue decreases, that multiplies the disincentive to keep all their employees, because, well they don't need as many anymore! Also reinvestment decreases. Whatever that profit would have bought in terms of new factories or whatever, will no longer be bought.

Many of those at the bottom will benefit, however. And even though the cost of the shirt on my back will go up in price, I'll benefit in knowing my $ wasn't spent in perpetuating horrid working conditions abroad that I would not accept here.
OK so buy from the companies you want to buy from. You have that luxury. The poor do not.

Of course, this all assumes that there will be no new innovation to offset the added cost of ensuring decent working conditions abroad. Each time a new labor standard or manufacturing regulation is imposed on businesses, businesses cry that it'll be the end of them. But it never is because they always find new ways to flourish despite the added restrictions.
Actually, that's just factually incorrect. Textile working condition regulations marked the end of the US textile industry.
And even if a regulation does not kill an entire industry, it has its negative effects in lower employment.

Nice dodge. You didn't even answer the question. A lot of us also just find the notion of children in porn to be morally repugnant, the same way we feel about children working in factories, aside from the consent issue. Let's assume the age of consent in that country is 8, and the children are not forced into the industry. Then what? Is it okay for an American company to participate in that frowned-upon industry for the sake of American shareholders? Would you purchase stock in that company?
No because I would not accept an age of consent of 8. The proper age of consent is a whole other topic but I believe that those above the proper age of consent (whatever it may be) should be allowed to do whatever they want.
A lot of people find adult porn morally repugnant. We allow it because we believe in every adult's fundamental right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Two things: 1) it would potentially mean higher unemployment for those seeking jobs at American sweatshops. Since I'm primarily concerned with the perpetuation of unacceptable labor conditions abroad by Americans, they can still be exploited in non-American owned factories if they want to be. At least I know the employees working at factories run off my $ will be taken care of.
No, it would hurt overseas workers the most if the US one day decides that it will not trade with any nation who does not live up to American labor standards. Think of all the Chinese who would lose their jobs.

2) You're assuming I'm not comfortable with unemployment. I accept a certain level of unemployment stateside because I believe that there are certain labor standards that all American businesses should abide by domestically. Why shouldn't I accept the risk of similar unemployment worldwide to ensure fair working conditions for the individuals who manufacture the products I enjoy? Because it'll raise my prices?? Big fucking deal, I say.
Raise your prices? That's the least of my concerns. I'm worried about the poor family with both parents working min wage jobs who can luckily afford goods from Wal-Mart. I don't want them to lose their jobs or price products out of their reach. You believe that, hurting the bottom 10% or so is acceptable since it is for the good of the next 10% or so. I just cannot accept that.

You say this would be protecting the income and comfort of "the few." Again whether prices or unemployment will go up all depends on the actions of the American businesses and the people who spend their $$$ supporting them. If more people placed some sort of value on the underlying business practices that led up to the creation of the goods we buy, then people would be willing to pay more for the items produced "ethically," and unemployment would not have to increase. Unfortunately, not enough of us do. That's the only reason why insisting on improved labor conditions abroad might result in what you consider to be economic inefficiency. Aside from that, the efficient choice doesn't necessarily have to be the unethical one. And cheaper does not necessarily mean more efficient.
Let's build a hypothetical model of this perfect world. All labor standards are high, to everyone's liking, and are universal.
This will certainly increase costs. That will inevitably lead to unemployment. You said that it doesn't have to. Yes it does. The owner of the corner store can no longer afford to keep his employee. Like, I've said before, this hurts the poor disproportionately more than it hurts the rich. African-Americans and the young (those right out of high school or those working their way through college) would be hit the hardest. I read somewhere once that a 10% increase in the min wage would result in an 8% increase in unemployment among African-Americans.

What happens next is decreased revenue. People will not be able to afford as many goods and services. Standard of living decreases. You think there's a digital divide today? Imagine what would happen if all the manufacturing and servicing of computers had to be done in a manner that had to conform to US labor standards. I don't think I would be able to afford a computer.

Decreased revenue translates into decreased investment. It's a downward spiral.

actually i'm more of the mind that the powers of a union are too easily abused. i went to school in Pittsburgh and i remember even the cafeteria workers had a union where the union members dictate what time they want to work, and in what areas they'll work, etc etc. that's just ridiculous. Pittsburgh has a tradition of unionising because it used to be a steel town.
I agree. Haven't thought of a solution for this one.

[hooligan]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v143/hooliganucla/yellowworld/ad.jpg

i guess it's safe to say that as long as you're not directly affected, who really gives a shit about those who are?

think globally, act locally?

[Yeahman]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v143/hooliganucla/yellowworld/ad.jpg

i guess it's safe to say that as long as you're not directly affected, who really gives a shit about those who are?

think globally, act locally?


Wow you actually fell for that? 15 years ago it was South Korea and Taiwan. Now it's Indonesia? They recycle the same thing just with new countries while the countries they once complained about thrive.

hooligan, I really want a straight answer from you as to why you hate facts. Economic theory and history has proven you wrong. Not only that, but I find your willingness to throw poor people out of work, morally reprehensible.

Please at least read this piece by liberal, Paul Krugman... In Praise of Cheap Labor (http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/smokey.html)

[Arex]

My major point was--and perhaps I didn't make it clear enough in my posts above--if more people acted altruistically, instead of in their own self interest, then there would be much less of a disparity between the rich and the poor. There would be no need for exploitation because the wealthy would help the poor, not because the poor can help the wealthy, but because the rich want to directly help those in need. The rich would give up their wealth for the betterment of society as a whole. In my ideal world, communism would actually work. I fully acknowledge that communism is more or less unworkable, but it wouldn't be if humans weren't so damn selfish.

RX

[Napoleon Chynamite]

My major point was--and perhaps I didn't make it clear enough in my posts above--if more people acted altruistically, instead of in their own self interest, then there would be much less of a disparity between the rich and the poor. There would be no need for exploitation because the wealthy would help the poor, not because the poor can help the wealthy, but because the rich want to directly help those in need. The rich would give up their wealth for the betterment of society as a whole. In my ideal world, communism would actually work. I fully acknowledge that communism is more or less unworkable, but it wouldn't be if humans weren't so damn selfish.

RX

Well that's the thing. In your ideal world (and mine), it would be commonplace to expect altruistic actions and nothing else on the part of all people. In the real world, it just doesn't work that way. So it would be more realistic then, to support measures which take into full consideration natural human selfishness. I guess as a religious man who believes in the inherent, incurable, and inborn self-centeredness of humans, I feel a bit timid to push the envelope on this one given the already heated debate surrounding religion in association with the past election. But to say that communism would work if people weren't so selfish is different from supporting communism and saying that all states should incorporate a communist system of government because humans should be more selfless from a moral standpoint.

I personally don't agree with capitalism's core value(s) (a very individualistic approach ultimately worshipping the bottom line), but perhaps these values have been proven to be a bit more "workable" than those of communism as suggested by history because it caters to our every-man-for-himself inclinations With communism, the irony of a central all-powerful administrative apparatus and the issue of corruption aside, the natural tendencies of man clash with what socialist ideology promotes. Individuals don't feel motivated to work any harder than the next man simply because the distribution of awards is essentially supposed to be the same for all, or at least according to what one "needs". Here, it's different. We put in the extra time, investment, and effort. If our work ends up paying off, we benefit, we get the glory, money, profit, fame, privilege, recognition, etc. and we alone. But...that's just how I see it. I don't want to get into another religious debate here.

