Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Indignation for Hire
The Las Vegas Weekly chats with six people protesting outside of a Wal-Mart. Turns out, none of them actually work there:
They're not union members; they're temp workers employed through Allied Forces/Labor Express by the union -- United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW). They're making $6 an hour, with no benefits; it's 104 F, and they're protesting the working conditions inside the new Wal-Mart grocery store.
"It don't make no sense, does it?" says James Greer, the line foreman and the only one who pulls down $8 an hour, as he ambles down the sidewalk, picket sign on shoulder, sweaty hat over sweaty gray hair, spitting sunflower seeds. "We're sacrificing for the people who work in there, and they don't even know it."
Via Liberteaser.
|9.13.05 @ 8:57AM|#
If the union can afford to hire picke-temps, isn't that a sign that their members' money might be in the wrong pockets?
|9.13.05 @ 8:58AM|#
Actually, I think it's pretty libertarian to be a hired
protester. Like a mercenary.
Hell, I would have a ball raising hell outside a Walmart.
"Hey fatsos! Stop buying all that cheap, ugly, slave-labor
clothing! Walmarts stink! They all smell like rotting plastic and
old people! You don't need those super-size bags of pork rinds! For
christ's sake, join a gym!"
I just wish they paid better.
|9.13.05 @ 9:05AM|#
There must not be very many stories about Wal Mart's labor problems. This is certainly the first one I've even seen mentioned on Hit and Run.
Phil|9.13.05 @ 9:13AM|#
You know, joe, if there are topics you're that eager to see discussed -- Wal-Mart's labor problems, recycling v. landfilling, etc. -- you can always start your own blog. It's free. I'll even help you.
|9.13.05 @ 9:15AM|#
Phil, in Joe's defense, I can see why he'd raise an eyebrow over the fact that for all the sleazy labor practices Wal-Mart's indulged in, the first time the company gets mentioned is in a way that casts its opponents in an unsavory light.
Phil|9.13.05 @ 9:23AM|#
Oh, sure, I agree, Jennifer. (Although they have mentioned Wal-Mart, a lot, usually in the context of property-rights and zoning cases.) He just often complains about what Reason writers don't write about. Well, this is America, dude -- grab your platform, and start shouting! I'd read a blog by joe. Wouldn't you?
|9.13.05 @ 9:23AM|#
No, no, Jennifer. Because Wal-Mart is an organization run by mighty, square-jawed, clear-eyed capitalist prime movers. Anything they do is just and moral, because the market allows it. Just try to thing of them as Nietzschean ubermenchen; what they do is right precisely because they do it.
|9.13.05 @ 9:25AM|#
I really should start proofreading these posts. Sorry for the unprovoked assault on the language contained in the above post.
|9.13.05 @ 9:25AM|#
Googling Walmart, union, and joe together on
reason.com/hitandrun returns 76 matches.
I really should do some real work.
Jammer|9.13.05 @ 9:32AM|#
Jennifer,
The first time? A quick Google of Reason shows no less than 418
Wal-Mart references. I'll admit that I did not look them all over
to see if they came to praise or bury Wal-Mart but I'd be surprised
if there were not some criticism in there somewhere.
Dave W.|9.13.05 @ 9:33AM|#
the first one I've even seen mentioned on Hit and
Run
I want to see how they will handle the religious arbitration issue
that is big here in Ontario, Canada right now. Will they choose the
private-ordering side or the Jennifer-type side?
|9.13.05 @ 9:38AM|#
I honestly think joe should start a blog and attract as many
modern liberals as he can. And then open it up to H&R
posters.
It would be a great battleground.
Mike Kole|9.13.05 @ 9:41AM|#
If only Wal-Mart were worth defending every time. They are the
good guy for bringing products at lower prices while being the
villain who uses the power of eminent domain to steal land from the
very people they sell to.
Wal-Mart, Democrats & Republicans, and a broken clock- all
correct at least two times a day.
|9.13.05 @ 9:43AM|#
Will they choose the private-ordering side or the
Jennifer-type side
Beats the hell out of me. I don't even know what the two sides
are.
Jesse Walker|9.13.05 @ 9:47AM|#
Dave: I can't speak for my colleagues, but I've already chosen the private-ordering side (which could well be Jennifer's side as well). A blog post is in the works.
|9.13.05 @ 9:49AM|#
Dave W.
I just saw a story somewhere that the Premier had rejected setting
up sharia courts. He is, in fact, planning to outlaw all religious
based arbitration. One Law for all Ontarians or somesuch.
|9.13.05 @ 9:50AM|#
Jammer--
Oh, I know full well Wal-Mart has been mentioned here before, but I
don't recall any previous Hit and Run posts specifically dedicated
to it. (Probably because the problems of Wal-Mart's vile treatment
of employees is NOT a problem that can be magically solved by the
invisible hand of the market. Though I do my part--I can't even
remember the last time I set foot in one of those stores.)
MP|9.13.05 @ 9:53AM|#
rant/
One thing that has always disturbed me about Wal-Mart coverage is
how the actions of individual store managers are assumed to be
directly the result of directives from Bentonville. The head-office
openly disavows knowledge of many individual store indiscretions,
and usually takes corrective action. Evidence is rarely given to
back up assumptions of head-office shenanigans.
/rant
|9.13.05 @ 10:02AM|#
Jennifer,
Did you read the article? What, exactly, is so vile about the
treatment of Wal-mart employees
(besides being forced to interact with people who shop at
Wal-mart)? In your reponse, please compare the lives of Wal-mart
employees with similar folks who live in a parallel universe that
does not have Wal-marts.
|9.13.05 @ 10:07AM|#
mobile:
C'mon. Have you actually seen Walmart employees that looked
genuinely happy?
It's probably better then not having any job at all. But that's the
only positive thing I can say about it.
|9.13.05 @ 10:08AM|#
Walmarts vile treatment of employees can't be solved by the labor market? Is this the opinion of the employees or just those feeling sorry for them?
alkali|9.13.05 @ 10:08AM|#
The Las Vegas Weekly chats with six people protesting
outside of a Wal-Mart. Turns out, none of them actually work there
...
Uh, yeah. That's how union organizing works. If actual Wal-Mart
workers were to protest, they would be fired. (Firing protesting
workers is illegal under federal labor law, but there is
effectively no penalty for it, so that's what always happens.)
Watch Norma Rae sometime and get yourself a clue.
Next in Hit & Run: the shocking discovery that
Kool-Aid Man is not a magical talking pitcher but a guy in a
suit.
|9.13.05 @ 10:11AM|#
alkali-
He isn't?
Next you'll try to tell me that rich people don't actually stop and
ask the guy in the next limo for Grey Poupon.
|9.13.05 @ 10:11AM|#
Mobile--
I'm actually expected to do some productive stuff at work today, so
I don't have time to go into the full anti-Wal-Mart manifesto. But
here's a few complaints:
Locking their employees in their stores overnight, with the risk of
getting fired if they leave for any reason.
Paying such appallingly low wages that new employees are regularly
given forms telling them how to apply for welfare benefits so they
won't starve.
SERIOUS discrimination against women.
Regularly pulling stunts like giving an employee one or two hours a
week less than full-time, to avoid paying what paltry benefits they
DO make available.
Forcing employees to regularly work extra hours off the
clock.
And many more.
And yes, I know the devout libertarian line: nobody needs worker
protection laws, since the employees are always free to leave, and
everybody knows that finding a job that pays enough to live is
quite easy if you have the proper motivation, and poor people
always get that way solely because they deserve it. However, I've
never bought the devout libertarian line, and I have yet to see a
real-world scenario where it works for the majority of
people--epsecially in regards to Wal-Mart.
|9.13.05 @ 10:14AM|#
jf,
Don't do it, do not do real work, hang in there, we can not let the
terrorists win.
|9.13.05 @ 10:14AM|#
I've seen Wal-Mart mentioned quite a few times here, usually in the context of mentioning towns who don't want it; and the reaction here has always been pretty uniformly pro-Wal-Mart, because they sell cheap stuff, regardless of any transgressions they may or may not have committed.
|9.13.05 @ 10:18AM|#
Rhywun-Havn't you been paying attention? If the management can get away with action X, it's because the market allows X, and it is either morally neutral or good.
|9.13.05 @ 10:19AM|#
Nice Guy,
Could it be that it's not Walmart that makes its employees not look
happy, it's the unhappy folks of the world who end up working at
Walmart cause everyone else has figured out they suck as
employees.
|9.13.05 @ 10:20AM|#
When Wal Mart immediately closed the first store ever to vote to
form a union, it just demonstrated how happy their employees
are.
Not only the employees in that store, either. Deploying the nuclear
option demonstrates Wal Mart's confidence that employee relations
in its other stores are in great shape, too.
|9.13.05 @ 10:23AM|#
Jennifer,
The devout libertarian line actually works pretty well, except when
you're talking about the largest corporation on Earth.
kl,
I've worked for soulless retail megacorporations before - trust me,
they make you unhappy. Jennifer's bit about working everyone 39
hours a week so they don't have to offer any of the perks of
full-time really strikes a chord.
|9.13.05 @ 10:24AM|#
Well then it's a wonder that anyone would work there at all, much less 1.7 million of them. What do you suppose could make that many people work there? Maybe they are all too stupid to know any better. Or maybe they know they are being reamed but they are too passive or too lazy to do something about it? Good thing there are some smarter people with their hearts in the right place (you know, who can do things like hire people to stand outside in 104F for $6/hour) to stand up to these atrocities.
MP|9.13.05 @ 10:27AM|#
Deploying the nuclear option demonstrates Wal Mart's
confidence that employee relations in its other stores are in great
shape, too.
Unionized employees will almost definitely increase the costs to
Wal-Mart, directly impacting their ability to be competative in the
marketplace. It is false to imply that because someone wants to be
paid more implies they are dissatisfied. We all want to be paid
more. You cannot assume that cost containment implies employee
dissatisfaction.
|9.13.05 @ 10:28AM|#
can anyone who has ever actually shopped at walmart and asked for help honestly say their employees deserve a 'living' wage?
|9.13.05 @ 10:34AM|#
To me, shopping at a Walmart v.s. a Target are as different as
night and day.
At a Target, generally, management treats their employees better,
employees are more enthusiastic to promote a clean and friendly
environment, and customers have a happier shopping experience. It's
positive.
At a Walmart - the opposite.
I think the big problem is consumer obsession with cheapness. Less
expense does not always equate with good value. What's the point of
buying a slave-labor pair of jeans if they're going to wear out in
a year?
If they're going to force kids to go to school, at least they
should teach them about objective consumption. I can think of a ton
of crap this could replace.
Phil|9.13.05 @ 10:36AM|#
Unionized employees will almost definitely increase the
costs to Wal-Mart, directly impacting their ability to be
competative in the marketplace
And? I mean, so what? Lots of things might increase the costs to
Wal-Mart. Not receiving adequate workplace protection increases the
costs to the members of the labor pool employed by Wal-Mart. And
those are actual people, not fake people, like a corporation
is.
