> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Nick Arnett > Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 4:30 PM > To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion > Subject: Re: Wal-Mart and more > > On Feb 17, 2008 8:50 PM, Dan M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > 3) Are you interested in discussing what I just quoted and will requote: > > > > " The third is a discussion of the case at hand: if we (as I think we > do) > > agree that improving the lives of the poorer among us at least _a_ > > worthwhile goal, has Wal-Mart done more to aid or more to harm those > > lives." > > > > Reading down through the thread, I realized that no, I am not interested > in discussing that question because it is free of any ethical considerations. > It is a "modest proposal" sort of argument. > > Ethics is not simply a matter of calculating whether the good outweighs > the bad. There are some things that we simply don't do because they are > wrong, even though logic might strongly suggest that their benefit >outweighs the cost. We don't eat our children to survive (an allusion to >"modest propsals," in case that wasn't clear).
(As an aside, it was English Gentlemen who ate the Irish Children...a bit pedeantic....but rather important to the author's point.) Among many schools of ethics over the years there are two that are being intertwined here: One is the categorical imperative: there are things we must always do and there are things we must never do, simply because they are right/wrong. The second is the consequentialist: the ethics of actions are determined by the outcome of acting/not acting. Even if the action or lack thereof is not inherently immoral or moral, one can consider the morality by the consequences. There is nothing immoral about standing on a street corner thinking about last night's ball game. But, if a woman was being raped, it would be immoral to do nothing, if it was possible to stop the action with modest risk to oneself (at least call 911, right?) I tend to be a consequentialist. I look at "love thy neighbor as theyself" (which I think we agree as fundamental, and look at the results for my neighbors of certain actions. But, I recognize that one can push consequentialism into immorality. Consequentialism was, after all, the excuse for the excesses of Communism. The classic anti-consequentalism argument is the question of handing an innocent man to be killed in order to keep a city safe. So there are problems with this argument....and it has to be balanced with the "moral imperative" understanding of ethics, IMHO. But, there are real life examples of problems with limited and selected implementations of moral imperatives. For one, if one defines too many or too broad moral imperatives: one finds oneself with no choice but to violate one or the other. For example, "protect the innocent" and "never do any harm" cannot both be followed all the time. Take a real life example of a crazed shooter being hit with rifle fire by a police officer. This doesn't mean that I think pacifism is wrong, a priori. Rather, I'd argue that a pacifist must admit that the cost of their inaction is that innocence will suffer and die. The categorical imperative can be so strong as to require to pacifist to stand back in horror and watch an innocent die, when they were in a position to let the innocent live. I think the proper thing to do in that case, is use violence: I think a police force (uncorrupt, unbiased, etc.) is valid...and I am acting morally when I vote to help establish the existence of such a force. As far as I can see, a pacifist would differ, but that's a point where ethical people can have honest differences. I'd only get upset if they denied that there some of the consequences of their inaction were horrid. I've met honest pacifists and I respected their views because they agreed that innocence can die when a pacifistic stand is taken....but that they still had to take that stance. Now, back to Wal-Mart. Looking at the last 20 years of Wal-Mart.....the company philosophy seems evident to me. I've read a wide range of analysis of their techniques and the corporate culture of Wal-Mart was consistently named as cutting prices by cutting costs. Corporations are all there to make money, certainly. But, they have different ways of doing it. Some are the tech leaders: high prices for the latest and the best. Wal-Mart chose the low price route to profit. It's a low margin means, but can be very successful. Nationwide, Wal-Mart pays just under average for retail workers. Here near Houston, it pays a bit better than average. So, exploiting the worker by paying far less than the next guy for a worker does not seem to be the MO. Indeed, as the reference I gave shows, Wal-Mart pays way under scale only in those areas where scale is set by union to be far higher than it is in the rest of the nation. Wal-Mart also pushes its suppliers to lower prices. That doesn't strike me as unusual.....its just that with its clout its much better at it than a small store. But, lower vendor prices are not inherently bad. Corporations do not have a moral right to a certain profit margin. So, I see no inherent categorical imperative that requires a moral person to fight the expansion of Wal-Mart into a given area. For the most part, prices in the area fall more than wages. Since Wal-Mart shoppers are usually the poorer people, Wal-Mart's lower prices have been the difference between a family living over the poverty line and a family living under the poverty line. Now, it is pointed out, accurately, that Wal-Mart pays a wage that....in many parts of the country, a family with two Wal-Mart employees cannot afford a very good