[SunWuKong]

Actually the biggest losers will be the min wage workers. Those at the top will not lose their jobs. Those on the bottom will. You proposal works against the poor.
Even if corporations bite the bullet and take the profit hit and keep all their employees, there are other factors! It's not only that costs increase, revenue decreases. When revenue decreases, that multiplies the disincentive to keep all their employees, because, well they don't need as many anymore! Also reinvestment decreases. Whatever that profit would have bought in terms of new factories or whatever, will no longer be bought.

there will be disincentive to keep their employees and reinvestment will decrease, sure, but that is all because they want to keep a high profit margin. and by the way, if these things happen, that's not really "biting the bullet". they'd just be being their usual greedy bastard selves. sure, they're there to make money and have no other obligations, that's just how businesses work. but that doesn't mean that we as consumers shouldn't demand better working conditions and better salaries for their workers in developing nations.

Raise your prices? That's the least of my concerns. I'm worried about the poor family with both parents working min wage jobs who can luckily afford goods from Wal-Mart. I don't want them to lose their jobs or price products out of their reach. You believe that, hurting the bottom 10% or so is acceptable since it is for the good of the next 10% or so. I just cannot accept that.

i partially agree with you. but then again, i'm more concerned about the workers in those factories than the bottom 10% in this nation because many of them are pretty well-off compared to those workers.


Let's build a hypothetical model of this perfect world. All labor standards are high, to everyone's liking, and are universal.
This will certainly increase costs. That will inevitably lead to unemployment. You said that it doesn't have to. Yes it does. The owner of the corner store can no longer afford to keep his employee. Like, I've said before, this hurts the poor disproportionately more than it hurts the rich. African-Americans and the young (those right out of high school or those working their way through college) would be hit the hardest. I read somewhere once that a 10% increase in the min wage would result in an 8% increase in unemployment among African-Americans.

What happens next is decreased revenue. People will not be able to afford as many goods and services. Standard of living decreases. You think there's a digital divide today? Imagine what would happen if all the manufacturing and servicing of computers had to be done in a manner that had to conform to US labor standards. I don't think I would be able to afford a computer.

Decreased revenue translates into decreased investment. It's a downward spiral.


not necessarily true. the reason this is true now is because the gap between the rich and the poor are allowed to widen. the reason why some companies wouldn't be able to afford minimum wage for their menial workers is because they want to keep their profit margin. well, you know, those that are paid a lot more than minimum wage can always take a pay-cut. i mean, come on, reinvestment? how much does Nike pay famous athletes for endorsements? with the same amount of money, they could raise working conditions in their factories. i wouldn't want to personally take a pay-cut, but if we're talking about a theoretical world where labour conditions are great for everybody, then we're basically talking about a redistribution of wealth where less money goes to the rich and the upper middle class, and the poor gets a little more.

[hooligan]

Krugman? This guy? The rock star of economists?

http://www.economist.com/people/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2208841

The one-handed economist
Nov 13th 2003
From The Economist print edition


Paul Krugman and the controversial art of popularising economics

“GIVE me a one-handed economist,” demanded a frustrated American president. “All my economists say, ‘on the one hand...on the other'”. From a mono-manual perspective, at least, Harry Truman would have loved Paul Krugman, an economist who rarely hesitates to take a bold position—even when the subject is himself. In recounting the transformation of his twice-weekly New York Times column from a genial discussion of the “New Economy” into a widely read broadside against the Bush administration, the Princeton professor recently described himself as “a lonely voice of truth in a sea of corruption.”

What is beyond dispute is that Mr Krugman is the finest economist to become a media superstar—at least since Milton Friedman or, earlier, John Maynard Keynes turned to journalism. Mr Krugman's work on currency crises and international trade is widely admired by other economists. He holds the John Bates Clark medal in economics, which is slightly harder to get than a Nobel prize. As for popularity, his new book, “The Great Unravelling”—his eighth aimed at a broad, non-academic readership—has spent eight weeks on the New York Times bestseller list.

The Economist, which itself has been known on occasion to clamber off the economic fence, can hardly criticise anybody for writing hard-hitting (yet engaging and accessible!) economic analyses. But, increasingly, people are asking whether Mr Krugman's success as a journalist is now coming at the expense of, rather than as the result of, his economics. For while he has had some journalistic coups during his time as a columnist—most notably in recognising, long before most other commentators, that market manipulation played a role in the California energy crisis—perhaps the most striking thing about his writing these days is not its economic rigour but its political partisanship.
RELATED ITEMS
From The Economist
The cult of celebrity professors
Mar 14th 2002
Harmonising taxes in Europe
Mar 29th 2001
New economists
Dec 17th 1998

City Guide
New York

Country Briefing
United States

More articles about...
Economics

Corporate leadership

Websites
Paul Krugman's columns and other writings are available at the Unofficial Paul Krugman Archive, while a collection of rebuttals to his critics (such as the National Review's Krugman Truth Squad) and other pieces are available on Mr Krugman's own web page.

Click to buy “The Great Unraveling” from Amazon.com (Amazon.co.uk)

Advertisment


Lyinginponds.com, a website that tracks partisanship among American political columnists, rates Mr Krugman second in the overall partisan slant of his columns, behind only Ann Coulter, a fiercely (and often incoherently) conservative polemicist. As the site documents exhaustively, the vast majority of Mr Krugman's columns feature attacks on Republicans; almost none criticise Democrats. Unsurprisingly, this has made him a sort of ivory-tower folk-hero of the American left—a thinking person's Michael Moore. But he may have even more readers among his ideological adversaries, particularly on the internet, where deconstructing his latest column is a kind of twice-weekly parlour game—albeit one so contentious it has spawned talk-show chatter and even legal threats.

He refers to these critics as his “stalkers”. Many of them spend an inordinate amount of time quibbling about minor semantic points, or trivial differences in statistics. But they cannot all be easily dismissed. The more reasonable ones allow that he is a gifted writer and economist, but also argue that these days his relentless partisanship is getting in the way of his argument. Is the American political and economic picture, they ask, really as one-sided as he paints it? And if not, should an economist of Mr Krugman's prominence be telling the public that it is?

A glance through his past columns reveals a growing tendency to attribute all the world's ills to George Bush. Regarding California's energy crisis, for example, he berated the Bush administration and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for not imposing price caps sooner—but found no room to mention Bill Clinton, who presided over a similarly inactive FERC for the first part of the crisis, nor to attack California's then Democratic governor Gray Davis for his disastrous refusal to allow consumer prices to rise. After Mahathir Mohamad, the prime minister of Malaysia, recently gave an anti-Semitic speech, Mr Krugman argued that the Bush administration's ham-fisted foreign policy had forced Dr Mahathir to make the remarks in order to shore up domestic political support—most unlikely, given that he was about to step down.

Even his economics is sometimes stretched. A recent piece accused conservatives of embracing the “lump of labour fallacy”, the mistaken claim that there is a fixed quantity of work which governments must strive to allocate equitably. In fact, the paper he cited did not commit the lump of labour fallacy. He used game theory to argue that, by criticising North Korea but not attacking it, and then going after Iraq instead, Mr Bush is “probably” encouraging North Korea to become a more dangerous nuclear power. This probably did not convince most game theorists. Overall, the effect is to give lay readers the illusion that Mr Krugman's perfectly respectable personal political beliefs can somehow be derived empirically from economic theory.

No such thing as a free lunch

Now that he is a journalist, it is perhaps not surprising that Mr Krugman seems to have embraced the concept of the free lunch—even though as an economist he should know better. Every opportunity (including lunch, and even including Mr Krugman's favoured policies) has a cost. Decision-making, not least in politics, tends to be hard because it involves trading off those costs and benefits, with the resulting net gains often marginal and uncertain. Surely one of an economist's main tasks is to remind one-handed politicians, and their constituents, that economic choices generally come in shades of grey, not black and white—even when they are made by one's political rivals.

Many of Mr Krugman's fellow economists, jealous of his celebrity, comfort themselves with the thought that his angry rants have hurt his reputation enough to ensure he will not now win a Nobel prize. They may be kidding themselves. The Nobel committee has not been averse in the past to giving the prize to economists who have achieved popular notoriety, as its awards to Mr Friedman and, more recently, Joseph Stiglitz show. Mr Krugman is probably still in the running.