I don't have much use for a union myself, but I've never understood
why the same people who are fine with a bunch of corporate
shareholders pooling their resources to achieve better results and
spread risk are not also fine with a bunch of labor suppliers
(i.e., workers) doing the same.
|9.13.05 @ 10:37AM|#
Neolib-Yes, I can.
I'm getting the sense that some here think that because folks work
at Wal-Mart, they are troglodytes who don't deserve to be treated
decently. And that's a point of view hewed to by assholes.
|9.13.05 @ 10:37AM|#
Unionized employees will almost definitely increase the
costs to Wal-Mart, directly impacting their ability to be
competative in the marketplace
Yeah, if Wal-Mart has to raise the price of its merchandise by a
penny apiece, those bargain-hunting customers will say "Screw
this--for these prices, I may as well shop at Nordstrom's."
And the thought of Wal-Mart accepting a half-percent decrease in
profits is just immoral.
|9.13.05 @ 10:38AM|#
"Wal-Mart's vile treatment of employees..."???
Goodness, you'd think they were stacking people like sardines below
deck and shipping them across the Atlantic rather than employing
people who willing apply there and willingly keep showing up to
work.
Why are people under the impression their employees need to be paid
more? Have any of you gone into a Wal-Mart and seen what they do?
Is cashiering at Wal-Mart for some reason a more valuable skill
than cashiering anywhere else? Or walking around, folding clothes
and restocking shelves? These aren't the kinds of jobs that should
be paid much more than minimum wage.
|9.13.05 @ 10:45AM|#
For those who say that improved Wal-Mart paychecks will bankrupt the company--well, Target/Costco pay decent wages, and they're doing fine. In fact, the extra wages pretty much pay for themselves--since the employees are happier, they tend not to quit in droves the second hey find a similar job that pays a buck an hour more, and so Target and Costco don't have to spend a fortune constantly hiring and training new people. And the employees are happier, which makes them tend to be more committed to their jobs.
MP|9.13.05 @ 10:46AM|#
I've never understood why the same people who are fine with
a bunch of corporate shareholders pooling their resources to
achieve better results and spread risk are not also fine with a
bunch of labor suppliers (i.e., workers) doing the same.
I have no problem with Wal-Mart workers attempting to unionize. I
also have no problem with Wal-Mart corporate attempting to resist
this. But I refuse to cast this struggle as a battle of poor
unfortunate schmucks vs. evil corporate Wal-Mart. In a free
marketplace, every actor is attempting to maximize their
standing.
|9.13.05 @ 10:48AM|#
Jennifer,
Target and Costco (in my experience) are considerably more
expensive than Wal-Mart.
|9.13.05 @ 10:49AM|#
Hakluyt--
How about, "Enough so that new employees don't routinely receive,
in addition to their employee handbooks, forms to apply for welfare
benefits so they can afford to stay alive?"
Some states are also getting ticked at Wal-Mart, because the money
they're spending on welfare payments for Wal-Mart employees is (at
least in some cases) MORE than the taxes Wal-Mart pays--especially
in light of the sweet tax deals Wal-Mart routinely gets in exchange
for "bringing jobs to a community."
|9.13.05 @ 10:51AM|#
can anyone who has ever actually shopped at walmart and
asked for help honestly say their employees deserve a 'living'
wage?
The Wal-Mart in Easton, PA. I was travelling there, and I needed a
pair of socks that I had forgotten to pack, so I went to the
Wal-Mart. I asked one of their employess (an old lady of about 60)
for directions to the socks and not only did she walk me over to
them, she went on to explain the differences between the socks and
tell me which ones were on sale.
That was the last time I have been shopped at a Wal-Mart in about 5
years, so I dunno if its still the same.
|9.13.05 @ 10:57AM|#
Jennifer,
Target/Costco pay decent wages, and they're doing fine. In
fact, the extra wages pretty much pay for themselves--since the
employees are happier, they tend not to quit in droves the second
hey find a similar job that pays a buck an hour more, and so Target
and Costco don't have to spend a fortune constantly hiring and
training new people.
...in other words, the market will provide ample punishment to
employers who mistreat their employees. The devout libertarian line
may be more applicable than you admit...
|9.13.05 @ 10:57AM|#
Hakluyt--
In my experience, Target and Wal-Mart cost about the same. (Not
counting Wal-Mart's loss-leader items.) If I buy ten items at
Target, I MIGHT pay as much as twenty-five cents more, in total,
than those same ten items at Wal-Mart--but also bear in mind that
Target brand stuff tends to be better quality than Wal-Mart
brand.
|9.13.05 @ 10:58AM|#
Jennifer-
If what you're saying is representative of the ongoing situation
rather than an isolated or temporary case then even libertarian
purists should despise Walmart.
Ideally, of course, the protestors would carry signs saying "End
the welfare state that enables a corporation to pay wages that are
less than what would be paid in a free market." And the other side
of the sign would say "Remove all regulations that impede other
competing businesses while Walmart is exempt. A free market would
result in the most just and efficient allocation of
resources."
But, for some reason, those aren't very catchy slogans....
MP|9.13.05 @ 10:59AM|#
How about, "Enough so that new employees don't routinely
receive, in addition to their employee handbooks, forms to apply
for welfare benefits so they can afford to stay alive?"
Informing people of the resources available to them is a good
thing. Leveraging these resources to your advantage is also a good
thing.
|9.13.05 @ 11:00AM|#
in other words, the market will provide ample punishment to
employers who mistreat their employees. The devout libertarian line
may be more applicable than you admit
If you ignore the large number of areas where Wal-Mart is literally
the only game in town. And if you ignore the fact that, barring
some monstrous terrorist attack or Black Plague II, the supply of
low-skilled employees will ALWAYS be larger than the demand for
low-skilled jobs. If the population were static--no new people
being born, no old people dying--then MAYBE Wal-Mart might one day
realize on its won that it needs to treat people better. But so
far, treating them like disposable Kleenex seems to be working
pretty well for Wal-Mart's bottom line.
|9.13.05 @ 11:01AM|#
Target and Costco (in my experience) are considerably more
expensive than Wal-Mart.
Based on the the ads that I see in the papers and on TV, I don't
think "considerably" more expensive is the correct adjective here.
I think "slightly" would be more apt, and further, Target tends to
have higher quality products (in general) that I think many
consumers would be willing to pay slightly more.
Also, I think I remember reading somewhere that Wal-Mart isn't
always the lowest prices. There are some 100 key products they they
try and make sure they are the lowest price, but outside of those
they vary like everyone else
CostCo I don't think can really be compared to Wal-Mart since you
buy in bulk right? Wouldn't it be valid if you were comparing it to
Sam's Club? And I haven't shopped at either so I don't know the
difference.
|9.13.05 @ 11:02AM|#
MP- Of course people are working to maximize their advantage. However, when everyone does so with no regard for whom they may be shitting on, you move from a free market to a Hobbsian war. The solution is not, of course, law. It's equally clear that people can not be expected not to act like assholes. Given that, establishing some sort of power balance between workers and employees is a good idea.
|9.13.05 @ 11:03AM|#
Informing people of the resources available to them is a
good thing. Leveraging these resources to your advantage is also a
good thing.
So you have no problem with the fact that your tax dollars are, in
effect, subsidizing Wal-Mart by enabling them to pay
less-than-livable wages to entire populations?
|9.13.05 @ 11:03AM|#
Here in Rochester, we have a Target and Wal-Mart right across
from each other. I was looking for an item that was not at
Wal-Mart, so I went to the Target for the very first time.
It was a miserable experience. Not so much a problem with the
people there, but the atmosphere. For some reason, the combination
of red and tan made me grow short of breath, to the point I could
barely walk. Had I not escaped I may have curled up in the fetal
position, wheezing and drooling amidst the sporting goods.
|9.13.05 @ 11:04AM|#
Jennifer,
Some states are also getting ticked at Wal-Mart, because the
money they're spending on welfare payments for Wal-Mart employees
is (at least in some cases) MORE than the taxes Wal-Mart
pays...
You're referring to a highly dubious study out of California.
In my experience Target is far more expensive than Wal-Mart. You're
not one of these people who goes apeshit about people shopping at
wal-Mart, are you?
|9.13.05 @ 11:06AM|#
"If you ignore the large number of areas where Wal-Mart is
literally the only game in town."
And the fact that Wal Mart bases its business model around 1) going
into areas without much competition and 2) putting the competition
out of business.
|9.13.05 @ 11:08AM|#
ChicagoTom,
Sam's Club and Costco both require a membership fee as well (I
guess you can throw BJ's into the mix too).
crimethink,
Yeah, the Target color scheme sucks. Their grocery prices are
inflated too and they have a shitty selection. I'd rather shop at
Price Chopper or Kroger for food.
|9.13.05 @ 11:09AM|#
I just love ubercapitalists' outrage at the subject of union
organizers.
It reminds me of my favorite passage in "The Fountainhead," in
which Ms. Rand conveys the debased character of one such organizer
by telling us that she had "the sort of hands that would drop
things all over the kitchen."
MP|9.13.05 @ 11:10AM|#
So you have no problem with the fact that your tax dollars
are, in effect, subsidizing Wal-Mart by enabling them to pay
less-than-livable wages to entire populations?
Your beef should be with the Welfare system, not with Wal-Mart. Do
you fault farmers for accepting agricultural subsidies?
|9.13.05 @ 11:10AM|#
joe,
And the fact that Wal Mart bases its business model around 1)
going into areas without much competition and 2) putting the
competition out of business.
Damn Wal-Mart and their success! Success cannot be tolerated!
|9.13.05 @ 11:12AM|#
joe,
I just love ubercapitalists' outrage at the subject of union
organizers.
Care to give us some examples of outrage on this thread?
|9.13.05 @ 11:13AM|#
"Damn Wal-Mart and their success! Success cannot be
tolerated!"
Yes, Hak, I hate them for their freedom.
Wal Mart's profitability being the only variable worth being
considered, of course.
|9.13.05 @ 11:14AM|#
MP,
Well, keep in mind that the "welfare form" claim is wholly
unsubstantiated.
Phil|9.13.05 @ 11:14AM|#
In my experience Target is far more expensive than
Wal-Mart.
Tell you what, Gunnels -- at the strip center down the street from
where I live, there's a Target and Wal-Mart almost next door to
each other; the only thing in-between is an access road and JB
Tire. You give me a list of 20-25 items you want
comparison-shopped, and I'll compare for you.
|9.13.05 @ 11:15AM|#
Jennifer,
Seriously, what is your solution to these alleged problems? You say
Walmart doesn't pay its employees enough, then that WM pays through
the nose for their turnover rate, and finally that employees can't
leave because there aren't enough jobs out there for them.
You seem to be just complaining about life in general. For a person
with no skills, their choices are pretty much an unpleasant,
low-paying job or no job at all. This is the way it always has
been, and no economic system can change that without destroying its
economy.
|9.13.05 @ 11:16AM|#
joe,
Here's a suggestion: if you don't like Wal-Mart, don't shop there.
