What Happened to America?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
The working man holds little power aside from that achieved by organizations like unions (which have gotten out of control in many cases these days) and labor laws. Most of the workers at Walmart are stuck there in the conditions the company chooses to provide because they need a job. And have no bargaining power and must take it on the company’s terms.

Consumers DO hold power. But their interests are NOT aligned with workers. Consumers don’t particularly give a shit about the working conditions of Walmart employees unless they themselves are Walmart employees. They just want cheap products. Some would care about exploitation and be willing to accept more expensive products to end it.

But not most. And most of those who would don’t make the connection between cheap products and the reasons the products are cheap (partially as a result of worker exploitation).

Exactly.

Yep, and walmart employees don’t care about wages or working conditions in the auto industry as long as they can get cheap cars. And auto workers don’t care about wages for migrant workers as long as they can get cheap produce.

Wow, what’s happening here? Cheap products and services offsetting relatively low wages. You raise wages and we all end up paying more, so what’s the point. The market will set the appropriat price or wage relative to other products and services. You raise wages and you have essentially raised the price of goods and service that wage will buy. This is all very basic economics.

No one is arguing otherwise. We should pay more.
[/quote]

Well everone that invests in or shops at Walmart disagrees with you.

It mean medling in the volentary exchange of labor for wages.

again, between employer and employee. none of your business. or the gov’t business.

quite true and quite unfortunate.

So if this is replicated across all industries, explain to me how any of us are better off.

Probably won’t matter to them in the long run. They new the rules of the game, justified or not, and they are paying the price for not following the rules. Not sure how anyone can demonize them and take advantage of the cost savings they have brought us all?

Even if you don’t shop at Walmart you are reaping the benefits of them lowering market prices. They should be praised. Even those that work for them under the horrible conditions everyone is claiming, has a better quality of life becuase of cheaper products.

If you can’t understand this, a refresher in basic economics and some reflection is in order. Pretty simple stuff.

102

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

You’ve a lot more patience than I have. [/quote]

Way to add value to this thread. Me and Smith, Hayek, Von Mises, Rothbard, Friedman, Murray, Haslett, etc.

.vs

Gambit Lost, Jsbrook, and Sir Maynard Keynes.

I’ll take it.

103

[quote]dhickey wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
The working man holds little power aside from that achieved by organizations like unions (which have gotten out of control in many cases these days) and labor laws. Most of the workers at Walmart are stuck there in the conditions the company chooses to provide because they need a job. And have no bargaining power and must take it on the company’s terms.

Consumers DO hold power. But their interests are NOT aligned with workers. Consumers don’t particularly give a shit about the working conditions of Walmart employees unless they themselves are Walmart employees. They just want cheap products. Some would care about exploitation and be willing to accept more expensive products to end it.

But not most. And most of those who would don’t make the connection between cheap products and the reasons the products are cheap (partially as a result of worker exploitation).

Exactly.

Yep, and walmart employees don’t care about wages or working conditions in the auto industry as long as they can get cheap cars. And auto workers don’t care about wages for migrant workers as long as they can get cheap produce.

Wow, what’s happening here? Cheap products and services offsetting relatively low wages. You raise wages and we all end up paying more, so what’s the point. The market will set the appropriat price or wage relative to other products and services. You raise wages and you have essentially raised the price of goods and service that wage will buy. This is all very basic economics.

No one is arguing otherwise. We should pay more.

Well everone that invests in or shops at Walmart disagrees with you.

Labor laws are designed to ensure a very basic threshold of working conditions and fair labor treatment. It doesn’t mean being treated like a king.

It mean medling in the volentary exchange of labor for wages.

No is saying a cashier or the guy who sweeps the floor should make a killing. They SHOULD get paid for hours worked. That is the right standard.

again, between employer and employee. none of your business. or the gov’t business.

And that is the law.

quite true and quite unfortunate.

If it results in an increase in the price of products, too bad.

So if this is replicated across all industries, explain to me how any of us are better off.

Walmart tried to circumvent the law and are now saddled with a multi-million settlement (which, yes, probably will get passed along to consumers). Everyone would’ve probably been better off if they followed the law in the first place.

Probably won’t matter to them in the long run. They new the rules of the game, justified or not, and they are paying the price for not following the rules. Not sure how anyone can demonize them and take advantage of the cost savings they have brought us all?

Even if you don’t shop at Walmart you are reaping the benefits of them lowering market prices. They should be praised. Even those that work for them under the horrible conditions everyone is claiming, has a better quality of life becuase of cheaper products.

