We Want Ice Cream !

simple but so true. . . .

I agree with your point, but not the actual implications of the 3rd grade. You can't draw any real conclusions from 3rd graders wanting ice cream. However, to your actual point, yes I agree completely. It hit home for me once in a French textbook, which had little "culture" blurbs, like almost all language textbooks. This one talked about all the free stuff in France: things like free preschool to all.

It's not free at all. People just pay for it in taxes. And that is, I think, one of the great dangers indeed. This disconnect between cost and services.

It's not just a governmental thing. A similar attitude is used to justify shoplifting. The shoplifter's just stealing from some big corporation; they don't see themselves stealing from the woman behind the counter or the guy stocking shelves who all can get lower salaries due to the theft.

Ice cream can be services, or ice cream can be tax cuts. We vote for the flavor we want more.

I think a good amount of people would like to vote for the side that gave them not a damn thing in any way and shrunk down to the size of a pea but since we cant have that I choose services, thank you.

The shoplifter's just stealing from some big corporation; they don't see themselves stealing from the woman behind the counter or the guy stocking shelves who all can get lower salaries due to the theft.

The shoplifter is not stealing from the stock boy or the counter girl, at worst he is stealing from the stock holders or the CEO, no matter how profitable the company, all the stock boy/counter girl are going to get is the minimum wage or the boot if the CEO's stock options aren't profitable enough.

I believe this is untrue. Only a small percentage of workers earn minimum wage, which means most people earn more. It's more common for employers to pay the close to the minimum of the typical salary for that position. That value of course moves and bends with a thousand different factors.

I assume that by saying 'at worst he is stealing from the stockholders..' that you are not suggesting shoplifting is ok because it's against a capitalist ?

..' that you are not suggesting shoplifting is ok because it's against a capitalist ?

Not a capitalist, a corporation. I suggest that we treat corporations the same way they treat their employees, their customers and the environment, resources to be used, abused and discarded...

I believe this is untrue. Only a small percentage of workers earn minimum wage, which means most people earn more.

That small percentage according to EPI is 9.8% of the workforce, not that small of a percentage and if the company is named Walmart, that's at least 80% of the workforce...

That value of course moves and bends with a thousand different factors.

There is only one factor, what can they get away with...

So you're saying you are ok with capitalism as long as there are no capitalists ?

I'm confused ?

I mean if you don't like capitalism and want a socialist/state owned type economy that is fine, we love wide ranging views here. But I'm perhaps not seeing where you are going with this point

So you're saying you are ok with capitalism as long as there are no capitalists ?

I'm fine with capitalism, but we live in a Oligarchic Plutocracy (which is just another form of capitalism) , in which the plutocrats use corporate structures to protect themselves and steal every thing that isn't nailed down, I see no reason why they should be the only ones having all the fun...

Ok, so just for the sake of discussion, what would you define as a proper capitalist society ?

Who would own what ?

Capitalism without mega corps or corps at all functions very nicely in my opinion.

Ice cream can be services, or ice cream can be tax cuts. We vote for the flavor we want more.

This points up one of the major differences between liberals and conservatives. Liberals believe all money belongs to the government, in which case a tax cut would be viewed as a gift or service. Conservatives believe all money belongs to the people, who grant the government a portion of it . In that case a tax cut would not be viewed as a gift, but as returning it to where it originated.

I had not heard this story before and don't know if it is true. But whether it is true or not, it is about the best analogy I have ever heard as to how elected officials pander to voters.

When politicians propose laws, they do it by appealing to some utopian ideal that no one could possibly be against. Whether its ensuring the health and safety of the American people or by promising to bring the "bad guys" to justice, politicians always explain it in the most simplistic terms imaginable so that people will only see the benefits of such laws but none of the adverse consequences.

When politicians propose a new government program that will provide services to the American people, they rarely point out this government program will cost millions of dollars, and that since money doesn't grow on trees, paying for this government program will require that the government either takes this money from a certain group of people or run up further debt.

When politicians propose a new government program to reduce crime, they don't bother to point out the wide scope of activities that they are now criminalizing. They don't bother to point out how some people's civil liberties will need to be sacrificed in order to implement their war on crime, nor will they bother to point out how much it will cost taxpayers to pay for the additional law enforcement officers and paramilitary teams needed to arrest people for every single nonviolent crime they have on the books nor the cost of building new prisons to house all of these nonviolent criminals.