I'll continue to spend money there, not having a super-enlightened
liberal soul and all.
MP|9.13.05 @ 11:16AM|#
Well, keep in mind that the "welfare form" claim is wholly
unsubstantiated.
So are most of Jennifer's claims. But even if it was, I wouldn't
have an issue with it.
Phil|9.13.05 @ 11:17AM|#
Do you fault farmers for accepting agricultural
subsidies?
Er . . . yes? Do you accept stolen goods when someone offers them
to you, because, hey, you know, why not, right? The prior owner
shouldn't have let them be stolen if he had a problem with it!
|9.13.05 @ 11:18AM|#
"Care to give us some examples of outrage on this thread?"
The fact that it exists? That the existence and visibility of labor
organizers is considered sufficiently worthy of condemnation as to
justify an entry on a political blog?
|9.13.05 @ 11:19AM|#
keep in mind that the "welfare form" claim is wholly
unsubstantiated.
Ahem. I suggest you read the following link before you embarrass
yourself further:
http://www.alternet.org/story/23688/
The flag-waving company, based in Arkansas, has become the
welfare queen of Georgia. There are 51,821 Wal-Mart employees -- or
"associates" -- in the state, or 1.15 percent of the total civilian
work force of about 4.5 million.
The funny thing is that, while Wal-Mart has 1.15 percent of
Georgia's work force, in 2002, children of its employees made up
more than 6 percent of all the kids covered by PeachCare, the state
program that provides health care coverage to the children of the
working poor.
Of a total of 166,000 children covered by PeachCare, 10,261 had
a parent working for Wal-Mart in 2002. And Wal-Mart's numbers are
way out of line when you bring other companies into the picture.
The No. 2 company on the list, Publix, had only 734 children of
employees on PeachCare. The average PeachCare recipient costs
$1,274 a year. If you multiply that by Wal-Mart's 10,261, you get a
total of more than $13 million in health care costs borne by
Georgia taxpayers.
"That is a type of reverse welfare or corporate welfare," says
former Gov. Roy Barnes, now an attorney in Marietta. "I provide
insurance for my employees. Why shouldn't [Wal-Mart] be providing
it?"
|9.13.05 @ 11:20AM|#
Phil,
Is the solution then to run Wal-Mart out of business (which seems
to be the ultimate agenda of anti-consumerism freaks) or to reform
the welfare system?
|9.13.05 @ 11:20AM|#
Wal-Mart is successful because 1) the United States moved most of its manufacturing capability to China and other cheap-labor countries and 2) there is plentiful cheap oil to bring those cheap goods back here. The end of cheap oil, if it's coming, will be disastrous for Wal-Mart.
|9.13.05 @ 11:20AM|#
Of course, the same people who complain about Wal-mart's alleged bad labor practices, also complain about corporations "exploiting" horrifically poor people in third world countries by paying them double or triple what they'd make otherwise.
|9.13.05 @ 11:24AM|#
If I were defending crimethink's position, I'd try to change the
subject, too.
"Is the solution then to run Wal-Mart out of business (which seems
to be the ultimate agenda of anti-consumerism freaks)..."
I'm such an anti-consumerism freak, that I want Wal Mart to adopt
the labor practices of the highly profitable stores, like Kohl's
and Target, that I shop at.
C'mon, you two, you haven't even used the term "latte-sipping
elitist" yet.
|9.13.05 @ 11:26AM|#
Jennifer,
Yeah, asking for substantiation is always a form of embarressment.
Not.
joe,
Gosh darn it! Can't have any commenting on unions!
|9.13.05 @ 11:26AM|#
joe, are you not familiar with the Wal-Mart effect? (And I mean
that in a good way)
http://www.techcentralstation.com/041105B.html
MP|9.13.05 @ 11:26AM|#
Er . . . yes? Do you accept stolen goods when someone offers
them to you, because, hey, you know, why not, right? The prior
owner shouldn't have let them be stolen if he had a problem with
it!
Are you equating taxes with stolen property? Are you now an
uber-libertoid?
Phil|9.13.05 @ 11:27AM|#
No, crimethink, they complain about corporations outsourcing their labor to countries where they can use the local governments to provide the kind of coercion that they'd never be able to get away with here; and to places where the impoverished economy guarantees that they can lower costs by not being worried about little formalities like not dumping waste in the drinking water.
|9.13.05 @ 11:27AM|#
"Probably because the problems of Wal-Mart's vile treatment of
employees is NOT a problem that can be magically solved by the
invisible hand of the market."
"For those who say that improved Wal-Mart paychecks will bankrupt
the company--well, Target/Costco pay decent wages, and they're
doing fine."
So the market solution would be to go get a job at Target.
"If you ignore the large number of areas where Wal-Mart is
literally the only game in town."
So the market solution is to move.
Of course the better solution is to get a better education so you
don't have to be a minimum wage slave. Get good grades and
financial aid and go to college or trade school. If you're working
at Wal-Mart or Target at the store level chances are you've made
some pretty shitty decisions in your life.
|9.13.05 @ 11:27AM|#
Use of ED, negotiating with local governments to get exemptions
denied to other companies, and active encouragement of welfare in
lieu of higher wages.
Yeah, there's so much for a libertarian to love here.
|9.13.05 @ 11:27AM|#
Jennifer,
Where does that article confirm that welfare forms are handed out
to new employees, as you asserted?
Also, the stats used in that article are misleading. The vast
majority of any state's workforce are working in jobs that pay well
above minimum wage, so any low-paying job is likely to have a
higher representation in a working-welfare program than in the
entire workforce.
|9.13.05 @ 11:28AM|#
Mr. Nice Guy,
I actually just stopped by one of the Wal-Mart neighborhood
markets, which is the only place I've seen picketers. They don't
appear to picket either the Super Centers or the regular stores.
The neighborhood market is really just a cheap full-sized grocery
store, much like Albertsons, Smith's, Vons, or a full-service
Food-4-Less. I doubt many of their products come from China, as it
is mostly food. The prices are the same as the Wal-Mart
SuperCenter, and I see no difference between the employees there
and in any of the other supermarkets.
Phil|9.13.05 @ 11:29AM|#
No, MP, I'm equating ag subsidies with stolen property. Please try to keep up with your own conversation.
|9.13.05 @ 11:30AM|#
joe,
Only a megalomaniac would think that every comment refers to
themselves. :)
...that I want Wal Mart to adopt the labor practices of the
highly profitable stores, like Kohl's and Target, that I shop
at.
Then do as I suggest and don't shop at Wal-Mart. :)
Haklyut, if you don't like union organizing, don't join
one.
(a) Learn how to spell my nick. :)
(b) I haven't joined the ABA.
MP|9.13.05 @ 11:32AM|#
No, MP, I'm equating ag subsidies with stolen property.
Please try to keep up with your own conversation.
Agricultural subsidies are payments made by the Government to
farmers. Those payments come from taxes. Sorry, I'm just not
following your "stolen property" association.
Use of ED, negotiating with local governments to get exemptions
denied to other companies, and active encouragement of welfare in
lieu of higher wages.
The fact that Wal-Mart takes advantage of Public Choice theory is
an indictment of Government, not Wal-Mart.
|9.13.05 @ 11:33AM|#
thoreau,
No one is saying is that Wal-Mart is some paragon of libertarian
values.
|9.13.05 @ 11:36AM|#
thoreau,
So Walmart has ED powers now?
I apologize to joe for again changing the subject, but it's
interesting to note that many of Walmart's dirty tricks required
the assistance, or at least complicity, of government. And yet the
solution offered usually takes the form of more government
regulations.
|9.13.05 @ 11:36AM|#
crimethink,
Your point is well taken. The quoted language contains diddly about
the "forms" claim.
|9.13.05 @ 11:38AM|#
"joe,
Gosh darn it! Can't have any commenting on unions!"
Actually, my complaint was about that lack of commentary on unions
- specifically, that the Reasonoids decided that, of all of the Wal
Mart/labor stories in the news, the only thing worth mentioning is
that one store is being picketted by organizers. There are lies of
omission, you know.
|9.13.05 @ 11:38AM|#
I�ve never shopped in a Wal Mart so I can�t comment on that
store or its employees.
I worked summers during high school flipping burgers at the Bronx
Zoo. I got minimum wage for 8 hours a day, whether I made and sold
50 or 500 burgers. If for some reason I had to work over 40 hours
in a week, I got overtime.
My buddies at MickeyDs who also flipped burgers were told to punch
out when it got slow, but they couldn�t leave, they had to hang in
the break room and punch back in when it got busy again. I told
these guys I could get them a job, but I guess they were too lazy,
burnt, or afraid to try something new.
Maybe something similar is going on here?
|9.13.05 @ 11:39AM|#
joe,
Well, the solution to what you consider a problem is simple; start
your own blog. :) Either that or stop whining.
|9.13.05 @ 11:39AM|#
Wal-Mart Welfare:
Lieber was angry, too, that Wal-Mart's welfare dependence made
it nearly impossible for responsible employers to compete with the
retail giant. It was as if taxpayers were unknowingly funding a
massive plunge to the bottom in wages and benefits--quite possibly
their own. She held a press conference in July 2003, to expose
Wal-Mart's welfare scam. The Wal-Mart
documents--instructions explaining how to apply for food stamps,
Medi-Cal (the state's healthcare assistance program) and other
forms of welfare--were blown up on posterboard and
displayed. The morning of the press conference, a Wal-Mart
worker who wouldn't give her name for fear of being fired snuck
into Lieber's office. "I just wanted to say, right on!" she told
the assemblywoman.
Wal-Mart spokespeople have denied that the company encourages
employees to collect public assistance, but the documents speak for
themselves. They bear the Wal-Mart logo, and one is labeled
"Wal-Mart: Instructions for Associates." Both documents instruct
employees in procedures for applying to "Social Service Agencies."
Most Wal-Mart workers I've interviewed had co-workers who worked
full time for the company and received public assistance, and some
had been in that situation themselves. Public assistance is very
clearly part of the retailer's cost-cutting strategy. (It's ironic
that a company so dependent on the public dole supports so many
right-wing politicians who'd like to dismantle the welfare
state.)
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050103/featherstone
|9.13.05 @ 11:41AM|#
I have browsed this entire thread, but have yet to see input
from a current or former WalMart Employee.
As one, I spent a year working in the Tire and Lube Express at our
local WallyWorld and my wife spent 4 years in the Fabric
Department, I have witnessed first hand the good, and bad, that Wal
Mart can do.
Let's start with Corporate. Bentonville likes to run the show, from
REFID tags in cartons to controlling the thermostats in the stores,
they call the shots. This is very efficient, and very slow to react
to local market changes. But that slow reaction only hurts the
company by alienating customers from what they are seeking.