If you can’t understand this, a refresher in basic economics and some reflection is in order. Pretty simple stuff.
[/quote]

Not sure where you are getting your evidence. But most people support existing labor laws. And most who are aware of the impact they have on prices STILL support them. Most people are not troubled by the lawsuits against Walmart either. They shouldn’t be.

I suppose you would rather have things be like China. If you can honestly look at China or even early America before the existence of labor laws and consumer protection and conclude that the quality of life of the average person was better because this system allows for cheaper products, there’s no talking to you. Fortunately, few share this view.

In the case of Walmart, proper working conditions would not even raise the cost of their products very much. Here’s an interesting fact. I’m not even talking about raises for Walmart employees. Just paying for hours worked.

But an analysis of Walmart’s 2005 10K shows that it can afford to increase wages by simply raising prices a half penny per dollar. For example, a $2.00 pair of socks would then cost $2.01. This minimal increase would annually add up to $1,800 for each employee. This is oft-cited statistic on Walmart.

104

[quote]dhickey wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:

You’ve a lot more patience than I have.

Way to add value to this thread. Me and Smith, Hayek, Von Mises, Rothbard, Friedman, Murray, Haslett, etc.

.vs

Gambit Lost, Jsbrook, and Sir Maynard Keynes.

I’ll take it.[/quote]

You mean you and a bunch of dead people and a extreme fringe minority? One that supports an absolute free market system and extreme version of laissez-faire capitalism that was rejected many decades ago?

Your views were properly rejected because the tradeoff for a small amount of cost savings was simply not worth it. It did not make for a good country and did not create an acceptable system for most Americans.

105

[quote]dhickey wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:

You’ve a lot more patience than I have.

Way to add value to this thread. Me and Smith, Hayek, Von Mises, Rothbard, Friedman, Murray, Haslett, etc.

.vs

Gambit Lost, Jsbrook, and Sir Maynard Keynes.

I’ll take it.[/quote]

This post is also misleading, as are many of your posts. It is difficult to identify any leading economic thinker who thought that laissez-faire was the best solution to ALL problems (as you seem to). This includes Adam Smith and these other men you have named.

106

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

dhickey wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
The working man holds little power aside from that achieved by organizations like unions (which have gotten out of control in many cases these days) and labor laws. Most of the workers at Walmart are stuck there in the conditions the company chooses to provide because they need a job. And have no bargaining power and must take it on the company’s terms.

Consumers DO hold power. But their interests are NOT aligned with workers. Consumers don’t particularly give a shit about the working conditions of Walmart employees unless they themselves are Walmart employees. They just want cheap products.

Some would care about exploitation and be willing to accept more expensive products to end it. But not most. And most of those who would don’t make the connection between cheap products and the reasons the products are cheap (partially as a result of worker exploitation).

Exactly.

Yep, and walmart employees don’t care about wages or working conditions in the auto industry as long as they can get cheap cars. And auto workers don’t care about wages for migrant workers as long as they can get cheap produce.

Wow, what’s happening here? Cheap products and services offsetting relatively low wages. You raise wages and we all end up paying more, so what’s the point. The market will set the appropriat price or wage relative to other products and services.

You raise wages and you have essentially raised the price of goods and service that wage will buy. This is all very basic economics.

lol

jsbrook wrote:

No one is arguing otherwise. We should pay more. Labor laws are designed to ensure a very basic threshold of working conditions and fair labor treatment. It doesn’t mean being treated like a king.

No is saying a cashier or the guy who sweeps the floor should make a killing. They SHOULD get paid for hours worked. That is the right standard. And that is the law. If it results in an increase in the price of products, too bad.

Walmart tried to circumvent the law and are now saddled with a multi-million settlement (which, yes, probably will get passed along to consumers). Everyone would’ve probably been better off if they followed the law in the first place.

You’ve a lot more patience than I have. [/quote]

Yeah. Frankly, I’m surprised I got involved in this thread as much as I have. I really only have time to post on weekends and days off these days. So, it seems silly to get involved in extended political debates when I won’t have a chance to respond for 5 days.

107

The problem that I had with the thread was several fold…but just to name a few:

  1. That the issues with Wal-Mart were somehow unique to Wal-Mart.

  2. “Mom and Pop” employment was somehow a paradise of wealth, fairness and ideal working conditions and

  3. That somehow, Wal-Mart is the “cause” of many of our economic problems (and yes…that is VERY much the implication in those Union sponsored studies and the “Union-mentaries”).