When was the last time you actually heard a politician give a cost-benefit analysis of the policy they wished to implement? When was the last time you heard a politician own up to the adverse consequences of the policies they have passed into law?

It doesn't happened very often. It doesn't happen because we, the voters, don't hold them responsible. When we vote for the same Democrats and Republicans year after year, we are implicitly condoning what they are doing. How else are they to interpret your opinion if you continue to vote for those politicians?

Interesting story, but it's missing one detail that is crucial to understanding whether this mentality is good or bad: who paid for the ice cream?

Ok, so just for the sake of discussion, what would you define as a proper capitalist society ?

Who would own what ?

I and twenty odd thousand would own company XYZ who makes widgets, when company XYZ was profitable, I and and all the other stockholders would make money, if company XYZ was poorly managed and lost money, I and the other stockholders would lose money, and last but not least if company XYZ went out and did something really stupid and illegal I and the other twenty odd thousand stockholders are liable for every penny of damage that company XYZ did.

Stockholders get the upside, stockholders also get the downside...
None of this heads I win, tails you lose...

"That small percentage according to EPI is 9.8% of the workforce"

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2005.htm), 2.5% of hourly paid workers make the federal minimum wage or less. And that doesn't include salary workers who I would think almost all make above the hourly minimum wage.

So, I looked at the link to try to find out where the discrepancy is. For one thing, the link does not say that 9.8% of the workforce makes the minimum wage. It claims that 9.8% of the workforce would benefit from raising the minimum wage, and it counts people directly and indirectly affected. Digging deeper into the EPI's report, I couldn't find that number anywhere. In fact, I found this:

An estimated 4.5 million workers (less than 4% of the workforce) will receive an increase in their hourly wage rate when the minimum wage is raised to $7.25 in 2009. Of these workers, 2.8 million workers currently earn less than $7.25 and will be directly affected by the increase. The additional 1.6 million workers earning slightly above the minimum, those we call indirectly affected, will also be likely to benefit from an increase due to “spillover effects.” These spillover effects preserve the wage structure in a firm.

So it's only 4%, and that includes people they estimate will be "indirectly" affected by the increase. And of course that assumes all employees get the raise and no one's current or potential employment is negatively affected. I have no idea where the 9.8% came from.

"not that small of a percentage and if the company is named Walmart, that's at least 80% of the workforce..."

Walmart apparently pays above the minimum wage and apparently supports increasing it (probably to put its smaller competitors out of business): http://money.cnn.com/2005/10/25/news/fortune500...

Of course, that's if you believe a capitalist. A nice, high, round number like 80% is much easier to believe and be angry about.

"Stockholders get the upside, stockholders also get the downside..."

That's the way it is for the vast majority of businesses. Yes, the bank bailout is incredibly unfair and we need to make sure a situation like that doesn't happen again, but it was an anomaly and so it hardly seems justified to make a judgment on our entire economic system based on that.

"I and twenty odd thousand would own company XYZ who makes widgets, when company XYZ was profitable"

I have no problem with this and it's great and all but how do you get "twenty odd thousand" to pony up the money to start said company? Obviously it doesn't happen often so you must want companies to revert to the ownership of the employees. So why would anyone start a business larger than family sized?

"Walmart apparently pays above the minimum wage"

They pay more than all but union shops here. They also give decent benifits for an hourly job.

That's the way it is for the vast majority of businesses.

Wrong. If I buy ten shares of corporation X at $100 a share, if the corporation is profitable I make money (assuming management does not take it all), if the corporation does not make money, I don't make money, If the corporation goes out and destroys half the state of Texas and kills a few million people in the process, all I lose is the $1000 I invested in the corporation.

Like I said all upside, minimum downside...

They pay more than all but union shops here. They also give decent benifits for an hourly job.

I would not brag about that...
Wal-Mart Wages

# Wal-Mart pays an average hourly wage of $8.23 an hour, according to independent expert statistical analysis, which falls below basic living wage standards and even below poverty lines.
# Wal-Mart claims an hourly wage of $9.68 an hour is its national average, though that still equals poverty levels for workers. Since “full time” at Wal-Mart is 34 hours a week according to company policy, full-time workers make a mere $17,114.24 a year—below the federal poverty level for a family of four.
# The most common Wal-Mart jobs earn less.

* A sales associate--the most common job classification--earns on average $8.23 per hour ($13,861 annually)
* A cashier—the second most common job—earns about $7.92 per hour ($11,948 annually)
* Sales associates and cashiers combined account for more than a third of all Wal-Mart jobs.