I worked in what is considered a very "good" store. Even then, I
got tired of the daily indoctrination, from the "WalMart Cheer" to
the hypocritical "Customer Satisfaction...Always!" mantra. Example,
my wife worked late one day, a customer came into the fabric
department five minutes before she was due to clock out. By
WalMart's rules, she was to make sure the customer was completely
happy, so 1 hour and 15 minutes later, when the lady had her fabric
cut and was on her way to the register, my wife clocked out.
Nothing big, the lady bought $75 worth of fabric for the $7 labor
WalMart had to shell out, maybe a touch of overtime at the end of
the week. My wife was chewed a new one for not "clocking out on
time". She was given a written reprimand and threatened with firing
if it happened again.
I witnessed long term employees (6 years plus) being fired for
simple infractions so they could be replaced by newbies being paid
$2 less an hour.
The inaction in regards to employee safety were, at times,
appaling. We had a vehicle lift that would not lock. After repeated
attempts to get management to repair it we finally refused to work
under it. We were threatened with termination if we didn't get X
number of vehicles completed in an hour, and that goal was
impossible to meet without that lift.
I could go on, but to say that WalMart is completly blameless for
it's treatment of employees is bogus. For these reasons, I will not
shop at a WalMart, or subsidiary. That is how my dollar will
control "the invisible hand of the market".
|9.13.05 @ 11:41AM|#
Native NYer,
Working split shifts like that is typical in the restaurant
industry. When I was a waiter, short order cook, prep cook, etc. I
used to do it all the time.
|9.13.05 @ 11:42AM|#
Oh, if it was only 104 F and he's bitching about the temperature, he's a wuss. I've seen the picketers out in 113 F. You have to remember, 105 in Las Vegas is like 90-95 F in a place with reasonable humidity.
|9.13.05 @ 11:43AM|#
So Jennifer's point is that Wal-Mart hires a lot of the people that are filling the welfare rolls and helps supplement their income? Sounds look good corporate citizenship to me.
|9.13.05 @ 11:47AM|#
I've never thought of MickeyDs as the "restaurant industry",
more like a factory :)
My point was they could have had a job doing exactly the same thing
for more money and they wouldn't take it. Sometimes it's hard to
understand how other people make their decisions.
|9.13.05 @ 11:47AM|#
Has Jennifer called for a coercive remedy here? I don't even
think joe has.
If somebody cares to find a place in this thread where either of
them calls for a coercive remedy, let me know. In fact, at least
one (both?) has hinted support for ending coercive measures that
bolster the practices that they despise.
If you don't care about what happens at Walmart then go ahead and
shop there. But don't act as though it's some sort of libertarian
heresy to criticize a company. Hell, even in Libertopia people will
talk smack about companies that they don't like. "Don't shop there!
The ammo sucks and the janitor doesn't always dust the shelves with
the Ayn Rand novels!"
|9.13.05 @ 11:51AM|#
"So Jennifer's point is that Wal-Mart hires a lot of the people
that are filling the welfare rolls and helps supplement their
income? Sounds look good corporate citizenship to me."
If they were already on the welfare rolls, why would Wal Mart give
them information on how to sign up?
Nice try, though.
|9.13.05 @ 11:56AM|#
You know, I spent a short stint working at Target once upon a
time.
I've compared notes with a couple of people who've worked at
Wal-Mart, and I have pretty much come to the conclusion that the
differences are far more a matter of marketing than
substance.
Working at Target was without a doubt the worst job I have ever had
in my life. Hated every goddamned minute of it.
|9.13.05 @ 11:57AM|#
I, for one, am not blaming Wal-Mart for its ways. I blame America's insistence on the cheapest throwaway products available, even at the cost of local communities and commerce. And one does not need to be a "latte-sipping liberal" (which I am NOT, thank you very much) to believe that the rush to the bottom is not the highest goal of American commerce. As for the "Wal-Mart" effect, try locating it in such unglamorous, non-college towns as Waterloo or Batavia NY. You'll find a lot of boarded up buildings downtown, and a lot of people waiting for the bus to take them out to Wal-Mart. Some effect.
|9.13.05 @ 12:03PM|#
joe,
I'm curious, what were these folks doing before they were hired by
Wal-Mart? Working as Fortune 500 CEOs?
thoreau,
I don't believe anyone stated that they called for such. So, what's
your point exactly?
|9.13.05 @ 12:08PM|#
I, for one, am not blaming Wal-Mart for its ways. I blame America's insistence on the cheapest throwaway products available, even at the cost of local communities and commerce. And one does not need to be a "latte-sipping liberal" (which I am NOT, thank you very much) to believe that the rush to the bottom is not the highest goal of American commerce. As for the "Wal-Mart" effect, try locating it in such unglamorous, non-college towns as Waterloo or Batavia NY. You'll find a lot of boarded up buildings downtown, and a lot of people waiting for the bus to take them out to Wal-Mart. Some effect.
|9.13.05 @ 12:08PM|#
joe,
I'm curious, what were these folks doing before they were hired by
Wal-Mart? Working as Fortune 500 CEOs?
thoreau,
I don't believe anyone stated that they called for such. So, what's
your point exactly?
|9.13.05 @ 12:08PM|#
I thought unlinking the Chinese yuan from the US dollar would increase prices of imports and solve the problem of Wal mart?
|9.13.05 @ 12:10PM|#
thoreau,
I realize they are not suggesting any coercive remedies. I'm just
sick of all the wha-wha-wha about Wal-Mart. If you don't like it
don't shop there or work there. Problem solved.
If you're working there it's by choice or rather lack of smart
choices. My wife comes from a poor family of five children. Three
worked their way through college. One went to trade school. They
are all doing well.
One got a GED and knocked up a girl he'd known for a week. Guess
where he works?
|9.13.05 @ 12:12PM|#
thoreau,
"Don't shop there! The ammo sucks and the janitor doesn't always
dust the shelves with the Ayn Rand novels!"
This just made my day!
But you are absolutely correct. Lambasting a company for it's
faults is not only a very acceptable practice, but should be
condoned to expose egregious wrongs.
Government subsidies, ED, and tarrifed/restricted (sp?)
international trade have all aided in the rise of the "big box"
stores. The only way I see to undo this web is to "normalize" the
economic forces by reverting to a true "hands off" policy. Then, it
wouldn't matter if the shirt was made in China or Nebraska, because
on a global market it would sell for roughly the same price.
|9.13.05 @ 12:13PM|#
I thought unlinking the Chinese yuan from the US dollar would increase prices of imports and solve the problem of Wal mart?
|9.13.05 @ 12:15PM|#
The point, Hakluyt, is that it seems as though there are two strands of thought here. One holds that corporations ought to act ethically and treat their employees as human beings, not resources to be exploited. The second holds that the only moral obligation of a company is to make money for its sharholders.
|9.13.05 @ 12:17PM|#
[try #2]
So Jennifer's point is that a Wal-Mart is a major employer of the
poorest, lowest-skilled members of the community who are eligible
for welfare benefits although they may or may not already be on the
welfare rolls? Sounds look good corporate citizenship to me.
[/try #2]
MP|9.13.05 @ 12:18PM|#
In fact, at least one (both?) has hinted support for ending
coercive measures that bolster the practices that they
despise.
It's hard to hear someone complaining about an issue without
anticipating the "something must be done" comment. But you are
correct in that, particularly on this forum, we should give
everyone the benefit of the doubt until they open the gates.
However, note that Jennifer's comment at 10:11 AM put her squarely
in the "something must be done" camp.
|9.13.05 @ 12:19PM|#
Number 6,
Well, having several standards in society doesn't seem like a
problem to me. Wow, diversity of thought and the freedom to express
that thought, imagine that. :)
|9.13.05 @ 12:19PM|#
thoreau,
I realize they are not suggesting any coercive remedies. I'm just
sick of all the wha-wha-wha about Wal-Mart. If you don't like it
don't shop there or work there. Problem solved.
If you're working there it's by choice or rather lack of smart
choices. My wife comes from a poor family of five children. Three
worked their way through college. One went to trade school. They
are all doing well.
One got a GED and knocked up a girl he'd known for a week. Guess
where he works?
|9.13.05 @ 12:21PM|#
To Tim Cavanaugh-
This would be a good time to plug subscriptions to the print
edition, seeing as how there's a nice debate over the
responsibilities of a corporation in that issue.
Funniest part of the article is when a highly successful
entrepreneur and CEO of a massive company is accused by another CEO
of being no better than Ralph Nader. And he comes back by pointing
out some embarassing numbers from the other CEO's performance.
|9.13.05 @ 12:22PM|#
"I'm curious, what were these folks doing before they were hired
by Wal-Mart?"
Why, sitting on the corner drinking cheap wine out of paper bags,
of course. When they weren't asleep at 2 in the afternoon.
What were the people who get much better treatment at
highly-profitable Cosco and Target doing before they were hired?
Who the hell cares?
"If you don't like it don't shop there or work there. Problem
solved." If the "problem" is that you have to see people getting
screwed over, I suppose that would solve it. If you define the
problem as people getting screwed over, whether you are present of
not, then the problem remains.
Phil|9.13.05 @ 12:22PM|#
No one is saying is that Wal-Mart is some paragon of
libertarian values.
Debatable. I think perhaps crimethink is pretty close, and so is
mobile.
MP: You seem to be stuck in a "Socrates is a cat" loop, so I'll
leave it to you to figure out how I can believe that ag subs are
stolen property without believing that all taxes are stolen
property.
|9.13.05 @ 12:23PM|#
It's hard to hear someone complaining about an issue without
anticipating the "something must be done" comment.
Jumping to conclusions about a person's politics based on one or
two statements doesn't work on a libertarian forum. We tend not to
fit the neat molds.
|9.13.05 @ 12:24PM|#
I was criticizing Jennifer for heresy at 9:50AM:
(Probably because the problems of Wal-Mart's vile treatment of employees is NOT a problem that can be magically solved by the invisible hand of the market ...)
I'm not a "the good is the enemy of the perfect" kind of
libertarian, but sometimes I feel like I need to advance the
argument that people in free societies have the right to pursue
their own happiness and the responsibility for the consequences of
their actions and the direction of their lives, and this applies to
Wal-Mart employees in free societies, too.
|9.13.05 @ 12:27PM|#
note that Jennifer's comment at 10:11 AM put her squarely in
the "something must be done" camp.
Yeah, complain about companies raising "corporate welfare" to new
levels or using "lock-in" policies that are basically equivalent to
unlawful imprisonment, and the next thing you know you're calling
for Communism Redux.
|9.13.05 @ 12:28PM|#
Well, joe, it matters because of your previous comment. Please
put two and two together.
If you define the problem as people getting screwed
over...
Now you've slipped over into "equality of outcomes" Stalinist
mode.
|9.13.05 @ 12:30PM|#
what were these folks doing before they were hired by
Wal-Mart?
