Anti-WalMart Campaign?

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Smashing a perfectly good window and then replacing it with another window = wastefull.

Smashing window and replacing it with acme Satchi and Satchi super cool branded window = not wastefull.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who is doing the smashing in each case?

[/ QUOTE ]

Irrlevant as long as they are getting paid to do it.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]

I hope those making this point realise that this is a socialist arguement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, this is incorrect. The socialist argument is that the soldiers should be building schools and hospitals. The AC argument is that they could be building schools, or farming or mining nose gold for fun and profit. That is the choice of what to do is theirs.

[Brainwalter]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I hope those making this point realise that this is a socialist arguement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, this is incorrect. The socialist argument is that the soldiers should be building schools and hospitals. The AC argument is that they could be building schools, or farming or mining nose gold for fun and profit. That is the choice of what to do is theirs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well these soldiers are volunteers. The more accurate point is that the people being forced to pay the soldiers could instead be free to pay them to do other stuff.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Smashing a perfectly good window and then replacing it with another window = wastefull.

Smashing window and replacing it with acme Satchi and Satchi super cool branded window = not wastefull.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who is doing the smashing in each case?

[/ QUOTE ]

Irrlevant as long as they are getting paid to do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. So if I, as a window maker, pay some kid to go around smashing people's windows, that's irrelevant?

[natedogg]

[ QUOTE ]

Unions have more security, but it is essentially a consensus opinion amongst those in the field called "sociology of work" that those with more job security do a better or equally good job as those who do not that work in the same field.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ha.
http://www.azstarnet.com/metro/145557.php

Shows what they know. Are you sure you're not Moorobot? His blind, slavish acceptance of anything published by an academic feels eerily familiar here.. It's a common failing on this board it seems. I've even seen *student* papers touted as expert analysis we should all fall in line with... You guys really need to start thinking for *yourself*.

If union workers are so productive why do business resist unionization? What is the value proposition that unions offer employers? A "better or equally good" job really needs to be "better" for an employer to even consider a union, other "equally good but way more expensive" is just not appealing.


[ QUOTE ]
And, of course, job security is immensely important to human well-being, as somebody who believes in Maslow's hierarchy should understand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some people value other things over job security. I am one of them. Job security is not so important to me. But if I had to join a union to even take the job I want, I guess the union decides for me that job security is more important than other considerations, and we end up with "buddy punching" as a normal course of business.

[ QUOTE ]
Unions have, of course, acquired a bad name, because it is capitalists who control the media, not workers

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, it's due to media conspiracy. That's it.

natedogg

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
I hope those making this point realise that this is a socialist arguement.

[/ QUOTE ]
Keep hoping, I don't see any socialism in this.
[ QUOTE ]
The above is only relevant if there is shortage of equipment/labour to biuld hospitals.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is only an example. Surely the people that create bombs that blow things up are providing less value to society then anything in the free market, agree or disagree?
[ QUOTE ]
No the only way the equipment and labour in Iraq could be used to biuld hospitals is via centrall planning of the economy,

[/ QUOTE ]
To the contrary, the only reason bombs and military equipment are produced in such high numbers is because of central planning. The workers that build bombs now, if they entered the free market, would only be finding jobs that provided others with value, because that's how capitalism works.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
This is only an example. Surely the people that create bombs that blow things up are providing less value to society then anything in the free market, agree or disagree?


[/ QUOTE ]

Usually, but not always. Suppose there is a group conspiring to use bombs to blow up several buildings. The owners of these buildings decide to bomb the original bombers first. A bomb is much cheaper than rebuilding their own buiildings. So the bomb had more utility than other resources. It also serves as a deterent for the future.

Blowing bombs up in the desert has some value as well, as it is training. The exact benefits are hard to measure, but there is at least some value.

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]
Number of people that work for walmart + number of people who work for companies that deal with walmart < number of people who shop at walmart.

Further, the efficiency improvements that companies achieve as a result of their dealings with walmart benefit their customers who buy their products through other retailers, too.

And, you're assuming that all labor that is connected with walmart suppliers suffers because of walmart. Many of them benefit.

Henry Ford affected the wages of people who didn't work for him or his suppliers; some positively, some negatively. Buggywhip makers were negatively affected. Assembly line workers were overwhelmingly positively affected. Regardless, consumers benefitted the most.

[/ QUOTE ]

this assumes walmart is the only company of its kind. obviously if walmart was the only company in the entire country that paid poor wages, had poor working conditions and so forth, it wouldn't be a major problem.

the fact is that poor people in the US are getting poorer, and i don't mean relative to the rich. they are getting poorer in terms of real wages. it's not an accident, and i've seen little reason to believe it's not going to move up from the bottom quintile to the one above it and on from there.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Smashing a perfectly good window and then replacing it with another window = wastefull.

Smashing window and replacing it with acme Satchi and Satchi super cool branded window = not wastefull.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who is doing the smashing in each case?

[/ QUOTE ]

Irrlevant as long as they are getting paid to do it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. So if I, as a window maker, pay some kid to go around smashing people's windows, that's irrelevant?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice try to totaly take the discusion off track. Its irrelevant to the theme of the discusion who is breaking the windows as it is a meaningless detail to the point that I assumed you were asking who was installing the windows as who is breaking them is so meaningless. You have managed to correct me over this utterly meaningless detail whilst managing to totaly avoid discusing the actual theme of discusion.

To put things on track, assume that the windows are wasted by the owner of the window (YAWN), then someone is payed to replace the window. Then if it isnt beyond you perhaps you could actualy post a reply to the conceptual theme of my post.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I hope those making this point realise that this is a socialist arguement.

[/ QUOTE ]
Keep hoping, I don't see any socialism in this.
[ QUOTE ]
The above is only relevant if there is shortage of equipment/labour to biuld hospitals.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is only an example. Surely the people that create bombs that blow things up are providing less value to society then anything in the free market, agree or disagree?
[ QUOTE ]
No the only way the equipment and labour in Iraq could be used to biuld hospitals is via centrall planning of the economy,

[/ QUOTE ]
To the contrary, the only reason bombs and military equipment are produced in such high numbers is because of central planning. The workers that build bombs now, if they entered the free market, would only be finding jobs that provided others with value, because that's how capitalism works.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obvioulsy bringing the soldiers back to be employed by all the funds released into the economy by massive cuts in defence spending isnt socialist.

However the post I was answering used the specific examples of infrastucure and hospitals. I dont see how the returning labour would be employed directly in those activiites with out a command economy.