On Feb 17, 2008 2:52 PM, Dan M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am responding with the exact same message to two posts because I am > contemplating whether there is any point in replying to either. I think I > know what the answer is, but since I _know_ I am often wrong, I will ask. >
There are a total of zero questions in your identical post and its twin sister, so I doubt if you will get any answers at all. It seems that you are unhappy that I attribute more significance to the L.A. Times story than your personal arguments. Well, that seems only reasonable to me. Has the world has changed so much that a guy like you can do better research in his spare time than a Pulitzer Price-winning editorial team accomplishes over several months? Surely there are sources you can cite to refute the Times' piece; Wal-Mart has many fans. I'm sure that the Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation, etc., have all sorts of evidence that Wal-Mart is an unmitigated blessing. For example, surely you could find a non-circular an argument that Wal-Mart's low wages reflect the real value of retail labor, rather than a result of the weakening of unions over recent decades. Surely somebody with strong credentials has refutes the studies that show increased unemployment and health insurance after Wal-Mart enters a market. But why are Wal-Mart prices so much lower than competitors? Doesn't the large gap indicate that they could pay employees better and simply choose not to? Surely some of their increased efficiency comes from their logistics and supply chain expertise. As long as your only argument is "efficiency," you're not even talking about the same subject as I am. I have stipulated repeatedly that Wal-Mart is highly efficient. That's not the problem; it is how they achieve that efficiency. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