Manufacturing stuff, I think. But we don't do much of that
anymore.
|9.13.05 @ 12:32PM|#
joe,
But it is not my problem. If you're working at Wal-Mart chances are
at some point you screwed youself - like my brother-in-law did.
|9.13.05 @ 12:35PM|#
Rhywun:
I, for one, am not blaming Wal-Mart for its ways. I blame
America's insistence on the cheapest throwaway products available,
even at the cost of local communities and commerce.
Ah, ignorance of economics is so much fun, isn't it!?
Yes, blame the people for wanting inexpensive stuff. The
convenient, undefendable, "American People". The bastards! How dare
they want to shop at WalMart, and get stuff for cheap 24/7, instead
of going down to the local shop and getting the same thing, for
more money, and only being able to shop there between 9am and 6pm.
Jeez, the savages!
The "cheap throwaway" items, as you call them, that I get at
WalMart is also available at smaller, local stores...it's just more
expensive, and harder to get due to their hours. There are still
niches to be filled by the stuff that WalMart doesn't carry (and
that list is pretty huge!).
I find it extraordinarily selfish and self-rightous to lambast poor
folks, who are on a tight budget, for buying a $5 plastic lawn
chair at WalMart, instead of paying $50 for a handcrafted one down
at Old Joe's Antiques on Main Street. Blather on about our
"insistence on cheap throwaway crap" all you want, but the fact is,
with affluence comes the desire (and opportunity) to move beyond
WalMart, and patronize the stores who form the community. But when
you're on a budget, when you don't have money to spend on the
expensive shit on Main Street, then WalMart helps you survive.
|9.13.05 @ 12:35PM|#
"Now you've slipped over into "equality of outcomes" Stalinist
mode."
I win! I win! Yahoooooooo!
|9.13.05 @ 12:41PM|#
M'geek: the workers at my local Target often seem kinda disgruntled; once I heard them muttering complaints to each other, but didn't catch what it was about. The shelves and hangers are often a mess, too. The garden people seem a little older, more pleasant and more helpful.
|9.13.05 @ 1:41PM|#
I apologize if this double posts. I added a new comment
at the end anyway.
So, has anybody formulated a Godwin-equivalent for references to
Stalin and the Commies? I've certainly triggered that one a few
times.
Godwin said that the probability approaches 1 as the # of posts
approaches infinity. In continuous mathematics we would say that
the set of exceptions has zero measure (lower dimension). In the
case of a discrete variable (like # of posts) we'd say that the #
of exceptions scales as 1/N, where N is the # of posts.
This is a quantifiable criterion. I wonder if anybody has ever
written a paper on it and tested the quantitative prediction that
the # of exceptions scales as 1/N. It would imply some universal
tendency in human behavior when given the possibility of
communicating (and spitting venom) anonymously.
Actually, as I think about it, the probability of an exception
could decrease less rapidly than 1/N. The set of exceptions could
have a "fractal" structure to it. Or the probability could decrease
more rapidly than 1/N. It could decrease as a power law. Or an
exponential. Did Godwin ever do a test of this?
MP|9.13.05 @ 1:41PM|#
Yeah, complain about companies raising "corporate welfare"
to new levels or using "lock-in" policies that are basically
equivalent to unlawful imprisonment, and the next thing you know
you're calling for Communism Redux.
Your statements regarding worker protection laws clearly have you
leaning towards "something must be done" regarding Wal-Mart
business practices. How did I misinterpret you?
|9.13.05 @ 1:48PM|#
Evan Williams,
Give me a break. I've been poor and out on the street in my life -
don't even try to pigeonhole me as "elitist". And guess what? Main
Street had cheap stuff, once upon a time, before Wal-Mart put it
out of business. I'd like to know where your obvious appreciation
for the goal of selling stuff at the absolute cheapest price ends,
if it does at all. Contributing to China's approaching ecological
disaster isn't it. Furthering America's dependence on
not-so-cheap-anymore oil isn't it either. The loss of local
businesses that care about their communities obviously isn't it. Is
there nothing immoral that is done in the pursuit of the lowest
prices?
|9.13.05 @ 1:50PM|#
t:
Statistics..make..my..brain..hurt..
That was the one "hell" course in my Econ major. And it was even
more hellish given my idiocy in math coupled with frequent
hangovers.
Mention it not when there are loaded weapons involved. ;)
|9.13.05 @ 1:57PM|#
Your statements regarding worker protection laws clearly
have you leaning towards "something must be done" regarding
Wal-Mart business practices. How did I misinterpret you?
Well, for starters, I didn't make any actual suggestions for laws
concerning Wal-Mart, in this case. But hell, I'll come right out
and say it--locking employees in stores overnight, or making them
clock out and then CONTINUE to work without pay, should be illegal.
If it isn't already.
|9.13.05 @ 2:02PM|#
Evan, before you go around accusing people of not understanding basic economics, perhaps you'd care to explain why the "outsource/cheap goods/weak labor protection" policies you like so much have failed so miserably to raise wages (which haven't budged for 4/5 of the populace in three decades), and left so many people in the position where they can only buy the $5 plastic chairs.
|9.13.05 @ 2:09PM|#
Rhywun:
Give me a break. I've been poor and out on the street in my
life - don't even try to pigeonhole me as "elitist".
I never said anything about you being an elitist; I just don't
think it's valid to criticize people for valuing low prices and
easy access over the more ephemeral "local market community".
Main Street had cheap stuff, once upon a time, before Wal-Mart
put it out of business.
I'm not knocking Main Street---I love main street! I'm simply
saying that it's economically ignorant to whine about WalMart
"putting them out of business". Yes, just like, if you own a shop
on one side of town, and I open up a similar shop, but offer things
at lower prices, and better selection, and better business hours,
then I'll put you out of business. I'm simply sick of the economic
irrationality that comes from people's emotional abhorrance of the
Wally World culture.
"I'd like to know where your obvious appreciation for the goal
of selling stuff at the absolute cheapest price ends, if it does at
all."
I'm not going to get into a black-hole teleology marathon with you.
"Why" questions of teleology have plagued us throughout our
philosophical history as a people. For example, you ask me, why am
I sawing this board. I answer, to build a door for my house. You
ask why I want a door, I answer, to keep my house safe from
intruders. You ask why I want to keep my house safe from intruders,
I answer, so I can sleep well at night. You ask why I want to sleep
well at night. In the end, aside from Darwinian implications, the
only way to end such a debate is to invoke ye olde "because that's
god's will".
As such, I could sit here and debate the teleology of economic
implications with you until my fingers fall off, but I won't---it
will just suffice to say that paying less and/or getting more is a
good thing.
Contributing to China's approaching ecological disaster isn't
it. Furthering America's dependence on not-so-cheap-anymore oil
isn't it either. The loss of local businesses that care about their
communities obviously isn't it. Is there nothing immoral that is
done in the pursuit of the lowest prices?
Of course there are immoral things that can be done in the pursuit
of low prices. Stealing, hurting, killing, forced slavery,
subsidies, ED landgrabs, etc. But, no, I'm sorry, but, it's not
immoral to shop at Wal*Mart because it supposedly increased our
dependence of foreign oil. It's not immoral to shop at Wal*Mart
because it speeds up China's "ecological disaster". It's not
immoral to shop at Wal*Mart because it drives out business owners
who "care about the community". (Speaking of which, while you're
whining about how immoral Wal*Mart is, check out what they've done
to help the Katrina aftermath).
I'm sorry, but, YOU are the one who blamed consumers for all these
ills...and if you want to deem me a moral blasphemer for buying
some cheap tube socks at Wal*Mart, that's your prerogative. But
life just isn't that black-and-white...no matter how much you hate
Wally World's customers and want to use them as scapegoats for the
world's problems.
MP|9.13.05 @ 2:13PM|#
which haven't budged for 4/5 of the populace in three
decades
HA! Cite me a statistic that accounts for income mobility and maybe
I'll listen.
|9.13.05 @ 2:18PM|#
Joe,
Evan, before you go around accusing people of not understanding
basic economics, perhaps you'd care to explain why the
"outsource/cheap goods/weak labor protection" policies you like so
much have failed so miserably to raise wages (which haven't budged
for 4/5 of the populace in three decades), and left so many people
in the position where they can only buy the $5 plastic
chairs.
The only thing more delicious than basic misunderstanding of
economic principles is consciously denying those principles in liu
of xenophobic nationalism! It's not Wal*Mart's responsibility to
eliminate poverty, Joe, but, regardless, even though you claim that
their policies haven't helped the worse-off, why not check out
their wages in developing countries, and compare them to those
countries' mean wages. They may not have lifted every Joe and Jane
Sixpack in Tulsa out of poverty, but, in addition to those who do
benefit from cheaper stuff here, quite a few people outside of the
states have obviously benefited. But, I forgot...their well-being
isn't as important as ours, because they're furrriners, right?
|9.13.05 @ 2:20PM|#
"have failed so miserably to raise wages"
There are so many problems in our economy that attempting to
shoehorn ""outsource/cheap goods/weak labor protection" policies"
as THE cause of stagnant wages is kinda like saying that Clinton's
BJ was what allowed OBL to pull of 9/11. Even if there is a
relationship, it clearly isn't the only important one.
If you want to understand the number one problem with our economy,
you have to understand the Fed, and what it means to engage in
inflationary monetary policy like we have for the past 30 some
years (actually longer than that, but the early 70s was when we
really kicked it into hyperdrive). Even trying to adjust for the
inflation is a fool's errand - some products decrease in price
regardless of monetary policy (computers, as a prime example),
others increase because of an increased consumer demand for
features (cars with all the standard features now compared to what
was standard 30 years ago), while still others have factors that
swamp the input of inflation (oil).
Absent inflationary monetary policy, (as well as other government
interventions) the buying power of these 'stagnant' wages would
have increased through the drop in prices that come with increased
productivity and efficiency.
Finally, your statement seems to assume that wages should rise no
matter what. Wages are nothing more than a reflection of
productivity. If you aren't more productive than you were last
year, your wages (absent inflation or other government
interference) can't be more. Is the hamburger flipper at McDonald's
really that much more productive than they were 30 years ago?
|9.13.05 @ 2:25PM|#
It's not immoral to shop at Wal*Mart because it speeds up
China's "ecological disaster".
Nice scare quotes. In case you *don't* believe that northern China
is being taken over by desert due to the rapid, uncontrolled
industrialization, look it up sometime. There won't be enough
Chinese left to manufacture your lawn chairs if they're
experiencing a famine.
it's not immoral to shop at Wal*Mart because it supposedly
increased our dependence of foreign oil
Wal-Mart is responsible for 10% of American retail sales. Almost no
Wal-Mart is reachable without a car. How, exactly, does Wal-Mart
NOT increase dependence on foreign oil? Maybe that's not "immoral",
but it is stupid.
check out what they've done to help the Katrina
aftermath
Yes, that is very good of them. Anything less would be unacceptable
from America's largest corporation.
