The Ultimate pro-WalMart Article

[TheProwler]

I need Walmart food.

[Woodruff]

The option always exists for those who are not at poverty level, even if it means going to a neighboring city to buy groceries (which is what my parents do). I hardly make a significant salary as a teacher, and I do not shop at Wal-Mart nor any other similar store at all. It simply requires making the decision not to do so.

A lot of people today ARE at poverty level.

Yes, they are...and? Your contention that alternatives cannot stay in business is not particularly accurate in that Wal-Mart does not exist in every city and town. I understand what you're trying to say, but you're saying it very poorly.

Walmart exists in almost every city or town that has anything other than the tiniest market.

I'm not sure what you mean by "tiniest market", but I'm quite certain this is not true. As well, even if it were true, there are still options. For instance, when I was a child we lived in a village (literally...like 480 people in it), and we did our shopping in the nearest major city that was about an hour away because even taking into account the gasoline costs and the time spent, it was cheaper to do so. Even small cities have many options to Wal-Mart, and so anyone who wants to avoid shopping there and can afford to can do so quite easily. If they don't want to avoid shopping there, then that is their choice. If they cannot afford not to shop there, then I have no problem with them.

Also, many areas that used to have viable small markets now have none because anyone who can drive or get a ride will go to the nearest decent size town to shop at Walmart/Kmart, etc.

None? Really? Unless it is a exceptionally small and exceptionally remote market, there are still options. And if the market was that small before, people likely still left town to shop elsewhere (as I mentioned my family did above), because it would have been cheaper regardless of the existence of Wal-Mart.

I work with plenty of people who don't have choices.

So do I. I have no problem with them shopping at Wal-Mart, for precisely that reason. In fact, I encourage it.

The other issue is that even those alternatives often are only marginally true alternatives. For example, here we can shop at Dollar General, Dollar Tree, Rite Aid or the local grocery or one local pharmacy that has a few non-essentials in the style of older drugstores. (gifts and such).

If they're not true alternatives, then I'm not talking about them. Again, irrelevant.

Not really, because if you broaden it, then there are almost no places with true alternatives.

Well of course if you BROADEN IT ENOUGH, you'll encompass everything. But that's a pretty silly argument. What you are trying to imply (that the only alternatives are places like Dollar General or Dollar Tree) is simply not true at all.

I don't have to shop at Walmart, but I DO have to shop at either Walmart, Kmart, Dollar General, Dollar Tree, Rite Aid, or CVS for most things.

There is no grocery store in the town you live in or within the surrounding area of towns? I find that hard to believe, to be honest.

See, your arguments are so beyond reality that you have a HARDENED ANTI-WALMART TYPE like me arguing against you. Come back to reality, PLAYER. It won't hurt much, I promise.

[Dukasaur]

And did the article actually have the statement "Most people couldn't have predicted the Internet just a few years ago."? Was this article written in the early 90s?

So nobody else really thought this was a strange statement?

A "few" is an indeterminate quantity with no formal definition, so no, I don't think it's strange. Your "few years" might be three or four, the OP's might be twenty or thirty. Taking an evolutionary view of things, a few years might be twenty or thirty centuries or so.

[Woodruff]

And did the article actually have the statement "Most people couldn't have predicted the Internet just a few years ago."? Was this article written in the early 90s?

So nobody else really thought this was a strange statement?

A "few" is an indeterminate quantity with no formal definition, so no, I don't think it's strange. Your "few years" might be three or four, the OP's might be twenty or thirty. Taking an evolutionary view of things, a few years might be twenty or thirty centuries or so.

Based on the tenor and context of the article, do you think that's what they intended to convey? They certainly didn't seem to be trying to give the impression of more than ten years ago, certainly.

[PLAYER57832]

The option always exists for those who are not at poverty level, even if it means going to a neighboring city to buy groceries (which is what my parents do). I hardly make a significant salary as a teacher, and I do not shop at Wal-Mart nor any other similar store at all. It simply requires making the decision not to do so.

A lot of people today ARE at poverty level.

Yes, they are...and? Your contention that alternatives cannot stay in business is not particularly accurate in that Wal-Mart does not exist in every city and town. I understand what you're trying to say, but you're saying it very poorly.