Is rated one of the highest partisan talking heads. ever. Right behind Ann. Actually, very left leaning. http://lyinginponds.com/ Not due to his policies though, more because all he does is bash Bush.

Wow you actually fell for that? 15 years ago it was South Korea and Taiwan. Now it's Indonesia? They recycle the same thing just with new countries while the countries they once complained about thrive.

hooligan, I really want a straight answer from you as to why you hate facts. Economic theory and history has proven you wrong. Not only that, but I find your willingness to throw poor people out of work, morally reprehensible.

Please at least read this piece by liberal, Paul Krugman... In Praise of Cheap Labor (http://web.mit.edu/krugman/www/smokey.html)
History? Economic Theory? Provide me some historical context please. As for economic theory, I'm not arguing my point from that angle. I'm saying that as Americans we can choose to protect labor and be better consumers.

I hate the facts? Only when they're created by white collared men who sit behind desks who don't think about the real costs of making a product in a sweatshop and the abuses that come with it. Poor people out of work? My parents used to be one of those people and I really don't want anyone's parents or anyone period to go through the same that my parents went through. Please, go back to your nice middle class life. I'm sure the only position you've got is one of privelege.

[kitty]

I'm not sure that this has been brought up, here, but just to toss it in the mix, if you don't raise minimum wages/working conditions for corporations with factories abroad, you encourage the outsourcing of jobs to those countries and are, in the long run, putting money into their countries. While raising minimum wages and working conditions may cause an increase in unemployment there, the status quo promotes unemployment in America.

[deez nuts]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v143/hooliganucla/yellowworld/ad.jpg

i guess it's safe to say that as long as you're not directly affected, who really gives a shit about those who are?

think globally, act locally?



it's not gonna stop me from buying my air max and nike shox.

although i don't buy from the chinese owned and runned sweatshops that make the fake nikes that you see being sold on e-bay and in chinatown.

[SunWuKong]

it's not gonna stop me from buying my air max and nike shox.

although i don't buy from the chinese owned and runned sweatshops that make the fake nikes that you see being sold on e-bay and in chinatown.

actually a lot of brand name clothing lines use those Chinatown sweatshops to make minor corrections on their inventory.

[deez nuts]

actually a lot of brand name clothing lines use those Chinatown sweatshops to make minor corrections on their inventory.

i know and they get sold at the designer's outlet stores and in discount stores e.g. filene's basement, thus passing the savings to me. i'll buy those cuz they're real.

i just refuse to buy fakes.

speaking of which and help a brother out.

i'm currently looking for these bad boys:

the nike air max'95 atmos size 11.5/12:

http://www.instyleshoes.com/images/kicks/306251271r.jpg

[ellsworth81]

i know and they get sold at the designer's outlet stores and in discount stores e.g. filene's basement, thus passing the savings to me. i'll buy those cuz they're real.

i just refuse to buy fakes.

speaking of which and help a brother out.

i'm currently looking for these bad boys:

the nike air max'95 atmos size 11.5/12:

http://www.instyleshoes.com/images/kicks/306251271r.jpg

those things are hideous

you must be joking

and whoever said $5.15 keeps one out of poverty, that's kinda debatable - you would be relying on a lot of govt services or subsisting on shitty food and facilities.

[kitty]

i know and they get sold at the designer's outlet stores and in discount stores e.g. filene's basement, thus passing the savings to me. i'll buy those cuz they're real.

i just refuse to buy fakes.

speaking of which and help a brother out.

i'm currently looking for these bad boys:

the nike air max'95 atmos size 11.5/12:

http://www.instyleshoes.com/images/kicks/306251271r.jpg

well, i feel stupid posting after ells on this, but those are really nice. I like the colours... and the shoe doesn't look too clashy/busy. are you actually gonna be running/working out with 'em or is this fashionable everyday-wear?

shox are slightly better for your knees if you'll be doing heavy running, but they also tend to be heavier to lift than the air maxes.

they look a little high and narrow at the ankle, so make sure it's a snug fit but not too high for your arch. but yes, those are nice.

i used to work at foot locker one summer where i actually did all the reading and training to find out all i could about athletic shoes. i really ended up liking nike stuff.

edit: oooops... you meant you were looking FOR that style, not looking at it... my bad.

[deez nuts]

well, i feel stupid posting after ells on this, but those are really nice. I like the colours... and the shoe doesn't look too clashy/busy. are you actually gonna be running/working out with 'em or is this fashionable everyday-wear?

shox are slightly better for your knees if you'll be doing heavy running, but they also tend to be heavier to lift than the air maxes.

they look a little high and narrow at the ankle, so make sure it's a snug fit but not too high for your arch. but yes, those are nice.

i used to work at foot locker one summer where i actually did all the reading and training to find out all i could about athletic shoes. i really ended up liking nike stuff.

edit: oooops... you meant you were looking FOR that style, not looking at it... my bad.

wow that's pretty impressive sneaker knowledge. nice. that's hot.

they're not for working out or running. those are the limited edition air max'95 athos. they're hard to find.

for working out and running shoe i usually opt for shox or new balance. a podiatrist told me that shox after a long time are bad for your feet because it unevenly distributes the weight of your foot. dunno if that's true. the best running sneakers he says are new balance. but, i wear shox around the hospital.

sorry to go off topic.

as for the topic, i think it's hard pressed to find a pc designer that has good labor practices. i know they're out there. but, i generally wouldn't buy them cuz they're any of the following combinations 1)hideous 2)not worth it for me to go out of my way for them 3)generally more expensive everyday items 4)i'm a label whore when it comes to clothes.

[kitty]

wow that's pretty impressive sneaker knowledge. nice. that's hot.


You can say it -- it's nerdy :)


for working out and running shoe i usually opt for shox or new balance. a podiatrist told me that shox after a long time are bad for your feet because it unevenly distributes the weight of your foot. dunno if that's true. the best running sneakers he says are new balance. but, i wear shox around the hospital.


New Balance are great shoes b/c of one main thing: they are wide and made for comfort. They're great for anyone with unusually shaped feet, or people with no arches, because they provide great arch support, without being too rigid so as to hurt those with flat feet. I recommended them to older people who had trouble with their feet hurting from prolonged walking, people with large feet, or people who were using them for casual uses. Usually they were the most comfortable of all the shoes people tried on....

For running, they're good, but the sole doesn't provide any extra focussed cushioning to absorb the shocks of different sports. Air Max provides extra cushioning both under the ball and the sole, so if you run predominantly but do other sports like raquetball, go for something like that... shox are pretty much strict runners. they probably do hurt your feet after extremely prolonged use, given the way they effect weight distribution, but the supported springiness of the shox allows for more efficient and safer running for most purposes.. I'm sure with the neg. side effects we're talking almost excessive running...

One main thing. NEVER wear tennis shoes, those dumb nike nylon things that were in awhile ago, or any other completely flat shoe to do sports. It's dumb -- you can totally fuck up your arches and knees, that way. I was so pissed when moms would come in and let their kids pick out the fashionable but useless tennis shoes for gym...

Yeah, sorry for going off topic.


as for the topic, i think it's hard pressed to find a pc designer that has good labor practices. i know they're out there. but, i generally wouldn't buy them cuz they're any of the following combinations 1)hideous 2)not worth it for me to go out of my way for them 3)generally more expensive everyday items 4)i'm a label whore when it comes to clothes.

Agreed, while I agree that there should be safe labour practices globally, and AM concerned about the status quo's effect on the N. American job market, the 'labour-safe' companies simply aren't competitive right now. It's almost impossible to go to a generic mall and find a product that you know for sure isn't a sweatshop labour thing.

[SunWuKong]

as for the topic, i think it's hard pressed to find a pc designer that has good labor practices. i know they're out there. but, i generally wouldn't buy them cuz they're any of the following combinations 1)hideous 2)not worth it for me to go out of my way for them 3)generally more expensive everyday items 4)i'm a label whore when it comes to clothes.


yeah, for me, i'm all about the prices, unless it's something that's more important to me than usual like a suit or something. loosely boycotting a brand without any organisation or direction isn't going to help factory workers anyway. it'll make big companies cut jobs if anything.

