On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 9:44 PM, Dan M <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > (As an aside, it was English Gentlemen who ate the Irish Children...a bit > pedeantic....but rather important to the author's point.)
(As a further aside, think of "we" as "the human race" rather than "we," the Irish, who would be the sellers of their own children -- which is exactly on point.) I'm interpreting everything your wrote about ethics as agreement that it isn't simply a cost-benefit analysis. Right? > > 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. You're not speaking to the point. If I had postulated that cost-cutting is bad, then your arguments would be appropriate. Cost-cutting is not bad. Economic efficiency is not bad. But bad methods can be used to cut costs and improve efficiency. My objection is their aggressiveness in achieving their efficiency -- pushing wages too low too fast, paying women less than men, hiring illegals, cutting benefits, busting unions, abandoning vendors the moment somebody makes a cheaper version, etc. Perhaps all of this will add up to a better economy in the end, but where's the end and what about the effects of the transition? Rapidly abandoning a vendor because there's a cheaper version available is certainly good economics, but it is not good for people. May I simply call it heartless or is having a heart not acceptable in a discussion of business? Where does the idea of treating people decently fit into this discussion? > 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. This clearly is debatable. And it ignores Wal-Mart's objection to expansion of Medicaid, which is the only health care available to many of its workers. Research clearly shows that when Wal-Mart enters a market, more people end up on Medicaid, especially children. That bit of economic efficiency is costing everybody money. It certainly isn't free market economics when the state subsidizes a corporation. > > 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 I didn't respond to your Buckley reference about getting down in the mud with the little people, but now I will. I started to write about my upbringing and everything I have done to stay connected with and respond to the least-served here and abroad... but it sounded too much like a brag sheet. I'll just say this -- please stop painting yourself as down in the dirt with ordinary people and me as a rich snob. It's way off base and has no place in this discussion. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
