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
On Feb 20, 2008, at 9:05 PM, Dan M wrote: Okay ... so where's the middle class gone to, then? It's still there, but whether the middle class has noticeably improved its standing over the last 30 years is a argument based on subtle interpretations of the inflation index. The subtle nature of the argument is based on a number of things: One discussion is at: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3765/is_n3_v18/ai_18824582/pg_2 Huh, that's talking about food, and was written thirteen years ago. While a discussion of food price as one aspect of inflation is certainly relevant, I daresay things have changed considerably in the wake of hundred-buck-a-barrel oil and eight years of borrow-and-spend warfare. But, even taking that index at face value, every income group, from the bottom quintile to the top quintile has improved. The top has improved a whole lot more, but the middle class has not gone away. The distance between the top and the middle has increased, but that's separate issue. It is, in some ways, but it might not be in others. The middle, I think it's fair to say, has shrunk; and there are some services that we might consider humanely desirable that are available only to the monied, or at least the privileged. For instance, while it's indubitable that even the poor in the US are doing considerably better than the poor were in, say, 1931, I'd be surprised to learn they live significantly longer or have better educations. The latter is easily addressable in any society with as much money to waste as we clearly have; the former is perhaps more problematic. While the possibility for longer life has improved greatly, a lot of that longer life presupposes the conditions of relatively low stress, high-quality diet, decent (but not overtaxing) exercise and extensive healthcare that can accommodate -- quickly and properly -- both conventional and contingent conditions: Not just the regular diseases and such, but catastrophic events such as stroke or heart attack, for which prognosis is heavily dependent on speed of care; and cancer, which requires phenomenal amounts of money to treat. These major events are essentially life-changers for the privileged; for the poor -- and for an increasing number of middle-class individuals with low or no insurance -- they are effectively fatal. This renders the ability to remain alive and in decent health something that is given only to those fortunate enough to be wealthy, which is absolutely contrary to the egalitarian ideals of the US. I'm not trying to suggest that there's something necessarily wrong with the state of healthcare in the US today (I think there is, but that's not relevant to issues of costs). But in order to have the higher-quality diet, higher-quality care and high-tech advanced treatments that turn myocardial infarction into little more than a weekend inconvenience, money is irreplaceable. Especially with advancing age, life tends to become very expensive. Thus even someone who has lived comfortably most of his life might find himself facing destitution in his seventies because of the single syllable Hmm from his proctologist. That's only one example, of course; what I'm suggesting is that middle class is (as you suggest) hard to define. I've seen ample examples of people making twice minimum wage who still cannot cover all their needs, and there are even more people making less than that. At my income level I'm probably arguably in the middle class bracket, and the sorry truth is that I'm in the minority in this community. To dovetail with the Wal-Mart discussion, I see an employer that squeezes out competition in small communities, then employs only part- time workers (35 hrs/wk) so as to avoid having to pay any benefits. This does not in any way help the wage base in this community improve; it only guarantees a perpetuation of the poverty. Lower prices on clothing and food (which aren't actually significantly lower; Wal-Mart has a few loss leaders but the overall prices of items in their stores aren't better than any other retail outlet's) at the expense of better employment, retirement and benefits packages is a classic example of the cliché about being penny wise and pound foolish. It's a short-term mindset that is not going to be of benefit to this community in another three or so decades, and I do not have any reason to think my community is unique in this regard. That's the problem I have with pure-market solutions. They embody no foresight, and do not take into account the suffering of the individual humans whose lives are adversely affected by the fluctuations of business. This might be a useful way to run a business, but it is an absolutely unacceptable way to structure a society. And in a society that is increasingly privatizing, that's something of grave concern. -- Warren Ockrassa Blog |
Re: Wal-Mart and more
At 01:23 AM Wednesday 2/20/2008, Dave Land wrote: the moderators, historian Sean Worst President In History? Wilentz Never heard of him. What was he president of, to got the title? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wal-Mart and more
On Feb 19, 2008 11:23 PM, Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As much as I want to brag about the fact that I got to attend such a prestigious event, my main point is that Dan's complaint about the poor quality of discourse on this list and Doug's frustration with Dan's extraordinarily detailed posts were both handled so well in the seminar. Wow. I wouldn't have thought anybody there cared about Brin-L. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Wal-Mart and more
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dave Land Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 1:23 AM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Wal-Mart and more Despite the fact that there were some people in the room who could have filled an entire afternoon with fascinating speech, everybody -- including the moderators, historian Sean Worst President In History? Wilentz and former Republican Congressman Mickey Edwards -- strove to be succinct. Perhaps we can give each other the same gift? OK, Dave, let stay under 500 words. You posted to state that a significant fraction of my posts are rude because they are long. I could spend 20 hours per post cutting down my thoughts to a small tight post that would be under 400 words for any idea I had. (Which is a 2 minute speech). I recall that way back when there was a limit of about 15k in size do to the lower baud rates back then. My longest post this year was 1650 words, 1000 of mine and 650 quoted words. I quoted a good deal because I've didn't want to misrepresent the original point. Maybe this deserved an L3 length indicator, but it was borderline according to our long standing guidlines. The Etiquette Guidelines do not give a maximum length. I thought that abiding by these guidelines was fine. I could, probably, cut my post lengths down tremendouslyas I do when I submit papers to journals with strict page limitations. As Nick pointed out, that is a mark of excellent writing. But, while I research and write quickly, the process of compression is slowas it is for most I know. So, as I read your suggestion, I will be rude if I wish to include ideas that need to be well developed and documented if I simply do the work and submit, as if you were, a rough draft. So, just to be clear, if I have an idea that is more than a quite aside, you and Nick think I should find another venue or spend the hours needed to compress the post into one worthy of publication? My I ask a question of sheer ignorance? What is wrong with seeing the length of the post, glancing at it and then deciding if you want to read the whole thing later? It's not as if this list has enormous traffic any more. Nick gave me in his last posts questions and propositions that were the very ones I asked for and I looked forward to discussing them with him. (In short the communication between us finally worked and I saw his points that were worth serious consideration.) However, since I try to be polite, I will refrain from that until I can devote a day or two per post honing my responses down to strict, yet unspecified, page limitations or I am told that I am allowed to write long posts. In short, may I please please be given explicit limits to work within, since following the etiquette guidelines is no longer sufficient. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wal-Mart and more
On Feb 20, 2008, at 6:47 AM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: At 01:23 AM Wednesday 2/20/2008, Dave Land wrote: the moderators, historian Sean Worst President In History? Wilentz Never heard of him. What was he president of, to got the title? Sorry: To the extent that he is known, Wilentz is best known for the controversial article, The Worst President In History?, in Rolling Stone. If you google his name, it's the top hit. He is not, as far as I know, the president of anything, and I hadn't heard of him before, either. I could have been clearer. I will beg indulgence due to a brain that was in a fog last night due to too much travel and too little sleep while way too ill. Dave Travel advice: Don't get an upper-respiratory illness at 8,000 feet: it's no fun at all. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wal-Mart and more