[Yeahman]

Is rated one of the highest partisan talking heads. ever. Right behind Ann. Actually, very left leaning.
That's why I suggested him since you said:
"You sound just like my republican apartmentmate. They read ALL these things that they think are credible. That are regurgitated by experts and pundits from all these (conservative) journals and they really think they actually have a clue on how communities that these policies affect work?"

This is not a partisan issue. As you have seen for yourself, even the most partisan economists can agree on the FACT that free trade is good for the world.

History? Economic Theory? Provide me some historical context please.
I did. Everything you have said has been said for centuries. Yet these economic myths still exist. Before Indonesia it was South Korea and Taiwan and before that Japan. 100 years ago it was the US. Look at them today. Sweatshops have always been the stepping stone to economic greatness.


As for economic theory, I'm not arguing my point from that angle. I'm saying that as Americans we can choose to protect labor and be better consumers.
YOU can. The poor don't have that luxury to choose the more expensive goods.

I hate the facts? Only when they're created by white collared men who sit behind desks who don't think about the real costs of making a product in a sweatshop and the abuses that come with it. Poor people out of work? My parents used to be one of those people and I really don't want anyone's parents or anyone period to go through the same that my parents went through. Please, go back to your nice middle class life. I'm sure the only position you've got is one of privelege.
Yes you hate the facts which is why you cannot address any of them and just resort to ad hominen attacks.
What you propose will put poor people out of work. That is an undisputable fact yet that's what you want.

i partially agree with you. but then again, i'm more concerned about the workers in those factories than the bottom 10% in this nation because many of them are pretty well-off compared to those workers.
Same concept applies. If costs rise, those factory workers in other nations will be laid off.

not necessarily true. the reason this is true now is because the gap between the rich and the poor are allowed to widen. the reason why some companies wouldn't be able to afford minimum wage for their menial workers is because they want to keep their profit margin. well, you know, those that are paid a lot more than minimum wage can always take a pay-cut. i mean, come on, reinvestment? how much does Nike pay famous athletes for endorsements? with the same amount of money, they could raise working conditions in their factories. i wouldn't want to personally take a pay-cut, but if we're talking about a theoretical world where labour conditions are great for everybody, then we're basically talking about a redistribution of wealth where less money goes to the rich and the upper middle class, and the poor gets a little more.
Nike pays millions for endorsements after doing a cost-benefit analysis which determines that they would generate even more in revenue. Drop the endorsements and factories in Southeast Asia start closing.

And nobody seems to realize that people want to work for Nike! Nike has given countless Asians a living. Nike does redistribute wealth. The rich pay $200 for sneakers which pays the salaries of poor factory workers.

Also, everybody seems to be concentrating on the big multi-nationals when the majority of jobs are created by small business. Sure, Nike can afford to absorb higher costs. The small mom-and-pop store around the corner, cannot.


I was listening to this Chinese guy once who made Christmas ornaments in China. He was earning some unbelieveably low wage and subject to horrible working conditions. A priest suggested that we Americans should boycott. The Chinese man was arguing AGAINST a boycott saying that he would be out of job then.

I'm not sure that this has been brought up, here, but just to toss it in the mix, if you don't raise minimum wages/working conditions for corporations with factories abroad, you encourage the outsourcing of jobs to those countries and are, in the long run, putting money into their countries. While raising minimum wages and working conditions may cause an increase in unemployment there, the status quo promotes unemployment in America.
It's an international redistribution of wealth. We Americans can't be greedy and try to hold down the developing nations forever. Outsourcing is a beautiful thing, isn't it?

But it's not a zero-sum game. Wealth isn't finite. Suppose that you raise wages in China and India so that American jobs aren't outsourced. That would require a massive increase in wages, but suppose that we do that. The jobs stay in America right? Not exactly. Because it costs more, companies just won't higher as many people. Wal-Mart can no longer sell stuff so cheap. The poor can not longer afford Wal-Mart. Consumption decreases. The economy slows down. Companies have to lay people off.

[kitty]

It's an international redistribution of wealth. We Americans can't be greedy and try to hold down the developing nations forever. Outsourcing is a beautiful thing, isn't it?

I'm merely pointing out that America has no legal responsibility to care about working conditions in other nations -- the responsibility is essentially moral. That helps your case.

However, if we do not increase wages abroad, and do not encourage more manufacturing work to remain here, there's a large class of Americans who cannot find jobs. It is within our best interest to keep those people in mind -- and you have largely not done that. You have not explained what happens to lower to lower middle class in your America.


But it's not a zero-sum game. Wealth isn't finite. Suppose that you raise wages in China and India so that American jobs aren't outsourced. That would require a massive increase in wages, but suppose that we do that. The jobs stay in America right? Not exactly. Because it costs more, companies just won't higher as many people. Wal-Mart can no longer sell stuff so cheap. The poor can not longer afford Wal-Mart. Consumption decreases. The economy slows down. Companies have to lay people off.


The poor can't afford WalMart now. The question right now that you must address is: is there a greater benefit to the poor having all factory jobs internationally, or having many domestically which employ fewer people? It's harsh, but the question must also address the fact that a few employed Americans should mean more to America than many employed people in another country.

Sure, there will be people in America without jobs if WalMart moved manufacturing back to the States, but prices won't increase that much if WalMart cuts into their profit margin a little (did you know that manufacturing costs for most products is a few cents to a few dollars? That includes min. wage labour plus the cost of the raw ingredients... all stores could sell at WalMart prices if they wanted, and still make a nice little profit). The question is whether or not America is willing to force their hand and work towards employing a fewer number of people here under better conditions at, the expense of a larger number of people working in sweatshop labour conditions, abroad.

This is not a partisan issue. As you have seen for yourself, even the most partisan economists can agree on the FACT that free trade is good for the world.


Uhm... no, they don't all agree. That's why it's an issue to even talk about.

[Yeahman]

The poor can't afford WalMart now. The question right now that you must address is: is there a greater benefit to the poor having all factory jobs internationally, or having many domestically which employ fewer people? It's harsh, but the question must also address the fact that a few employed Americans should mean more to America than many employed people in another country.

Sure, there will be people in America without jobs if WalMart moved manufacturing back to the States, but prices won't increase that much if WalMart cuts into their profit margin a little (did you know that manufacturing costs for most products is a few cents to a few dollars? That includes min. wage labour plus the cost of the raw ingredients... all stores could sell at WalMart prices if they wanted, and still make a nice little profit). The question is whether or not America is willing to force their hand and work towards employing a fewer number of people here under better conditions at, the expense of a larger number of people working in sweatshop labour conditions, abroad.
It is in America's best interest to have a policy of free trade (which includes jobs).
Taking your idea to the extreme, would it be beneficial for us to ban the importation of all goods and services that can be produced in the US? One would think so at first. If the US had to make everything, we'd have lots of jobs and the money would remain circulating within the US. We would have a massive trade surplus. But this doesn't work in theory and in practice. You can say goodbye to sub-$1000 computers. Just imagine the effects of that alone. In this day and age, that would have catastrophic consequences.

And yes, costs per unit may only rise a few cents. It doesn't matter. Multiply that by the number of units and it adds up. Even if it doesn't affect price all that much, it would affect business decisions. For example, perhaps a computer component costs $1 to manufacture in China. In the US it would cost $3. Not a big deal especially considering the price of the whole computer, right? But the company may figure that the component is not worth $3. Or in other words that what was a cheap incentive before to draw more customers, is not worth the investment anymore. It's better for them to drop the component and lose some customers. Even though you or I would have been willing to pay the extra $2, the company has to base their decisions on volume. It happens all the time. Products are dropped completely if they do not prove to be worth the extra cost.