YOU are the one who blamed consumers for all these
ills
Yes, I do. I blame the *aggregate* of consumers for their
short-sighted desire to save a buck at the cost of the various
other problems I pointed out. I am not exempt either. I bought an
air conditioner online from Wal-Mart once (I can't reach their
stores without a car).
|9.13.05 @ 2:28PM|#
Forget the contentious underlying issues and sit back and
laugh at the irony.
No kidding...
|9.13.05 @ 2:30PM|#
Contributing to China's approaching ecological disaster
isn't it.
Ahh, we have a budding Garrett Hardin in our midst.
Evan Williams,
I blame William Morris. :)
|9.13.05 @ 2:31PM|#
It's not Wal*Mart's responsibility to eliminate poverty,
Joe,
True enough. But I'm curious about something off-topic,
Evan--hypothetically, if we found ourselves in libertopia, and all
but the top five or ten percent of humanity lived in utter poverty
as a result (we're all basically Wal-Mart employees, I mean), would
you say that was fine so long as libertarian values are adhered to,
or would you say that perhaps even the free market can go too far,
sometimes?
I suppose I'm wondering if you think a powerful corporation has ANY
sort of responsibilities to its employees, beyond "pay the wage
initially agreed to."
|9.13.05 @ 2:34PM|#
Mom and Pop stores only employed Mom and Pop. Maybe a retarded stock boy they let sleep in the back room. It's not like everyone working at Wal-Mart owned a candy shop on the square before the behemoth hit town. Most of them would have been getting underpaid by a salt of the Earth family farmer and losing limbs in combine accidents. That or getting black lung in a coal mine or any number of low paying, shitty, dangerous jobs. If you�re at the bottom of the barrel chances are your job will suck unless you do something about it. You know like get an education and learn some marketable skills. It�s not my problem that you don�t have the drive to do something better with your life so shut the fuck up and ring up my industrial size bag of Funions.
|9.13.05 @ 2:35PM|#
Rhywun,
You seem to forget that there are these things call markets on
which the Chinese can trade what goods they make for, you know,
food. this somehow works for Japan and other countries but
apparently it can't work for China.
|9.13.05 @ 2:36PM|#
I think this article has gotten thread-jacked. We started out by
discussing whether or not it was funny to make fun of the labor
people protesting for money. I think it is. Feel free to disagree.
Then, we got into the standard "Is Wal-Mart evil" debate, to which
I say...
The concept that "people are getting screwed" by working at
Wal-Mart is similar to that which says that companies are abusing
all those poor Thai girls by giving them something safer and
better-paying that being prostitutes. In a world without Wal-Mart,
most of these people would have similar jobs at the regional retail
equivalents. Some of them would be paid better than they currently
are. Most would not. The remaining people would probably be
unemployed. Worthless stuff would definitely be more expensive.
|9.13.05 @ 2:38PM|#
jennifer,
It has the responsibilities that it contracts with its employees to
have.
|9.13.05 @ 2:41PM|#
Hakluyt--
So if, in libertopia, ninety-five percent of the population becomes
a serf class to the remianing five percent, is that okay?
Serious question.
|9.13.05 @ 2:43PM|#
"Yes, I do. I blame the *aggregate* of consumers for their
short-sighted desire to save a buck at the cost of the various
other problems I pointed out."
A very appropriate position, IMHO. In fact, while I have no
objection to two people arriving at a wage between themselves, I
personally don't shop at Wal-Mart for two reasons - 1. The store
they opened in Mexico City (my wife is a big Mexican history buff)
and 2. Some of the problems they've had with gender relations.
Further, I ALWAYS try to patronize local merchants, if I can,
because as a prior entrepreneur myself, I know what its like to be
in their shoes.
That's what personal responsibility is about.
Now, as for the underlying discussion about wages/work conditions -
if they weren't better than the other options, would the employee
continue to work there? And since the employer has no obligation to
be charitable and pay more than the employees are willing to accept
for their labor, what is morally acceptable with forcing them to?
Further, if you force the wages up, you by definition decrease the
number of jobs available - the company still needs to turn a
profit. Since there are obviously enough people willing to accept
the current wages, your wage increases will create unemployment. Is
that your solution?
|9.13.05 @ 2:44PM|#
Well, I'll make the somewhat non-controversial (on this
forum) suggestions to end whatever corporate welfare Wal-Mart
receives and to eliminate regulations that make all housing so
expensive (since those policies subsidize middle-class and rich
people at the expense of poor people) , but in any other forum
those suggestions are unthinkable.
On this forum it is unthinkable to criticize a business but OK to
criticize the government for doing to much.
On some other forums it is OK to criticize a business but
unthinkable to criticize the government for doing too much.
What if I want to criticize both? Where do I fit in?
But I'm curious about something off-topic,
Evan--hypothetically, if we found ourselves in libertopia, and all
but the top five or ten percent of humanity lived in utter poverty
as a result (we're all basically Wal-Mart employees, I mean), would
you say that was fine so long as libertarian values are adhered to,
or would you say that perhaps even the free market can go too far,
sometimes?
The way a libertarian approaches this question will reveal a lot
about that libertarian. Me, I express doubt that Libertopia would
be an utter wasteland. Unequal? Of course. Dystopia? I doubt it.
Probably because I don't confuse the absence of regulation with
selective regulation. But, if this hell-on-earth scenario was
indeed the result, I would of course admit to being wrong.
To others, however, hell-on-earth would be peachy as long as
principles are adhered to.
|9.13.05 @ 2:44PM|#
Wal-Mart is responsible for 10% of American retail sales.
Almost no Wal-Mart is reachable without a car. How, exactly, does
Wal-Mart NOT increase dependence on foreign oil? Maybe that's not
"immoral", but it is stupid.
What's "stupid" is to suppose that people would drive less if there
were no Wal*Mart's. People's opportunity cost horizon is often
extremely short. We drive across town because the other grocery
store has apples for $0.10 less. I'm sorry, but, Wal*Mart's
outlying locations are a direct result of cheap oil, not the other
way around. And the only way that that is gonna change is on the
oil side of the equation. Hell, for the first time in my
recollection, my fiancee and I have cancelled a thanksgiving trip
due solely to the high price of gas this year.
Our dependence on oil for non-essential activities is due in large
part to the low cost of oil; this is why Wal*Mart can afford to
build a store 5 miles outside of town, and still turn a huge
profit. In no way is Wal*Mart responsible for our dependence on
oil---quite the opposite. This is, logically speaking, rediculously
simple.
"In case you *don't* believe that northern China is being taken
over by desert due to the rapid, uncontrolled industrialization,
look it up sometime."
Never said I didn't believe it, but I just don't believe that
buying some cheap toothpaste at Wally World really has a huge
effect on it in either direction.
|9.13.05 @ 2:45PM|#
Since there are obviously enough people willing to accept
the current wages,
Or, instead of "willing," you could also say "desperate
enough."
|9.13.05 @ 2:45PM|#
Hakluyt,
Is our demand for cheap tube socks *really* worth China wrecking
its environment? Really?
|9.13.05 @ 2:46PM|#
Jennifer,
Okay to whom? You seem to want some normative standard here.
BTW, just to clue you in to something that is obvious to anyone who
has studied its manifestations in Europe, Asia, etc., "serfdom"
requires the strong hand of government to make it work. It is after
all as much a legal status as it is an economic one.
|9.13.05 @ 2:46PM|#
As for all of you that wear shopping at Target or Kohls like a badge of honor you're only kidding yourself. Their employees may be better off, but that's like saying the drowning guy is better off than the guy that's on fire. Those are still shitty jobs. And the last time I checked most of their inventory says made in China and all of it is delivered in fossil fuel burning trucks. But I have to admit that they do have hipper commercials.
|9.13.05 @ 2:47PM|#
On this forum it is unthinkable to criticize a business but
OK to criticize the government for doing to much.
Thoreau, that's not entirely true. The problem is, most times,
"criticism of business" is coupled with "using force to fix that
which is criticized". I'll criticize walmart, I do it all the time.
I just think alot of people have come to expect that criticism is a
precursor for calls to government action.
|9.13.05 @ 2:49PM|#
Rhywun,
You are being an alarmist.
thoreau,
On this forum it is unthinkable to criticize a business but OK
to criticize the government for doing to much.
Right. Sure.
|9.13.05 @ 2:50PM|#
Is our demand for cheap tube socks *really* worth China
wrecking its environment?
If only the world were that simple!
You sound like an enviro-wacko, "is driving to the store to buy
food REALLY worth putting a hole in the ozone and killing the
earth!? IS IT!?
Jeez, man, you're right---as long as I don't buy those tube socks,
China will remain a pristine wilderness.
|9.13.05 @ 2:50PM|#
Okay to whom? You seem to want some normative standard
here.
Oh, c'mon, Hak. Want me to tell you what the meaning of "is" is,
too?
this somehow works for Japan and other countries but apparently
it can't work for China.
If the Chinese were equal to the Japanese in regards to personal
freedom, maybe that statement would hit closer to home.
|9.13.05 @ 2:51PM|#
Evan, how many people on this forum follow
their "this sucks!" with "there oughta be a law!"?
If you want to argue with those sorts, go somewhere else. They're
kind of rare here. Even joe knows better than to jerk that knee
here (most of the time).
|9.13.05 @ 2:53PM|#
Jennifer:
It depends on whether you're talking about morality, or simple
philanthropy and kindness towards your fellow man. Morally, in the
realm of natural right philosophy, it's just fine and dandy. But
socially speaking, outside of hard-line morality, I personally
think that they should voluntarily treat their workers better. But,
aside from ill-ended central planning schemes, the best
way to normalize opportunity is the free market. It may not be
perfect, but it's better than using government to enforce one
narrow view of "corporate responsibility".
|9.13.05 @ 2:54PM|#
Jennifer,
Well, maybe if you used words like "serf" properly I might be able
to answer your question. Serfdom and libertarianism have nothing in
common however. I mean really, next you're going to tell me that
libertopia will have state regulated guilds!
|9.13.05 @ 2:57PM|#
Evan Williams,
Well, and Bastiat and hayek would tell us, trying to enforce such a
narrow view closes off oppurtunity for change and improvement
outside that narrow area; it stifles change.
|9.13.05 @ 2:58PM|#
Very well, Hak. Let me express the question with no metaphorical
devices that can be deliberately or accidentally misunderstood: if
libertopia results in ninety-five percent of humanity living in
near-hopeless poverty, of the sort we've seen in the New Orleans
neighborhoods where people could not afford to leave, would you say
that was okay, so long as pure libertarian principles are adhered
to?
(Note that I'm NOT asking if you think that's what libertopia will
lead to--I'm asking your opinion if it DID.)
|9.13.05 @ 2:59PM|#
Thoreau:
I'm not saying that people here pull that kind of stuff---I'm just
saying that people here are used to hearing it from other
sources---so it's just a defensive habit, perhaps.
|9.13.05 @ 3:02PM|#
thoreau,
Serf (as used in the sentence) refers to a specific legal and
economic condition. If you can't wrap your mind around that, well,
that's fine.