Dan, On Feb 20, 2008, at 9:32 AM, Dan M wrote: Behalf Of Dave Land Perhaps we can give each other the same gift? You posted to state that a significant fraction of my posts are rude because they are long. I don't recall having said any such thing. Someone else commented that your posts were so well-researched and extensive that most people cannot match them. I don't even recall his having said that your posts were rude. I noted that one of the benefits of the Socrates Society Seminar format was brevity. I am not sure that I can be held responsible for how you connect those facts. I could spend 20 hours per post cutting down my thoughts to a small tight post that would be under 400 words for any idea I had. (Which is a 2 minute speech). I recall that way back when there was a limit of about 15k in size do to the lower baud rates back then. I can't imagine it'd take 20 hours, but yeah, it takes longer to say more with fewer words. My longest post this year was 1650 words, 1000 of mine and 650 quoted words. I quoted a good deal because I've didn't want to misrepresent the original point. Your posts are nothing if not carefully constructed and bolstered against misinterpretation. So, just to be clear, if I have an idea that is more than a quite aside, you and Nick think I should find another venue or spend the hours needed to compress the post into one worthy of publication? I'll let Nick decide what Nick deems appropriate. The construct you and Nick seems to presume that we think with one mind, which we definitely do not. I think that Nick finds me a pompous ass from time to time, and I return the favor as often as I can. I find many of your posts overwhelming, but not rude. :-) However, since I try to be polite, I will refrain from that until I can devote a day or two per post honing my responses down to strict, yet unspecified, page limitations or I am told that I am allowed to write long posts. I don't know that there are any strict, yet unspecified page limitations, Dan. This is just a bunch of acquaintances exchanging emails about Science Fiction, politics, religion and stuff. Sometimes, long posts are valuable (this one is already probably too long). Other times, they're just too much, and the reader is free to ignore them or respond at leisure. In short, may I please please be given explicit limits to work within, since following the etiquette guidelines is no longer sufficient. Up to 600 words, typed, double-spaced, in triplicate, by registered mail. All submissions become the property of Brin-L, Inc, and will not be returned. Dave Ask A Silly Question Maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wal-Mart and more
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 10:44 AM, Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'll let Nick decide what Nick deems appropriate. The construct you and Nick seems to presume that we think with one mind, which we definitely do not. I think that Nick finds me a pompous ass from time to time, and I return the favor as often as I can. That deserves a response, but I'm laughing too much to think. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Wal-Mart and more
Dan M wrote: However, since I try to be polite, I will refrain from that until I can devote a day or two per post honing my responses down to strict, yet unspecified, page limitations or I am told that I am allowed to write long posts. Passive-aggressiveness aside, I personally wouldn't want you to do that. On the occasions when I have time to read your posts and not just skim them in a short attention span theater tl;dr style, I find them rewarding. But that may simply be because you're usually better educated on whatever topic we're going on about. But that's just me. You want to talk about the subtleties of American foreign policy, I'm happy to be a listener. You want to discuss the subtle nuances of the current mortality tables, or preferably - since I'd rather leave work at the office - the crit rocket, I'm your man. :-) Jim Deadly actuary with deadly accuracy Maru ___ Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com The most personalized portal on the Web! ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wal-Mart and more
Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip I could have been clearer. I will beg indulgence due to a brain that was in a fog last night due to too much travel and too little sleep while way too ill. Dave Travel advice: Don't get an upper-respiratory illness at 8,000 feet: it's no fun at all. Especially if you add alcohol to the mix! It's also pretty arid despite the snow, given indoor heating; I use a lot of hot tea with steam therapy when I start to get sick. (Little kids just don't remember not to cough in your face, which, being seated on a pony, they are at a perfect height to do.) Debbi Rooibus, Ginger And Mint Maru :) Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wal-Mart and more
At 12:14 PM Wednesday 2/20/2008, Dave Land wrote: On Feb 20, 2008, at 6:47 AM, Ronn! Blankenship wrote: At 01:23 AM Wednesday 2/20/2008, Dave Land wrote: the moderators, historian Sean Worst President In History? Wilentz Never heard of him. What was he president of, to got the title? Sorry: To the extent that he is known, Wilentz is best known for the controversial article, The Worst President In History?, in Rolling Stone. If you google his name, it's the top hit. He is not, as far as I know, the president of anything, and I hadn't heard of him before, either. I could have been clearer. I will beg indulgence due to a brain that was in a fog last night due to too much travel and too little sleep while way too ill. Dave Travel advice: Don't get an upper-respiratory illness at 8,000 feet: it's no fun at all. As upper-respiratory goes, 8,000 feet is indeed rather well up there . . . -- Ronn! :P If it ain't obvious wrt both of these posts: Professional Smart-Aleck. Do Not Attempt. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wal-Mart and more
On Feb 20, 2008, at 9:32 AM, Dan M wrote: You posted to state that a significant fraction of my posts are rude because they are long. And you wonder why few people seem to want to engage you in intelligent, polite discourse? Seriously, Dan -- arguing in good faith, avoiding strawmanning and ad hominem, and staying clear of pedantic browbeating are going to get you considerably more favorable replies than the tone I've seen from you in this most recent set of threads. The sense I get (since you did originally ask) is that you *must* be right at all costs, damn the opposition -- and, since they're wrong anyway, they can be ignored. This might not be how you intend to come off onscreen, but that's how it reads to me at least. If it's so bloody important that it's worth discussing, you could at least concede you might not be entirely correct -- and whether you are or not, why is it so all-fired important to be right 100 percent of the time on *an internet discussion maillist*? -- \/\/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Wal-Mart and more
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Warren Ockrassa Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 6:23 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Wal-Mart and more On Feb 18, 2008, at 6:42 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But, historically, the extra money the first half has is spent on things that employ the second half. That is _the_ process that created an American middle class out of dirt poor farmers who could barely feed their families. Okay ... so where's the middle class gone to, then? It's still there, but whether the middle class has noticeably improved its standing over the last 30 years is a argument based on subtle interpretations of the inflation index. The subtle nature of the argument is based on a number of things: One discussion is at: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3765/is_n3_v18/ai_18824582/pg_2 But, even taking that index at face value, every income group, from the bottom quintile to the top quintile has improved. The top has improved a whole lot more, but the middle class has not gone away. The distance between the top and the middle has increased, but that's separate issue. I remember the story of the Great Depression from my parents, and have seen statistical information on the effective income of the median American (the guy/gal in the middle since then). It was far below the present poverty line. Things have changed tremendously since the US was the only effective manufacturing power, back in the '60s. The rest of the world is catching up, many times by us buying cheaper things from China and India, for example, than far more expensive things from the US. But, given that, and even though there is increased skewing in the income distribution curve, the folks with family incomes in the 30%-70% of median income range still form a local maximum...which can rightfully be called the middle class. Dan M. ___ 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: 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
Re: Wal-Mart and more
