|
Couldn't we just say that the benefit to Wal-Mart of one more store was greatly outweighed by its marginal cost (exacerbated by the labor cost)? |
| |
Written By:
MichaelW
URL:
http://
|
Rubbish. The plain fact is how Henke stated it: "WalMart decided to go on strike."
It is not more complicated than that, and it need not be bent out of shape in owl-eyed gibberish. "We could just say" it the way it is.
|
| |
Written By:
Billy Beck
URL:
http://www.two--four.net/weblog.php
|
BB - Are you always perched on the edge of your chair, waiting to pounce on anything you find disagreeable, no matter how trivial?
Wal-Mart decided to go on strike for a reason - not simply to be obstinate, no? It seems logical to me that the reason MW offered is plausible.
|
| |
Written By:
David Andersen
URL:
http://
|
"absent an irrational rejection of freedom, capitalism and the entire concept of value."
There you go trying to inject logic into the conventional wisdom - WALMART BAD, WORKERS GOOD. |
| |
Written By:
pilsener
URL:
http://
|
"Are you always perched on the edge of your chair, waiting to pounce on anything you find disagreeable, no matter how trivial?"
Without putting words in Billy's mouth, I imagine that he's objecting to yet another vomit-brained (ANTI) "pragmatic" justification for free action.
I contend that "Homo Economus" doesn't exist. We are not ants in an ant-hill (i.e. the minimal hedonists of classical economics) merely satisfying basic desires. Freedom and genuinely human values exist on a higher plane than that, contra the classical economists and Marx.
|
| |
Written By:
Ernest Brown
URL:
http://saturninretrograde.blogspot.com
|
Ernest, I don't get it.
I find nothing vomit-brained about "the benefit to Wal-Mart of one more store was greatly outweighed by its marginal cost."
Are you arguing that this is ascribing far to much pragmatism to Wal-Mart? |
| |
Written By:
David Andersen
URL:
http://
|
Anderson -- answers: 1a) No. 1b) No. 1c) This is not "trivial". 2) Yes (not "no".)
Keep the KISS principle. This is not that complicated, no matter how "plausible" the complication.
Ernest: your second sentence is correct.
I could not disagree more with your final sentence, but you know that.
|
| |
Written By:
Billy Beck
URL:
http://www.two--four.net/weblog.php
|
Well then, what is the simple reason they decided to "go on strike?"
|
| |
Written By:
David Andersen
URL:
http://
|
That's nobody's goddamned business.
|
| |
Written By:
Billy Beck
URL:
http://www.two--four.net/weblog.php
|
The Quebec story only gets more charming as is goes.
|
| |
Written By:
Billy Beck
URL:
http://www.two--four.net/weblog.php
|
[sorry for the lack of participation, but I've been away from the computer]
I'm not sure why this is controversial:
Couldn't we just say that the benefit to Wal-Mart of one more store was greatly outweighed by its marginal cost Billy says it's as simple as "WalMart decided to go on strike", but I don't see how to two are mutually exclusive. Why did Walmart decide to go on strike? Because the marginal benefit to of that store was outweighed by the marginal cost. (I suspect that "bad precedent" was also a part of that value calculation)
That's generally why people decide to strike. Pretty basic economic axiom, I think.
I contend that "Homo Economus" doesn't exist. ... We are not ants in an ant-hill ... merely satisfying basic desires. I agree. We are humans on a human hill, merely satisfying complicated desires. (which include both economic and moral values)
|
| |
Written By:
Jon Henke
URL:
http://www.QandO.net
|
Seems to me that big business aka Walmart has forgotten the basic principles of world travel...when in Rome do as the Romans do..
Quebec's workforce is the most heavily Unionized in North America. It differs dramatically from the rest of its Canadian counterparts.
This battle is far from over, there remain many alternative endings.
Lets see which script the author of misfortune chooses. |
| |
Written By:
Mike Smith
URL:
http://wrdplyr.webspot.com
|
|
http://wrdplyr.blogspot.com |
| |
Written By:
Mike Smith
URL:
http://wrdplyr.blogspot.com
|
|
Perhaps Wal-Mart will exercise their freedom as the store owner and close that branch since there seem to be so many unhappy employees there! I'm sure they can take their highly marketable skills elsewhere for better job conditions. |
| |
Written By:
Maddie Dog
URL:
http://wheresyourbrain.blogspot.com/
|
|
While Walmart stands up for economic principles, McDonald's rolls over and plays dead. |
| |
Written By:
Jody
URL:
www.polyscifi.blogspot.com
|
Walmrt makes an obscene amount of money over the labor of it's employees, I seriously doubt that acouple of stores would lose money just because they will be unionised. Walmart just wants to make as much money as possible at the expense of it's employees.
I am a Union employee and do not or will not ever shop at Walmart. |
| |
Written By:
Warren
URL:
http://
|
Let's strip out the hyperbole from your statement, Warren:
Walmart makes [a great deal] of money. Walmart just wants to make as much money as possible. That's all you have left. The rest is invective.