But please, do define it in its "firguative" sense (I doubt that
you can as I suspect that the notion has never rattled through your
head before).
|9.13.05 @ 3:03PM|#
"But I have to admit that they do have hipper
commercials."
And the girls who shop at Target are much hotter.
|9.13.05 @ 3:04PM|#
Hak, I've clarified my question and asked it in a serf-free manner. So now that you're freed from the shackles of figurative language, can you give me an answer? (Comment at 2:58.)
|9.13.05 @ 3:08PM|#
Jennifer,
Let's compare the two queries:
So if, in libertopia, ninety-five percent of the population
becomes a serf class to the remianing five percent, is that
okay?
Let me express the question with no metaphorical devices that
can be deliberately or accidentally misunderstood:
Nothing was misunderstood. You just don't have a very good grasp of
what serfdom means.
...if libertopia results in ninety-five percent of humanity
living in near-hopeless poverty, of the sort we've seen in the New
Orleans neighborhoods where people could not afford to leave, would
you say that was okay, so long as pure libertarian principles are
adhered to?
Anyone with the remotest amount of historical knowledge on the
condition of serfdom (and other forms of unfreedom for that matter)
would realize immediately that these are two very different
questions. Indeed, comparing mere poverty to legally sanctioned
unfreedom is a fairly loathesome thing to do IMHO.
If indeed 95% of the individuals were in poverty I'd say that the
effort was a failure along the lines of Soviet Russia.
MP|9.13.05 @ 3:08PM|#
...would you say that was okay, so long as pure libertarian
principles are adhered to?
No. It would also be bad if aliens invaded. It would be even worse
if the sun exploded.
|9.13.05 @ 3:09PM|#
Jennifer,
There was nothing figurative in your comment. You're are simply
ignorant of the nature of serfdom, that's all.
|9.13.05 @ 3:12PM|#
Mr. Nice Guy,
True. Unless You're into the BBW scene. I also like the trashy hot
check out girls you run across every now and then at Wal-Mart. You
know, the ones that look like they would defend your honor with a
broken beer bottle. Plus, Wal-Mart is one the few places where I'm
one of the best looking guys around.
|9.13.05 @ 3:15PM|#
Jennifer,
Then again, as is well known, I'm a rule utilitarian, so the answer
should be obvious.
|9.13.05 @ 3:16PM|#
I personally shop to support local businesses. I would rather
see a neighbor thrive, even if my socks cost a bit more.
Ideally, the global free markets would be opened up. Eventually
(say 50 years or so) the global marketplace will level out and a
shirt will cost roughly the same in Nebraska as it does in Peking
or Scandinavia. The more Government intervention there is, the more
uneven the playing field becomes. I agree that there should be a
few "workers rights" installed, such as no work without pay and
contract negotiations but false props like minimum wage and
required health care at 40 hours is total BS. The more that the
Government can control, the easier it is for the biggest players to
get exemptions from that control thereby defeating the entire
purpose of that control to begin with.
|9.13.05 @ 3:16PM|#
(I doubt that you can as I suspect that the notion has never
rattled through your head before).
Now do you guys see why I was speculating yesterday?
For the record, I only speculate on these things when people are
absolutely insufferable. And even then not always.
|9.13.05 @ 3:17PM|#
I miss trashy-hot. I grew up around it. I went to college around it. There's none of it around here, though.
|9.13.05 @ 3:19PM|#
Evan Williams,
I think a lot of folks confuse it with a normative system, when it
is indeed a tool to create the normative system you individually
(or with others) perfer while forgoing as much as possible effects
on others.
|9.13.05 @ 3:20PM|#
ralphus:
When I walk into a Walmart, I strangely get a sense of "Queer
Eye":
"Honey..sweetheart.. spandex is so NOT YOU, mmmmkay? May I interest
you into more in the line of form-fitting circus tent..?"
|9.13.05 @ 3:21PM|#
I buy a lot of shit from WalMart for purely selfish reasons - I
can furnish my family with all the junk they demand at the lowest
possible cost to me.
However, I agree that there is a significant dark side to the
"WalMartification" of America. It goes way beyond the abuse of
employees, ED, tax incentives, and putting Mom & Pop stores out
of business. WalMart will eventually become a quasi-governmental
organization. As WalMart expands to fill the known universe, it
will have a profound impact on our culture. They have already
imposed censorship on song lyrics, CD covers, and movie content.
WalMart will increasingly dictate the employment policies of their
suppliers (they already fix the price they will pay their suppliers
and pretty much determine which suppliers will survive). I believe
that WalMart will have more control than government organizations
of the future of the war against drugs, gun rights, gay marriage,
abortion, religious freedom, race relations, tax systems,
pornography, gambling, drinking, and even America's relations with
foreign countries.
And don't ask me to cite references. You may dismiss this as a mad
rant, but later tonight after you burn some interstate commerce in
that bubbler you might begin to appreciate my point.
|9.13.05 @ 3:22PM|#
thoreau,
Yeah, sometimes I find your constant wanking to be
insufferable.
In general your speculations border on the absurd (as I already
pointed out to you).
But please, do define it in its "firguative" sense... :)
|9.13.05 @ 3:23PM|#
Evan,
"Libertarianism is a means, not an end in itself."
I don't know if I would call it a means. What is your "end"?
To me Libertarianism is more of a guideline to life, something akin
to "The Golden Rule". I have one end in mind, and that is to live
the best life I can, help anyone I can along the way, and try to
not have any regrets. Libertarianism seems to be the best fit for
my ideals.
|9.13.05 @ 3:24PM|#
thoreau,
Your speculations are entertaining, however. Indeed, it borders on
the hilarious, since you are always wrong. :)
|9.13.05 @ 3:25PM|#
Well, I haven't misspelled "figurative" in this thread. I
suggest you read Webster's dictionary and take a "Hooked on
Phonics" course before you embarass yourself any further.
:->
|9.13.05 @ 3:26PM|#
Crushinator,
They have already imposed censorship on song lyrics, CD covers,
and movie content.
That borders on the absurd. I get all the foul-mouthed music
downloaded to my computer that I want to after all.
|9.13.05 @ 3:31PM|#
Nothing was misunderstood. You just don't have a very good
grasp of what serfdom means.
A Frenchman taking offense at figurative language and metaphors,
and on the internet, no less! Voltaire must be crying in his
grave.
But Flaubert might be fine with it.
I am wondering, though if Hak really thought I was using serf in
the literal, feudal sense, or if he was just being a nit-picky
ass.
|9.13.05 @ 3:38PM|#
I don't know if I would call it a means. What is your
"end"?
I call it a "means", you call it a "guideline". Splitting hairs,
really. The "end" I speak of is the best life for as many diverse
peoples as possible, including but not limited to myself.
|9.13.05 @ 3:41PM|#
Hakluyt,
"That borders on the absurd. I get all the foul-mouthed music
downloaded to my computer that I want to after all."
Let's review. You can afford a computer, and a broadband internet
connection (unless you still use dial up for your music downloads).
You can afford not to shop at WalMart for your music. You have the
choice to not purchase music at all.
But that set aside, WalMart has imposed a "defacto" censorship on
it's suppliers, the RIAA and the MPAA. Just because it isn't
government "censorship" does not make it "absurd". Is it within
WalMart's rights as a company? Yes. Is it still censorship?
Yes.
I suppose at least they are giving the distribution companies a
break instead of just refusing to carry the product at all.
|9.13.05 @ 3:42PM|#
Jennifer, obviously Voltaire cannot cry in his grave if he is
dead. Not only would it require muscle action (which is impossible
for a dead corpse), but if the corpse is dessicated then there
would be no way to produce tears.
Really, you need to take a biology class before you embarass
yourself any further.
|9.13.05 @ 3:43PM|#
Jennifer,
(a) I'm not French.
(b) You weren't being figurative, you were being literal.
(c) Read some narratives on the various serf societies of Europe,
Asia and the Americas (did you know that serfdom existed in Asia
and the Americas or that the nature and periodization of serfdom
varied in Europe?). Though they vary in nature, scope, etc., each
one is predicated on some form of government mandated legal status
that can be enforced in the courts, etc.
|9.13.05 @ 5:23PM|#
I call bullshit. What local merchant sells socks anymore?
I live in a fairly rural area that is on it's way to exburb status.
If anything I've seen a rise in local businesses. Most of them are
highly specialized. It's true you don't see local grocery and
hardware stores anymore, but you do see local scrapbook stores,
local fishing stores and local nurseries. There are also plenty of
local restaurants that still draw crowds even with the intrusion of
chain eateries. An interesting irony is that many of this local
business buy cheap supplies at their local Sam's Club.
MP|9.13.05 @ 5:24PM|#
thoreau,
Obviously, you know nothing about zombies. Zombies, although dead,
can experience emotions and even cry.
Really, you need to watch Dead Alive before you embarass yourself
any further.
|9.13.05 @ 5:57PM|#
Legate Damar,
There's nothing quite like the sight of a bottle blond wearing
tight cutoffs, a bikini top and boots with tassels sucking on a
Newport. Now that's a woman.
Mr. Nice Guy,
Whenever my wife gets the "I'm to fat" blues I just run her up to
the local Wal-Mart. It always makes her feel better.
Did you guys ever see the Wal-Mart game?
http://www.thewvsr.com/TheWVSRgame.htm
DIRECTIONS:�The game requires two or more players.�All players
enter a Wal-Mart store equipped with pen or pencil and a copy of
the checklist below.�Players have a pre-determined amount of time,
I suggest thirty minutes, to walk around the store observing the
customers and employees, and checking off their many defects and
afflictions.�The most "hits" in the allotted time wins.�Good
luck!�
-Animal bite
-Barbed wire bleeding
-Bee sting
-Black eye
-Blacking out
-Blood stain
-Botched skin graft
-Broken bone
-Bucked dentures
-Buckshot dimples
-Butane rash
-Camel hack
-Carburetor burn
-Chigger bites
-Chipped teeth
-Cigarette hole
-Corn chip toenails
-Creeping crud
-DT's
-Elephantiasis
-Face raisin
-Female bald spot
-Funking whistle
-Gasping for air
-Harelip
-Hatchet gash
-Healing tattoo
-Horseshoe bruise
-Lockjaw
-Neck brace
-Neck brace with Nascar sticker
-Neck vent
-Neck vent with bug guard
-Nicotine patch tan line
-One Herman Munster shoe
-Open sore
-Polio limp
-Powder burns
-Protruding forehead
-Radical obesity
-Rickets
-Ring worm
-Shingles
-Shrieking in pain
-Smoker's squint
-Splint
-Stinking cough
-Sweet potato arm
-Teeth like the top of a castle
-Vomit beard
-Weeping sore
Go to the site. It's great. Sweet potato arm is my favorite.
|9.13.05 @ 6:06PM|#
Your speculations are entertaining, however. Indeed, it
borders on the hilarious, since you are always wrong. :)
I haven't gotten through all the comments on this thread yet; I was
just browsing. But I must say it's good to have the Gunnels that we
all know and despise back. Welcome home, Gar. :)
(You might be despicable, but to me you're still likeable for that
very reason). I was getting sick of that PC, touchy-feely,
won't-step-on-people's-toes charade.