On Feb 18, 2008, at 6:42 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But, historically, the extra money the first half has is spent on things that employ the second half. That is _the_ process that created an American middle class out of dirt poor farmers who could barely feed their families. Okay ... so where's the middle class gone to, then? -- \/\/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wal-Mart and more
On Feb 17, 2008, at 11:00 PM, Doug Pensinger wrote: Dan wrote: 1) Are you interested in a discussion on the vision of myself and at least one other person who was an active poster that discussions are often thwarted by pronouncements that come as if they come from Olympus, rather than arguments that folks want others to discuss so the author can test their own ideas? I'm certainly interested in a good discussion, but I find it very difficult to debate with you because you are a very prolific writer with no apparent limit on the time you have to research a topic. I'm almost a week behind on this list: I've been participating in a Socrates Society seminar at the Aspen Institute, and I've been sick as a dog. As much as I want to brag about the fact that I got to attend such a prestigious event, my main point is that Dan's complaint about the poor quality of discourse on this list and Doug's frustration with Dan's extraordinarily detailed posts were both handled so well in the seminar. The quality of the discussion and the remarkably respectful manner in which it took place were inspiring. At least in part because of the ground rules. Comments were expected to be substantive, but short: when the moderator acknoledged you, you had about two minutes to make your contribution. That would be about the length of this email. Despite the fact that there were some people in the room who could have filled an entire afternoon with fascinating speech, everybody -- including the moderators, historian Sean Worst President In History? Wilentz and former Republican Congressman Mickey Edwards -- strove to be succinct. Perhaps we can give each other the same gift? Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wal-Mart and more
At 07:32 PM Sunday 2/17/2008, William T Goodall wrote: 1/5 Americans think the Sun revolves around the Earth Maru The other 80% are convinced that the world revolves around them . . . Egocentric Universe Maru -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Wal-Mart and more
Dan M: 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. Yes or no answers will suffice. Elaboration would be appreciated. This is a question that is enormously complex to answer. First, the trival bit: if we (as I think we do) agree that improving the lives of the poorer among us at least _a_ worthwhile goal I think there are very few who would admit to not thinking this an admirable goal. Second, the hard bit. ... done more to aid or more to harm ... . This is the tricky part. Without a complete assessment of Walmart's entire impact on poor people (and in fact the whole ecosystem of humanity), it's nearly impossible to answer accurately. I'm in no position to have much of an opinion on this one. But then again, nor is anyone else, much. Your response to the response to the response to this message confused me also. You were ranting on about the EU pandering to Green Party pressure, accusing them of sacrificing children to malaria for some political agenda. If you'd bothered to learn a little about DDT, you'd have seen that it is VERY nasty stuff. Most of the (extensive) Wikipedia article on DDT is about how nasty it is. Then I remembered Charlie's reference to the 'Gish Gallop' (to which you were responding), and this made me wonder if your abrupt change of topic might just be a hint suggesting that the whole Wal-mart argument was simply a cunning troll, rolled up in several layers of misdirection!? Regards Curtis The herring is not red Maru. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Wal-Mart and more
I'm certainly interested in a good discussion, but I find it very difficult to debate with you because you are a very prolific writer with no apparent limit on the time you have to research a topic. Believe it or not, I'm driving to Austin to be with my wife nearly every weekend and work 60+ hours a week. I just find doing research while multi-tasking easy and quick. I would not be surprised to find that this is what you do for a living. I'm a research physicist/consultant that has to be able to take in millions of numbers and very quickly see the patterns. So, you caught my MO fairly quickly. Furthermore you are very good at manipulating statistics to bolster your arguments, but as Charlie pointed out a couple of times late last year, you have a tendency to mold the facts and figures to fit your opinion (reference a recent mass transit discussion). Its fair to say that, in the middle of a discussion, I will take one point and try to advocate for it. I do that professionally all the time, and rely on my partners to marshal the data for other points. It's a very useful technique in science/engineeringbut I can see its frustrating for those who don't play that way. Furthermore, look at the size of your last two posts. There's more volume there than all the posts from everyone else on the list for several days prior. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm often overwhelmed by the shear size of your posts. I'm not nearly as prolific and I seldom have more than an hour a day to peruse and respond to all of my personal email. Going back over the last 3 months, I've spent far less than that per day. I admit it, I write fast. Understand, if it's not obvious, that in most respects I'm complimenting you and letting you know that you're just too good at these discussions for me to compete. This isn't to say that I think you're always right or even that you've always made your point well. I just can't keep up all the time, so often times I just give up. I'm sure this is frustrating to you. Its certainly frustrating to me. I think that's a fair critique of my posting. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Wal-Mart and more
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Hobby Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 11:43 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Wal-Mart and more Dan M wrote: ... Would you consider this an reasonable, non right wing source? Or, how about Paul Krugmanhe has made a statement that frames the question in a way that I think could lead to a very fruitful discussion. I'm not saying that he and I agree on everything, but a good thread could be started from what he wrote. He is well know as a leftist economist turned columnist. Dan-- I read Krugman regularly, and usually agree with him. The quote of his is at: http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2005/12/paul_krugman_wa.htm l I don't think it's unreasonableand gives a sketch of the questions I think should be asked concerning Wal-Mart ... But, simply stating that Wal-Mart is evil and greedy, when its profit margin is 3.4% and an operating margin of 5.8% of sales and Microsoft is not, when its profit margin is 22.9% and an operating margin of 40.7% is not, as self evident doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Let's see: evil does not have much explanatory power or actual meaning, and as for greedy, corporations usually have to be greedy, or their shareholders object. Different business sectors tend to have different profit margins. That explains some of it. Sure it does, and I'm fully willing to state that the difference doesn't mean Bill is Greedy and the Walton kids are not. Microsoft and Wal-Mart are in different positions, and the massive difference in profit margins reflect their business type as much as anything. Retail is usually low margin. High Tech software can have high margins. How exactly does a pronouncement thwart a discussion? Well, to me, I want to understand the ideas supporting the arguments of others. Even though I engage in a thread with a full out argument, I always reflect on the points that countered mine afterwards and recalibrate my position. You may have noticed, as Robert did earlier, my positions are not the same as they were 10 years ago. I have been persuaded by good arguments that have countered mine in threads I've been involved with here. 2) Are you interested in a discussion of how and whether statistics play a part in developing greater understanding vs. reading stories, having them touch your heart, and then coming to an understanding of truth? Hmmm... Sounds like a pretty fuzzy topic for discussion. It almost sounds like the problem would be that not everybody shares the same definition of truth. I think soor how to relate mass numbers to the lives of all the folks who make up the mass numbers. I think we/I can do better at thatand consider how to do it something worth exploring. Sure, but it may not be a long discussion. Some people lose, and other gain, when Wal-Mart comes to town... But, the question I want to ask is does the average lower income person gain. Articles and analysis like the one by Kerry's advisor address the subject. If there are other factors worth considering, I'd be interested in seeing them. But, at the moment, his argument looks pretty persuasiveespecially since I think I can do a simple economic model that illustrates the underlying principal. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Wal-Mart and more