In terms of history we've seen nations attempt to be self-sufficient with disasterous consequences. 50 years ago Japan was were India was. Yet it was Japan that pulled away to become the 2nd largest economy in the world. India during the last 50 years is the classic case of what protectionism can do to a nation.
In the US, 30 years ago we saw the car manufacturing jobs move overseas. Detroit couldn't compete with Japan's cheaply manufactured cars. If we banned the importation of Japanese cars, we would have gone the way of India. Perhaps not to that extent but we wouldn't have the quality of cars we have today. Global competition may not have helped the factory worker who got laid off in Detroit but it benefits nearly every other American and benefits future generations as well.

Uhm... no, they don't all agree. That's why it's an issue to even talk about.
All economists agree that free trade is good. This is not an issue economists talk about. It's just accepted.


This discussion reminds me of an episode of the West Wing on free trade. The president favored it because it is good. That's a fact. But the other side that was presented was the human face instead of the theory and statistics. That's what hooligan was trying to say when he said he knew that economics favors free trade but does not factor in the human cost; The father who has to provide for this family and now can't because his job is being moved to India. It's unfortunate, but the moral of the episode was that despite all that and even if it was politically unpopular, it was the right thing for America and had to be done. The people who lose their jobs should be aided perhaps with education or financial aid. It's not their fault and it seems unfair. But we cannot sacrifice the welbeing of the whole of America for the benefit of a few.

[SunWuKong]

Same concept applies. If costs rise, those factory workers in other nations will be laid off.

again, that's where i disagree. i think there's room for them to improve working conditions and still not have to lay off anybody.


Nike pays millions for endorsements after doing a cost-benefit analysis which determines that they would generate even more in revenue. Drop the endorsements and factories in Southeast Asia start closing.

well, firstly, with that revenue, they may go to pay for some more million-dollar endorsements and 7 or 8-figure salaries of executives. which means that a large chunk of it doesn't go directly to a reinvestment that'll create more jobs. and secondly, you're assuming that those cost-benefit analysis for marketting is accurate enough that it'll benefit the business enough to create more jobs.

and if we're talking about shoes, the marketting really serves to gain a bigger percentage of the market from competitors, not so much as to create a market that doesn't already exist. so even if these endorsements are very successful, it only means that their competitors' business will be hampered and they can't reinvest as much in opening factories in developing nations, while the business itself will be able to do so. it doesn't really create jobs. it just basically moves workers from, for example, a Reebok factory, to a Nike factory.

And nobody seems to realize that people want to work for Nike! Nike has given countless Asians a living. Nike does redistribute wealth. The rich pay $200 for sneakers which pays the salaries of poor factory workers.

Also, everybody seems to be concentrating on the big multi-nationals when the majority of jobs are created by small business. Sure, Nike can afford to absorb higher costs. The small mom-and-pop store around the corner, cannot.

I was listening to this Chinese guy once who made Christmas ornaments in China. He was earning some unbelieveably low wage and subject to horrible working conditions. A priest suggested that we Americans should boycott. The Chinese man was arguing AGAINST a boycott saying that he would be out of job then.

oh, i'm not for boycotting these companies just randomly. but i'm also not naive enough to think that their whole business model will by some natural law of economics be as beneficial to the factory workers as these big corps can afford to be. i'm just saying i think they can improve working conditions and salaries without having to close down factories.

and about the mom-and-pop stores - again, i'm more concerned about the factory workers in developing nations than the mom-and-pop retail stores here in the US.

[kitty]

ye110, please stop side-stepping this issue: I ask again, what happens to the lower to lower middle class in your America? The ones who are out of a job right now, when the big corps move their factories overseas to take advantage of nonexistent fair labour laws interntionally?

[Yeahman]

ye110, please stop side-stepping this issue: I ask again, what happens to the lower to lower middle class in your America? The ones who are out of a job right now, when the big corps move their factories overseas to take advantage of nonexistent fair labour laws interntionally?
They get different jobs. Joseph Schumpeter called it "creative destruction." Let China make T-shirts. We'll make pharmaceutical drugs. Let India take tech support calls. We'll make Windows. Protectionism stifles competition and innovation. We would live in a stagnant economy like that of India until recently. Nations like Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan have been very competitive and innovative precisely because of the rapid creative destruction. Their low-wage manufacturing jobs did not stay for very long as these nations which we used to outsource to began to outsource themselves. But can anyone today say that they are worse off for it? Imagine what would have happened if these nations attempted, in the 70's and 80's, to protect their low-wage manufacturing jobs from moving to places like Indonesia and China.

And when you say "lower to lower middle class", the vast majority of them don't lose their jobs when factories move overseas. Sure a lot do but they are greatly outnumbered by those lower to lower middle class people who benefit from these factories moving overseas. These people can now afford TV's and microwaves. This process helps the most people.

[SunWuKong]

ye110, please stop side-stepping this issue: I ask again, what happens to the lower to lower middle class in your America? The ones who are out of a job right now, when the big corps move their factories overseas to take advantage of nonexistent fair labour laws interntionally?

kitty, according to the Department of Commerce, we actually insource more in terms of monetary amounts than we outsource. that means more money is coming from overseas companies using our domestic business services than vice versa.

[kitty]

kitty, according to the Department of Commerce, we actually insource more in terms of monetary amounts than we outsource. that means more money is coming from overseas companies using our domestic business services than vice versa.

... but where is that money going? I'm not an economics person, so I don't claim to be able to understand more than the basics of this stuff, but... if we outsource cheap manufacturing jobs, than there is a vacuum in the workforce. True, other jobs might get created or more money is being pupmped back into the american economy, but is there a definitive way to ensure that the job vacuum which puts lower educated or lower class americans out of a job is filled by this 'insourcing'? i.e., those americans can actually fill the jobs that are being created?

[SunWuKong]

... but where is that money going? I'm not an economics person, so I don't claim to be able to understand more than the basics of this stuff, but... if we outsource cheap manufacturing jobs, than there is a vacuum in the workforce. True, other jobs might get created or more money is being pupmped back into the american economy, but is there a definitive way to ensure that the job vacuum which puts lower educated or lower class americans out of a job is filled by this 'insourcing'? i.e., those americans can actually fill the jobs that are being created?

perhaps unfortunate, but that's how it has always been ever since the industrial revolution. economies move up the value chain in the goods/services they produce and people migrate to higher-end jobs. and there's also something to be said about the fact that the US is the richest country in the world, and really, in my opinion, there are many many more people elsewhere that are more needy, like the factory workers in developing nations.

[Yeahman]

... but where is that money going? I'm not an economics person, so I don't claim to be able to understand more than the basics of this stuff, but... if we outsource cheap manufacturing jobs, than there is a vacuum in the workforce. True, other jobs might get created or more money is being pupmped back into the american economy, but is there a definitive way to ensure that the job vacuum which puts lower educated or lower class americans out of a job is filled by this 'insourcing'? i.e., those americans can actually fill the jobs that are being created?
Obviously, the vacuum does not remain for very long. The US has relatively low unemployment. Much lower than the countries we are actually outsourcing to. In fact, Bush no longer holds the title of "only president since Herbert Hoover to have lost jobs." We are up now since Clinton. 2.2 million jobs were created since the depths of the unemployment in August of 2002. With all the talk of outsourcing you wouldn't think that was the case. BTW, any talk of more than 2.2 million jobs lost during Bush's term is in reference to private sector jobs. Bush's high government spending created over a million jobs (traditionally a Democratic tactic).

