St. Paul E-Democracy Links
http://www.e-democracy.org/stpaul/links.html
_____________________________________________
In a message dated 12/30/3 10:51:40, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 08:31:36 -0800 (PST)
From: Brett Sprangel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Baker's Remarks
To: Mary Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
JOHN: I think you are taking my comments a little out of context but that is
fine since it reinforces your ideas to do so. The iraq comparison is a
little silly though isn't it?
Actually, I think many of Mary's points have had a lot of validity,
though I am personally a capitalist and a fiscal conservative. Taking one of her
remarks out of context and then characterizing it as "silly" is the sort of
intellectually weak defense that I would expect from someone who had no
legitimate argument to support his position. Childish name calling is unhelpful,
surely you can do better.
BTW - I have also watched our rights being eroded until very few of them
are left as our government has become increasingly hostile to its own
citizens. Among other things we need to say ENOUGH to the Federal Reserve crippling
the rights of the laboring classes (almost everyone) to have a high enough rate
of employment which will allow us to raise our standard of living and bargain
collectively (that is, unionize, among other things). To answer your no
doubt vociferous denial that collective bargaining for wages is "un-American,"
"Anti-capitalistic," or "j'st Eviil," I would like to point out that the concept
of the bargain, freely arrived at, is the basis for all truly capitalistic
societies. Collective bargaining for wages is simply a number of sellers (labor,
in this case) making a deal for what their labor is worth. When the
government, or the Federal Reserve, interferes with that, you have socialism and a
state operated economy.
JOHN: comments continue below
As does my response to your comments.
MARY'S STATEMENT: I am almost at a loss as to how to respond. It is as if
you are saying that no one was forcing the residents of Iraq to live there, or
that no one is forcing me to pay taxes or refrain from murdering various folks
I don't like. On a certain level, this is true, but when you live in the
real world, you realize there are trade offs that make the "force" issue
irrelevant.
People work at Wal-Mart for the same reason they work anywhere else. I'm
sure there are people out there "willing" to work for $1 or $2 an hour, just
as there are people out there who rent their bodies for sexual services. That
doesn't mean they are happy doing so or that they think it's a good job or
fair wage. The idea that just because a person will do something reprehensible,
grueling, difficult, demeaning or unfair somehow makes it right to ask is
outrageous. Just because you can put the gun of family starvation to a man or
woman's head and make them slave for you or some corporation does not make it
right for you to do so.
JOHN'S RESPONSE: walmart and other "unfair" wage payers as you state it, are
not holding a starvation gun to anyones head. They offer jobs at the wage
they are willing to pay and they get enough people to sign up. If they didn't
they would raise the wage until they did. As it stands there the market rate
for stocking shelves at
walmart is what it is. We all have choices.
Actually, John, the situation becomes unfair when the state (our own
government, in this case) colludes with the business to keep wages low or to
support the operation of the business -- both of which are occurring in the case of
Walmart. I, BTW, actually met Sam Walton and I thought he was a very nice
guy, personally (he dated my mother many, many years ago). But Walmart has
changed dramatically since his death. And yes, I used to own stock in Walmart. I
probably still should, but I digress.
>
MARY'S STATEMENT: And before you say that doesn't happen in the US, there's
always welfare, there's always charity, there's always this or that - I'm sure
there's not. Not always, not for everyone. These services are difficult to
find, difficult to receive. There are barriers erected at every step of the
way to make sure that it's not easy. To cull out those who aren't smart enough
to figure out the system. Why are so many mentally ill in St. Paul homeless
and without assistance? No mystery to me! I've been on welfare. It's
incredibly tough to get on even when you meet all the criteria.
>
JOHN'S RESPONSE: I believe the mentally ill are not relevent to this
discussion. because they are homeless has nothing to do with walmart. Getting
welfare isn't supposed to be easy, if it were we all would be getting it.
John, that is one of the most bizarre and convoluted bits of reasoning
that I have ever heard. You seem to have ignored the premise of the discussion.