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Curtis Burisch Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 10:33 AM To: 'Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion' Subject: RE: Wal-Mart and more Dan M: 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. Yes or no answers will suffice. Elaboration would be appreciated. This is a question that is enormously complex to answer. First, the trival bit: if we (as I think we do) agree that improving the lives of the poorer among us at least _a_ worthwhile goal I think there are very few who would admit to not thinking this an admirable goal. Second, the hard bit. ... done more to aid or more to harm ... . This is the tricky part. Without a complete assessment of Walmart's entire impact on poor people (and in fact the whole ecosystem of humanity), it's nearly impossible to answer accurately. I'm in no position to have much of an opinion on this one. But then again, nor is anyone else, much. Actually, there are good data on thisI've read on this subject for years. One good source is Kerry's former economic advisor http://www.americanprogress.org/kf/walmart_progressive.pdf One can also do very straightforward mathematical modeling that indicates this general trend. I You were ranting on about the EU pandering to Green Party pressure, accusing them of sacrificing children to malaria for some political agenda. If you'd bothered to learn a little about DDT, Actually, I read fairly extensively on the subject for years before making this post. you'd have seen that it is VERY nasty stuff. Can you quantify VERY nasty stuff? One of my differences with many folks is that I do not think we can go to a zero risk world. For example, I'd take a med that cut my chances of a heart attack in half even if increased my chances of cancer by 1%. But, I'm a research physicist who deals with probability in a manner that I think differs from others. Most of the (extensive) Wikipedia article on DDT is about how nasty it is. Then I remembered Charlie's reference to the 'Gish Gallop' (to which you were responding), and this made me wonder if your abrupt change of topic might just be a hint suggesting that the whole Wal-mart argument was simply a cunning troll, rolled up in several layers of misdirection!? Nope, the change in topic is because the malaria thing has been bothering me for a while. My daughter _twice_ came close to dying from it. DDT has a horrid reputation. You also have to understand the difference in standards with regards to chemicals. DDT was regularly used in the US for decades. Here's one sentence that is key to me from Wikipedia: The EPA, in 1987 , classified DDT as class B2, a probable human carcinogen based on Observation of tumors (generally of the liver) in seven studies in various mouse strains and three studies in rats. DDT is structurally similar to other probable carcinogens, such as DDD and DDE. Regarding the human carcinogenicity data, they stated The existing epidemiological data are inadequate. Autopsy studies relating tissue levels of DDT to cancer incidence have yielded conflicting results. [42] I've read conclusions like that from a number of different studies on a number of different things. In the US we have a very low threshold for risk. If a large exposure might be a cancer risk, then we need to ban the substance (like various sweeteners that have been band). So, the massive spraying of DDT in the US, India, etc. might have caused some deaths. But, as we know from here: http://www.malariasite.com/MALARIA/history_parasite.htm Malaria killed millions upon millions worldwide before DDT. So, we probably have a small risk from DDT to humans that is small enough to be hard to measure on one hand, and a known killer of millions per year right now on the other. Indications are that the deaths due to DDT were from very large doses/exposures...while simply returning to Africa for two weeks resulted in Neli getting malaria. Given this, if it was someone you loved, would you want their country to use DDT in house spraying against malaria? Finally, I had hoped that analysis such as the one at: Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Wal-Mart and more
Dan, I live in Africa. I lived in Zimbabwe for more than half my life. There's no denying that Malaria is a big problem. But DDT is definitely NOT the answer. Other preventative measures are cheaper, and far less damaging. Wikipedia again: The relative effectiveness of IRS (with DDT or alternative insecticides) versus other malaria control techniques (e.g. bednets or prompt access to anti-malarial drugs) varies greatly and is highly dependent on local conditions.[15] A study by the World Health Organization released in January of 2008 found that mass distribution of insecticide-treated mosquito nets and artemisinin based drugs cut malaria deaths in half in Rwanda and Ethiopia, countries with very high malaria burdens. IRS with DDT was determined to not have played an important role in the reduction of mortality.[105] Vietnam is an example of a country that has seen a continued decline in malaria cases after switching in 1991 from a poorly funded DDT-based campaign to a program based on prompt treatment, bednets, and the use of pyrethroid group insecticides. Deaths from malaria dropped by 97%.[106] In Mexico, the use of a range of effective and affordable chemical and non-chemical strategies against malaria has been so successful that the Mexican DDT manufacturing plant ceased production voluntarily, due to lack of demand.[107] Furthermore, while the increased numbers of malaria victims since DDT usage fell out of favor would, at first glance, suggest a 1:1 correlation, many other factors are known to have contributed to the rise in cases. A review of fourteen studies on the subject in sub-Saharan Africa, covering insecticide-treated nets, residual spraying, chemoprophylaxis for children, chemoprophylaxis or intermittent treatment for pregnant women, a hypothetical vaccine, and changing the first line drug for treatment, found decision making limited by the gross lack of information on the costs and effects of many interventions, the very small number of cost-effectiveness analyses available, the lack of evidence on the costs and effects of packages of measures, and the problems in generalizing or comparing studies that relate to specific settings and use different methodologies and outcome measures. The two cost-effectiveness estimates of DDT residual spraying examined were not found to provide an accurate estimate of the cost-effectiveness of DDT spraying; furthermore, the resulting estimates may not be good predictors of cost-effectiveness in current programmes.[108] However, a study in Thailand found the cost per malaria case prevented of DDT spraying ($1.87 US) to be 21% greater than the cost per case prevented of lambdacyhalothrin-treated nets ($1.54 US),[109] at very least casting some doubt on the unexamined assumption that DDT was the most cost-effective measure to use in all cases. The director of Mexico's malaria control program finds similar results, declaring that it is 25% cheaper for Mexico to spray a house with synthetic pyrethroids than with DDT.[107] However, another study in South Africa found generally lower costs for DDT spraying than for impregnated nets.[110] Right, so we've established that DDT is not always effective, that it's often more expensive than other methods of preventing malaria, but most importantly that alternative treatments exist that don't cause cancer or riverfuls of dead fish. Martin's quote sums up my position: Overselling a chemical's capacity to solve a problem can do irretrievable harm not only by raising false hopes but by delaying the use of more effective long-term methods. So let's drop the hyperbole and overblown rhetoric -- it's not what Africa needs. What's needed is a recognition of the problem's complexity and a willingness to use every available weapon to fight disease in an informed and rational way. Second, the hard bit. ... done more to aid or more to harm ... . This is the tricky part. Without a complete assessment of Walmart's entire impact on poor people (and in fact the whole ecosystem of humanity), it's nearly impossible to answer accurately. I'm in no position to have much of an opinion on this one. But then again, nor is anyone else, much. Actually, there are good data on thisI've read on this subject for years. One good source is Kerry's former economic advisor http://www.americanprogress.org/kf/walmart_progressive.pdf One can also do very straightforward mathematical modeling that indicates this general trend. Fair enough. I don't have the data. I've only been in a Walmart once. I have noticed that they're trying to go carbon-neutral, however. Actually, I read fairly extensively on the subject for years before making this post. I hadn't realized that it seems to have been an ongoing debate for some years. The answer seems painfully obvious to me, so why there should have been any debate on the subject at all, escapes me. you'd have seen that it is
RE: Wal-Mart and more
On 18 Feb 2008 at 21:10, Curtis Burisch wrote: Dan, I live in Africa. I lived in Zimbabwe for more than half my life. There's no denying that Malaria is a big problem. But DDT is definitely NOT the answer. It's effective and safe when used properly. But the key there is used properly. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wal-Mart and more