Yes, WalMart does want to make a great deal of money. As much as possible. And before you object to that, please note that this is exactly the objective of the Unions.
Labor wants to exchange their resource for another resource. Business wants to exchange their resource for another resource. The real value of said resources depends entirely upon the supply and demand.
And, for the record, I wholeheartedly support your freedom to not shop at stores you find objectionable. That's the beauty of the free market. If there is sufficient demand, alternatives will be created. |
| |
Written By:
Jon Henke
URL:
http://www.QandO.net
|
yes, the freedom to choose based on price and quality.
If I care more about price then quality gets short shrift, and vice versa.
Consumers will make those choices bases on personal choices and expediencies.
If a consumer can't get the equation to work buying from location a then they will go to another location. Putting artificial barriers in place (unions, etc.) only drives consumers to find ways around those barriers. |
| |
Written By:
capt joe
URL:
http://
|
Capitalism is not immune to the underlying needs of humanity. Capitalism that is rife with greed often results in the improper flow of wealth around the world. This disrupted wealth flow can have dire consequences.
Sure, you can be a Walton and have all the money in the world, but history has shown that there is a point in many societies where brutal unfairness (such as 40 cent daily wages in sewing sweatshops), a general disrespect for the human condition, will reliably result in war.
Walmart are 10% of America's retail industry. Their supply requirements make them one of the leading sources of employment in developing Asian countries. Their tremendous scale implores them to manage and responsibly acknowledge the importance of the human condition of their business. If they fail to do so, they risk tipping the scales of global stability. |
| |
Written By:
Mr. Green
URL:
http://
|
Walmart should learn what Henry Ford knew - you have to pay your workers a living wage, enough even to buy your products.
Some fool on here asked why they are forming a union - because they have to make enough to eat on. Economics isn't just about the position of the business owner, labour is going to try and maximize its gains. And if they can't eat they are in pisspoor shape to work. I know - I've worked in enough NONunionized places to finally have such severe health problems from stress I ended up on a disability. And I was doing this to try and get a degree in economics so don't lecture me. I've studied the stuff. It is not real science - I switched majors after two years.
Management regularly wastes the talent of its labour pool by doing this dumbass ivory tower thing, removed from the daily fray of commerce at the ground level, as if they were playing with dolls or toys labelled labour, capital, etc etc. without considering human behaviour. You can't be a good general by never having been on the field and have no clue of the concerns of your soldiers. And you aren't much of a business man if you have no clue how to motivate your workers and suppliers beyond fear of starvation.
http://www.1worldcommunication.org/Walmart.htm Really, what this company does is not much above how Kim Jong -il treats his people.
Everyone in medium to large size business and on the boards of incorporated entities and in management should have to work on shit wages for at least a year before being allowed to own or run a thing. Then they would be fit and experienced enoug to have some clue how to manage their labour resources.
Noblesse oblige...
But I suppose increasing existing profit is more important than morals, not making huge numbers of enemies, and avoiding general insurrection.
*doh* |
| |
Written By:
cdm
URL:
http://
|
Walmart should learn what Henry Ford knew - you have to pay your workers a living wage, enough even to buy your products.
Some fool on here asked why they are forming a union - because they have to make enough to eat on. Economics isn't just about the position of the business owner, labour is going to try and maximize its gains. And if they can't eat they are in pisspoor shape to work. I know - I've worked in enough NONunionized places to finally have such severe health problems from stress I ended up on a disability. And I was doing this to try and get a degree in economics so don't lecture me. I've studied the stuff. It is not real science - I switched majors after two years.
Management regularly wastes the talent of its labour pool by doing this dumbass ivory tower thing, removed from the daily fray of commerce at the ground level, as if they were playing with dolls or toys labelled labour, capital, etc etc. without considering human behaviour. You can't be a good general by never having been on the field and have no clue of the concerns of your soldiers. And you aren't much of a business man if you have no clue how to motivate your workers and suppliers beyond fear of starvation.
http://www.1worldcommunication.org/Walmart.htm Really, what this company does is not much above how Kim Jong -il treats his people.
Everyone in medium to large size business and on the boards of incorporated entities and in management should have to work on shit wages for at least a year before being allowed to own or run a thing. Then they would be fit and experienced enoug to have some clue how to manage their labour resources.
Noblesse oblige...
But I suppose increasing existing profit is more important than morals, not making huge numbers of enemies, and avoiding general insurrection.
*doh* |
| |
Written By:
cdm
URL:
http://
|
And I was doing this to try and get a degree in economics so don't lecture me. I've studied the stuff. It is not real science - I switched majors after two years.
The rest of your comments suggest you should have stuck with it a bit longer.
|
| |
Written By:
Lance Jonn Romanoff
URL:
http://www.ljonn.com/
|
Capitalism is not immune to the underlying needs of humanity. Capitalism is a mirror of the underlying demands of humanity.