Yet Another State Finds Wal-Mart Tops Medicaid Rolls

Close to one of every 10 Wal-Mart employees is getting health insurance paid for by Arizona taxpayers, according to figures obtained Friday from the state.

The nearly 2,700 Wal-Mart workers represent about 1.9 percent of working people who are getting benefits from the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System.

The company is the largest private employer in the state and has more workers getting state-paid health care than any other.

By contrast, other retailers in the top 15 list of private employers had rates of AHCCCS enrollment among their workers about half that of Wal-Mart's.

Wal-Mart Urges Workers to Apply for Public Assistance

And even when some workers do become eligible for health care coverage, many can’t afford the premiums and deductibles. According to an October 2003 AFL-CIO report, an unmarried Wal-Mart employee earning between $7.50 and $8.50 an hour for a “full-time” 34-hour workweek and choosing the least expensive coverage available might have to spend $6,396.50—some 45 percent of his or her annual wages—on health care. The plan also carries a $350-per-family-member annual deductible before coverage can begin.

Instead of providing affordable health care, Wal-Mart encourages its workers to sign up for public health assistance. On a Dec. 19, 2003 broadcast of “NOW” with Bill Moyers, former 10-year Wal-Mart manager Gretchen Adams said managers kept “a list of the state agencies so that we could have some place to send these associates…for Medicaid, for well-baby care, for whatever it is that they need.”

In 2003, Las Vegas Wal-Mart managers even gave workers special forms that helped them certify their poverty status when applying for public assistance, says Fortune magazine.

If that's your definition of decent benefits....

Walmart apparently pays above the minimum wage and apparently supports increasing it (probably to put its smaller competitors out of business)

Or it could be that without a hike in the minimum wage, a good chunk of it 's customer base is going to be priced out of it's stores...

What percentage of businesses do you think have the power to destroy half the state of texas and kill a few million people? Maybe a few very large banks that need to be dealt with (although I'm not sure how they are killing people exactly), but not the vast majority of businesses, like I said.

I never said Walmart employee's are well-paid. I said that your 80% figure was off by approximately 80%.

So how much do you think the average Walmart employee should make? Or do you believe Walmart should not exist and that employee should have to find another job somewhere else? How many local thrift stores, grocery stores, and convenience stores do you think pay more than $9 an hour with benefits?

Or it could be that without a hike in the minimum wage, a good chunk of it 's customer base is going to be priced out of it's stores...

LOL...any stick is good enough to beat them over the head with, I guess. They're evil and greedy if they're only paying minimum wage to 80% of their employees as you first claimed, but then when you're proven wrong you find the evil motive in the fact that they pay above that and support increases in minimum wage.

So how much do you think the average Walmart employee should make?

At least what a Costco employee makes.

Or do you believe Walmart should not exist and that employee should have to find another job somewhere else?

I think that Walmart should be forced to treat their employees with a modicum of decency and humanity. According to PBS, Walmart has a 70% turnover rate...

How many local thrift stores, grocery stores, and convenience stores do you think pay more than $9 an hour with benefits?

Every one of them should, but until Walmart does none of them are. How many of them are owned by #4, #5, #6 & #7 on the Forbes 400 list with a net worth of at least 19 billion a pop?

What percentage of businesses do you think have the power to destroy half the state of texas and kill a few million people?

While there is a bit of hyperbole on my part, I have no doubt that Entergy could easily kill a few hundred thousand people and destroy a good chunk of real-estate without any problems. We know for a fact that ExxonMobil can destroy a large piece of real estate effortlessly, and so could Amoco

LOL...any stick is good enough to beat them over the head with, I guess.

You are right any stick is good to beat them over the head, Walmart is the epitome of what is wrong with Corporate America, they are the essence of "Cheap Labor Conservative" (Outsourcing, Union Busting, low wages, no benefits, corporate welfare, etc ), they have no loyalty to their employees, customers, or communities. You can defend Walmart all you want, but you'll end up looking like a fool if you do...

And BTW, they are EVIL.

According to PBS, Walmart has a 70% turnover rate...

If that were true, wouldn't it prove Walmart employees don't need you to save them?

If that were true, wouldn't it prove Walmart employees don't need to you save them?

They don't need me, I can't save them. What they need is a powerful National Union which will fight for decent wages, decent benefits and decent working conditions.

As a matter of fact Walmart is a living advertisement for Unionization.