On Feb 17, 2008 8:50 PM, Dan M [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hmmm, those folks I showed/read this to saw the implied question fairly straightforwardly. I didn't want to be at all rude, so I made it implicit. Explicitly, if I start a conversation over the first two issues, will you be willing to make a good faith effort to explore the problem? The implication that I haven't been making a good faith effort strikes me a detour onto the road of rudeness. One way that I thought I made this clear would be clear is that I didn't accuse the writers of lying, distortion, bad faith, etc. My argument was based on this not being the entire story. There are other sources of information that are reliable and tell different aspects of the story. Yes. Feel free to cite them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman By citing these two folks, I'm setting up a question. Would analysis from these economists be considered sufficiently to the left to not be the writings of right wing hacks? If Krugman is too much of a conservative, which economists do y'all think are objective? How about if we don't clutter this up with ideology? Treating it as an ideological, rather than ethical, issue is arguing from a conclusion, as I see it. That's because trusting the marketplace to ensure ethical behavior is an ideological position, a faith in markets that has little or no basis in science, since one can easily demonstrate that unethical business practices can be far more efficient than ethical ones. 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? To put it simply, no. I've read a range of opinions on this and the strong consensus, from left to right, is that reduced labor costs is not the foundation of Wal-Mart's improved efficiency and lower costs. Er, you're agreeing with me. If reduced labor costs are not the foundation of their improve efficiency, then what is their rationale for paying so much less than their competitors? Finally, after 10 years on the list I have no idea when you came up with the idea that I'm an arrogant bastard that listens to Rush for my news and thinks that I can outdo anyone in my spare time. Wht? Two messages in a row with ridiculous straw men. What is going on here? 1) Are you interested in a discussion on the vision of myself and at least one other person who was an active poster that discussions are often thwarted by pronouncements that come as if they come from Olympus, rather than arguments that folks want others to discuss so the author can test their own ideas? Gee, you make it sound so inviting. I have been having a discussion and if i sounds like I'm making Olympian pronouncements, rather than stating my opinions, perhaps that's what you're hearing, rather than what I'm saying. 2) Are you interested in a discussion of how and whether statistics play a part in developing greater understanding vs. reading stories, having them touch your heart, and then coming to an understanding of truth? My entire job revolves around massive statistical analysis. I could take offense at this, too. 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. I'm already discussing this. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
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). The issue that concerns me is how Wal-Mart treats its employees and vendors, not whether is generates enough economic benefit to the world to justify that treatment. To me, that is an amoral calculation. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wal-Mart and more
Dan M wrote: Dan-- I read Krugman regularly, and usually agree with him. The quote of his is at: http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2005/12/paul_krugman_wa.htm Dan-- Looks familiar. I bet I read it when it first came out. The gist is that Wal-Mart does not create retail jobs. It's more efficient than the smaller stores it replaces, so the result is fewer retail jobs overall. Now is that a bad thing, per se? Efficiency is usually good, it means the work gets done faster. I'd hope no one is proposing that we create jobs by having people work inefficiently? To me, the problem is that there simply aren't enough decent jobs to go around. So we're left with a pool of underemployed people, who compete for the low quality jobs that remain. While this keeps labor costs down, I'd argue that it's a bad way to set up a society. Let's see: evil does not have much explanatory power or actual meaning, and as for greedy, corporations usually have to be greedy, or their shareholders object. Different business sectors tend to have different profit margins. That explains some of it. Sure it does, and I'm fully willing to state that the difference doesn't So Sure it does claims that evil has explanatory power? I remember an argument with Gautam along these lines a while back. His line was something like Terrorists are evil because they do horrible things. Terrorists do horrible things because they are evil. To me, that says no more than Terrorists do horrible things. Back on topic, I'd guess that Wal-Mart is not actually evil. All you get is that it is amoral and greedy. But, the question I want to ask is does the average lower income person gain. Articles and analysis like the one by Kerry's advisor address the subject. If there are other factors worth considering, I'd be interested in seeing them. But, at the moment, his argument looks pretty persuasiveespecially since I think I can do a simple economic model that illustrates the underlying principal. A more careful formulation would be: Is the average quality of life of lower income people better after a Wal-Mart store comes? Now quality of life is slippery to define, so we may have to fall back on utility. This would give: Will the total utility of the lower income people in a region be greater after a Wal-Mart store opens in that region? That's still imperfect, but I give up. For example, consider a change that puts half the population out of work while giving the other half a bit more than twice what they had originally. The average income could go up, but I'd argue that total utility would go down. It's worse to lose one's job than it is good to earn a bit more than twice as much. Another wrinkle is that the unemployment could be both unavoidable and temporary. So Wal-Mart could produce net harm in the short term, while producing net good over a longer period. (When and if the people who lost retail jobs find other work.) ---David ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wal-Mart and more
On Feb 18, 2008 4:58 PM, David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So Sure it does claims that evil has explanatory power? I remember an argument with Gautam along these lines a while back. His line was something like Terrorists are evil because they do horrible things. Terrorists do horrible things because they are evil. To me, that says no more than Terrorists do horrible things. I'm curious why you guys are talking about evil. I don't think anybody in this discussion has called Wal-Mart evil. I guess I'm posting this because that language is likely to be attributed to me, since I've been critical of the company. sarcasmI was calling Wal-Mart evil around the same time I said that Dan gets his information from Rush, that prices are set in back room deals and compared myself to Mother Theresa./sarcasm I called Wal-Mart's aggressiveness toward vendors and employees greedy. I didn't call the company evil. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wal-Mart and more
Original Message: - From: David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 19:58:13 -0500 To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: Re: Wal-Mart and more Dan M wrote: Dan-- I read Krugman regularly, and usually agree with him. The quote of his is at: http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2005/12/paul_krugman_wa.htm Dan-- Looks familiar. I bet I read it when it first came out. The gist is that Wal-Mart does not create retail jobs. It's more efficient than the smaller stores it replaces, so the result is fewer retail jobs overall. Now is that a bad thing, per se? Efficiency is usually good, it means the work gets done faster. I'd hope no one is proposing that we create jobs by having people work inefficiently? To me, the problem is that there simply aren't enough decent jobs to go around. So we're left with a pool of underemployed people, who compete for the low quality jobs that remain. While this keeps labor costs down, I'd argue that it's a bad way to set up a society. I understand the problem you are stating and have sympathy for the arguement. Historically, the possibility of the rise of the serfs into a middle class was based on efficiencyit probably goes back to the three crop rotation system and the horse collar. Efficiency always throws someone out of a job. But, true efficiency (as measured in productivity per worker...not per dollar spent ona worker, creates wealth. In a sense, it is wealth created out of nothing. If you have two men making chairs at one per day each, and someone comes along with a technique that lets one man make a chair a dayone man gets let go, and the price of chairs goes down (after