[CS-FSLUG] PD: Re: Christians taking action...

[Timothy Butler]

> I know several WM employees and they are quite happy with their jobs.
	
	They may indeed be quite happy (though I think many seem not to be),  
but like I said, many of them would not meet the standards of most  
other companies. I guess you can look at it different ways: is Wal- 
Mart causing the employees to be demotivated or are the only types of  
people that will work at Wal-Mart those who only provide Wal-Mart  
quality work?

> Competition is what a free market place is all about.
>
> Democracy needs a free market place or it becomes dictatorship.

	Hardly true, unless you are prepared to say we don't have a  
democracy (well, actually, that would be a good thing to be prepared  
to say, since we don't have a democracy, we have a republic, but I  
digress). We do not have a free market place. We have patents,  
allowed monopolies, state provided services, etc. Like I said, the  
state provides Medicaid to cover the poorest folks in the state. If  
that didn't exist, many that can tolerate working at Wal-Mart  
probably would not, because they wouldn't get health coverage. We  
have created an externality where people are demotivated to demand  
better wages because the state provides for the need (even if it does  
so poorly). Hence, we must internalize the externality or admit -- at  
the least -- that we do not have a free market in operation.

	In other words. Let's say that most people "need" a wage of at least  
$7.00/hr plus benefits. If the state provided no health coverage and  
hospitals turned away those who had no coverage, people would not  
work for less than the combined total of $7.00/hr plus benefits  
(let's say that totals $10/hr.). Now, if the state provides benefits  
for people below the poverty line, then people will work for $3 or  
more under what they would work for in a free market. So, while a  
store that treats its employees very well and provides a complete  
compensation package might pay $10/hr., Wal-Mart can pay $7/hr. and  
get approximately the same quality of help. This is what we call an  
externality, because Wal-Mart is able to redirect the cost to tax  
payers, but do so in such as way that people do not realize they are  
essentially paying a "Wal-Mart tax."

	This in addition to the aforementioned destruction of competition  
(because of Wal-Mart's oligopolic market position), almost exclusive  
purchasing from the worst of countries concerning human rights (and  
often sweatshop investigations have been tied to Wal-Mart's brands),  
etc., etc. And people shop there, despite alternatives that offer  
better quality products in a nicer environment because they can save,  
what, fifty cents? Now, I don't know as far as human rights  
violations, but at least from a customer standpoint, Target is much  
more pleasant than Wal-Mart, IMO.

> Union breakers have to first have a union and so far no union.

	Call them what you will, Wal-Mart has pulled out all the stops to  
prevent unions whenever a union tries to form. This is well documented.

> Unions are socialistic in concept to begin with.  No offence, if that
> is what you want, but it didnt seem to work in the biggest such
> experiment so far.

	On the contrary, I'm a proponent of largely laissez-faire economics  
with a touch of pragmatism in the mix. The U.S. market is not free,  
so we ought not expect it to behave as if it was.

	-Tim


---
Timothy R. Butler | "Bad is so bad, that we cannot but think good
Editor, OfB.biz   | an accident;  good is so  good, that  we feel
tbutler at ofb.biz   | certain that evil could be explained."
timothybutler.us  |                           -- G. K. Chesterton