But there is no once-size-fits-all answer to your question as to where the next wave of jobs will come from. Who could have guessed in the 80's that the boom of the 90's would come in information technology? But they just come. Unpredicatably but surely. It is also a certainty that we will be better off. We always hear that the poor are getting poorer and the rich are getting richer. The fact is that the poor are also getting richer. Perhaps at a slower rate than the rich, but there is no doubt that the poor of today is better off than the poor of the 80's who were better off than the poor of the 60's, and so on all the way back to the dawn of the Industrial Revolution.
As the laws of economics dictate, resources are allocated according to demand. If we trade manufacturing jobs for IT jobs, it just means that the later is a more efficient allocation of resources. The US economy gets more bang for the buck (or more specifically in this case, more bang for the labor).
This is also the reason why many oppose excessive government regulation. It introduces artifical inefficiencies into this naturally efficient economic system.

Well that's the thing. In your ideal world (and mine), it would be commonplace to expect altruistic actions and nothing else on the part of all people. In the real world, it just doesn't work that way. So it would be more realistic then, to support measures which take into full consideration natural human selfishness. I guess as a religious man who believes in the inherent, incurable, and inborn self-centeredness of humans, I feel a bit timid to push the envelope on this one given the already heated debate surrounding religion in association with the past election. But to say that communism would work if people weren't so selfish is different from supporting communism and saying that all states should incorporate a communist system of government because humans should be more selfless from a moral standpoint.

I personally don't agree with capitalism's core value(s) (a very individualistic approach ultimately worshipping the bottom line), but perhaps these values have been proven to be a bit more "workable" than those of communism as suggested by history because it caters to our every-man-for-himself inclinations With communism, the irony of a central all-powerful administrative apparatus and the issue of corruption aside, the natural tendencies of man clash with what socialist ideology promotes. Individuals don't feel motivated to work any harder than the next man simply because the distribution of awards is essentially supposed to be the same for all, or at least according to what one "needs". Here, it's different. We put in the extra time, investment, and effort. If our work ends up paying off, we benefit, we get the glory, money, profit, fame, privilege, recognition, etc. and we alone. But...that's just how I see it. I don't want to get into another religious debate here.
In the real world Bill Gates donates billions to charity. When Bush proposed his dividend tax cut, I often used Bill Gates as an example of how it is really a tax cut for the rich in disguise. Gates stood the most to gain. Little did I know that it would all go to charity.

Like I've said before, capitalism is not a zero-sum game. Just because Bill Gates is rich it doesn't mean that someone else must be poor.

Capitalism's core values are argueably, rooted in Christianity. I don't buy it but the Protestant Ethic is a popular theory.

There is an often neglicted point about communism that renders it unworkable or rather, undesireable. A planned economy leads to less financial freedom. The founding philosophy of any communist society must allow for massive restrictions on individual liberty in order to regulate economic activity. This increases the need for a more totalitarian government both to plan the economy and to suppress cries for liberty.

[SunWuKong]

But there is no once-size-fits-all answer to your question as to where the next wave of jobs will come from. Who could have guessed in the 80's that the boom of the 90's would come in information technology? But they just come. Unpredicatably but surely. It is also a certainty that we will be better off. We always hear that the poor are getting poorer and the rich are getting richer. The fact is that the poor are also getting richer. Perhaps at a slower rate than the rich, but there is no doubt that the poor of today is better off than the poor of the 80's who were better off than the poor of the 60's, and so on all the way back to the dawn of the Industrial Revolution.

yeah but i think it's cause for concern when the gap between the rich and the poor are getting bigger.

anyway, there's always the service and tourism sectors. but then again, we're already making automated cashiers and Bush and the Iraq war doesn't exactly do a lot to attract tourists to the US.

if i have kids, by the time they're ready to go into the workforce, they'll probably need PhDs to compete. :rolleyes:

[tommyhtown]

yeah but i think it's cause for concern when the gap between the rich and the poor are getting bigger.


I would add that the gap between the middle class and the rich are also getting bigger. Things like gasoline, natural gas, and cost of healthcare really take a big chunk off the middle-class payroll.


if i have kids, by the time they're ready to go into the workforce, they'll probably need PhDs to compete. :rolleyes:

And I think my kids and your kids will have to compete for jobs at a global level not just at local or national level anymore due to outsourcing :rolleyes:

[Yeahman]

if i have kids, by the time they're ready to go into the workforce, they'll probably need PhDs to compete. :rolleyes:
I disagree. I think higher education will actually become less important in the future. The bulk of the jobs in the US will come from non-outsourceable services like medicine, retail, food services, construction, automotive repair...

[SunWuKong]

I disagree. I think higher education will actually become less important in the future. The bulk of the jobs in the US will come from non-outsourceable services like medicine, retail, food services, construction, automotive repair...


well, great. of all that you listed, i would only want my kids to be in medicine, unless they own their retail, food services, construction, or automotive repair businesses. no PhDs needed, but MDs required. :tongue: middle or higher management is alright, but i don't exactly want them to become a cashier, a waiter, a construction worker, or a mechanic. not that there's anything wrong with the natures of those jobs, but i would want my kids to make more money than that.

[kitty]

I disagree. I think higher education will actually become less important in the future. The bulk of the jobs in the US will come from non-outsourceable services like medicine, retail, food services, construction, automotive repair...


How is that a good thing for the US? That's not only outsourcing jobs, but outsourcing education, as well. You didn't list any high tech or research positions there -- and the US would be greatly weakened if all the great minds of the generation are making a mass exodus to another country. You want a great country of undereducated McDonald's hamburger flippers flipping hamburgers for one another?

[Yeahman]

I'm not saying that other jobs won't exist. They just won't all be concentrated in one place. There will be chemical engineers in Africa and economists in China. The jobs will be where it is most efficient to be. A free flow of jobs.
But the bulk of the jobs will be in areas that can't be outsourced. This isn't the case just in the US, but all nations will eventually experience this.
BTW, I think medicine is so prestigous in large part because of restrictive medical licensing. If the AMA was less restrictive, the medical profession wouldn't be any better or worse than automotive repair.

kitty, there will always be new jobs in new areas that we aren't even able to imagine today. But that doesn't mean they'll stay either. And because jobs are becoming increasing mobile, I think that eventually people will catch on and realize that the stable jobs are in areas such as medicine and retail or whatever jobs that must remain local.

Anyway, this is just my prediction. Who knows. Maybe the current trend will continue. Myabe people will continue to demand more and more education. I don't exactly see that as a good thing though. It just dilutes the educational system unnecessarily.

[SunWuKong]

kitty, there will always be new jobs in new areas that we aren't even able to imagine today. But that doesn't mean they'll stay either. And because jobs are becoming increasing mobile, I think that eventually people will catch on and realize that the stable jobs are in areas such as medicine and retail or whatever jobs that must remain local.

Anyway, this is just my prediction. Who knows. Maybe the current trend will continue. Myabe people will continue to demand more and more education. I don't exactly see that as a good thing though. It just dilutes the educational system unnecessarily.

by no means do i want more protectionistic trade barriers, but i guess i'm a little less opportunistic than that. i know that in the past, new jobs will be created by new industries. but we're at a height of global communication right now, and i feel that wealth distribution will increasingly become more equalised at the expense of the US economy. i think that this is only natural as trade barriers come down and developing nations build up their infrastructures. heck, i think some areas in the service industry isn't safe either. we're already seeing automated check-out lines at supermarkets.

[Yeahman]

heck, i think some areas in the service industry isn't safe either. we're already seeing automated check-out lines at supermarkets.
But it's the customer that replaces the cashier. It's an ingenious idea, really. Virtually eliminate your labor costs by having the customer do all the work. Oh and the customers will enjoy it too! It's old technology used in a new way.

But the customer can't fix his own car or do his own electrical wiring.

[Yeahman]

Just saw a CNBC documentary on Wal-Mart. Much more balanced. The program ended on the note that Wal-Mart has its good and bad.
Some stuff from the show that I found really interesting...
Wal-Mart's IT hardware, in terms of size, is 2nd only to the Pentagon in the US. Their IT department looked like a scene from the Matrix. Dozens of LCD screens scrolling green text.
Wal-Mart makes up 2% of US GDP.
Wal-Mart faces some tough competition particularly from Target.
During conventions, everyone from the CEO on down shares $49 hotel rooms.
I think it was the CEO, or some executive, but 15% of his pay was contingent on meeting employee promotion diversity goals.
As everyone probably knows, Wal-Mart's health benefits suck.
It also surprised me just how efficient Wal-Mart is. With the help of computers, they've just about squeezed very ounce of efficiency out of their stores. Adjustments to inventory is practically realtime.
There are pop-and-pop suppliers who strike it rich by getting their products into Wal-Marts.

