he's obviously lying to take down walmart!!11

8/17/2006 10:21:25 AM

8/17/2006 10:28:37 AM

It's time that we fought the left at their own game. Take a look at this:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000BWFSOA/102-0083802-0449764?v=glance&n=130

This movie demonstrates how wal-mart is great for out economy and great for employees. I'm sure you've heard about the socialist agenda-spewing counter film, now its time you got the rest of the story.

8/17/2006 10:34:49 AM

Quote :

"This film pulls together all of the arguments in favor of wal-mart. There is also a very interesting conclusion on the undeniable good work that the company did in summer 2005 in the Katrina-ravaged regions. However, none of the legitimate concerns of critics are given any thoughtful review. I say this as a concerned conservative, who wants to understand the enormous changes occuring in my country, and not a liberal. On the plus side, it is hard to argue against the business model of wal-mart: it offers everyday low prices, which the company accomplishes by incredible and continual productivity gains - by some measures wal-mart is responsible for 25% of the productivity gains in the US due to its use of new technologies! - as well as vast scale economies in particular with globalisation. Regardless of what critics say, these factors are the basis of the company's success: consumers chose to buy there because of the prices and convenience. However, this is the point when the film becomes disingenuous. Anything that critics say is summarily dismissed by either a single and simplistic example, by some self-appoined talking head, by employees who like their jobs, or simply by people passing by on the street. I found this pathetically unconvincing. For example, because wal-mart is criticised as a destructive force against traditional town centers, the filmmakers find one town that was able to renew itself as a tourist spot with boutiquie stores and then assumes that that can happen everywhere (but the site was in the Blue Mountains, not in the Oklahoma dustbowl). No statistics are offered, no additional proof, and no counter-arguments are acknowledged. Moreover, it is easy to find people to spout the opinion you want to espouse by looking for them - to be sure, wal-mart critics do the same, but there are some critics who act like journalists and try to see what truth there is in the arguments advanced. This film does not. At one point, the filmakers interview a group of teenagers who state wal-mart wages would "enough" for them (none of them work there), as if that refutes the experience of single mothers trying to make ends meet on wal-mart salaries! They also get a few people to state that they never get asked to work overtime wothout pay as if that eliminates the need to investigate the claims of thousands of others who are winning multi-million dollar class-action lawsuits against that practice in their wal-marts. Finally, some of the talking heads make the most ridiculous arguments. One of them dismissed all the arguments of critics who charge that wal-mart urges its workers to use the welfare system as "those who advocate government health care anyway" - as if that negates their arguments! By glossing over the details, they don't even make the case in favor of the wal-mart business model all that well, let alone consider how the intallation of a wal-mart impacts entire communities. As such, this film is for the convinced, for those who want to have their opinions reinforced rather than challenged. That makes it like Fox news at its worst: you know what you are going to get before you switch it on - pure opinion and little reporting - so why bother? It isn't for learning. The costs behind wal-mart's methods are not even open to question. The one thing I took away from this is the sincerity of some of the employees, who genuinely believed in the company. Overall, I cannot recommend this film, except as a pure ideological view in favor of this controversial company. This doesn't do anyone any good - there is no chance for dialogue in this approach, no acknowledgment that critics can make legitimate points. Whether powerful companies like it or not, they do not automatically deserve our trust, but instead our critical and constant scrutiny."

it looks like its getting some great reviews!

8/17/2006 10:44:20 AM

typical liberal, ignoring the important parts. aww...

Quote :

"On the plus side, it is hard to argue against the business model of wal-mart: it offers everyday low prices, which the company accomplishes by incredible and continual productivity gains - by some measures wal-mart is responsible for 25% of the productivity gains in the US due to its use of new technologies! - as well as vast scale economies in particular with globalisation. Regardless of what critics say, these factors are the basis of the company's success: consumers chose to buy there because of the prices and convenience. "

I like that dig at Fox News, too.

[Edited on August 17, 2006 at 10:50 AM. Reason : .]

8/17/2006 10:49:28 AM

hey, i quoted it didnt i? i didnt leave that part out. i honestly don't know enough about the impact of walmart to say if its good or not good for the country...and im not going to pretend like i do. im merely pointing out that you may not want to back a movie that sounds like pure crap.

you seem to be against the "agenda-spewing counter film", yet you seem to be in favor of this one, which if you read the reviews, thats all this is as well.

if you can find an unbiased, factual based account of the issue, then i would be all for listening to it....but thats not what this sounds like.

[Edited on August 17, 2006 at 10:56 AM. Reason : df]

8/17/2006 10:52:06 AM

movie critics' words are absolute law

8/17/2006 10:55:06 AM

The money you "save" by shopping at Wal-Mart gets eaten up by the taxes you pay in order to provide welfare to their workers.