the fourth or fifth person figures the technique out the price will be cut in halfless material costs, etc.) Historically, new jobs have always been created for the guys that lose their job. There is dislocation, but in the end just about everyone benefits. Different business sectors tend to have different profit margins. That explains some of it. Sure it does, and I'm fully willing to state that the difference doesn't So Sure it does claims that evil has explanatory power? No, I was unclear. Different business sectors naturally having different profit margines explains why Microsoft makes so much more profit than Wal-Mart. I agreed that the difference in profit margin does not indicate Microsoft is evil. Back on topic, I'd guess that Wal-Mart is not actually evil. All you get is that it is amoral and greedy. Companies by their very nature are amoral and greedy. When I negotiate for a contract, I focus on the money I can make my customer, not on my need to put 4 people through college/grad school. A more careful formulation would be: Is the average quality of life of lower income people better after a Wal-Mart store comes? Now quality of life is slippery to define, so we may have to fall back on utility. This would give: Will the total utility of the lower income people in a region be greater after a Wal-Mart store opens in that region? That's still imperfect, but I give up. For example, consider a change that puts half the population out of work while giving the other half a bit more than twice what they had originally. The average income could go up, but I'd argue that total utility would go down. It's worse to lose one's job than it is good to earn a bit more than twice as much. But, historically, the extra money the first half has is spent on things that employ the second half. That is _the_ process that created an American middle class out of dirt poor farmers who could barely feed their families. Another wrinkle is that the unemployment could be both unavoidable and temporary. So Wal-Mart could produce net harm in the short term, while producing net good over a longer period. (When and if the people who lost retail jobs find other work.) I think the problematic wrinkle is that the new jobs are not in the US, in many cases, but in the Third World. Folks who were in abject poverty are now starting on the path the US started on 100 or so years ago. India's and China's per capita GDP are growing, between them, by better than 5% per year, after inflation. It's not evenly distributed, there is still abject poverty, but literally tens of millions of people are taking the first steps out of horrid poverty. This is why things don't look so good for the US, I think. Job growth is at a historical low, because much of it is elsewhere. But, it is still true that when we increase productivity, we increase total wealth. My arguement is that we should consider this an inherently good thing (as long as we properly figure the costs). We should not fight productivity, but we should find a way to ensure that those who are the inevitable losers from change (there will always be losers associated with every improvement) will be supported by the community that benefits as a whole from the change. Dan M
Re: Wal-Mart and more
Nick Arnett wrote: On Feb 18, 2008 4:58 PM, David Hobby [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So Sure it does claims that evil has explanatory power? ... I'm curious why you guys are talking about evil. I don't think anybody in this discussion has called Wal-Mart evil. I guess I'm posting this because that language is likely to be attributed to me, since I've been critical of the company. ... I called Wal-Mart's aggressiveness toward vendors and employees greedy. I didn't call the company evil. Nick Nick-- As far back as I saved posts, I find Dan replying as if you had said Wal-Mart was evil. But I bet we all agree it's not evil, no more than a shark is. : ) ---David Beyond good and evilMaru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wal-Mart and more
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... Historically, new jobs have always been created for the guys that lose their job. There is dislocation, but in the end just about everyone benefits. I'm not sure I buy that. I see a grave shortage of jobs in the US. This goes way beyond the official unemployment rate. For instance, my youngest child will soon be 14 (the youngest age one can legally work in New York State). She'd like a job then, something like 10 hours a week. Will she get one? Probably not. Around here, almost all the teenagers with jobs got them because they were related to their employers. But since she won't be an adult actively looking for a full time job, she won't be included in the statistics. ... For example, consider a change that puts half the population out of work while giving the other half a bit more than twice what they had originally. The average income could go up, but I'd argue that total utility would go down. It's worse to lose one's job than it is good to earn a bit more than twice as much. But, historically, the extra money the first half has is spent on things that employ the second half. That is _the_ process that created an American middle class out of dirt poor farmers who could barely feed their families. Only some of it, now. Unless, as you point out, we consider the global economy. The services they spend extra money on would often be local. But few of the goods would be locally produced. ... But, it is still true that when we increase productivity, we increase total wealth. My arguement is that we should consider this an inherently good thing (as long as we properly figure the costs). We should not fight productivity, but we should find a way to ensure that those who are the inevitable losers from change (there will always be losers associated with every improvement) will be supported by the community that benefits as a whole from the change. Dan M. Wait a minute, we agree completely. Should we go back to Wal-Mart in more detail, or what? : ) ---David ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Wal-Mart and more
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. I see several very linked, yet very different issues raised in the short thread on Wal-Mart. I am interested in discussing all three issues, but I am very uninterested in getting into a loop that I see bypassing the questions at hand. One set of questions is somewhat personal. The second involves the nature of accepted evidence, the nature of reasonable arguments, etc. 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 is at least _a_ worthwhile goal, has Wal-Mart done more to aid or more to harm those lives. With respect to the first question..as folks may, or may not, have noticed, after posting here over a thousand times, my posts have dropped to near zero. I think it is fair to say that I am strongly opinionated. I enjoy passionate arguments about what's true, what's best, and what's possible..and enjoy an opponent that gives as good as he/she gets. This is one of the reasons Gautam and I still go at it on instant messaging..we both are very interested in determining what is right/best and will be willing to change our minds in the presence of a persuasive argument.. But, I don't feel like Brin-L offers me that opportunity now. I think the best way to explain it is a story from my Dad. He says, although he was a good liberal pro-union guy, he always enjoyed William F. Buckley. When I asked why, he said at least he was willing to get down in the mud and wrestle with the common folk The other conservatives write as if they issue their columns from the high mountains.far above the likes of him. I get that feeling here, in this thread. I've seen it before with others. It's been talked about here, and I am privy to the critical juncture in at least one instance. I can still vividly recall telling Gautam to explain his uncomfortable feelings, as a non-Christian, with the use of certain variations of Christian arguments to counter his views. I assured him that if he honestly expressed how he was feeling, it would start a worthwhile dialog. I was very embarrassed when, instead of a response that indicated any sensitivity to his religious sensibilities, he was simply told he was full of it. It was as if Truth was proclaimed from on high, and mere mortals had to just deal with it. I still hope it wasn't intended that way, but after multiple readings, it still read that way. I want to explore that problem..not to rekindle the past, but because it's now happening to me again. I see potential value in that; but I understand that it may involve discomfort. So, I'm asking if those countering me in this thread (Nick and Dave) would be willing to discuss the meta-issue. If not, then, I'll drop the subject. Second, I've seen posts based on hours of work by me trying to find the answer dismissed by a single story. I don't think that's a valid technique..but I tend to think that others do believe this; that it's the story that touches our hearts that matters..not the statistics that indicate trends that matter. I think that it would be worthwhile discussing how and why different people have different basis for decision making. The third question is the basic question about Wal-Mart. From long experience here, I think that all we'll do is go around in circles if we don't address at least the second point...and will probably have problems if we don't at least touch on ways to agree to disagree on the first point. Look, I've been here close to a decade. I tend to like community; and am pained by having to live 4 days a week as a hermit..with a wife in Austin and working at home. So, I like communities.especially long standing ones I'm a member of..and hate to see them break up. But, looking at my posting patterns for the last few months, it's clear that I'm not that interested in posting much. I think, now, I've hit on the reason. I'd like some resolution to these types of issues..and honestly think that I'm not the only one who's had them. But, I realize that I'm not posting much now because I'd rather fade away to just the occasional post of interest than spend time going in the same old circles. Finally, to make it crystal clear: I'm not threatening to quit; I'm making no demands; I haven't seen any reason to unsubscribe. But, I thought I'd bring up an issue I have..out of respect for the length of time I've spent with others on this list. If folks think it worthwhile, I'd appreciate it. If the issue is considered trivial by others, so it goes. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Wal-Mart and more