Walmart exists in almost every city or town that has anything other than the tiniest market.

I'm not sure what you mean by "tiniest market", but I'm quite certain this is not true. As well, even if it were true, there are still options. For instance, when I was a child we lived in a village (literally...like 480 people in it), and we did our shopping in the nearest major city that was about an hour away because even taking into account the gasoline costs and the time spent, it was cheaper to do so. Even small cities have many options to Wal-Mart, and so anyone who wants to avoid shopping there and can afford to can do so quite easily. If they don't want to avoid shopping there, then that is their choice. If they cannot afford not to shop there, then I have no problem with them.

UH.... you are not arguing against what I said at all. You are actually proving the point, seem to think it is a good idea.

To a point, consolidation is OK, beneficial. BUT.. you skipped over as "unimportant" a couple of very major issues.
#1. Vehicle. Many people still, today, don't have them. IN PA, welfare will buy a vehicle for rural folks under certain conditions. BUT... the gas equation changes things a LOT.

My town is somewhat "typical" in this regard (not in others). Twenty years ago there were several thriving clothing stores and a department-type store, three grocery stores (plus 4 hardware stores). Now there is ONE grocery store, plus a dollar general, Rite Aid, a national chain (Treu Value) hardware store and a local hardware store/discount store/auto parts store.

I have to take my son to a medical appointment once a month in a town an hour away, so I use that "opportunity" to shop at the mall, and the Aldi's there. Since I have to go already, it is cost-effective. However, even once I get there, I can buy groceries at 4-5 several bigger chains, get clothing at Penneys, Sears, Ross, and a few other chains. There are basically NO locally owned or run stores, though some of the fast food places are franchises.

So, what do all the seniors and others who have trouble driving or who don't have transportation do? They have to take the ATA or get someone to drive them (I have taken a few on more than a few occasions). This is not terrible in my town because we DO have a grocery store still, do have hardware stores, and everything in our town is within walking distance (the whole town is just over a mile long, about 10 blocks wide at its widest). IN the next town over, many seniors are literally forced from their homes because there are not enough services to allow them to stay at home. That town DOES have a Walmart --technically just outside the town boundaries.

Also, though Walmart is often cited as "the example", the truth is that most of those other stores I mentioned follow basically the same model. They HAVE to, and that is the point. ALL of these places offer low wages, few or no benefits or very poor benefits. ALL are able to survive because taxpayers are supporting them. That is a very big reason why only those at the very top.. those able to fully invest and benefit from the investments in these corporations. Other people can "invest", of course, but for most people those investments won't yield enough return to retire.. not for those making under 100K a month, not without Social security and other supports that so many want to take away in favor of the "free market".

All of that is very much directly tied to the Walmart "model" and the mentality that this is a good thing for society.

Also, many areas that used to have viable small markets now have none because anyone who can drive or get a ride will go to the nearest decent size town to shop at Walmart/Kmart, etc.

None? Really? Unless it is a exceptionally small and exceptionally remote market, there are still options. And if the market was that small before, people likely still left town to shop elsewhere (as I mentioned my family did above), because it would have been cheaper regardless of the existence of Wal-Mart.

I work with plenty of people who don't have choices.

So do I. I have no problem with them shopping at Wal-Mart, for precisely that reason. In fact, I encourage it.

The other issue is that even those alternatives often are only marginally true alternatives. For example, here we can shop at Dollar General, Dollar Tree, Rite Aid or the local grocery or one local pharmacy that has a few non-essentials in the style of older drugstores. (gifts and such).

If they're not true alternatives, then I'm not talking about them. Again, irrelevant.

Not really, because if you broaden it, then there are almost no places with true alternatives.

Well of course if you BROADEN IT ENOUGH, you'll encompass everything. But that's a pretty silly argument. What you are trying to imply (that the only alternatives are places like Dollar General or Dollar Tree) is simply not true at all.

I don't have to shop at Walmart, but I DO have to shop at either Walmart, Kmart, Dollar General, Dollar Tree, Rite Aid, or CVS for most things.

