Anti-WalMart Campaign?

[Propertarian]

[ QUOTE ]
In this thread posters where both implying and assuming that inserting a totaly abritary subjective prefrence into the mechanism of consumtion thereby mitigated that consumption of any waste. I wanted to look at that more closely as I think it is an intresting thing to talk

[/ QUOTE ] In any situation, market or state, where people do not have perfect information or perfect rationality, there is waste.

Let's say I think I will like a book, and think it will be informative and entertaining, perhaps because of advertisements. By their argument, I increased my utility/well-being when I bought the book ("why would I have voluntarily traded for it if it didn't?" is what they might say). But, after a couple of hundred pages, I am disappointed...it turns out to be dull and boring. I have wasted my time and money, and did not benefit but in fact was harmed by the transaction.

How about an insane person or an addicted person? Are his "voluntary transactions" benefiting him?

In reality, people do not benefit automatically from all voluntary transactions.

In other words, there is always waste.

Just an FYI: most of the ACists here rely on Austrian economics, which is all too often little more than an attempt to define away different viewpoints, which is why real economists don't use it as their method.

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If union workers are so productive why do business resist unionization?

[/ QUOTE ]

Businesses resist unionization because it's a lot easier to favorably negotiate with disorganized individuals than it is to negotiate with a group of them. Duh.

[/ QUOTE ]

So... you're saying the unions will cost the company more than the added productivity Propertarian hints at. So in other words, they don't provide a better value proposition than non-unionized employees. As I and others have been saying all long...



[ QUOTE ]
The weird thing is that most of the people who stand to benefit most from unions hate unions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Productive workers are harmed by unions. Unproductive workers are helped by unions. So if you're a productive intelligent worker you have every reason to hate unions. "The Man" is going to pay you more than a union will negotiate for you.

natedogg

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You never said "functionally identical".


[/ QUOTE ]

Oh rllly????

[ QUOTE ]
In both cases the objecitve material situation is identical.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sofa covers is objectively wastfull yes, how could it not be. Oh, insert an abritary subjective preference for the new sofa covers and the waste disapears abra cadabra.

Im assuming you didnt sell them on ebay, recycle them or put them to use in some other way. If they went in the bin the objective waste is clear.

Just stating that it isnt wastefull because you wanted them isnt enough, please attempt to demonstrate why.

However I assume the new sofa cover are newer. Paint isnt wastefull I dont think, not sure. Any more triviality you want to bring into this arguement.

[/ QUOTE ]

If new sofa covers are wasteful, how could paint NOT be? The old paint is "functionally identical" to the old paint.

Do you consider the first coat of paint to be wasteful?

Ultimately, I think you're right, in a way; you're just using a trivial definition of "waste" that doesn't tell us anything interesting or useful.

[cpk]

[ QUOTE ]
Productive workers are harmed by unions. Unproductive workers are helped by unions. So if you're a productive intelligent worker you have every reason to hate unions. "The Man" is going to pay you more than a union will negotiate for you.

[/ QUOTE ]

And, of course, everyone thinks they're a star performer, so they think they are harmed by unions.

Further, what you say is not necessarily the case. Even very talented professionals are usually poor negotiators when it comes to salary. The only people who are good at negotating salary, as a group, are people whose jobs involve negotiation. This is why sales people, for example, are very well compensated compared to the value they provide.

While there may a theoretical "objective" worth when it comes to compensating employees--some X value--corporations routinely merely pay the lowest they think they can get away with. If a corporation can successfully pay less than this theoretical X, it is another way to book an extra profit. Collective bargaining counters this. On the other hand, if employees are convinced through widespread corporate propaganda that they just aren't worth more than whatever Wal-Mart (or whoever) tells them they are worth, then they won't negotiate, and Wal-Mart simply books the extra profit.

You seem to think that there is a master chart of "objective worth" to "salary", that corporations merely consult the chart and then offer the optimum salary. This is not how things work in the real world. The overriding ethic is "how little can we get away with paying our employees?" This ethic is tempered only when employees are clearly unhappy--"oh, [censored], our turnover is 50%, and this is costing us money, what do we do?" Only then will more money be offered.

Again, you don't answer my question--what is objectively wrong with workers banding together and choosing the best negotiator among them? Or, if their resources are sufficient, even hiring professional negotiators? Corporations hire people to manage these details to get the best possible result for the corporations--why shouldn't workers strike back?

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
Again, you don't answer my question--what is objectively wrong with workers banding together and choosing the best negotiator among them? Or, if their resources are sufficient, even hiring professional negotiators?

[/ QUOTE ]

Um.... I've never said they shouldn't able to. I strongly support it in fact. I posed a question to Propertarian if a business is morally obligated to accept unionization demands. (which he never answered)

I obviously support anyone's attempt to bargain collectively. I would never in a million years join their organization but of course they are free to do so. Just as WalMart should be free to say "no thanks".

If a corporation is evil for simply saying "no" to unionization demands, this implies that unionization (or any other demand from employees actually) is some kind of right that employers have no moral basis for refusing. This is nonsense and that was my point.