Quote :

"A new study claims that Wal-Mart raises poverty rates in the counties where its stores are located. A study published in the latest issue of Social Science Quarterly is the first to examine the effect of Wal-Mart stores on poverty rates. The study found that nationwide an estimated 20,000 families have fallen below the official poverty line as a result of the chain’s expansion. During the last decade, dependence on the food stamp program nationwide increased by 8 percent, while in counties with Wal-Mart stores the increase was almost twice as large at 15.3 percent. "After controlling for other factors determining changes in the poverty rate over time, we find that both counties with more initial Wal-Mart stores and with more additions of stores between 1987 and 1998 experienced greater increases (or smaller decreases) in family poverty rates during the 1990’s economic boom period," Stephan Goetz a Professor of Agricultural and Regional Economics at The Pennsylvania State University states. Although Wal-Mart employs many people living in its communities, for most, the hours worked and the wages paid do not help these families transition out of poverty. Another effect is that the closing of "mom and pop" stores following the appearance of a store leads to the closing of local businesses that previously supplied those stores including: wholesalers, transporters, logistics providers, accountants, lawyers and others. The authors state that "by displacing the local class of entrepreneurs, the Wal-Mart chain also destroys local leadership capacity." They encourage community leaders to think about programs and policies in anticipation of helping those displaced by the arrival of the chain. "

8/17/2006 11:21:29 AM

Quote :

"The money you "save" by shopping at Wal-Mart gets eaten up by the taxes you pay in order to provide welfare to their workers."

Dumbest statement today (I havn't read but two threads so far).
Yo, idiot, people on welfare are not allowed to have jobs, and vice versa.

I can only assume you meant to talk about medicaid and the EITC.

Of course, no one at Wal-Mart is actually earning the minimum wage, so raising it won't have any impact what-so-ever. But assuming that the minimum wage was raised to $8 an hour:

Wal-Mart paying an extra $40 a week or so is not going to get these people off medicaid. What it will do is render the poorest of the poor unemployable, landing them on unemployment benefits and ultimately actual welfare, all while they are still picking up medicaid. Not to mention the long term health and psychological effects of long term unemployment.

[Edited on August 17, 2006 at 11:45 AM. Reason : .,.]

8/17/2006 11:40:27 AM

^ gg. I'm glad some people on here actually understand elementary economics.

8/17/2006 11:43:42 AM

An estra $40 isn't going to make them unemployable, thats boogyman talk

8/17/2006 11:45:36 AM

* 200 employees it will.

think. before. you. post.

They'll hire less of them to do the work to offset the cost.

[Edited on August 17, 2006 at 11:46 AM. Reason : .]

8/17/2006 11:46:31 AM

If they can do without those 200 employees they already wouldn't have them

[Edited on August 17, 2006 at 11:49 AM. Reason : and only those employees under the new minumum would be effected, not all 200]

8/17/2006 11:48:31 AM

it's not that they can't do without them, but at the rate, they can afford more of them to ease the work load. I'm sure walmart could trim down on employees at any of their stores. A price increase for labor would be an incentive to do so.

people use this same logic in every day life. Substitute price of labor for price of food. You love taco bell tacos. And at 69c a piece, you can afford 3. But if the price rose to $1 a piece... you may only get 2 because the third is just icing on the cake anyway... so you eliminate that 3rd taco because you don't technically need it but it is nice to have. An increase in the price of tacos is your incentive to cut back.

[Edited on August 17, 2006 at 11:51 AM. Reason : .]

8/17/2006 11:49:59 AM

I'm not in the practice of employing "icing on the cake" tacos

8/17/2006 11:55:38 AM

Yes it will for two main reasons:
#1, as employers are forced to pay more they exert more effort to economise on labor, some jobs are eliminated and hours are reduced
#2, workers discouraged by the previous low wages re-enter the workforce. An example might include homemakers, the retired, or high-school students which are unwilling to work 20 hours a week for a measily $103, but would be willing to work now that the pay was $143

Employers are eager to get the best employees for the lowest costs, white english speakers refuse to work for less than $140 a week because they are supported by family/retirement/savings and only want the extra money to buy a new stereo, but black ebonics speakers were willing to work for $100 a week because otherwise they couldn't pay the rent. So with no minimum wage the blacks were hired at $100 a week and they paid their rent and the whites avoided the hassle of working. Now, thanks to the law, all workers cost $140 a week, so instead of suffering the hassle of learning ebonics, managers can go ahead and hire white english speakers.

Net effect, the ebonics speakers become homeless and the english speakers which didn't really need the job get a new stereo.

Is it right to redistribute from the worse-off poor to the better-off poor?