There is no grocery store in the town you live in or within the surrounding area of towns? I find that hard to believe, to be honest.

See, your arguments are so beyond reality that you have a HARDENED ANTI-WALMART TYPE like me arguing against you. Come back to reality, PLAYER. It won't hurt much, I promise.[/quote]

[PLAYER57832]

Here's my take on Wal-Mart: They give the people what they want; the lowest prices possible.
I should think that BBS would like this article because Wal-Mart is about as close to the free market as you are going to get in the present day. Wal-Mart is the department store equivalent of the Alien from "Alien" the movie; a perfect killing machine, but it's the embodiment of a free market. I know for a fact that Wal-Mart screws over their suppliers quite regularly but who in their right mind is going to stop supplying to Wal-Mart? Further, in this age of "anything goes" who is going to shop anywhere but Wal-Mart as long as they truly do provide low low prices?

No its the bastardization of the free market.

Walmart mostly could not exist without outside price supports... supports to its employees, tax breaks to its localities, etc, etc, etc. Pretending this is a free market is like saying that socialism is a free market. The fact that people are making money doesn't mean its a free market, it just means they are able to abuse the system at OUR expense.

Sounds like a perfect reason for cutting the involvement of government in the marketplace so that the free market systems can work out the issues.

You have it backwards.

It is LOCAL people who get to do what benefits them and their community, at least in the short term, and who can blithely ignore the wider impacts of their decisions.. impacts that it takes state and federal governments, along with decent education systems, to spread.

Its people like YOU who think that the government is causing all of this. IF the government were directly involved in this, it would be to require them to adhere to environmental standards (though most of those have been gutted or go unenforced thanks to folks like you); it would be to require them to pay decent wages and to provide benefits. Contrary to your "ideas' those things do not "just happen", because few business people really will go ahead and cut their paychecks to help employees or "society", except in specific emergency type situations -- and knowing that its even necessary TO pay employees more and why requires education, education that is not happening. Similarly, knowing that securing the drainage and habitats around your building are important, limiting use of certain fuels, ALSO requires education.. something, again that is lacking. (YOU still try to claim global warming is some kind of hoax... and something thought up by Al Gore!!! THAT takes serious lack of understanding and education!!!)

NO, its very LOCAL individuals who are, well, greedy. Not unusually greedy, but lacking the education to show them why their decisions are bad, are going to harm society or their community as a whole. Its people making tough choices, but with too limited information.

The Federal government is, by design fairly slow and "weighty", but it is such that by the time something becomes a national concern, it IS important and significant. The trouble today is that our society is moving so fast that the changes people are able to make on ALL levels far outstrip anyone's ability to really understand their impacts. Worse, because the long term news is so often negative, it gets dismissed, because its "too inconvenient" to pay attention.

[Woodruff]

The option always exists for those who are not at poverty level, even if it means going to a neighboring city to buy groceries (which is what my parents do). I hardly make a significant salary as a teacher, and I do not shop at Wal-Mart nor any other similar store at all. It simply requires making the decision not to do so.

A lot of people today ARE at poverty level.

Yes, they are...and? Your contention that alternatives cannot stay in business is not particularly accurate in that Wal-Mart does not exist in every city and town. I understand what you're trying to say, but you're saying it very poorly.

Walmart exists in almost every city or town that has anything other than the tiniest market.

I'm not sure what you mean by "tiniest market", but I'm quite certain this is not true. As well, even if it were true, there are still options. For instance, when I was a child we lived in a village (literally...like 480 people in it), and we did our shopping in the nearest major city that was about an hour away because even taking into account the gasoline costs and the time spent, it was cheaper to do so. Even small cities have many options to Wal-Mart, and so anyone who wants to avoid shopping there and can afford to can do so quite easily. If they don't want to avoid shopping there, then that is their choice. If they cannot afford not to shop there, then I have no problem with them.

UH.... you are not arguing against what I said at all. You are actually proving the point, seem to think it is a good idea.

You said "every city or town has a Wal-Mart", so that anyone who wants to shop at a Wal-Mart can. I agree with that.

But what you're NOT saying, is that just BECAUSE every city or town has a Wal-Mart, that means that those cities and towns do not have OTHER MEANS OF PROVIDING THE THINGS THAT WAL-MART DOES...I strongly disagree with that.