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. I see several very linked, yet very different issues raised in the short thread on Wal-Mart. I am interested in discussing all three issues, but I am very uninterested in getting into a loop that I see bypassing the questions at hand. One set of questions is somewhat personal. The second involves the nature of accepted evidence, the nature of reasonable arguments, etc. 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 is at least _a_ worthwhile goal, has Wal-Mart done more to aid or more to harm those lives. With respect to the first question..as folks may, or may not, have noticed, after posting here over a thousand times, my posts have dropped to near zero. I think it is fair to say that I am strongly opinionated. I enjoy passionate arguments about what's true, what's best, and what's possible..and enjoy an opponent that gives as good as he/she gets. This is one of the reasons Gautam and I still go at it on instant messaging..we both are very interested in determining what is right/best and will be willing to change our minds in the presence of a persuasive argument.. But, I don't feel like Brin-L offers me that opportunity now. I think the best way to explain it is a story from my Dad. He says, although he was a good liberal pro-union guy, he always enjoyed William F. Buckley. When I asked why, he said at least he was willing to get down in the mud and wrestle with the common folk The other conservatives write as if they issue their columns from the high mountains.far above the likes of him. I get that feeling here, in this thread. I've seen it before with others. It's been talked about here, and I am privy to the critical juncture in at least one instance. I can still vividly recall telling Gautam to explain his uncomfortable feelings, as a non-Christian, with the use of certain variations of Christian arguments to counter his views. I assured him that if he honestly expressed how he was feeling, it would start a worthwhile dialog. I was very embarrassed when, instead of a response that indicated any sensitivity to his religious sensibilities, he was simply told he was full of it. It was as if Truth was proclaimed from on high, and mere mortals had to just deal with it. I still hope it wasn't intended that way, but after multiple readings, it still read that way. I want to explore that problem..not to rekindle the past, but because it's now happening to me again. I see potential value in that; but I understand that it may involve discomfort. So, I'm asking if those countering me in this thread (Nick and Dave) would be willing to discuss the meta-issue. If not, then, I'll drop the subject. Second, I've seen posts based on hours of work by me trying to find the answer dismissed by a single story. I don't think that's a valid technique..but I tend to think that others do believe this; that it's the story that touches our hearts that matters..not the statistics that indicate trends that matter. I think that it would be worthwhile discussing how and why different people have different basis for decision making. The third question is the basic question about Wal-Mart. From long experience here, I think that all we'll do is go around in circles if we don't address at least the second point...and will probably have problems if we don't at least touch on ways to agree to disagree on the first point. Look, I've been here close to a decade. I tend to like community; and am pained by having to live 4 days a week as a hermit..with a wife in Austin and working at home. So, I like communities.especially long standing ones I'm a member of..and hate to see them break up. But, looking at my posting patterns for the last few months, it's clear that I'm not that interested in posting much. I think, now, I've hit on the reason. I'd like some resolution to these types of issues..and honestly think that I'm not the only one who's had them. But, I realize that I'm not posting much now because I'd rather fade away to just the occasional post of interest than spend time going in the same old circles. Finally, to make it crystal clear: I'm not threatening to quit; I'm making no demands; I haven't seen any reason to unsubscribe. But, I thought I'd bring up an issue I have..out of respect for the length of time I've spent with others on this list. If folks think it worthwhile, I'd appreciate it. If the issue is considered trivial by others, so it goes. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wal-Mart and more
Dan M wrote: ... With respect to the first question..as folks may, or may not, have noticed, after posting here over a thousand times, my posts have dropped to near zero. I think it is fair to say that I am strongly opinionated. I enjoy passionate arguments about what's true, what's best, and what's possible..and enjoy an opponent that gives as good as he/she gets. This is one of the reasons Gautam and I still go at it on instant messaging..we both are very interested in determining what is right/best and will be willing to change our minds in the presence of a persuasive argument.. Dan-- I certainly enjoy your posts, and appreciate that you put in time to research them. (And you tend to argue fairly, which I can't say of everyone.) I get that feeling here, in this thread. I've seen it before with others. It's been talked about here, and I am privy to the critical juncture in at least one instance. I can still vividly recall telling Gautam to explain his uncomfortable feelings, as a non-Christian, with the use of certain variations of Christian arguments to counter his views. I assured him that if he honestly expressed how he was feeling, it would start a worthwhile dialog. I was very embarrassed when, instead of a response that indicated any sensitivity to his religious sensibilities, he was simply told he was full of it. I must have missed that. I'm personally not impressed by a religion-based argument, but I don't think it's fair to criticize someone's feelings. Second, I've seen posts based on hours of work by me trying to find the answer dismissed by a single story. I don't think that's a valid technique. It's not. And just because people stop posting in a thread, that does not mean they agree. Again, not everyone argues fairly. But maybe we should put more work into calling people on it when they do post bad arguments. The third question is the basic question about Wal-Mart. From long experience here, I think that all we'll do is go around in circles if we don't address at least the second point...and will probably have problems if we don't at least touch on ways to agree to disagree on the first point. The main problem I see is that Wal-Mart has a big share of the market, and is prepared to use that fact to its advantage. Sometimes, that does benefit the consumer. I'm certainly glad to buy some things at Sam's Club for not too much more than their cost of production! ... think that I'm not the only one who's had them. But, I realize that I'm not posting much now because I'd rather fade away to just the occasional post of interest than spend time going in the same old circles. I'd guess that the problem is the same old circles. There are a few (not to be named) topics where we certainly went around in circles years ago. I'm happy they haven't returned. So new topics might help... ---David ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wal-Mart and more
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
Re: Wal-Mart and more