I have to often chuckle at the hypocrisy of the person who says "No, no , no…I NEVER shop in that bastion of evil! I shop at (fill in the blank of a Company with as many issues as Wal-Mart…they just don’t have as many total Units)…

Please.

Here is my promise:

Show me the retailer that only buys and sells American Made goods, and if not, makes sure that all of its goods are manufactured by workers worldwide that earn an honest wage; have health benefits and work in reasonable working conditions.

Also, if they sell produce and meat, that its picked and/or processed by well paid, American workers, with complete work and health benefits.

In addition, show me the one that never has issues with hiring, employment and promotion.

Show me that American Company and I’ll never even have the word “Wal-Mart” be a part of my thought process…

…and we all can dance off into the sunset covered in Fairy Godmother Dust…

Mufasa

108

Agree with Mufasa. These problems are definitely not unique to Walmart. It just happens to be a huge, high-profile corporation that a lot of the attention focuses on.

Nor were things necesssarily so infinitely better when Mom and Pop operations were the norm. And a Mom and Pop operation is certainly no guarantee that the products sold are American-made. Don’t know why people implied that.

109

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:

You’ve a lot more patience than I have.

Way to add value to this thread. Me and Smith, Hayek, Von Mises, Rothbard, Friedman, Murray, Haslett, etc.

.vs

Gambit Lost, Jsbrook, and Sir Maynard Keynes.

I’ll take it.

This post is also misleading, as are many of your posts. It is difficult to identify any leading economic thinker who thought that laissez-faire was the best solution to ALL problems (as you seem to). This includes Adam Smith and these other men you have named. [/quote]

How would you know? It’s obvious you haven’t read any of them, outside of some snipets from smith. They all most certainly believed in free market capitalism and would be (those that are dead)astonished with how far we have strayed from it. I am quit familiar with everyone I mentioned and you have no idea what you are talking about. bravo.

110

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
dhickey wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:

You’ve a lot more patience than I have.

Way to add value to this thread. Me and Smith, Hayek, Von Mises, Rothbard, Friedman, Murray, Haslett, etc.

.vs

Gambit Lost, Jsbrook, and Sir Maynard Keynes.

I’ll take it.

You mean you and a bunch of dead people and a extreme fringe minority?
[/quote]

This is anyone needs to read to know exactly where you are coming from. I mean the founding fathers of classic economics. I mean economic geniuses that almost every economic text worth mentioning sources. Wow, just wow. Minorities can certainly be right. Majorities can certainly be wrong.

Rejected by who? Politicians? Great point.

[/quote]
Your views were properly rejected because the tradeoff for a small amount of cost savings was simply not worth it. It did not make for a good country and did not create an acceptable system for most Americans.[/quote]
Again, who rejected classic economics? Any economist with the same credentials as limited number I pointed out?

All one needs to understand that this last statement holds no water, is a basic understanding of classic economics, logic and common sense, and possibly a calculator.

It really would be nice if you would read some of best economic texts before posting in these types of threads. At least then we would both have a sound footing in the very basic principles of economics.

111

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:

dhickey wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
The working man holds little power aside from that achieved by organizations like unions (which have gotten out of control in many cases these days) and labor laws. Most of the workers at Walmart are stuck there in the conditions the company chooses to provide because they need a job. And have no bargaining power and must take it on the company’s terms.

Consumers DO hold power. But their interests are NOT aligned with workers. Consumers don’t particularly give a shit about the working conditions of Walmart employees unless they themselves are Walmart employees. They just want cheap products.

Some would care about exploitation and be willing to accept more expensive products to end it. But not most. And most of those who would don’t make the connection between cheap products and the reasons the products are cheap (partially as a result of worker exploitation).

Exactly.

Yep, and walmart employees don’t care about wages or working conditions in the auto industry as long as they can get cheap cars. And auto workers don’t care about wages for migrant workers as long as they can get cheap produce.

Wow, what’s happening here? Cheap products and services offsetting relatively low wages. You raise wages and we all end up paying more, so what’s the point. The market will set the appropriat price or wage relative to other products and services.

You raise wages and you have essentially raised the price of goods and service that wage will buy. This is all very basic economics.

lol

jsbrook wrote:

No one is arguing otherwise. We should pay more. Labor laws are designed to ensure a very basic threshold of working conditions and fair labor treatment. It doesn’t mean being treated like a king.

No is saying a cashier or the guy who sweeps the floor should make a killing. They SHOULD get paid for hours worked. That is the right standard. And that is the law. If it results in an increase in the price of products, too bad.