Capitalism that is rife with greed often results in the improper flow of wealth around the world. My, how very....marxist. Look, "improper" is a subjective statement. The only objectively "improper" money flow happens when money is stolen or defrauded. WalMart excercises market power, which is a whale of a different thing.
...there is a point in many societies where brutal unfairness (such as 40 cent daily wages in sewing sweatshops), a general disrespect for the human condition, will reliably result in war. You know what else results in wars? An absence of jobs, often arising as a result of lower-value jobs being destroyed by the good intentions of people like yourself.
You know what pays less than a job at Walmart? Doing nothing, which is the alternative these people have.
Walmart should learn what Henry Ford knew - you have to pay your workers a living wage, enough even to buy your products. Hell, you should learn what Henry Ford knew. Ford didn't pay his workers better than the competition so they could afford his products. He didn't pay his workers better than the competition because he was a hell of a guy. Henry Ford paid his workers better than the competition, because he worked them hard....and he wanted them to stay with him. Henry Ford wasn't purchasing just their daily labor. He was purchasing a stable pool of productive labor.
Economics isn't just about the position of the business owner, labour is going to try and maximize its gains. Of course. Oddly, though, you seem to recognize the economic POV of the laborers, and then drift away from economics when it comes to the employer. You seem to believe the labor pool has a right to make demands--not negotiations, demands--of the employer pool. Yet, you don't seem to believe that is a reciprocal relationship.
Management regularly wastes the talent of its labour pool by doing this dumbass ivory tower thing, removed from the daily fray of commerce at the ground level, as if they were playing with dolls or toys labelled labour, capital, etc etc. without considering human behaviour. You're right. That happens often. And when it does, somebody else is free to come along and exploit the weakness of that business model.
However, you really don't know--from day to day--what particular business model works best. You don't really know what the most efficient equilibrium point will be between supply and demand, or between the competing demands of the general public. You may think Walmart has a piss-poor model, but the market is saying otherwise.
You're free to compete with that, if you like. Many stores are doing so, and succeeding. (Target, for example)
This anti-economic nonsense comes up with every generation, and it's always refuted....just to be rehashed by the next generation. Look at the major world companies. Many/most of them were not here a generation ago, and many of them will not be here a generation hence. Walmart, for gods sake, put the stake in the heart of stores like A&P and Woolworth. Those stores, long ago, were accused of *precisely* the same thing of which you're accusing Walmart. Now, those are the stores whose disappearance you cry over, as WalMart takes over.
And yet, somehow, we're doing better than ever. |
| |
Written By:
Jon Henke
URL:
http://www.QandO.net
|
>Henry Ford paid his workers better than the competition, because he worked them hard....and he wanted them to stay with him. Henry Ford wasn't purchasing just their daily labor. He was purchasing a stable pool of productive labor.
Ultimately, Ford only paid his workers more than he wanted to because the UAW forced him to. Class warfare reared its beautiful head and all of the auto barons had to pay attention or risk losing the game because their own supply chain would be cut.
>And yet, somehow, we're doing better than ever.
WHO is doing better than ever? Certainly not the middle and lower classes.
|
| |
Written By:
brandon weber
URL:
http://www.exportingourjobs.com
|
Ultimately, Ford only paid his workers more than he wanted to because the UAW forced him to.
Ford was paying double the usual wage for his employees in the middle of the 1910s. UAW didn't sign a contract with the Ford Motor Company until the 1940s. Either you don't know what you're talking about or you assume no one reading this knows any 20th century history.
WHO is doing better than ever? Certainly not the middle and lower classes.
If you believe that you should become better acquainted with actual economic data. |
| |
Written By:
Lance Jonn Romanoff
URL:
http://www.ljonn.com/
|
WHO is doing better than ever? Certainly not the middle and lower classes. Yes, they are. Bear in mind, in the 40s-50s, the poverty rate was about twice as high as it is today, and many of the modern conveniences available even to the poor -- cable, advanced health care, reliable cars, computers, etc -- didn't even exist. The fruits of progress have rebounded primarily to the non-wealthy.
What you're pointing out is that, despite all that progress, we're even farther away from parity. Which, really, is beside the point. Parity is not intrinsically good.
all of the auto barons had to pay attention or risk losing the game because their own supply chain would be cut. Ah, so now you recognize supply and demand. Ford saw an opportunity -- the opportunity to create a new business model that would reduce his labor costs, and he exploited that by raising wages in order to retain the best of the labor pool.....which put upward pressure on other demanders of that labor pool.
If Ford's labor pool had not been worth that additional money, then his competitors could have exploited his inefficiency to undecut him. The problem is not that WalMart is insufficiently compassionate....the problem is that some members of the labor pool are insufficiently productive. |
| |
Written By:
Jon Henke
URL:
http://www.qando.net/Default.aspx?tabid=38
|