And something to keep in mind...
Wal-Mart didn't just steal its position as the #1 retailer in the US. K-Mart, JC Penny, etc... didn't just hand Wal-Mart that distinction. Wal-Mart earned its way to the top.
You can't expect a company as big as Wal-Mart with 1.5 million employees to not have legal problems. As one executive put it, you can't even find a company with over 20 employees where every employee is happy.

[SunWuKong]

But the customer can't fix his own car or do his own electrical wiring.

sure, but you can't rule out the possibility of further automation that'll decrease labour costs. good for the consumer (if in fact car shops choose to simultaneously decrease what they charge consumers, that is), and i don't have anything against that, but it also decreases the need for labour.

Wal-Mart didn't just steal its position as the #1 retailer in the US. K-Mart, JC Penny, etc... didn't just hand Wal-Mart that distinction. Wal-Mart earned its way to the top.

i wouldn't call it "steal", but it's questionable to use the word "earn", too. remember their practice of closing nearby regular Wal-Marts and then opening a Wal-Mart Supercenter at the epicenter of where those regular Wal-Marts used to be. it's perfectly legal, of course. but startup costs for small business owners can be quite a bit of money, once those regular Wal-Marts closed and mom-and-pop shops don't have to compete with them in the immediate vacinity anymore. and the practice itself isn't exactly a perfect example of fair competition. also, even if they don't plan on closing a regular Wal-Mart, the company is rich enough to take the profit loss from waging a price war on mom-and-pop shops. there's no regulation against "dumping" in retail. then they can raise their prices back to normal when they've eliminated the competition.

[hooligan]

http://www.thestreet.com/_googlen/stocks/retail/10208246.html?cm_ven=GOOGLEN&cm_cat=FREE&cm_ite=NA

Wal-Mart to Close Union-Targeted Store -- Report

By Nat Worden
TheStreet.com Staff Reporter
2/9/2005 4:59 PM EST

Wal-Mart (WMT:NYSE - news - research) said Wednesday that it will close a store in Canada where workers were close to establishing the retail giant's first labor union, according to The Associated Press.

The company plans to close the store in Jonquiere, Quebec, because it says union negotiators are making unreasonable demands that threaten the store's business.

Last week, the United Food and Commercial Workers of Canada asked Quebec labor officials to appoint a mediator in its talks with Wal-Mart in hopes that it would help break a logjam in negotiations.

"We were hoping it wouldn't come to this," Wal-Mart spokesman Andrew Pelletier told the AP. "Despite nine days of meetings over three months, we've been unable to reach an agreement with the union that in our view will allow the store to operate efficiently and profitably."

Any success enjoyed by the Canadian union with Wal-Mart could have ultimately impacted the company's business in the U.S. One of Wal-Mart's competitive advantages is low labor costs. That was especially apparent throughout its recent foray into the grocery business, which prompted massive labor strikes across Southern California as traditional grocery chains attempted to cut health and other benefits to their workers in an attempt to compete.

"Is Wal-Mart sending a message here [about organized labor in its stores] ? It's too soon to tell," said Richard Hastings, retail economist with Variant Research. "It's all about expenses, and Wal-Mart is all about expense controls. The unionization of that store ruins the expense budget for that store, so Wal-Mart definitely looks at it as something to eliminate."

did anyone see this coming?

[SunWuKong]

http://www.thestreet.com/_googlen/stocks/retail/10208246.html?cm_ven=GOOGLEN&cm_cat=FREE&cm_ite=NA


i read this in the paper this morning and i thought - "wonderful. now they'll all be out of a job, including the non-union workers."

[sOKaLiBoY]

i have never spent $1 at Wal-Mart. Hell i don't think i have ever been inside of one. Probably never will go in either.

[nola]

The 10 Worst Corporations of 2004

By Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman

When the Multinational Monitor judges gather to pick the 10 Worst Corporations of the year, one of their instructions is: Name no companies that appeared on the previous year’s list (barring extraordinary circumstances). Of the remaining pool of price gougers, polluters, union-busters, dictator-coddlers, fraudsters, poisoners, deceivers and general miscreants, we chose the following as the 10 Worst Corporations of 2004:

Abbott Laboratories: for raising the price of Norvir, an important AIDS drug, developed with a major infusion of U.S. government funds, by 400 percent. The price increase doesn't apply if Norvir is purchased in conjunction with another Abbott drug, giving Abbott an unfair advantage over competitors.

AIG: The world's largest insurer, American International Group Inc. was charged in October with aiding PNC Financial Services in a fraudulent transaction to transfer $750 million in mostly troubled loans and venture capital investments from subsidiaries off of its books. AIG agreed to pay $126 million to resolve the charges, but got off light, entering into a "deferred prosecution agreement" -meaning the charges against the company will be dropped in 12 months if it abides by the agreement.

Coca-Cola: Workers at Coke's Colombia bottling plant have been terrorized for years by right-wing paramilitary forces. A fact-finding mission by a New York City Council member found "there have been a total of 179 major human rights violations of Coca-Cola's workers, including nine murders. Family members of union activists have been abducted and tortured." Coke says it opposes the violence and in any case that it hasn't had control of the bottling plant (though it does now, after purchasing the Colombian bottling company).

Dow Chemical: Dow purchased Union Carbide in 1999. At midnight on December 2, 1984, 27 tons of lethal gases leaked from Union Carbide's pesticide factory in Bhopal, India, immediately killing an estimated 8,000 people and poisoning thousands of others. Today at least 150,000 people, including children born to parents who survived the disaster, are suffering from exposure-related health effects such as cancer, neurological damage, chaotic menstrual cycles and mental illness. Dow refuses to take any responsibility.

GlaxoSmithKline: Following revelations and regulatory action in the UK, the story of the severe side effects from Glaxo's Paxil-notably that they are addictive and lead to increased suicidality in youth-finally broke in the US in 2004. New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer filed suit, charging the giant drug maker with suppressing evidence of Paxil's harm to children and misleading physicians. Glaxo denied the charges, but agreed to a system whereby it would make public results all of its clinical trials. In October the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ordered Glaxo and makers of drugs in Paxil's class to include a "black box" warning-the agency's strongest-with their pills.

Hardee's: The fast-food maker is bragging about how unhealthy its Monster Thickburger is: "[I]ntroducing the mother of all burgers-the Monster Thickburger. Weighing in at two-thirds of a pound, this 100 percent Angus beef burger is a monument to decadence." The Thickburger is a 1,420-calorie sandwich. Eating one is like eating two Big Macs or five McDonald's hamburgers. Add 600 calories worth of Hardee's fries and you
get more than the 2,000 calories that many people should eat in a whole day.

Merck: Food and Drug Administration official David Graham calls it "maybe the single greatest drug-safety catastrophe in the history of this country." Testifying before a Senate committee in November, he put the number in the United States who had suffered heart attacks or stroke as result of taking arthritis drug Vioxx in the range of 88,000 to 139,000. As many as 40 percent of these people died, Graham said. The unacceptable cardiovascular risks of Vioxx were evident as early as 2000-four years before the drug was withdrawn from the market by its manufacturer, Merck, according to a study by British medical journal The Lancet.