Walmart tried to circumvent the law and are now saddled with a multi-million settlement (which, yes, probably will get passed along to consumers). Everyone would’ve probably been better off if they followed the law in the first place.

You’ve a lot more patience than I have.

Yeah. Frankly, I’m surprised I got involved in this thread as much as I have. I really only have time to post on weekends and days off these days. So, it seems silly to get involved in extended political debates when I won’t have a chance to respond for 5 days.[/quote]

You should make time to read some of the classics on economics. I will be quite an eye opener for you.

112

[quote]dhickey wrote:
a lot of stuff.
[/quote]

You defend a corporation that breaks the law. Do you want corporations to break the law? Is that desirable to you?

113

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
The problem that I had with the thread was several fold…but just to name a few:

  1. That the issues with Wal-Mart were somehow unique to Wal-Mart.
    [/quote]
    It most certainly is not. agreed.

Far from it. Agreed.

Dead on again.

The fact that you can product at the other places for the prices you do is because of Wal-Mart.

[quote]

Please.

Here is my promise:

Show me the retailer that only buys and sells American Made goods, and if not, makes sure that all of its goods are manufactured by workers worldwide that earn an honest wage; have health benefits and work in reasonable working conditions.

Also, if they sell produce and meat, that its picked and/or processed by well paid, American workers, with complete work and health benefits.

In addition, show me the one that never has issues with hiring, employment and promotion.

Show me that American Company and I’ll never even have the word “Wal-Mart” be a part of my thought process…

…and we all can dance off into the sunset covered in Fairy Godmother Dust…

Mufasa[/quote]

The fact that this doesn’t exist makes the practice of picking and choosing jobs and industries to protect so damaging. In a free market prices and wages(same thing) are set by the actions of the consumers. Consumers of goods and labor. Everyone has a vote.

What we have now is a select few (gov’t)with power over many. This power may be used with good intentions or for political favor, it doesn’t really matter. The end result is winners and losers, clouded market signals, and archaic bureaucracies that cannot act and adapt like a free market can (instantaneously).

These are not new concepts and they certainly are not mine. This has been at the very core of classical economics since the late 1800s. It has never been successfully discredited. Never.

114

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
dhickey wrote:
a lot of stuff.

You defend a corporation that breaks the law. Do you want corporations to break the law? Is that desirable to you?[/quote]

I would rather the laws in question not be there. I am not defending criminal action, I am saying it should not be criminal. I don’t really care what Walmart does and if they have to pay a fine. All I care about is that I get the goods I need at the lowest possible price and highest possible quality.

If my butcher was an asshole but sold the best steaks at the best price, I would still buy from him. He can be an asshole all he wants as long as I can enjoy a good steak. This is actually the case with many people I shoose to do business with.

GM sounds like a real disaster of a company but I still buy their products. I don’t agree with their business model, and this pathetic bail-out. The power the union wields there makes me ill. I still have a denali and am about to trade my 5 series in for GM pick’em-up truck. Matter of fact I have always owned american cars outside of two BMWs. Same with my wife, my parents(one toyota), and my inlaws. I really don’t care about the internal workings, only about the product I am buying.

115

dhickey you’re a riot man. You act like these things aren’t debated by “real” economists. Hell, even CATO participates in these debates…and I should know, I’ve attended some of them (at CATO…OMG :wink:

116

[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
dhickey wrote:
a lot of stuff.

You defend a corporation that breaks the law. Do you want corporations to break the law? Is that desirable to you?[/quote]

This is another problem I have, especially with those people who continually bring up this “off the clock” issue.

Wal-Mart has a system of advancement and promotion that is a tract open to all their employees. That goes back to the when Walton was still around, and he rewarded people for having profitable stores that moved product.

This “off the clock” issue appears to be one of over-aggressive Store and even Section managers (like Hardware or Women’s Wear) within the stores, trying to make their balance sheets look good. It was NOT a Corporate Policy.

But it’s a mute point; they were fined big-time; so get over it.

On the promotion of women issue…

Discrimination cases are often WAY too complex, and often are not boiled down to simple issues like some of you would like to make them.

Again; if Wal-Mart is found guilty of Sex Discrimination, the Lawyers will get a nice fat payday.

Believe me; America is safe.

There are enough lawyers looking for big pay days to keep Wal-Mart in check; to the tune of hundreds of lawsuits per year.

Mufasa

117

[quote]dhickey wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:

dhickey wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
The working man holds little power aside from that achieved by organizations like unions (which have gotten out of control in many cases these days) and labor laws.

Most of the workers at Walmart are stuck there in the conditions the company chooses to provide because they need a job. And have no bargaining power and must take it on the company’s terms.