The whole point of this discussion is the affect that the big-box store
operations and large corporations in general are having on wages and the standard
of living, both locally and nationally. And getting welfare should be easy
enough so that we do not HAVE a large number of homeless people. That's what
welfare is supposed to prevent.
Having a large homeless population (whether you characterize them as
mentally ill, winos, drug addicts, or what not) is an indication that things are
not good in River City. And is, therefore, relevant to this conversation.
MARY'S STATEMENT: To me the reason why we have minimum wage is so that the
lowest paying job out there should be better than whatever you can get on
welfare. If McDonalds or Wal-Mart employees are routinely seeking a lot of
governmental assistance services, then that's an indicator that the minimum wage is
not high enough.
JOHN'S RESPONSE: the minimum wage skews the labor market by not letting the
price of labor move to an equillibrium point below it if the market so
determines. This also inflates prices so what you gain in a false higher wage is
lost in higher prices for goods.
This assumes that you are dealing with a society where you do not have a
government entity holding wages down (the Federal Reserve). Now many of their
reasons for doing this are positive -- it keeps industry strong, insures a
ready supply of labor for large capital investments to take advantage of, and it
keeps some of our midrange technical jobs from being shipped overseas to
India and China (in particular). On the other hand, it depresses the short term
quality of life for a large number of people and lowers wages for jobs that
require relatively little technical ability.
But in case you have not noticed (which I have reason to believe that you
do not keep up with the Wall Street Journal), many of our technical jobs are
already going overseas. We can expect to lose as many as 1.5 million computer
programing jobs to India by the end of 2005. We are even losing many
telemarketing jobs to overseas job markets, so this has not been an entirely
successful. And before you make the remark that the US is a service based economy, I
would like to point out that if you do not produce anything, there will soon
be very little for you to "service." To build a strong economy, we need a
strong and vibrant middle class, not a bunch of marginal wage slaves ruled by an
economic elite. That is what made this country the economic power that it has
been and it is a policy that should be revived.
>
MARY'S STATEMENT: The mobility of workers is true in the same way that an
affect that kills only 10% of the population per year is survivable. Workers
are mobile. **As a group**, they will eventually find new work and be employed
there. However, there is a cost to forcing workers to move constantly seeking
new employment. Not only is it a cost in human effort and stress, but it
also causes you to lose the weakest members of your work force. Some of them
will be unable to move, unable to sell their house or find a new apartment near
the new work. Some won't have access to public transportation or a car and
when they were within walking distance of the Wal-Mart, but aren't in walking
distance of the McDonalds, then they go unemployed. Maybe the new hours don't
work with their previous child care arrangements or ride-share. Maybe all kinds
of things. When you start talking about large groups of workers, you must be
aware that not all of them will be equally mobile. When you require them to
move from worksite to worksite, not all of them will be able. Sure, maybe 90%
will move. But you have forced 10% into starvation just to satisfy a utopian
ideal of free market economy which doesn't exist in the real world.
JOHN'S RESPONSE: there is nothing utopian about free market economics. what
you listed are all choices. Choices we all have to make. You may feel forced
to take an unfair wage at walmart but you really choose to work there. When
I say workers move, I don't mean they sell their homes. walmarts are rarely
the only employer in an area. Having children is a choice and responsibility
we must deal with. this doesn't mean walmart must pay me more because i have
them. They can't deny me
employment based on that but they don't have to pay me more than the
childless person next to me. As for transportation issues. I haven't taken the bus in
years because I choose to drive but when i did, I found I could get nearly
anywhere as most things were within a mile from a bus route. maybe that has
changed since the transit authority is taking money from the bus service and
pouring it into the stagnant light rail line. If you want to improve mobility,
kill the lrt and put the savings back into busses. Busses can be routed
wherever you want them to go. trains cannot.
John, I'm going to replay to each of your statements separately.
1) JOHN'S STATEMENT: there is nothing utopian about free market
economics.
