Gautam Mukunda wrote: > --- Robert Seeberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: >> Maybe I missed something. Can you give an example >> for "harming >> WalMart", besides somply talking bad about the >> company? >> (It might have been shown and I forgot or missed >> it.) > > Sorry, I thought the logical conclusion of "talking > bad" about it was doing something bad _to it_. > I understand now.
>> Are you speaking of some group specifically? I got >> the idea you were >> slamming liberals specifically with that. > > Well, the chattering classes are disproportionately > liberal, sure, but not entirely so. I am, for > example, unquestionably a member of the chattering > classes, however unpleasant I find the prospect. But > it's a description of them generally. >>> Class warfare? I don't know about that. Do the rich >>> often try to screw the poor over? Sure. It's just >>> not the way that liberal elites want us to believe. >>> It's most often by restricting economic activity that >>> would help the poor because it offends their >>> sensibilities. That is clearer. >> >> I read that as "paying a decent wage". Correct me if >> I'm wrong. > > Well, it depends. If your definition of a decent wage > is more than their labor is worth then you have just > mandated not an improvement in their situation but > their unemployment. This does not seem to me an > improvement. That sounds pretty strawmannish to me. (I think in certain situations it may well be true, but I doubt this is the case with WalMart.) > >> I see the current administration as being squarely >> in the corporist >> corner. > > Nor have I mentioned a defense of a single one of the > Administration's policies in this thread. No, but you mention using government to achieve ends: "This is perhaps the single best argument for limiting the power of the government. The rich are far more able than the poor to use the government to their advantage. A limited government has much less power to be used by the rich against the poor." There are times when you sound like an administration apologist (As opposed to John who almost always does). I made this comment because you sound here as if you are of a different mid than the administration. >> I think this is why you and John are catching so >> much heat, especially >> lately. >> (IOW, it is not just Brin you have had to argue >> with.) > > Well, I'd say it's because there are a bunch of people > on this list so fevered in their beliefs as to use > inflammatory rhetoric constantly, so arrogant as to > believe that the simple fact that they think something > means that it is The Truth without reservation or > possibility of doubt, so self-righteous as to believe > that anyone who disagrees with them is morally and > intellectually their inferior, and so cocooned in > their homogenous little worlds that the idea of > intelligent disagreement is entirely outside their > paradigm. But that's just my perspective, of course. It seems to me that "convinced" people on both sides of the party line reflect this. > > >> According to people I know who work at WalMart, they >> are not allowed >> to work more than 32 hours a week. This is done so >> that WalMart will >> not have to provide them with insurance or other >> benefits. This is a >> nationwide policy. > > It may be. On the other hand, more than 90% of > WalMart employees have health insurance, which I bet > is better than a lot of companies that get criticism > for not providing it all the time. It seems to me > that this is at least as much an indictment of > government policies that make benefits so expensive as > to strongly discourage employers from hiring people as > it is the employers who are making economically > rational decisions. For what it is worth I was wrong here. WalMart employess who work 32hrs/wk *are* eligible for insurance. Bad information on my part and bad interpretation of what I was told otherwise. My apologies and an admission of a head-up-the-ass event on my part. >> >> To my way of thinking, this provides WalMart with a >> vast underpaid >> workforce and gives them an unfair advantage in the >> market. > > Why unfair? Everyone else has the same opportunity to > compete against them. They're just better than > everyone else. A lot better. I want to think about this some, do a bit of research. But in the case of CA I would think that WalMart undercuts the prevailing wage. I'll get back if I find anything of interest. The irony occurs to me that WalMart constantly wraps itself in the American flag, yet keeps it's employees as poor as possible. Eventually this may undo their model. > >> True. WalMart is mostly beneficial to people who do >> not work there. > > Well, it's also beneficial to the people who do work > there who wouldn't be able to work otherwise - > probably a very large number of people. I'm not the first to say that this statement is silly. Walmart is not a business "in addition to" all other businesses. If WalMart did not exist then other companies would fill those markets, and if they did so less efficiently, then even more people would be hired. >> >> Also true, and it has the secondary effect of >> bringing prices down in >> other stores as the competition heats up. I can see >> this happening at >> several types of retailer. > > Yeah, but that doesn't matter as much, because so far > no one has been able to keep up with WalMart in terms > of discounting anyways. To the extent that it does, > though, bravo, that's a great thing as well. It matters greatly. If it costs 50 cents in gas to go to WalMart, and my corner food mart is being competetive, then it may be in my interest to stay in my neighborhood and avoid the aggravation of a longer drive. As things stand it isn't just food markets being impacted, it is also big chains such as Best Buy. You have to have noticed that WalMart has a toe in everyones door. I think other retailers are concerned and reacting with price drops and targetted ads. >> You may have forgotten that I am the oldest of 7 >> children > > Yahoo, for whatever reason, truncated your message > after this. OK, so you understand what it means to be > poor (before WalMart, admittedly). It seems to me > that you should agree with me, then. > I'm posting the balance in another message. But for what it is worth, I agree with you sometimes and disagree at other times. And as I've said, I shop at WalMart, so it is not like I am going to lead a campaign against them. xponent But I Am Evil<G> Maru rob _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