By your argument, since "every city or town has a Wal-Mart", there is no reason for anyone to leave their own city or town to go shop at a Wal-Mart, BECAUSE THERE'S ALREADY ONE AT THEIR OWN LOCALE. I disagree with that statement, but I am going to continue with that example, as you seem to want to consider it "truth". So in that case, no one should be leaving their own city or town to shop at Wal-Mart...it's unnecessary.

So no...I'm definitely not agreeing with you.

To a point, consolidation is OK, beneficial. BUT.. you skipped over as "unimportant" a couple of very major issues.
#1. Vehicle. Many people still, today, don't have them. IN PA, welfare will buy a vehicle for rural folks under certain conditions. BUT... the gas equation changes things a LOT.

It's like you don't even read what I type. You've creating this response from me in your head about what you BELIEVE I MUST MEAN and you don't even read what I write. Perhaps you should try it.

[Woodruff]

Here's my take on Wal-Mart: They give the people what they want; the lowest prices possible.
I should think that BBS would like this article because Wal-Mart is about as close to the free market as you are going to get in the present day. Wal-Mart is the department store equivalent of the Alien from "Alien" the movie; a perfect killing machine, but it's the embodiment of a free market. I know for a fact that Wal-Mart screws over their suppliers quite regularly but who in their right mind is going to stop supplying to Wal-Mart? Further, in this age of "anything goes" who is going to shop anywhere but Wal-Mart as long as they truly do provide low low prices?

No its the bastardization of the free market.

Walmart mostly could not exist without outside price supports... supports to its employees, tax breaks to its localities, etc, etc, etc. Pretending this is a free market is like saying that socialism is a free market. The fact that people are making money doesn't mean its a free market, it just means they are able to abuse the system at OUR expense.

Sounds like a perfect reason for cutting the involvement of government in the marketplace so that the free market systems can work out the issues.

You have it backwards.

It is LOCAL people who get to do what benefits them and their community, at least in the short term, and who can blithely ignore the wider impacts of their decisions.. impacts that it takes state and federal governments, along with decent education systems, to spread.

Its people like YOU who think that the government is causing all of this. IF the government were directly involved in this

You're wrong...the government IS DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN THIS. You've even talked about it yourself. Wal-Mart gets massive tax breaks for their properties, particularly in new construction. You should know I'm not some "free market worshipper" and that I do believe that government oversight is an important thing, but much of Wal-Mart's advantage does come from government intervention on their part (because they are smart enough to lobby hard for it).

[Night Strike]

Player, why do you believe businesses should be run as charities and give out as much money as their employees want rather than what their job is worth?

[Funkyterrance]

How's this for a happy medium NS: People get payed more but they get fired if they don't earn their keep? That way productivity is increased and people get a fair wage.

[Night Strike]

How's this for a happy medium NS: People get payed more but they get fired if they don't earn their keep? That way productivity is increased and people get a fair wage.

How about people work hard first and then get raises commensurate with their work and the value of their position? You know, kind of how the marketplace is supposed to work anyway?

[AndyDufresne]

How about people work hard first and then get raises commensurate with their work and the value of their position? You know, kind of how the marketplace is supposed to work anyway?

18 Translations later (using the Bad Translator):

In business it is difficult to compare for the first time and then write a comment? The labor market should work, no matter what it is, as they say?

--Andy

[Woodruff]

Player, why do you believe businesses should be run as charities and give out as much money as their employees want rather than what their job is worth?

What? She's said nothing of the sort. Is your opening argument really so weak that you have to resort to that already?

[Woodruff]

How's this for a happy medium NS: People get payed more but they get fired if they don't earn their keep? That way productivity is increased and people get a fair wage.

How about people work hard first and then get raises commensurate with their work and the value of their position? You know, kind of how the marketplace is supposed to work anyway?

That sort of requires that the worker has the power to leave. In today's job market, that power really doesn't exist so much for most careers.

[Night Strike]

Player, why do you believe businesses should be run as charities and give out as much money as their employees want rather than what their job is worth?

What? She's said nothing of the sort. Is your opening argument really so weak that you have to resort to that already?

She didn't say it in as many words, but she did imply that it's what she believes businesses should be doing: "Contrary to your "ideas' those things do not "just happen", because few business people really will go ahead and cut their paychecks to help employees or "society", except in specific emergency type situations"

That sort of requires that the worker has the power to leave. In today's job market, that power really doesn't exist so much for most careers.

And more governmental regulations are only making that problem worse. The government is making prices on everything "necessarily skyrocket" and redefining full time as 30 hours, both of which only serve to raise the costs of doing business and harm the workers the government pretends it's helping. The executive branch is unilaterally passing thousands of pages of regulations without Congressional approval that every business is expected to thoroughly understand and comply with, which is sucking billions of dollars out of the productive economy.

[Fewnix]

This is one of those typical theories of the way the free market "invisible hand" works that bears no relationship to reality, the way the world actually works.

The basic theory is that the total amount of money paid in wages cannot change, so if one worker or group of workers gets a raise, then another worker or group of worker must get a cut in pay to exactly match the raise to keep the average wage the same as it used to be. .

E.g. say Fred makes $2,000 a week and Alice makes $1,000 a week, The total wages equals $3,000 and the average wage is $1,500. By this theory. if Alice gets a raise to $1,200 a week, then Freds' wages must drop to S1,800 a week, because the average wage must must must remain exactly $1,500.

Not true
Doesn't work that way.

At any given time, there is a certain quantity of total dollars of demand for labor services by all employers in the entire economic system. Average wages at full employment will be at the level of the total amount of monetary demand for labor services divided by the total number of people who choose to sell their labor services. When the average wage rate is forced above the full employment level there is not enough total monetary demand for labor to pay all those who want to work at this higher average. If, for example, in a hypothetical small economy, the total monetary demand for labor is $1 billion, and the total number of workers seeking employment is one million, the average wage must be $1,000 to reach full employment. If the average wage is forced higher than this point — say to $2,000 — then employers could only hire 500,000 workers

[BigBallinStalin]

This is one of those typical theories of the way the free market "invisible hand" works that bears no relationship to reality, the way the world actually works.

The basic theory is that the total amount of money paid in wages cannot change, so if one worker or group of workers gets a raise, then another worker or group of worker must get a cut in pay to exactly match the raise to keep the average wage the same as it used to be. .

E.g. say Fred makes $2,000 a week and Alice makes $1,000 a week, The total wages equals $3,000 and the average wage is $1,500. By this theory. if Alice gets a raise to $1,200 a week, then Freds' wages must drop to S1,800 a week, because the average wage must must must remain exactly $1,500.

Not true
Doesn't work that way.

At any given time, there is a certain quantity of total dollars of demand for labor services by all employers in the entire economic system. Average wages at full employment will be at the level of the total amount of monetary demand for labor services divided by the total number of people who choose to sell their labor services. When the average wage rate is forced above the full employment level there is not enough total monetary demand for labor to pay all those who want to work at this higher average. If, for example, in a hypothetical small economy, the total monetary demand for labor is $1 billion, and the total number of workers seeking employment is one million, the average wage must be $1,000 to reach full employment. If the average wage is forced higher than this point — say to $2,000 — then employers could only hire 500,000 workers

You and/or your source don't know what "free market" nor "invisible hand" means, but it's a nice straw man.

Can you tell us where you're pulling your sources on free markets and the invisible hand from?

[Fewnix]

The article cited in this thread claims that in its economy, certain very specific things will happen automatically. if some workers get an increase in their pay

If, for example, in a hypothetical small economy, the total monetary demand for labor is $1 billion, and the total number of workers seeking employment is one million, the average wage must be $1,000 to reach full employment. If the average wage is forced higher than this point — say to $2,000 — then employers could only hire 500,000 workers

The claim is made that if WalMart workers get a raise in pay there will automatically, be adjustments made to the pay of other workers in the economy. These adjustments will not be up to employers or law makers to decide.it will be the "free market" that decides and it wlil be as if some "invisible hand", unseen force, automatically adjusts the paycheques .