Regardless of the fact that a union is a bad deal for productive workers, an employer is not obligated to say "yes" everytime the employees say "we want more".

natedogg

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
I am only trying to point out that droping bombs isnt the only objective waste of recources, markets can waste recources to. Off the top of my head fashion and biult in obselence would seem to be good examples.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think I see what you are trying to get at. In some cases people do waste money in the economy but once they have wasted their own money they have learnt not to spend in that fashion. Because its their own money there is someone who is accountable for its spending and will spend it more wisely in the future. A free market tends towards efficient use of resources but that doesnt mean there is never any mistakes made. The increase in efficiency is due to the fact that people are constantly making mistakes and adjusting their purchases so that they make fewer mistakes in the future. When an organization is spending other peoples money there is no inherent desire to reduce waste.

But not all purchases are waste in the sense that the broken window is a waste. If I spend $200K on a house, the company that builds it is better off through the profit they make but I have not wasted $200K. A house is an investment which I can sell later and in a sense I still have the $200K that I spent it is just tied up in a physical asset. Society benefits from this because now we have an additional asset in the economy which will make houses cheaper in the future. All of our infrastructure is a result of people investing in things that they want.

When bases get built over in Iraq they do not directly benefit me or the local housing market. Supporting the war comes at the cost of whatever else you want to spend your money on. Supporting the war comes at the cost of personal wealth in other areas like education, healthcare, shorter work weeks. What you value is subjective but the cost to other parts of the economy is not. I think that people should be able to spend the money in the way that they want. So if you want to support the war in Iraq thats fine just leave me out of it.

(I know you dont personally support it, but I hope you see my point)

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]
It ("Sociology of Work") is a consensus amongst professional scientists. They were trained for many years to study these things and have actually studied them for longer.

[/ QUOTE ]

How many successful businesses have they run? I love it. The Ivory Tower hands down a decree from on high that "unions are as or more productive than nonunions" yet all the people who have profit at stake are ignoring it. Why do you think that is?

Do you think the decline of unions in america is due to propoganda? Or maybe just maybe they don't offer a good value proposition to employers? Why do many unions need the legislature to back them up and force employers to deal with them? If they were so damn valuable you'd think employers would be clamoring to get unionized employee bases eh?

How naive do you have to be?

natedogg

[CORed]

[ QUOTE ]
Ask yourself this: The last time you went to the store to buy a carton of milk, did you engage in a death "struggle" against other customers, as well as the merchant? Did you "grasp and elbow" your way to the milk aisle and then back to the checkout? Did you "shout and shove" your way through the store, amidst hundreds of others doing the same?

[/ QUOTE ]

I usually only have to do that stuff on Saturday.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You never said "functionally identical".


[/ QUOTE ]

Oh rllly????

[ QUOTE ]
In both cases the objecitve material situation is identical.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sofa covers is objectively wastfull yes, how could it not be. Oh, insert an abritary subjective preference for the new sofa covers and the waste disapears abra cadabra.

Im assuming you didnt sell them on ebay, recycle them or put them to use in some other way. If they went in the bin the objective waste is clear.

Just stating that it isnt wastefull because you wanted them isnt enough, please attempt to demonstrate why.

However I assume the new sofa cover are newer. Paint isnt wastefull I dont think, not sure. Any more triviality you want to bring into this arguement.

[/ QUOTE ]

If new sofa covers are wasteful, how could paint NOT be? The old paint is "functionally identical" to the old paint.

Do you consider the first coat of paint to be wasteful?

Ultimately, I think you're right, in a way; you're just using a trivial definition of "waste" that doesn't tell us anything interesting or useful.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok then the paint is waste as well whatever yawn, the example was so trivial as to not be worth thinking about was the point I was trying to make. However if you wanted you could strip off the new layer of paint and reuse the old layer so its not the same as throwing pefectly good sofa covers in the bin.

I think this is an intresting topic as it seems the accounting of waste in objective terms is difficult useing commodity value, where as objective accounting of production is hard using use value concepts.

If one uses a commodity value then as long as a commodity is bought and sold at its "natural" level it is very difficult to account for any objective waste of recources resultant in the consumption of that commodity. (note: this is not the same as accounting for waste in the production of a commodity which you can do perfectly well with commodity value)

If the market is seen to be functioning optimaly this practicaly predicates that consumptive waste is immpossible given the rules by which we are to understand markets. This clearly indicates a break between subjective arangements and objective conditions.

If one was to use a use value then it is alot easier to acount for consumptive waste as then we can look at the factor of usefullness derived from an object in relation to its total potential usefullness before it is replaced/scraped etc.

So it seem with commodity value we can understand waste in production but not consumption yet this situation it totaly reversed when using use value.

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
If the market is seen to be functioning optimaly this practicaly predicates that consumptive waste is immpossible given the rules by which we are to understand markets. This clearly indicates a break between subjective arangements and objective conditions.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think the problem with this discussion is that we are using two different definitions of the word waste. When you replace your drapes the old drapes produce waste. There is a cost associated with that but you have decided it is worth the cost to upgrade your drapes. There is always going to be waste in any economic system and part of producing a more efficient product is figuring out where you can reduce or eliminate waste.

It was probably me or someone else that said that the military is a waste. This is not technically true in the same sense that the drapes are a waste. If you believe that the money spent on Iraq is decreasing the threat of terrorism and making you safer in the long run than this is not a waste at all. However, spending money on the military is money that is not spent on other areas of the economy that would increase our standard of living or wealth. So if you believe that health care, education, and better working conditions are more important than the war in Iraq then the war is a waste in the same terms as the drapes are. The fact that war takes money away from other parts of the economy is objective, the value we recieve in return for making war is subjective.