Now somebody throw a chair!
|9.13.05 @ 6:08PM|#
Ralphus,
This is by far the closest I've come to actually wetting my pants
while laughing at a comment on Hit and Run. You win the Golden Calf
for the thread. I have to go to the bathroom now and check for
water damage.
|9.13.05 @ 6:24PM|#
Not French, Hak? My bad--for some reason I had you confused with
Jean Bart. And yes, I was, indeed, being figurative about the
serfs.
Good thing I didn't use the phrase "wage slaves."
|9.13.05 @ 6:28PM|#
Thanks smacky,
Wish I could take full credit for it. You should check out the
link. The creator explains the genesis of the game and how he
almost got his ass kicked playing it.
Face rasin. *heh*
|9.13.05 @ 6:44PM|#
Can't.. believe... I read.. the whole thing!
I also can't remember half the things I wanted to say. I used to
work at Nordstrom, a guy down the hall worked for Costco, and his
roommate worked for Target. My understanding is that Walmart and
Target are pretty much the same for their employees, people just
love to hate Walmart more. He seemed to do just fine (he even
dropped out and is still working there), he just doesn't try to do
anything silly like raise a family. Costco's wages are better, and
so jobs there are rationed much more so by your connections. Target
you can sit at the little computer thingy and get a job. Also,
raising the wage wouldn't just lessen the number of jobs, it would
create more competition from above, at ten dollars an your that
community college degree might help you oust Ms. McSinglemom for
the position. They still suck, I can't stand shopping there. I only
go to buy disposable toasters (long story). It was also a nice
thing to have close by when my friends house burned down and the
Red Cross gave them each $100 to replace their wardrobe and get
some food. And as for the distance gas thing, don't big box stores
also encourage people to make larger purchases, and thus cut down
on the number of trips they have to make, I wonder how close that
effect comes to mooting the point.
|9.13.05 @ 9:01PM|#
The most amusing thing about the original post was the paid line
foreman's complaint that he was "sacrificing" for the sake of
Wal-Mart's workers. Are the store's workers unaware he and his
comrades are out there? Would the workers think the protester's are
doing anything positive for them?
Wal-Mart will change when its customer base decides that cheap
goods are not worth the crappy customer service and shabby
atmosphere Wal-Mart's employment policies give them.
If you don't like the way Wal-mart does business then don't do
business with them. If that does not satisfy you then write to
Wal-mart's managemnet and explain in no uncertain terms why you are
not doing business with them. Try to convince other not to do
business with them. It may not be entirely satisfying but it is
doing something about the situation. That is the frustrating thing
about reading some people's posts on this matter, complaining that
the market is not working when it is not working as you would like
it to.
Mostly, I do not shop at Wal-Mart, because I cannot stand the
store, the long checkout lines (a 20 item limit does NOT make a
lane "express") with barely competent clerks, hit and miss product
availbility, and generally depressing appearence of the facilities.
The only reason I do go to Wal-mart at times is because I happen to
live across the street from one, and sometimes it's more convenient
to walk over there for a head of Romaine and a quart of milk than
to drive to Publix or Target.
|9.13.05 @ 9:56PM|#
Well, I haven't misspelled "figurative" in this thread. I
suggest you read Webster's dictionary....before you embarass
yourself any further.
But you did misspell embarrass.
|9.14.05 @ 12:35AM|#
Teeth like the top of a castle
There's a word for that: crenellated.
MJ, you can walk to your local W-M?!
|9.14.05 @ 4:14AM|#
Jennifer,
And yes, I was, indeed, being figurative about the
serfs.
Right. Not buying it. I run across ignorant statements about
serfdom all the time (largely based on the Monty Python's spoof of
the Arthurian legends) and yours falls sqaurely in with that sort
of commentary.
Good thing I didn't use the phrase "wage slaves."
Well, as long as you properly differentiate from chattel slavery,
that's fine. It remains a problematic term, however, because "wage
slavery" amongst the left has often simply meant working for
someone besides yourself.
|9.14.05 @ 5:06AM|#
"Obviously, you know nothing about zombies. Zombies, although
dead, can experience emotions and even cry.
Really, you need to watch Dead Alive before you embarass yourself
any further."
Obviously, you know nothing about schlock horror films. What was
called Dead Alive in its US release was originally titled
Braindead.
Really, you need to check IMdB.com before you embarass yourself any
further.
|9.14.05 @ 7:49AM|#
So now Hak has the ability to read minds?
Seriously, dude--you insisted that Wal-Mart never encouraged its
workers to apply for welfare, I showed this was incorrect, and
instead of dropping the subject you go on a tangent insisting that
a figurative term was actually literally meant?
I suggest you go back to posting 500-page legal briefs before you
embarrass yourself further.
|9.14.05 @ 7:58AM|#
220+ posts and what have we learned?
1) Some people don't like the way Walmart does business and don't
want to shop there.
2) Other people are outraged that somebody would criticize a
private business.
3) When asked for the cause of the outrage, the best that they can
muster is "Well, most people who criticize a private business want
some sort of regulation enacted."
4) Beyond a few vague comments, nobody on this thread has actually
called for any specific regulation. The closest Jennifer came was
in criticizing a practice that is arguably a breach of contract and
hence the sort of thing that law is sort of intended for
anyway.
5) Be very, very careful about the terminology that you use,
because He of Many Names might jump all over you.
Just one question: If I buy some ammo from Walmart and it turns out
to suck, can I criticize them for it? Is that OK? Or should I keep
quiet and let the market decide?
|9.14.05 @ 8:10AM|#
Thoreau--
We also learned that Hak claims for himself the ability to read
minds, so that if you make a metaphorical comment, and everybody
EXCEPT Hak agrees it was metaphorical, it nonetheless becomes a
literal, straightforward statement if viewing it literally makes it
easier for Hak to maintain his aura of superiority.
In all seriousness, I'm wondering if those posts were made by
somebody PRETENDING to be Hak. Yes, he is indeed arrogant, but
usually his arrogance has some basis in reality. I don't know WHAT
happened yesterday.
|9.14.05 @ 8:14AM|#
Jennifer, the notion of somebody pretending to be He of Many
Names makes my mind blow.
But yesterday's antics are consistent with a previous
routine:
1) Somebody says something.
2) You Know Who takes it in the most literal way possible and says
"That's clearly wrong!"
3) The first guy tries to explain that it was never meant
literally.
4) "Now you're changing your story."
5) "No, I'm not changing my story, I'm just saying that..."
6) "You're obviously a liar and I have no more use for you."
Not quite the same routine as we saw yesterday, but a similar level
of pissiness.
|9.14.05 @ 8:16AM|#
Jennifer, the notion of somebody pretending to be He of Many
Names makes my mind blow.
I concur, but is that any more mind-blowing than Hak's denying that
he is French?
|9.14.05 @ 8:36AM|#
By the way, Thoreau and all others who will be meeting in NYC
this Saturday, I've just thought of a way we can pass the time when
we get there: the Jean Hakluyt Gunnels Drinking Game.
Here's how it works: Person A makes a statement. Person B finds a
way to deliberately misinterpret it, and accuses Person A of being
a liar. If so, Person A must take a drink; however, but Person B
has to take a drink if he CAN'T think of a misinterpretation.
Like so:
THOREAU: Whew! That train ride into New York took longer than I
thought! My wife and I thought we'd NEVER get here!
ME: Thoreau, saying "Never" implies that time would actually come
to an end before you got here. Even a simpleton would understand
that in the worst-case scenario, wherein the train came to a
complete standstill and you had to WALK the remaining three hundred
miles into Manhattan, you would still make it here well before the
end of eternity. I suggest you teach yourself the difference
between "never" and "longer than I expected" before you embarrass
yourself further.
THOREAU: (drinks.)
Last one sober enough to stand up wins.
|9.14.05 @ 9:19AM|#
But, Jennifer, we're taking a bus. Really, you should refrain
from making assumptions that only make you look silly.
Anyway, I'm still waiting for somebody to answer my question: If I
don't like the ammo that I buy at Walmart is it OK to criticize
them? Or should I stay quiet and let the market decide without my
input?
|9.14.05 @ 9:20AM|#
Jennifer,
Seriously, dude--you insisted that Wal-Mart never encouraged
its workers to apply for welfare...
Actually I didn't. You must be referring to someone else. I did
state that a study out of California was found to be problematic
and I asked you for evidence of your claim. I guess in your world
that amounts to insisting that Wal-Mart never encourages workers to
apply for welfare. *sigh* Do you have to start fabricating things
now?
Your ignorance regarding serfdom is really the least of your sins
apparently.
thoreau,
2) Other people are outraged that somebody would criticize a
private business.
Those people being? Or are you merely jumping to conclusions again?
Vague accusations like this don't do your argument much merit.
|9.14.05 @ 9:23AM|#
But, Jennifer, we're taking a bus.
So Mister "Hooray for Property Rights" is taking a bus?
Rather than doing the honest thing and buying a ticket to rent
space on said bus? Really, Thoreau, I suggest you stop broadcasting
your hypocrisy before you embarrass yourself further.
|9.14.05 @ 9:24AM|#
Jennifer,
So now Hak has the ability to read minds?
I do have the ability to smell bullshit when confronted with it.
I'm sorry, even as a metaphor your statement about serfdom makes
absolutely no sense and merely demonstrates your rampant historical
ignorance. Instead of merely admitting this ignorance you compound
your error by a pathetic attempt to hide it.
|9.14.05 @ 9:26AM|#
thoreau,
I've already told you that I'm working under no other nick. Like
they say, you can lead a horse to water...
|9.14.05 @ 9:27AM|#
BTW, would you mind aiming the laser weapon that is your legal mind at D Anghelone? In another thread he's busy trying to draw inscrutable distinctions concerning internment, relocation, Gitmo, etc.
|9.14.05 @ 9:29AM|#
thoreau,
Ignorance and stupidity are two different things. I haven't claimed
that anyone lied.
Jennifer,
BTW, instead of graciously accepting the knowledge that I have
freely given to you, you've turned into the poster child of
sophmoric behavior.
|9.14.05 @ 10:14AM|#
All right, Hak. Mea culpa. Before my post of yesterday nobody
had ever, ever used the word "serf" to mean anything other than its
medieval meaning (or Russian meaning, pre-1864), and thus my
comment about "serfs" could only be taken to mean that I thought
Wal-Mart would bring about the re-introduction of a legal
hereditary aristocracy.
By the way, there are three "o"s in the word "sophomoric."
|9.14.05 @ 10:22AM|#
BTW, instead of graciously accepting the knowledge that I
have freely given to you, you've turned into the poster child of
sophmoric behavior.
How generous of you, Hakluyt! You should have charged Jennifer
tuition.
The next time I insult somebody I will charge him or her a fee.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245