The claim that these very specific things will happen . if some workers get an increase in their pay is typical of a "self regulation of the market place" "invisible hand" approach to economics.

In economics, the invisible hand of the market is a metaphor conceived by Adam Smith to describe the self-regulating behavior of the marketplace.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_hand

This is one of those typical theories of the way the free market "invisible hand" works that bears no relationship to reality, the way the world actually works.

The basic theory is that the total amount of money paid in wages cannot change, so if one worker or group of workers gets a raise, then another worker or group of worker must get a cut in pay to exactly match the raise to keep the average wage the same as it used to be. .

E.g. say Fred makes $2,000 a week and Alice makes $1,000 a week, The total wages equals $3,000 and the average wage is $1,500. By this theory. if Alice gets a raise to $1,200 a week, then Freds' wages must drop to S1,800 a week, because the average wage must must must remain exactly $1,500.

Not true
Doesn't work that way.

At any given time, there is a certain quantity of total dollars of demand for labor services by all employers in the entire economic system. Average wages at full employment will be at the level of the total amount of monetary demand for labor services divided by the total number of people who choose to sell their labor services. When the average wage rate is forced above the full employment level there is not enough total monetary demand for labor to pay all those who want to work at this higher average. If, for example, in a hypothetical small economy, the total monetary demand for labor is $1 billion, and the total number of workers seeking employment is one million, the average wage must be $1,000 to reach full employment. If the average wage is forced higher than this point — say to $2,000 — then employers could only hire 500,000 workers

You and/or your source don't know what "free market" nor "invisible hand" means, but it's a nice straw man.

Can you tell us where you're pulling your sources on free markets and the invisible hand from?

[BigBallinStalin]

The article cited in this thread claims that in its economy, certain very specific things will happen automatically. if some workers get an increase in their pay

If, for example, in a hypothetical small economy, the total monetary demand for labor is $1 billion, and the total number of workers seeking employment is one million, the average wage must be $1,000 to reach full employment. If the average wage is forced higher than this point — say to $2,000 — then employers could only hire 500,000 workers

The claim is made that if WalMart workers get a raise in pay there will automatically, be adjustments made to the pay of other workers in the economy. These adjustments will not be up to employers or law makers to decide.it will be the "free market" that decides and it wlil be as if some "invisible hand", unseen force, automatically adjusts the paycheques .

The claim that these very specific things will happen . if some workers get an increase in their pay is typical of a "self regulation of the market place" "invisible hand" approach to economics.

I've addressed the problems with the very basic economic analysis in the OP here:
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=192883&start=15#p4221574

You'd probably find much of it agreeable, but let's focus on your specific quote of that article:

Look for the underlying assumptions:
(1) totally static economy,
(2) perfect competition--

e.g. costless labor shifts. I.e. it would take less than a second to find a new job--which you might not have the skills for, so...

(3) homogenous labor.

All the laborers in that economy are assumed to be the same. There's more, but my response to Haggis covers most of it.

Look at the use of the words: "average wage." If you aggregate the wages, then mathematically it makes sense, but it fails to describe the real world. If the average wage increases, then it might not follow that only 500,000 can be employed. Prices (wages) in other sectors change, prices of goods change, so the factors of production (e.g. including labor) are also changing. Everything is moving, but the analysis fails to account for it, for reasons I've stated in that response to Haggis (There's the problem of balancing between teaching basic v. advanced economics to various readers who differ in skill/knowledge).

So, let's review again:

If, for example, in a hypothetical small economy, the total monetary demand for labor is $1 billion, and the total number of workers seeking employment is one million, the average wage must be $1,000 to reach full employment. If the average wage is forced higher than this point — say to $2,000 — then employers could only hire 500,000 workers

Suppose we have an odd economy where everyone works the same job at the same wage. The total monetary demand for labor is $1 billion, and the average wage must be $1,000 to reach full employment. If we raised everyone's wage to $2000, then yes, only 500,000 people would be working. That's correct (holding all other variables constant/ceteris paribus), which is the key phrase.

Read the context of that excerpt. He's talking about full employment and what hinders and does not hinder it. He's talking about a hypothetical economy--not Wal-mart, which is what you're claiming.