Consumers DO hold power. But their interests are NOT aligned with workers. Consumers don’t particularly give a shit about the working conditions of Walmart employees unless they themselves are Walmart employees. They just want cheap products.

Some would care about exploitation and be willing to accept more expensive products to end it. But not most. And most of those who would don’t make the connection between cheap products and the reasons the products are cheap (partially as a result of worker exploitation).

Exactly.

Yep, and walmart employees don’t care about wages or working conditions in the auto industry as long as they can get cheap cars. And auto workers don’t care about wages for migrant workers as long as they can get cheap produce.

Wow, what’s happening here? Cheap products and services offsetting relatively low wages. You raise wages and we all end up paying more, so what’s the point. The market will set the appropriat price or wage relative to other products and services.

You raise wages and you have essentially raised the price of goods and service that wage will buy. This is all very basic economics.

lol

jsbrook wrote:

No one is arguing otherwise. We should pay more. Labor laws are designed to ensure a very basic threshold of working conditions and fair labor treatment. It doesn’t mean being treated like a king.

No is saying a cashier or the guy who sweeps the floor should make a killing. They SHOULD get paid for hours worked. That is the right standard. And that is the law. If it results in an increase in the price of products, too bad.

Walmart tried to circumvent the law and are now saddled with a multi-million settlement (which, yes, probably will get passed along to consumers). Everyone would’ve probably been better off if they followed the law in the first place.

You’ve a lot more patience than I have.

Yeah. Frankly, I’m surprised I got involved in this thread as much as I have. I really only have time to post on weekends and days off these days. So, it seems silly to get involved in extended political debates when I won’t have a chance to respond for 5 days.

You should make time to read some of the classics on economics. I will be quite an eye opener for you.
[/quote]

You should make some time to read about how these wonderful theories affected the lives of REAL people in the Lochner era before they were justly abandoned. It would be an eye opener. You would do very well to go beyond economic theory and read up on some history to see how things shook out in the real world.

118

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
dhickey you’re a riot man. You act like these things aren’t debated by “real” economists. Hell, even CATO participates in these debates…and I should know, I’ve attended some of them (at CATO…OMG :wink: [/quote]

This is not just about economics. Dhickey is almost undoubtedly right that unrestricted laissez-faire capitalism would result in lower prices. He proceeds from the presumption that this should be the ultimate end goal.

Most do not agree. Most us feel that we are better off as a country with laws that prohibit child labor, insist on sanitary working conditions, and pay overtime. Despite that fact that this drives costs up and makes products more expensive.

119

[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
dhickey you’re a riot man. You act like these things aren’t debated by “real” economists. Hell, even CATO participates in these debates…and I should know, I’ve attended some of them (at CATO…OMG :wink:

This is not just about economics. Dhickey is almost undoubtedly right that unrestricted laissez-faire capitalism would result in lower prices. He proceeds from the presumption that this should be the ultimate end goal.
[/quote]

I preceed form the presumption that well intended regulation has undoubtedly handcuffed the market and our quality of life. I preceed from the presumption that most politicians have now backround in economics and don’t understand the effects of the votes they are more than likely casting for political favors.

[quote]
Most do not agree. Most us feel that we are better off as a country with laws that prohibit child labor, insist on sanitary working conditions, and pay overtime. Despite that fact that this drives costs up and makes products more expensive. [/quote]

Most economically illiterate don’t agree, damn. The fact is most don’t take any interest in economics and refuse to read the greatest economist in history, much like yourself.

Free market capitalism provides all of this. No need for inefficient, self serving beaurcrats.

In a prosperous society, there is no need for child labor. What is more effective in providing a prosperous society, the free market or the gov’t?

In a prosperous society employees chose whom to sell their labor to. You want sanitary working conditions, you got it. You want to get paid overtime, there is someone willing to pay you overtime if you are productive. How are productive jobs more efficiently created, from the market or from gov’t?

120

[quote]jsbrook wrote:

You should make some time to read about how these wonderful theories affected the lives of REAL people in the Lochner era before they were justly abandoned. It would be an eye opener. You would do very well to go beyond economic theory and read up on some history to see how things shook out in the real world. [/quote]

I assume you are talking about the early Lochner era. Or do you think free market capitalism was responsible for the great depression and conditions it brought?

What do hardships exerienced in a developing nation have to do with free market solutions for a developed country.

How were the hardships here any different than those under controlled economies in the same stage of development?

Do you think working conditions would be the same now without regulation?

Do you think child labor would still be an issue?