RE: Wal-Mart and more L4
If you think black helicopters are a-comin-a-gitcha, you ain't seen nothin' yet: Think black flying saucers. Which make a lot more sense for alien invaders to use than ones which glow bright green . . . Black is way more cool. Ever seen a pink ufo?? Hah! Thought not! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wal-Mart and more L4
On Feb 20, 2008, at 9:53 PM, Dan M wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:brin-l- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ronn! Blankenship Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 11:48 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: RE: Wal-Mart and more L4 Oh. For a second I thought I was going to read about the first Supercenter on a space colony . . . No, the robotic union has successfully blocked it. The Robot-union dodge is completely bogus. All off-planet robotic sites have been right-to-work since Reagan deregulated the industry. L4 has been given to Haliburton under a no-bid contract to develop a base for the Reticulian attack on Earth in 2012, just as the Mayans predicted. If you think black helicopters are a-comin-a-gitcha, you ain't seen nothin' yet: Think black flying saucers. As a result, the New World Wal-Mart will be on L5, not L4, and it will NOT be unionized. PS: remember that L4 and L5 are *moving* points, tracing tadpole-shaped orbits ahead of and behind Earth on its orbit, so the nearest New World Wal-Mart could be as much as a quarter orbit behind Earth at any given time. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wal-Mart and more L4
Dan M said the following on 2/21/2008 12:44 AM: 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. Hi Dan, I'm going to inject one statement into this discussion and then get the hell out of the way as I don't really have time to engage this discussion. Normally, I wouldn't do this, but I can't let this pass. My point: I think it is disingenuous to talk about the pay scales without including the value of benefits such as health insurance, etc. and also take into consideration corporate policies concerning hiring of part-time vs. full-time workers.[1] Wal-Mart has been accused of cutting full-time employees in order to hire part-time workers without the same set of benefits. An article in January, 2007 states that only 47.4% of their workforce receives health insurance through the company and 10% have no coverage at all.[2] I'm disturbed that Wal-Mart appears to me to be driving its costs down on the backs of its workers. [1] http://money.cnn.com/2005/10/26/news/fortune500/walmart/ [2] NY Time article via TinyURL http://preview.tinyurl.com/2ebe7b --[Lance] -- Celebrate The Circle http://www.celebratethecircle.org/ Carolina Spirit Quest http://www.carolinaspiritquest.org/ GPG Fingerprint: 409B A409 A38D 92BF 15D9 6EEE 9A82 F2AC 69AC 07B9 CACert.org Assurer ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wal-Mart and more L4
At 02:06 AM Thursday 2/21/2008, Dave Land wrote: On Feb 20, 2008, at 9:53 PM, Dan M wrote: -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:brin-l- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ronn! Blankenship Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 11:48 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: RE: Wal-Mart and more L4 Oh. For a second I thought I was going to read about the first Supercenter on a space colony . . . No, the robotic union has successfully blocked it. The Robot-union dodge is completely bogus. All off-planet robotic sites have been right-to-work since Reagan deregulated the industry. L4 has been given to Haliburton under a no-bid contract to develop a base for the Reticulian attack on Earth in 2012, just as the Mayans predicted. If you think black helicopters are a-comin-a-gitcha, you ain't seen nothin' yet: Think black flying saucers. Which make a lot more sense for alien invaders to use than ones which glow bright green . . . As a result, the New World Wal-Mart will be on L5, not L4, and it will NOT be unionized. So presumably it will be ionized? PS: remember that L4 and L5 are *moving* points, tracing tadpole-shaped orbits ahead of and behind Earth on its orbit, so the nearest New World Wal-Mart could be as much as a quarter orbit behind Earth at any given time. So, not within walking distance, and a fair way to go in the SUV (unless modified as per Jerry Oltion) . . . -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wal-Mart and more L4
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 pedeanticbut 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
RE: Wal-Mart and more L4
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nick Arnett Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2008 11:19 AM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Wal-Mart and more L4 I'm interpreting everything your wrote about ethics as agreement that it isn't simply a cost-benefit analysis. Right? I agree it isn't simply a cost benefit analysis. But, I also argue that costs and benefits must both be considered. The ends do not always justify the means. But, the ends sometimes justifies the means. 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. OK, reduced pay is a bad thing, reduced prices are a good thing. Increased pay is a good thing, increased prices are a bad thing. Inflation gives us a good way of seeing that. If the CPI goes up 6% and my wages go up 3% that's bad. If the CPI goes down 6% and my wages go down 3%, that's a good thing. To, me the question with WalMart is which predominates. Quoting http://www.americanprogress.org/kf/walmart_progressive.pdf quote There is little dispute that Wal-Mart's price reductions have benefited the 120 million American workers employed outside of the retail sector. Plausible estimates of the magnitude of the savings from Wal-Mart are enormous - a total of $263 billion in 2004, or $2,329 per household.2 Even if you grant that Wal-Mart hurts workers in the retail sector - and the evidence for this is far from clear - the magnitude of any potential harm is small in comparison. One study, for example, found that the Wal-Mart effect lowered retail wages by $4.7 billion in 2000.3 end quote We are talking about factors of 100 differences in benefits/harm. This analysis is similar to what I've seen elsewhere. Now, given the unfortunate politicization of economic analysis, it is fair to wonder how biased is the study one is quoting. I will argue that there are failures on both the left and the right on this. But, the author of the long analysis I am quoting is not a dittohead, he has worked for Democrats. So, he analysis of Wal-Mart should not be put in the same category as Heritage Foundation position papers (many of which I can find the flaws within 30 secondsthey're that bad). Further, if you look at the main page of the website, http://www.americanprogress.org/ I think it's fair to say that the American Progressive is at the very least a centrealist website. 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? The argument is not that, if it were it would be suspect. It's that the net effects of Wal-Mart have been measured for the last 20 years (I remember reading my first economic analysis of this in the NYT while I still lived in CT, so that was at least 16 years ago. In one analysis, Wal-Mart was credited with half of the productivity improvement (productivity is not increased BTW by lowering workers salaries) during the 1990s. The transformation of retail America during the '90s is considered by a number of mainstream economists as a significant part of the productivity improvement that Wal-Mart led. You argued before that you are a stats guy too. I didn't realize it because I didn't see number crunching in your posts...so I didn't understand that. But, I'd be very happy with Rapidly abandoning a vendor because there's a cheaper version available is certainly good economics, but it is not good for people. In stating that, you are stating something that directly flies in the face of mainstream economics. First, I'm not sure what rapidly means, but contracts for a million of this or that don't turn on a dime.the new vender _has_ to have time to gear up for WalMart like demand. Competition on price is one of the foundations of a market economy. Alternatives that have been tried have almost always turned out to be costly for all but a lucky few. May I simply call it heartless
RE: Wal-Mart and more L4
-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 pedeanticbut 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 argumentand 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 takenbut 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
RE: Wal-Mart and more L4
Oh. For a second I thought I was going to read about the first Supercenter on a space colony . . . -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Wal-Mart and more L4
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ronn! Blankenship Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 11:48 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: RE: Wal-Mart and more L4 Oh. For a second I thought I was going to read about the first Supercenter on a space colony . . . No, the robotic union has successfully blocked it. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