On 17 Feb 2008, at 23:35, David Hobby wrote: ... think that I'm not the only one who's had them. But, I realize that I'm not posting much now because I'd rather fade away to just the occasional post of interest than spend time going in the same old circles. I'd guess that the problem is the same old circles. There are a few (not to be named) topics where we certainly went around in circles years ago. I'm happy they haven't returned. So new topics might help... Apart from the occasional ill-informed or illogical person who might be persuaded by facts or reason to change their mind about something most people on this list hold their opinions in depth and are aware of all the standard arguments and counterarguments for their position. Rehearsing these arguments at second hand on a mailing list may be futile if entertaining sometimes :-) 1/5 Americans think the Sun revolves around the Earth Maru -- William T Goodall Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] Web : http://www.wtgab.demon.co.uk Blog : http://radio.weblogs.com/0111221/ Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. ~Voltaire. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Wal-Mart and more
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nick Arnett Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2008 5:45 PM To: Killer Bs (David Brin et al) Discussion Subject: Re: Wal-Mart and more 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. Hmmm, those folks I showed/read this to saw the implied question fairly straightforwardly. I didn't want to be at all rude, so I made it implicit. Explicitly, if I start a conversation over the first two issues, will you be willing to make a good faith effort to explore the problem? 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. Not at all...the story itself seems to have a vantage point, a particular focus if you willbut it doesn't make it a bad story. I never thought journalists were required to tell the whole truth about a complex subject with one seriesrather they should give a vivid series of snapshots. I think they did this welleven alluding to the tradeoffs that are involved. It's the jump _you_ made from the story that I have trouble with. One way that I thought I made this clear would be clear is that I didn't accuse the writers of lying, distortion, bad faith, etc. My argument was based on this not being the entire story. There are other sources of information that are reliable and tell different aspects of the story. 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. Actually, I found a couple of interesting things by folks who are definitely on the left (well unless you consider all of the Democratic party to the right of Dennis as right wing hacks) on Wal-Mart. There is a real interesting article, with detailed analysis by Jason Furman (who was Kerry's economic advisor during the 04 campaign as well as a Clinton economic advisor during his presidency). Would you consider this an reasonable, non right wing source? Or, how about Paul Krugmanhe has made a statement that frames the question in a way that I think could lead to a very fruitful discussion. I'm not saying that he and I agree on everything, but a good thread could be started from what he wrote. He is well know as a leftist economist turned columnist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman By citing these two folks, I'm setting up a question. Would analysis from these economists be considered sufficiently to the left to not be the writings of right wing hacks? If Krugman is too much of a conservative, which economists do y'all think are objective? 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? To put it simply, no. I've read a range of opinions on this and the strong consensus, from left to right, is that reduced labor costs is not the foundation of Wal-Mart's improved efficiency and lower costs. Second, I didn't see anywhere in the LA Times article when that was stated as a fact. If I missed it, I'd appreciate someone giving me a pointer in the general direction. Finally, after 10 years on the list I have no idea when you came up with the idea that I'm an arrogant bastard that listens to Rush for my news and thinks that I can outdo anyone in my spare time. It's as if you are now picturing me as a bright 16 year old Ron Paul supporter. I have done my homework on this, my opinion is based on reading articles from very respectable sources (e.g. the NY Times article) to listening to my friends who are dirt poor and shop at WalMart (by dirt poor I mean folks who we had to give keys to our car to in case they needed to go to the hospital for a delivery in the middle or the night or folks who finally after months of savings were able to own the land their trailer was on...etc). But, all I seem to get from you is that Walmart is evil, the LA times story proves it, end of story. Finally, the explicit question concerning Wal-Mart that I wanted to discuss was stated _explicitly_ as #3 in my original list: 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
Re: Wal-Mart and more
Dan M wrote: ... Would you consider this an reasonable, non right wing source? Or, how about Paul Krugmanhe has made a statement that frames the question in a way that I think could lead to a very fruitful discussion. I'm not saying that he and I agree on everything, but a good thread could be started from what he wrote. He is well know as a leftist economist turned columnist. Dan-- I read Krugman regularly, and usually agree with him. ... But, simply stating that Wal-Mart is evil and greedy, when its profit margin is 3.4% and an operating margin of 5.8% of sales and Microsoft is not, when its profit margin is 22.9% and an operating margin of 40.7% is not, as self evident doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Let's see: evil does not have much explanatory power or actual meaning, and as for greedy, corporations usually have to be greedy, or their shareholders object. Different business sectors tend to have different profit margins. That explains some of it. So, let me ask three simple yes or no questions at the end of this for you and David. 1) Are you interested in a discussion on the vision of myself and at least one other person who was an active poster that discussions are often thwarted by pronouncements that come as if they come from Olympus, rather than arguments that folks want others to discuss so the author can test their own ideas? How exactly does a pronouncement thwart a discussion? All it means is that the one making the pronouncement isn't going to have a more detailed argument with you. (For whatever reason.) As far as I'm concerned, such a pronouncement is often an admission that one can't compete on a factual basis. 2) Are you interested in a discussion of how and whether statistics play a part in developing greater understanding vs. reading stories, having them touch your heart, and then coming to an understanding of truth? Hmmm... Sounds like a pretty fuzzy topic for discussion. It almost sounds like the problem would be that not everybody shares the same definition of truth. 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. Sure, but it may not be a long discussion. Some people lose, and other gain, when Wal-Mart comes to town... ---David ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wal-Mart and more
Dan wrote: 1) Are you interested in a discussion on the vision of myself and at least one other person who was an active poster that discussions are often thwarted by pronouncements that come as if they come from Olympus, rather than arguments that folks want others to discuss so the author can test their own ideas? I'm certainly interested in a good discussion, but I find it very difficult to debate with you because you are a very prolific writer with no apparent limit on the time you have to research a topic. I would not be surprised to find that this is what you do for a living. Furthermore you are very good at manipulating statistics to bolster your arguments, but as Charlie pointed out a couple of times late last year, you have a tendency to mold the facts and figures to fit your opinion (reference a recent mass transit discussion). Furthermore, look at the size of your last two posts. There's more volume there than all the posts from everyone else on the list for several days prior. I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm often overwhelmed by the shear size of your posts. I'm not nearly as prolific and I seldom have more than an hour a day to peruse and respond to all of my personal email. Responding to each and every point of your argument with a properly researched reply may take several hours (and in fact it has). What I ended up doing on more than one occasion was to take just one portion of your argument and zero in on it. But this would usually be met with a reply that was, once again, overwhelming. Understand, if it's not obvious, that in most respects I'm complimenting you and letting you know that you're just too good at these discussions for me to compete. This isn't to say that I think you're always right or even that you've always made your point well. I just can't keep up all the time, so often times I just give up. I'm sure this is frustrating to you. Its certainly frustrating to me. Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Wal-Mart and more
On 18/02/2008, at 5:00 PM, Doug Pensinger wrote: What I ended up doing on more than one occasion was to take just one portion of your argument and zero in on it. But this would usually be met with a reply that was, once again, overwhelming. ...and diversionary. It's a debating technique known in some circles as the Gish Gallop, and it's very frustrating for people who pride themselves on being concise. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