lifestyle. Most places, a family of four with an income of 35k/year are well above the poverty line, but probably fall among the workers who would have trouble paying even the WalMart medical bills. That is wrong, and I can see the argument that WalMart does not pay a living wage....in those terms. But, with few exceptions, retail doesn't pay a living wage....especially in California. Let me give a _very_ personal example. My daughter is splitting a (roughly) 600 sq. ft two bedroom flat with a roommate. She has a job she's lucky to have at a local store. But, she makes $9.50/hour. She's a student, so she uses that work to slightly decrease her increasing debt (as well as ours). That flat costs her $1000/month for her share of the rent. If she worked full time there, she'd make about $19,000 per year. With $10k/year going to rent, even eating a lot of beans and cornbread....she'd have a hard time making ends meet without loans. Thank God that she's on our insurance 'cause she's certainly not going to be able to pay $600/month for insurance with high deductibles). Back in the mid-west, things were different. Her rent was $350 for a much nicer place, (two bedroom/roommate again) and costs of everything were much lower. She could buy things at Walmart to help make ends meet. Thus, in a place that accepted Walmart years ago, a person on a retail salary could do much better than she can in California. Indeed, last night I had to drive to Wal-Mart to buy something for her to help fix her glasses) because the local shops didn't have it...but Wal-Mart did. So, I just mailed a Wal-Mart care package to my broke daughter. Look at the price numbers in the Kerry advisor analysis I gave http://www.americanprogress.org/kf/walmart_progressive.pdf They are significant. Since most of Wal-Mart shoppers are poor, the drop in prices of 5%-15% are extremely significant. Look in particular at Table 1. from that report. That cut in food prices is enormous....and often makes the difference between a family being below and above the poverty line. Looking at this, I consider the large protest against Wal-Mart. I look at it from a vastly different place, literally, than you live in. I grew up in the Mid-West where my family shopped at Target Store #3, and have lived in Texas for years. Even among my friends who are strong active living wage advocates, shopping at Wal-Mart is common, and not considered bad. Wal-Mart is considered part of the environment, not something different to fight When I went to San Francisco, I saw a very beautiful expensive area that was way to pricy for me to consider living in (Teri will be taking a call and we will move to follow that call). It is a great place for rich people. It is built and set up for the rich. So, with a daughter who, by experience, knows what the going rate for skilled retail work is (she's skilled enough to specialize in the trade of her boss and to help her boss with her inventory, etc.) and the high prices I see, I wonder why it's Wal-Mart that is getting all the flack. If it is a categorical imperative for Wal-Mart to pay a living wage, isn't it also a categorical imperative for other stores to do the same.....but if they did, they'd go bankrupt because their neighbors wouldn't. In short, and this is too long so I'll make this point very short.....I think a lot of the problem with Wal-Mart is that it is so _not_ California...at the very least, it is so _not_ Bay Area. It is not beautiful, it is not a boutique, it is not quaint. It's real Arkansas, the kinda place people who live in trailers shop at. For the life of me, the only workers who really would get hurt are the small fraction of grocery workers who get fairly good union salaries. I have sympathy for them....but it wasn't Wal-Mart that started the end of Union America. I don't see Wal-Mart's corporate mentality as something inherently wrong. Cutting costs is a good thing. If every company cut costs in half and wages in half, then things would be neutral. But, Wal-Mart cuts costs more than wages. Thus, if every company followed the same path, workers would have better wages. The solution seems simple to me. Have rules that help workers that _everybody_ has to follow. Wal-Mart will adapt, unless they are one armed man with a limp type rules). There are several ways to handle this...and I think we can find a lot of agreement on some sort of universal health care for the US. The rise in the minimum wage was good, IMHO. I think folding SS taxes into the general income tax would be a good thing...there are lots of things. But, I cannot accept Wal-Mart's mentality of "always the lowest prices, always" as something that is inherently wrong. Without a doubt, folks pushed to follow that have done wrong things....but that doesn't make the goal wrong. Inefficient companies have also polluted, companies that overcharge consumers are no more likely to treat the average worker better (except for management) than companies that provide low prices. So, I'd argue that Wal-Mart is the wrong target. The main beneficiaries of its corporate culture are lower income Americans who, in essence, saw their pay raised by being able to shop at Wal-Mart. The problems Wal-Mart has insuring, paying, and treating its retail workers are not unique to Wal-Mart, they prevail (with rare exceptions) in the retail world. The solution to me is to accept that the foundational value of the core culture of Wal-Mart as inherently good, while recognizing that the wrong thing can be/often is done in trying to achieve good ends. Don't stop the whole process, address the means that are objectionable....but address them across the board...not just with Wal-Mart. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
