Anti-WalMart Campaign?

[JackWhite]

[ QUOTE ]
But everyone else is better off. People don't want expensive propane because it sucks compared to cheap propane. If the overall economic benefit of new jobs, bigger stockholder revenue, and more money in the consumer's pockets (coupled with the extra productivity mom and pop are going to have to find in order to make money) outweighs mom and pop losing their crap business, wouldn't you agree that it's better over all?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I would, and I stated that in my response to another question above. However, in response to your cheap propane comment , Mega Lo Mart couldn't match Strickland Propane's service with a hug, so some consumers wanted expensive propane.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes I would, and I stated that in my response to another question above. However, in response to your cheap propane comment , Mega Lo Mart couldn't match Strickland Propane's service with a hug, so some consumers wanted expensive propane.

[/ QUOTE ]

And some people (like myself) think WalMart is a garbage peddler.

[xorbie]

hmkpoker,

if prices go down 10% and you get paid 10% less, can you now buy more goods? no? so you're not really better off. walmart alone, for the time being, is unlikely to have this drastic effect on enough people for it to be noticeable.

as pointed out by another poster though, walmart affects the wages of companies who deal with them, not just their own employees.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
if prices go down 10% and you get paid 10% less, can you now buy more goods? no? so you're not really better off.

[/ QUOTE ]

Irrelevent. I don't work at WalMart, and neither does most of America. WalMart's savings benefit consumers.

[Propertarian]

[ QUOTE ]
Your post was a total non-sequitur to the question. You compare WalMart to slavery, which it isn't, since slaves aren't free to quit their jobs. You equate the force of government coercion with the force of poverty, even though they are fundamentally different.

[/ QUOTE ] My argument does not preusuppose, and does not need to presuppose, that Wal-mart and slavery are identical, or that gov't coercion and economic coercion are identical. I was just making an example to illustrate that it makes absolutely no sense to care about nothing other than the choices made under an arbitrary (or worse) set of conditions. The conditions that people have to make choices within are also important.

And, btw, whether or not it could be different, the current distribution of property/resources/wealth etc. is caused by government actions (including gov't force used to protect property rights), and the gov't coercively keeps intact the current distribution.

[ QUOTE ]
The initial question was: Are Americans who work at Wal-Mart are more well off than they would be if Wal-Mart did not exist? I don't care whether you consider it "unjust" by comparing it to slavery, or whether you disregard the economic benefit of cheap goods. Yes or no.

[/ QUOTE ] Irrelevant question. The best would be if wal-mart was not union busting and discriminating...That is the proper comparision, because we want the best possibility, not the better of two arbitrarily picked options.

[ QUOTE ]
Is this automatically indicative of discrimination? Couldn't this just as well mean that women tend to move on to better, non WalMart jobs?

[/ QUOTE ] It almost always indicates discrimination, and, in this case, as another poster mentioned, it does.

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]

as pointed out by another poster though, walmart affects the wages of companies who deal with them, not just their own employees.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Irrelevent. I don't work at WalMart, and neither does most of America. WalMart's savings benefit consumers.


[/ QUOTE ]

your reading comprehension is teh suck.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Irrelevant question. The best would be if wal-mart was not union busting and discriminating...That is the proper comparision, because we want the best possibility, not the better of two arbitrarily picked options.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is union busting bad?

If someone is willing to do x for $8/hour and someone else is willing to do x for $7/hour, why shouldn't the latter person be allowed to work?

[Propertarian]

[ QUOTE ]
But to even sit here and talk about walmarts low wages like they get to decide what they pay for labour is just rediculous.

[/ QUOTE ] This presupposes that Wal-Mart couldn't make a profit without raising wages (or stopping unpaid overtime, or discriminating against people, etc.), which is false:

Each of Walton's 6 heirs are worth over 15 billion dollars.

In fact somebody even posted a report here a while ago showing they could easily do so.

What is crazy is what you are doing: assuming in advance that that gov't spending is always "wasteful".

You might want to check out "The Vampire State (And Other Myths and Fallacies About the U.S. Economy)" by Fred Block for a different view of the state's role/function in advanced capitalistic systems.

[Propertarian]

[ QUOTE ]
If someone is willing to do x for $8/hour and someone else is willing to do x for $7/hour, why shouldn't the latter person be allowed to work?

[/ QUOTE ] It is worse to have a really, really poor person than a really poor person, when we are given the options. Also, when you look at this on a larger scale (as opposed to just an isolated incident with no effects on anything else, which it isn't), you will realize that an area that is more unionized will have higher wages--and benefits and job security and working conditions--than an area that is less unionized.

Basically, firms have much more bargaining power than individual workers...(incidentally, this is one of the many reasons why pay does not equal productivty)...But if the employees cooperate, they can close the gap somewhat, and acquire a larger share of the surplus product for themselves, with less going to profits and the CEOs.

[Propertarian]

I think you are talking to somebody else.