"If that's your definition of decent benefits...."

The only problem with that is you never addressed their benefits at all. You just started on a general tirade about wal-mart. Here's a shock they pay more than Krogers or other average grocery stores in my town and yes the benefits are better, That the income is not enough for a single parent to be above the poverty line is hardly shocking and so nothing to contradict my statements. And you know what if the assistance is there why the heck shouldn't they sign up for it and why would it be bad for the managers to help their employees? 92% of the people who work at walmart have insurance. I have a friend whose wife is a walmart employee. She makes over $14 an hour and they are both covered under her insurance and he is reasonable happy with it. She has a 401k and profit sharing. They even get discounted stock purchases and walmart matches up to a certain amount. Look around there are many employers in retail that don't get close to walmart.

That is a key difference, I personally am on the right when the dollar is tied to say gold but introduce inflationary policy and I move left in correlation with inflation. If we ever go back to say a gold standard or something let me know so that I can become a rightie again but until then I think it has been made utterly obvious that its ceasers money not ours.

Fortunately, DQ, most people don't view the world in such black and white terms and most readers probably recognize that my mocking of your over the top hatred and demonization isn't the same as 'defending Walmart'.

Truth is I think Walmart is a double edged sword- good for consumers in terms of lower prices (a bit ironic, in fact, that it's often used as an example of the benefit of monopsony power as it might apply to a single payer healthcare system) but that comes with other costs. Those costs might include the steps they take for lowering overhead (though I think EEllis and others provide rebuttal even to that claim, in relation to how other competing companies pay their employees) and also, there's a cost to communities that had previously supported Mom and Pop stores. Personally I feel there's also a societal/cultural cost of the homogenization of small town America and I wish we still had more local proprietorship and variety- but I'm not going to tell people that they shouldn't choose low prices over my preference for quaintness.

As for the workers, the problem is that you view all jobs as the same as careers. There are plenty of people in the workforce who don't need to have what you call a 'living wage'. These include people in transitionary times of their lives (students and senior citizens) and those who are the second income earner in their households. If a company provides a decent wage for those kinds of workers, then even if there is a high turnover that is completely normal and expected since those people weren't taking on permanent career positions anyway.

I am so happy that we traded $15 an hour factory jobs for $8 an hour WalMart jobs, thanks again Clinton & Bush!

"If that were true"

But since we are talking about the Don here so you can be sure it's not true.

$10.78 per hour not $8.23 an hour is the current average.
Walmarts turnover is about 50% and on par with the average retail turnover

Walmart is a living advertisement for Unionization.

So you'd make Walmart pay workers more so they can pay the money to union bosses, as well as do their bidding on picket lines and so forth? And you'd stick it to all those jobless ex-employees by forcing Walmart to raise its prices for them and everyone else? You really believe in kicking people when they're down.

Tell you what, if you think people should pay more at WalMart to benefit the workers, why don't you encourage other people to tip as generously as you probably do when you shop there?

Ice cream! Health care! I'll give you everything you want. You have the "right" to all of it, NOW!

"[W]ho [will pay] for the ice cream?"

a) Other People.

b) Society.

c) The Evil Rich, who should contribute all their income above the poverty level.

d) We should just print the money to pay whatever else we need, for what we want.


That's if it's after the election. If before, it will be e) special interests (and donors like Soros).

Ice cream! Health care! Free cars! Free houses! Free money! Whatever you want!

"There are plenty of people in the workforce who don't need to have what you call a 'living wage'."

Far from all jobs are long-term, permanent jobs. (Lifetime work at one employer is decades obsolete!)

Far from all jobs are careers.

Far from all jobs can ever be expected to provide not only for yourself but for dependents as well.

Far from all jobs ever merit a "living wage," the political goal of generous, excess pay for such jobs.

There is plenty of scope for research into poverty (though subject to leftist political taint, deeply so) and poverty level revision or re-definition -- and if there is such a thing as a minimum wage, basing it on the poverty level is logical. (A federal poverty level should be like anything else that is federal, which is to say, nation-wide: along with its existence being the last, never the first, resort, it should be uniform and should be minimal.) Note that the normal thing to do is make the minimum wage the poverty level (the case could be made for making it as low as fifty per cent of the poverty level, but that may be too hard to understand or accept by many). To the extent that any wages of much work now paid less, would have to be raised, it would not only be cost-push-inflationary, but would also discourage growth, creation, and retention of such jobs.