I think we're talking past each other. There's a distinction to be made--regarding the invisible hand metaphor, free markets, and basic economics.

The invisible hand metaphor simply describes a phenomenon where people pursuing their own private interest inadvertently benefit others, or rather the "general interest":
see: "invisible hand" section:
http://www.adamsmith.org/quotes

also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_ ... a_metaphor


Free markets is the idea that there shouldn't be any interference from government regarding matters of the market. A non-free market would be one where there's price controls on labor (minimum wage, mandated wages, etc.).

But this is going beyond your quote about wal-mart, so at the moment, I'm not seeing the relevance.


Regarding basic economics, please read my response to Haggis.



To go back:

This is one of those typical theories of the way the free market "invisible hand" works that bears no relationship to reality, the way the world actually works.

The basic theory is that the total amount of money paid in wages cannot change, so if one worker or group of workers gets a raise, then another worker or group of worker must get a cut in pay to exactly match the raise to keep the average wage the same as it used to be. .

E.g. say Fred makes $2,000 a week and Alice makes $1,000 a week, The total wages equals $3,000 and the average wage is $1,500. By this theory. if Alice gets a raise to $1,200 a week, then Freds' wages must drop to S1,800 a week, because the average wage must must must remain exactly $1,500.

Not true
Doesn't work that way.

Right, it doesn't, but it depends on different, underlying assumptions about your hypothetical economy and the author's hypothetical economy. When you aggregate wages and labor, things 'appear' to be true--as the author states, and of course, when you descale it, it doesn't make much sense. This is a fundamental problem with basic economics; it's not like the author is going to rattle off a 30-page explanation about it because hardly any of the target audience would read it.

[Woodruff]

Player, why do you believe businesses should be run as charities and give out as much money as their employees want rather than what their job is worth?

What? She's said nothing of the sort. Is your opening argument really so weak that you have to resort to that already?

She didn't say it in as many words, but she did imply that it's what she believes businesses should be doing: "Contrary to your "ideas' those things do not "just happen", because few business people really will go ahead and cut their paychecks to help employees or "society", except in specific emergency type situations"

I definitely don't read that statement the same way you do.

That sort of requires that the worker has the power to leave. In today's job market, that power really doesn't exist so much for most careers.

And more governmental regulations are only making that problem worse.

First of all, yes there are some regulations that are making the problem worse. HOWEVER, the reason that SOME of the regulations are actually even in place is because of business owners essentially taking actions that required a governmental response in order to see that people were being treated reasonably. Businesses of the past have essentially built some of the governmental regulations in place for businesses of today through their treatment of workers.

You're anti-union too. Well I've got to tell you that if there are no government regulations AND no unions, it would take a heartbeat for many businesses to go back to doing exactly those things.

The government is making prices on everything "necessarily skyrocket" and redefining full time as 30 hours, both of which only serve to raise the costs of doing business and harm the workers the government pretends it's helping. The executive branch is unilaterally passing thousands of pages of regulations without Congressional approval that every business is expected to thoroughly understand and comply with, which is sucking billions of dollars out of the productive economy.

I agree with you AND YET some of those regulations (for instance, the redefining of full time as thirty hours) are a direct response to the actions that businesses are taking in trying to circumvent things already in place. The business' actions are a part of the problem.

[Night Strike]

I agree with you AND YET some of those regulations (for instance, the redefining of full time as thirty hours) are a direct response to the actions that businesses are taking in trying to circumvent things already in place. The business' actions are a part of the problem.

And yet those same regulations are costing workers even more hours than before because now the government has set up an exact line where businesses must provide benefits such as health insurance and where they do not have to provide it. Previously, if a business were to not offer a benefit or as many hours, they risked losing their workers to other companies who would provide such benefits and hours because it was up to each business to choose where to draw the line, causing actual competition. But now, the government has laid out a standard for every business to be the same, which means there are fewer options for workers because every business knows where the minimum is.

You're anti-union too. Well I've got to tell you that if there are no government regulations AND no unions, it would take a heartbeat for many businesses to go back to doing exactly those things.

I'm against public sector unions as well as forced-membership in private sector unions. I'm also against billions of dollars in unfunded, "guaranteed" pensions.