True.
2) JOHN'S STATEMENT: what you listed are all choices.
False. They are conditions which can be applied to individuals. Some
individuals will not be able to make each move that they need to make if there
are rapid disruptions and displacements due to economic conditions.
3) JOHN'S STATEMENT: Choices we all have to make.
Partially true. The higher your economic starting point, the fewer of
these choices that you will have to make, which lowers your chance of
displacement.
4) JOHN'S STATEMENT: You may feel forced to take an unfair wage at
walmart but you really choose to work there.
Partially true. The wages you may have to take at Walmart will probably
be unfair compared to what people higher on the economic food chain would
expect. But as has been pointed out by numerous economic philosophers (like
Jefferson) being given the choice between suffering under brutal and repressive
conditions and starving is really no choice at all. That is basically why we
originally had a revolution. I suggest you go read the something about the
intent of the framers of our own revolution.
5) JOHN'S STATEMENT: When I say workers move, I don't mean they sell
their homes.
What do you mean then, John? To get a new job it is often necessary to
physically move. That's is why I came to Minnesota, I love this place because
I want to be here for economic and family reasons. I have no doubt that if
you thought you could do better elsewhere, you would move away. If your
ancestors thought they could have done better where they were, they never would have
moved to an uninhabited frigid wasteland that was somewhere between forest and
prairie back in the 1840's. Or immigrated to the US in the first place (I
apologize if you are one of the few full blood Native Americans living in
Minnesota). I tried to get 3M to move their headquarters to Oolagaha, Oklahoma
where my wife was from, but they told me "No." So I moved up here.
6) JOHN'S STATEMENT: walmarts are rarely the only employer in an area.
True. There's always a MacDonald's somewhere that will give you $6.25 an
hour!
7) JOHN'S STATEMENT: Having children is a choice and responsibility we
must deal with.
True. That was part of Mary's argument, however. Am I to assume that by
co-oping it, you are supporting her statements?
8) JOHN'S STATEMENT: this doesn't mean walmart must pay me more
because i have them.
True.
9) JOHN'S STATEMENT: They can't deny me employment based on that but
they don't have to pay me more than the childless person next to me.
False. Walmart has been found guilty of denying people employment
because of family conditions and other factors normally held to be violations of the
Fair Labor Standards.
10) JOHN'S STATEMENT: As for transportation issues. I haven't taken
the bus in
years because I choose to drive but when i did, I found I could get nearly
anywhere as most things were within a mile from a bus route.
False. The buses do not run everywhere, or the number of transfers
required may be prohibitive. It is much more difficult to get from Maplewood to
West Minneapolis by bus than it is by car. The reasons are simple, not enough
riders go from Point A to Point B. Which can really suck when you live at
Point A and need to get to a job at Point B. If I am going to downtown Saint
Paul, I can take a bus, with no problems, or from many places to the Mall of
America, or to the transit authority depot, but getting down Earl is a lot harder.
11) JOHN'S STATEMENT: maybe that has changed since the transit
authority is taking money from the bus service and pouring it into the stagnant light
rail line.
Partially true. It's gotten a little worse, but I would say it's
actually doing okay.
12) JOHN'S STATEMENT: If you want to improve mobility, kill the lrt and
put the savings back into busses. Busses can be routed wherever you want
them to go. trains cannot.
Completely true, but the cities and the state are politically committed
to the IRT, so it will almost certainly go through, foolish or not. The
political wheels have already been greased -- part of that interference by
government in the economic systems that we both so deplore. I agree with you
completely on this. However, this is not to the point of the present discussion,
though I support this statement.
MARY'S STATEMENT: I realize some people think that's an acceptable
loss. Having been one of those 10%, I do not. >>
John included this statement but did not respond to it.
_____________________________________________
NEW ADDRESS FOR LIST: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, modify subscription, or get your password - visit:
http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul
Archive Address:
http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/private/stpaul/
_____________________________________________
For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html
For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract
