Hurt Walmart, or Help The Poor?

[PoliticalChic]

Dr. Thomas Sowell, in “Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One,” challenges individuals to analyze not only their short term (Stage One) impact but to also think ahead to their long term (Stage Two, Three, etc) impact.

Politicians do not think beyond Stage One because they will be praised (and elected) for the short term benefits but will not be held accountable much later when the long term consequences appear.

If Dr. Sowell up-dates the tome, he should include the following, as there couldn't be a more illustrative example of Stage One thinking.






1. "The Washington, D.C. city council has just passed legislation making the nation’s capital officially hostile to Walmart. The Large Retailer Accountability Act was proposed by city council chairman Phil Mendelson, who was determined to let big-box retailers know that “you’ve got to pay a fair wage to your employees.”

2. The law targets any city store with a net worth of over $1 billion, with a nonunionized workforce, and occupying a space of more than 75,000 square feet—but since no other big-box retailers operate in D.C. today, it’s a safe bet that Mendelson had Walmart in mind. Such stores must now pay wages of $12.50 an hour—$4.25 above D.C.’s minimum wage, itself a dollar higher than the federal rate.

3. Walmart is currently constructing three stores in Washington and planning three more. .... Together, they would provide 1,800 jobs and $15 million in annual sales taxes. These are areas in dire need of jobs and economic activity.





4. ....Mendelson objected because Walmart would pay some workers less than the city’s median hourly wage for retail salespeople. “Often our debate on the council is only about the number of jobs, not about the quality of those jobs,” he said. Mendelson’s bill typifies the opposition that Walmart faces as it tries expanding from the suburbs into major cities.

5. In 2007, community resistance killed proposed stores in Queens and Staten Island. In California, similar efforts have kept stores out of San Francisco, San Diego, and Los Angeles. Unions, antipoverty advocates, and wealthy progressives argue that Walmart hurts small businesses and keeps wages down for the poor. Their cure for these alleged ills is to impose onerous and expensive mandates, including requirements to pay a “living wage.”




6. In D.C., for example, Walmart has donated millions to neighborhood programs and signed a “community benefits agreement” that guarantees training and hiring of local workers. In New York, Walmart has contributed an estimated $13 million to local charities and other organizations since 2007.



7. ..... progressives rail against Walmart from their own well-serviced neighborhoods—many of which have big-box retailers, like Target and KMart, that pay roughly what Walmart does. But Walmart is one of the only major retailers offering less fortunate areas the groceries and cheap goods that these progressives can easily obtain.





8. .... the bill’s passage will force the company to abandon its plans for the three additional stores and that it might even “jeopardize the three stores already under construction.”

9. ... managerial positions that pay over $100,000 annually; indeed, three-quarters of the company’s managers began as low-level employees.

10. Mayor Vincent Gray can veto the legislation, and he should. Otherwise, the city’s poor will see Walmart driven further into the suburbs, away from where it’s so badly needed."
Stop Walmart First, Help the Poor Second by Scott Beyer - City Journal





The above, and stories like this, represents 'a posteriori' evidence of why a constitutional amendment is necessary that either pens Liberals/Progressives/Democrats up 'way out in the country where they will be a danger to no one but themselves, or...

at least....

...prevents them from ever holding offices of power.

 

[Blooper]

Dr. Thomas Sowell, in “Applied Economics: Thinking Beyond Stage One,” challenges individuals to analyze not only their short term (Stage One) impact but to also think ahead to their long term (Stage Two, Three, etc) impact.

Politicians do not think beyond Stage One because they will be praised (and elected) for the short term benefits but will not be held accountable much later when the long term consequences appear.

If Dr. Sowell up-dates the tome, he should include the following, as there couldn't be a more illustrative example of Stage One thinking.






1. "The Washington, D.C. city council has just passed legislation making the nation’s capital officially hostile to Walmart. The Large Retailer Accountability Act was proposed by city council chairman Phil Mendelson, who was determined to let big-box retailers know that “you’ve got to pay a fair wage to your employees.”

2. The law targets any city store with a net worth of over $1 billion, with a nonunionized workforce, and occupying a space of more than 75,000 square feet—but since no other big-box retailers operate in D.C. today, it’s a safe bet that Mendelson had Walmart in mind. Such stores must now pay wages of $12.50 an hour—$4.25 above D.C.’s minimum wage, itself a dollar higher than the federal rate.

3. Walmart is currently constructing three stores in Washington and planning three more. .... Together, they would provide 1,800 jobs and $15 million in annual sales taxes. These are areas in dire need of jobs and economic activity.





4. ....Mendelson objected because Walmart would pay some workers less than the city’s median hourly wage for retail salespeople. “Often our debate on the council is only about the number of jobs, not about the quality of those jobs,” he said. Mendelson’s bill typifies the opposition that Walmart faces as it tries expanding from the suburbs into major cities.

5. In 2007, community resistance killed proposed stores in Queens and Staten Island. In California, similar efforts have kept stores out of San Francisco, San Diego, and Los Angeles. Unions, antipoverty advocates, and wealthy progressives argue that Walmart hurts small businesses and keeps wages down for the poor. Their cure for these alleged ills is to impose onerous and expensive mandates, including requirements to pay a “living wage.”




6. In D.C., for example, Walmart has donated millions to neighborhood programs and signed a “community benefits agreement” that guarantees training and hiring of local workers. In New York, Walmart has contributed an estimated $13 million to local charities and other organizations since 2007.



7. ..... progressives rail against Walmart from their own well-serviced neighborhoods—many of which have big-box retailers, like Target and KMart, that pay roughly what Walmart does. But Walmart is one of the only major retailers offering less fortunate areas the groceries and cheap goods that these progressives can easily obtain.





8. .... the bill’s passage will force the company to abandon its plans for the three additional stores and that it might even “jeopardize the three stores already under construction.”

9. ... managerial positions that pay over $100,000 annually; indeed, three-quarters of the company’s managers began as low-level employees.

10. Mayor Vincent Gray can veto the legislation, and he should. Otherwise, the city’s poor will see Walmart driven further into the suburbs, away from where it’s so badly needed."
Stop Walmart First, Help the Poor Second by Scott Beyer - City Journal





The above, and stories like this, represents 'a posteriori' evidence of why a constitutional amendment is necessary that either pens Liberals/Progressives/Democrats up 'way out in the country where they will be a danger to no one but themselves, or...

at least....

...prevents them from ever holding offices of power.

And I think this is where liberals have to make concessions. Within a global market utilizing wages and profit, corporations will exercise too much control over government and civil society. You can't raise wages to that appropriate level which would improve both living conditions and the economy in a macro sense - because you're in competition with other nations, and because that control mentioned earlier is hegemonic as well as political.

Reminiscent of what PoliticalChic mentioned, in the short run, workers and the recovery stand to fell some pain if their conditions are improved. Which develops the phenomenon known as conservatism.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

As long as the American consumer demands the lowest cost possible - the problem of underemployment/unemployment/child labor/slave labor - will not only continue, but continue to grow.
As consumers, Americans are the most self-centered hypocritical stupid people on the planet. The fact they cannot make the connection that ultra-cheap volume based retail = producers seeking ultra-cheap volume based laborers is just flat out unbelievable.

 

[Blooper]

As long as the American consumer demands the lowest cost possible - the problem of underemployment/unemployment/child labor/slave labor - will not only continue, but continue to grow.
As consumers, Americans are the most self-centered hypocritical stupid people on the planet. The fact they cannot make the connection that ultra-cheap volume based retail = producers seeking ultra-cheap volume based laborers is just flat out unbelievable.

Working class people within our capitalist economy have a tendency to act in their immediate self-interest. We could fairly easily say its because of need; which is only made harder to meet due to what Veblen called "the leisure class".

But either way, its not a matter of intelligence. Its one of economics their superstructure.

 

[PoliticalChic]

As long as the American consumer demands the lowest cost possible - the problem of underemployment/unemployment/child labor/slave labor - will not only continue, but continue to grow.
As consumers, Americans are the most self-centered hypocritical stupid people on the planet. The fact they cannot make the connection that ultra-cheap volume based retail = producers seeking ultra-cheap volume based laborers is just flat out unbelievable.

1. "As long as the American consumer demands the lowest cost possible...."

Did you think that that was some sort of pejorative???

Be serious.
Every consumer operates that way....world over.
'Else...they're a simpleton.

a. "If the Leftist is interested in a more ‘fair’ redistribution of wealth, let him vote for lower taxes, and then he can distribute his now larger share of his wealth to the lesser compensated folks.

b. Illustrative of reality is the fact that the Leftist refrains from paying above the stated price for goods and services…he wants, as everyone else does, competition between said services. Only then does he stand a chance of getting a “fair” price. In his own enterprise, he strives to improve quality or lower price…’else his potential customers will take their business to others. Unless he has the power of government!"
David Mamet, "The Secret Knowledge."




2. The phenomenon of "child labor" has been alleviated, throughout economic history, through improved standards of living....capitalism.
As a family's income increases, they no longer allow their children to work.



3. 'underemployment/unemployment' is also mitigated simply by abolishing minimum wage laws.

a. "Milton Friedman provides some critically clarifying truthiness on the unholy coalitions between 'do-gooders', 'special interests', 'trade unions', and the vicious circle that this non-market-based decision will create. "Do-Gooders believe passing a law saying nobody shall get less than [a minimum wage] is helping poor people (who need the money). You're doing nothing of the kind. What you're doing is to ensure that people whose skills do not justify that wage will be unemployed."
Milton Friedman On The Unholy Coalitions Of The Minimum Wage | Zero Hedge

 

[iamwhatiseem]

As long as the American consumer demands the lowest cost possible - the problem of underemployment/unemployment/child labor/slave labor - will not only continue, but continue to grow.
As consumers, Americans are the most self-centered hypocritical stupid people on the planet. The fact they cannot make the connection that ultra-cheap volume based retail = producers seeking ultra-cheap volume based laborers is just flat out unbelievable.

Working class people within our capitalist economy have a tendency to act in their immediate self-interest. We could fairly easily say its because of need; which is only made harder to meet due to what Veblen called "the leisure class".

But either way, its not a matter of intelligence. Its one of economics their superstructure.

[Red Bold] It is most certainly not out of NEED. People don't NEED wide screen TV's, they don't NEED iPhones, they don't NEED 300 channels, they don't NEED Xbox's and 20 games etc. etc.
At least 90% of "cheap" choices is just that - people have lost all meaning of the word value, equating it only as value=cheapest price paid.

 

[Blooper]

As long as the American consumer demands the lowest cost possible - the problem of underemployment/unemployment/child labor/slave labor - will not only continue, but continue to grow.
As consumers, Americans are the most self-centered hypocritical stupid people on the planet. The fact they cannot make the connection that ultra-cheap volume based retail = producers seeking ultra-cheap volume based laborers is just flat out unbelievable.

Working class people within our capitalist economy have a tendency to act in their immediate self-interest. We could fairly easily say its because of need; which is only made harder to meet due to what Veblen called "the leisure class".

But either way, its not a matter of intelligence. Its one of economics their superstructure.

[Red Bold] It is most certainly not out of NEED. People don't NEED wide screen TV's, they don't NEED iPhones, they don't NEED 300 channels, they don't NEED Xbox's and 20 games etc. etc.
At least 90% of "cheap" choices is just that - people have lost all meaning of the word value, equating it only as value=cheapest price paid.

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were actually touching upon the problem of Walmart's customer base, not just raving against the poor.

If you can corroborate those wild assertions with statistics, a foundation in the structure of our economy... heck, anything, I'll take your post seriously. If not, you're just playing the role of a Reaganite as delusional and amoral as the man himself.

Cheers.

 

[Moonglow]

7. ..... progressives rail against Walmart from their own well-serviced neighborhoods—many of which have big-box retailers, like Target and KMart, that pay roughly what Walmart does. But Walmart is one of the only major retailers offering less fortunate areas the groceries and cheap goods that these progressives can easily obtain.

Wal-Mart is not the cheapest. There are food stores that beat them on prices daily.Price Cutter is one.

 

[Moonglow]

2. The phenomenon of "child labor" has been alleviated, throughout economic history, through improved standards of living....capitalism.
As a family's income increases, they no longer allow their children to work.

HA! That's a good one, it's laws that have stopped child labor, and it still occurs in other nations that Wal Mart buys its products from.

 

[Moonglow]

3. 'underemployment/unemployment' is also mitigated simply by abolishing minimum wage laws.

Hardly, when there was no laws as such unemployment was still in existence.

 

[Kimura]

The nominal federal wage in the US is below the actual costs of a living wage. In a way, if we really look at it, it’s basically a workforce subsidy to employers. If we look at the OECD countries, the US minimum wage is on the lower end of the spectrum for the industrialized nations.

In our economy, which is pretty job starved, the supply-side will always dictate how the deck is stacked. We should view the federal minimum wage as a glaring example of how modern we consider our country to be. It represents what our society is willing to accept as a minimum wage. Any decisions about minimum wage should ultimately revolve around social policy.

If businesses, such as Walmart or other firms decide they don’t have the ability to pay a minimum wage, then society as a whole can decide these firms shouldn’t operate in the economy. Firms would have to restructure through investments to improve productivity so they can have the capacity to pay the legislated minimum wage. Increased wages also improve productivity and lessen employee turnover, so it’s a win-win situation for all parties involved.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[Red Bold] It is most certainly not out of NEED. People don't NEED wide screen TV's, they don't NEED iPhones, they don't NEED 300 channels, they don't NEED Xbox's and 20 games etc. etc.
At least 90% of "cheap" choices is just that - people have lost all meaning of the word value, equating it only as value=cheapest price paid.

Then start a trend.

Donate the computer you are using to the homeless. Give the amount you pay to your ISP to the poor and live without.

Like most - virtually all - leftists; You're willing to give every dime your neighbor has to the poor.

THEY should give more... The primary difference between left and right is that the Right supports their beliefs with there own capital, where the left believes that charity begins by picking the pocket of others.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The nominal federal wage in the US is below the actual costs of a living wage. In a way, if we really look at it, it’s basically a workforce subsidy to employers. If we look at the OECD countries, the US minimum wage is on the lower end of the spectrum for the industrialized nations.

In our economy, which is pretty job starved, the supply-side will always dictate how the deck is stacked. We should view the federal minimum wage as a glaring example of how modern we consider our country to be. It represents what our society is willing to accept as a minimum wage. Any decisions about minimum wage should ultimately revolve around social policy.

If businesses, such as Walmart or other firms decide they don’t have the ability to pay a minimum wage, then society as a whole can decide these firms shouldn’t operate in the economy. Firms would have to restructure through investments to improve productivity so they can have the capacity to pay the legislated minimum wage. Increased wages also improve productivity and lessen employee turnover, so it’s a win-win situation for all parties involved.

Ah, that's because 99% of the workforce is paid minimum wage, right sparky?

Tell me, should the state set the wage of all workers, from top to bottom? Or just for targets of the unions?

 

[Blooper]

The nominal federal wage in the US is below the actual costs of a living wage. In a way, if we really look at it, it’s basically a workforce subsidy to employers. If we look at the OECD countries, the US minimum wage is on the lower end of the spectrum for the industrialized nations.

In our economy, which is pretty job starved, the supply-side will always dictate how the deck is stacked. We should view the federal minimum wage as a glaring example of how modern we consider our country to be. It represents what our society is willing to accept as a minimum wage. Any decisions about minimum wage should ultimately revolve around social policy.

If businesses, such as Walmart or other firms decide they don’t have the ability to pay a minimum wage, then society as a whole can decide these firms shouldn’t operate in the economy. Firms would have to restructure through investments to improve productivity so they can have the capacity to pay the legislated minimum wage. Increased wages also improve productivity and lessen employee turnover, so it’s a win-win situation for all parties involved.

Ah, that's because 99% of the workforce is paid minimum wage, right sparky?

Tell me, should the state set the wage of all workers, from top to bottom? Or just for targets of the unions?

What does the number of workers on minimum wage have to do with his post? Kimura merely asserted that, in a competitive economy with a manifestly powerful capitalist class, the supply-side will dictate public affairs. Not that most people were paid minimum wage, or that the state should be the determinant of all wages.

 

[Kimura]

The nominal federal wage in the US is below the actual costs of a living wage. In a way, if we really look at it, it’s basically a workforce subsidy to employers. If we look at the OECD countries, the US minimum wage is on the lower end of the spectrum for the industrialized nations.

In our economy, which is pretty job starved, the supply-side will always dictate how the deck is stacked. We should view the federal minimum wage as a glaring example of how modern we consider our country to be. It represents what our society is willing to accept as a minimum wage. Any decisions about minimum wage should ultimately revolve around social policy.

If businesses, such as Walmart or other firms decide they don’t have the ability to pay a minimum wage, then society as a whole can decide these firms shouldn’t operate in the economy. Firms would have to restructure through investments to improve productivity so they can have the capacity to pay the legislated minimum wage. Increased wages also improve productivity and lessen employee turnover, so it’s a win-win situation for all parties involved.

Ah, that's because 99% of the workforce is paid minimum wage, right sparky?

Tell me, should the state set the wage of all workers, from top to bottom? Or just for targets of the unions?

I never said that.

However, by keeping our minimum wage at pathetically depressed levels, it doesn’t improve employment prospects in the least. As a matter of fact, it makes it matters worse, since it takes demand out of the economy and lowers the prospects of someone on unemployment benefits or other types of assistance from reentering the workforce.

Wages are source of demand and an input cost. For example, if we reduce wages and demand falls, it has more of a negative impact than any cost savings derived from paying workers less wages. If we look at today’s pathetic minimum wage, it’s not even in the universe of what could be deemed a living wage. Just sayin’…

 

[Blooper]

[Red Bold] It is most certainly not out of NEED. People don't NEED wide screen TV's, they don't NEED iPhones, they don't NEED 300 channels, they don't NEED Xbox's and 20 games etc. etc.
At least 90% of "cheap" choices is just that - people have lost all meaning of the word value, equating it only as value=cheapest price paid.

Then start a trend.

Donate the computer you are using to the homeless. Give the amount you pay to your ISP to the poor and live without.

Like most - virtually all - leftists; You're willing to give every dime your neighbor has to the poor.

THEY should give more... The primary difference between left and right is that the Right supports their beliefs with there own capital, where the left believes that charity begins by picking the pocket of others.

Nobody's saying that. Improving the condition of the workers can be done through workplace restructuring - and by decreasing the rate of profit and leisure class compensation, in favor of benefits to the producers.

 

[PoliticalChic]

7. ..... progressives rail against Walmart from their own well-serviced neighborhoods—many of which have big-box retailers, like Target and KMart, that pay roughly what Walmart does. But Walmart is one of the only major retailers offering less fortunate areas the groceries and cheap goods that these progressives can easily obtain.

Wal-Mart is not the cheapest. There are food stores that beat them on prices daily.Price Cutter is one.

Why would you suggest that the article claims that Wal-Mart is the cheapest?

 

[Moonglow]

7. ..... progressives rail against Walmart from their own well-serviced neighborhoods—many of which have big-box retailers, like Target and KMart, that pay roughly what Walmart does. But Walmart is one of the only major retailers offering less fortunate areas the groceries and cheap goods that these progressives can easily obtain.

Wal-Mart is not the cheapest. There are food stores that beat them on prices daily.Price Cutter is one.

Why would you suggest that the article claims that Wal-Mart is the cheapest?

From the quote on the page you ask that.

 

[Dot Com]

Henry Ford must be anathema to Righties in that he did something that industrialist titans of his time didn't do: he paid his workers more than the going rate so that they could hope to buy one of the cars they manufactured some day which they did. Walmart? Not so much.

BTW- ever seen this source PoliChic?

Top Reasons the Walton Family and Walmart are NOT “Job Creators”

 

[Moonglow]

I get 10% off at Wal Mart, but i still look for better deals. The one thing that Wal Mart has developed and succeeded upon is one stop shopping.