McWane: McWane is a privately held Alabama-based sewer and water pipe manufacturer. In a devastating series, the New York Times revealed the company's egregious safety record, and the utter failure of regulatory agencies to control the company's workplace violence. Nine McWane employees have lost their lives on the job since 1995-three of the deaths were the result of deliberate company violations of safety standards. More than 4,600 injuries were recorded among the company's 5,000 employees. According to the Times, McWane pulled the wool over the eyes of investigators by stalling them at the factory gates, then hiding defective equipment. When enforcement officials did find serious violations, the Times reported, "the punishment meted out by the federal government was so minimal that McWane could treat it as. . . a cost of doing business."

Riggs Bank: An explosive report from the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Governmental Affairs revealed that Washington, D.C.-based Riggs Bank illegally operated bank accounts for former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, and ignored evidence of corrupt practices in managing more than 60 accounts for the government of Equatorial Guinea. Although these and other activities seem to violate U.S. banking rules, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) did not take enforcement action against the bank after it learned of these matters in 2002. That presumably was not unrelated to the fact that the OCC examiner at Riggs soon went to work for Riggs. In May 2004, the bank paid $25 million in fines in connection with money-laundering violations related to the Equatorial Guinea and Saudi Arabian governments; it is the subject of ongoing federal criminal investigations.

Wal-Mart: The colossus of U.S.-increasingly global-retailing. Its revenues account for 2 percent of U.S. Gross Domestic Product. A key component-arguably the key component-of the company's business model is undercompensating employees and externalizing costs on to society. A February 2004 report issued by Representative George Miller, D-California estimated that one 200-person Wal-Mart store may result in a cost to federal taxpayers of $420,750 per year-about $2,103 per employee. These public costs include free and reduced lunches for 50 qualifying Wal-Mart families, Section 8 housing assistance, federal tax credits and deductions for low-income families, and federal contributions to health insurance programs for low-income children.

This article has been reprinted with permission by the authors, who write a column, available online, called Focus on the Corporation. It has been edited, the full text is available at www.multinationalmonitor.org

[hooligan]

Good post. We can turn this into the Why some Corporations are Bad Thread.

[nola]

Coca-Cola: Workers at Coke's Colombia bottling plant have been terrorized for years by right-wing paramilitary forces. A fact-finding mission by a New York City Council member found "there have been a total of 179 major human rights violations of Coca-Cola's workers, including nine murders. Family members of union activists have been abducted and tortured." Coke says it opposes the violence and in any case that it hasn't had control of the bottling plant (though it does now, after purchasing the Colombian bottling company).


Killer Coke has let right-wingers in Columbia kill unionizers for years down there.

[pikachupacabra]

GlaxoSmithKline: Following revelations and regulatory action in the UK, the story of the severe side effects from Glaxo's Paxil-notably that they are addictive and lead to increased suicidality in youth-finally broke in the US in 2004. New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer filed suit, charging the giant drug maker with suppressing evidence of Paxil's harm to children and misleading physicians. Glaxo denied the charges, but agreed to a system whereby it would make public results all of its clinical trials. In October the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ordered Glaxo and makers of drugs in Paxil's class to include a "black box" warning-the agency's strongest-with their pills.



doh! glaxo just bought up a bunch of my company a little while back. I knew paxil was bad news but getting put on a list with walmart as an evil corporation is a little sobering.

[nola]

I'd take some of this with a grain of salt like huge companies have many subsidiaries that have little to do with what they're highlighting here. What company do you work for?

[SunWuKong]

Hardee's: The fast-food maker is bragging about how unhealthy its Monster Thickburger is: "[I]ntroducing the mother of all burgers-the Monster Thickburger. Weighing in at two-thirds of a pound, this 100 percent Angus beef burger is a monument to decadence." The Thickburger is a 1,420-calorie sandwich. Eating one is like eating two Big Macs or five McDonald's hamburgers. Add 600 calories worth of Hardee's fries and you
get more than the 2,000 calories that many people should eat in a whole day.

shit, that's nothing compared to Fudruckers. and Fudruckers is excellent.

[hooligan]

i read this in the paper this morning and i thought - "wonderful. now they'll all be out of a job, including the non-union workers."

I read it a little differently, in particular, why did they close this one down? I'm not really surprised because having a Union backing up the Wal-Mart workers would probably be something that cuts into their profits and also their business plan.

If this store Unionized Wal-Marts everywhere might also be threatened into Unionizing. Now, the corporation can't have that now, can then?

[SunWuKong]

I read it a little differently, in particular, why did they close this one down?

depends on what the union workers were demanding.

i personally don't have the best impression of unions. i used to live in Pittsburgh, and that's a big union city. i worked with union workers and they got to set their own hours and picked what their responsibilities are, leaving the non-union workers with the bad working hours and the tougher jobs, just because they didn't want to pay union fees to join the union. and aside from that, it prevents companies from being as efficient as they can be.

[hooligan]

depends on what the union workers were demanding.

i personally don't have the best impression of unions. i used to live in Pittsburgh, and that's a big union city. i worked with union workers and they got to set their own hours and picked what their responsibilities are, leaving the non-union workers with the bad working hours and the tougher jobs, just because they didn't want to pay union fees to join the union. and aside from that, it prevents companies from being as efficient as they can be.

My family's been a blue collar family for a long ass time and my mother likes the Union that represents her, but she says that they're known to be pretty fucked up some times. I believe that it isn't the Unions themselves, but the fact that Walmart isn't even letting Unions come into their business sphere.

It really makes me wonder about their business model. By the way, I was trying to research the education stuff in that past thread, but census.gov provides no detailed information for NYC and a lot of other sites don't directly have information either. The Columbia research has a data set of 120 APIAs compared to nearly 500 for white families. There isn't much conclusive data to compare and besides, most people who you get to participate on social research like that usually can take the time to participate (in other words, stable, working, legal people, that don't reflect the community).

[SunWuKong]

My family's been a blue collar family for a long ass time and my mother likes the Union that represents her, but she says that they're known to be pretty fucked up some times. I believe that it isn't the Unions themselves, but the fact that Walmart isn't even letting Unions come into their business sphere.

i agree that it doesn't exactly look good on Walmart that they don't allow unions. but still, the first thing i thought when i read that article you linked was that now all those people will be out of a job, including the non-union workers.

by the way, Walmart's employees in China are unionised. but by law they have to belong to the one government controlled union, and the Chinese government is very pro-business at the moment.

It really makes me wonder about their business model. By the way, I was trying to research the education stuff in that past thread, but census.gov provides no detailed information for NYC and a lot of other sites don't directly have information either. The Columbia research has a data set of 120 APIAs compared to nearly 500 for white families. There isn't much conclusive data to compare and besides, most people who you get to participate on social research like that usually can take the time to participate (in other words, stable, working, legal people, that don't reflect the community).

not sure what education in NYC have to do with the topic of discussion, but here:

http://www.nycenet.edu/daa/reports/

that's the NYC Department of Education's reports. i don't think they rely on surveys for their data, but on the data that schools collect on their students. i had their 1999 report linked on that other thread.

[Faithless]

Oh by the way:

Wal-Mart to commit $15M to Hurricane Katrina relief... (http://www.walmartfacts.com/community/walmart-foundation.aspx#a1339)

Bentonville, Ark. September 1, 2005 – Following President Bush’s announcement today that former Presidents Bush and Clinton will lead a nationwide fundraising effort to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina, Wal-Mart President and CEO Lee Scott contacted President Clinton and the White House and committed $15 million from Wal-Mart to jump-start the effort.

As part of this commitment, Wal-Mart will establish mini-Wal-Mart stores in areas impacted by the hurricane. Items such as clothing, diapers, baby wipes, food, formula, toothbrushes, bedding and water will be given out free of charge to those with a demonstrated need.

Wal-Mart previously donated $2 million in cash to aid emergency relief efforts and has been collecting contributions at its 3,800 stores and CLUBS, and through its web sites [www.walmartfacts.com, www.walmart.com, www.walmartfoundation.org, www.walmartstores.com, www.samsclub.com].

Through its Associate Disaster Relief Fund, the company will also give displaced associates immediate funds for shelter, food, clothing and other necessities.
...