[Phatscotty]

Too bad D.C. will not get their Wal-Mart and receive all these glorious benefits

Wal-Mart Says It Will Ditch Store Expansion After D.C. 'Living Wage' Vote

Wal-Mart said it will halt plans for three stores in the nation's capitol after the D.C. Council approved a bill that boosts minimum wages paid by large retailers by nearly $5 a hour.

"Nothing has changed from our perspective: we will not pursue Skyland, Capitol Gateway and New York Avenue and will start to review the financial and legal implications on the three stores already under construction," said Steven Restivo, spokesman for Wal-Mart, after the Council approved the vote on Wednesday afternoon. "This was a difficult decision for us - and unfortunate news for most D.C. residents - but the Council has forced our hand."

The LRAA forces big-box stores like Wal-Mart to pay workers at least $12.50 an hour. The city's minimum wage is $8.25. In the U.S., the average wage for a full-time hourly Wal-Mart associate is $12.57, according to the company. That's about $25,000 a year at 40 hours a week, or just above the federal poverty level of $23,050 for a family of four. But many part-time workers at the company make little more than the minimum wage.

On Wednesday afternoon, Councilmember Vincent Orange repeatedly urged his colleagues to "Stay strong," saying the city should not condone "poverty wages."


http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wal-mart ... d3uxsnn-Wh

[Woodruff]

I agree with you AND YET some of those regulations (for instance, the redefining of full time as thirty hours) are a direct response to the actions that businesses are taking in trying to circumvent things already in place. The business' actions are a part of the problem.

And yet those same regulations are costing workers even more hours than before because now the government has set up an exact line where businesses must provide benefits such as health insurance and where they do not have to provide it.
Previously, if a business were to not offer a benefit or as many hours, they risked losing their workers to other companies who would provide such benefits and hours because it was up to each business to choose where to draw the line, causing actual competition. But now, the government has laid out a standard for every business to be the same, which means there are fewer options for workers because every business knows where the minimum is.

But again, in today's job climate, this is irrelevant because there is little threat to losing a worker to another company when there are no other jobs available. That's the problem...corporations, with some significant help by the government, have made it so that the American worker does not have those options.

You're anti-union too. Well I've got to tell you that if there are no government regulations AND no unions, it would take a heartbeat for many businesses to go back to doing exactly those things.

I'm against public sector unions as well as forced-membership in private sector unions.

I don't recall that as being the limit of your disdain for unions in the past, no.

I'm also against billions of dollars in unfunded, "guaranteed" pensions.

You shouldn't hate the military so much.

Aside from that, what is the issue with guaranteed pensions? Shouldn't that be considered part of a worker's compensation package? If it's not guaranteed, then how could it be considered a part of compensation (even if some of those guaranteed pensions get illegally "unfunded" by the business anyway, like in Hostess' case).

[Woodruff]

Too bad D.C. will not get their Wal-Mart and receive all these glorious benefits

Wal-Mart Says It Will Ditch Store Expansion After D.C. 'Living Wage' Vote

Honestly, for Wal-Mart to take such a stance is quite disengenuous (though it's a move they've used before). The difference in that cost is not particularly high when looked at three stores, and it's certainly not going to significantly eat into the profits they would return from those three stores.

Now, that being said, I'm not at all a fan of "different minimum wages for different stores"...as anti Wal-Mart as I am, I think that's a horrible idea. If a wage is a "poverty wage" for Wal-Mart, then it's a "poverty wage" for any employer.

[PLAYER57832]

How's this for a happy medium NS: People get payed more but they get fired if they don't earn their keep? That way productivity is increased and people get a fair wage.

How about people work hard first and then get raises commensurate with their work and the value of their position? You know, kind of how the marketplace is supposed to work anyway?

Nope, you are deluded. The people who get paid are the investors. Workers only come first in bankruptcy proceedings. Else, the stockholders and every executive gets to take what they consider a reasonable wage for themselves... and then splits the rest among those who actually keep the companies working.

In the case of Walmart, and therefore most lower end retailers now, that means forgetting US hires and simply going to places like Bangladesh.