8/17/2006 12:01:18 PM

So they will learn to speak well and get their job back

win-win

[Edited on August 17, 2006 at 12:04 PM. Reason : my scenario is just as plausible as yours]

8/17/2006 12:04:16 PM

No it is not, not one bit, the only way they can get their job back is to make the English speakers quit. There are 2 people vying for 1 job, someone is going to be unemployed, even if the only difference is a thick accent. The social optimal is to fire the English speaker, but there is no mechanism left to do so. Without the minimum wage, the desperate Ebonics speaker would bid the wage down until either a second job was created (not likely since you say "If they can do with those extra employees they already would have them") or the less desperate individual refused the lower wage, in this case any wage below $140, restoring equilibrium (1 job = 1 worker).

[Edited on August 17, 2006 at 12:12 PM. Reason : .,.]

8/17/2006 12:11:20 PM

severe pwnt.

8/17/2006 12:18:49 PM

what is left to argue about really?

8/17/2006 12:22:45 PM

eventually the high school kids will want a raise, then they make their move

but none of this will happen actually, because we aren't talking enough money to change anything for wal-mart. a minimum wage increase is only a problem for small businesses

8/17/2006 12:23:10 PM

what you don't understand is that no adult is being paid the minimum wage. They're being paid above the minimum wage. And like loneshark says, if you raise the minimum wage, you force the ebonics folks to compete with the english speaking leisure job kid. And for an unskilled, uneducated position, you're going to hurt those that you think you're going to help by raising the price floor.

8/17/2006 12:28:02 PM

there should not be a minimum wage in the first place. if an employer wants to pay someone $1 an hour for a job, and that person will accept it, because its better than nothing, then why should he be prevented from doing so? not allowing that is anti-capitalist.

8/17/2006 12:36:48 PM

I think the answer to that can be found in a history book

I think there should be some standards, but agree with the above posts on the other points

[Edited on August 17, 2006 at 12:38 PM. Reason : .]

8/17/2006 12:37:43 PM

Quote :

"if an employer wants to pay someone $1 an hour for a job, and that person will accept it, because its better than nothing"

You would be VERY hard pressed to find someone that would accept that. Panhandling on the street pays more than $1 an hour.

But you must remember how prices are determined. Just because a worker is so desperate they would accept $1 an hour does not mean they will only earn $1 an hour. It is a two way street; that's why we call it Supply AND Demand. If wages are low then employers will find ways to use more labor, bidding wages up as soon as everyone has a job.

8/17/2006 1:31:28 PM

Quote :

"Dumbest statement today (I havn't read but two threads so far). Yo, idiot, people on welfare are not allowed to have jobs, and vice versa. I can only assume you meant to talk about medicaid and the EITC. Of course, no one at Wal-Mart is actually earning the minimum wage, so raising it won't have any impact what-so-ever. But assuming that the minimum wage was raised to $8 an hour: Wal-Mart paying an extra $40 a week or so is not going to get these people off medicaid. What it will do is render the poorest of the poor unemployable, landing them on unemployment benefits and ultimately actual welfare, all while they are still picking up medicaid. Not to mention the long term health and psychological effects of long term unemployment."

Did you read the study I quoted? That Walmart is bad for local economies? BTW, are abonorio's lips soft and supple when wrapped around your cock?

8/17/2006 1:38:27 PM

Wal-Mart? Bad for local economies? Obviously your study did not stick around long enough.

You see, Wal-Mart is like a new productivity boosting technology, it lets people get their goods and services while utilizing less labor. This makes the local economy permanently more productive, but that isn't the whole story. As with the 2001 recession, boosting productivity (output per hour worked) at a fixed output means fewer hours were worked, which means jobs were lost. But this is a good thing because after the economy adjusts to employ these workers elsewhere total output will have increased, which means on average the local community is better off. But this adjustment takes time, particularly in rural areas.

During this time a statistical study will see the job losses but not the boost in living standards which only came half a year later.

8/17/2006 1:49:16 PM

^ Can you quote some sources for your claims? The study I quoted covered 10 years.

[Edited on August 17, 2006 at 1:58 PM. Reason : .]

8/17/2006 1:57:09 PM

Quote :

"During the last decade, dependence on the food stamp program nationwide increased by 8 percent, while in counties with Wal-Mart stores the increase was almost twice as large at 15.3 percent."

Easy, a problem of self sellection. Wal-Mart is not a high class retailer. Therefore, counties already suffering from poverty are more likely to get a Wal-Mart store.

The de-industrialization of America continues even today. As industrial productivity growth continues jobs are lost as factories are closed. These factories are usually located in rural counties and when they close the local economy gets eroded away and poverty in these counties increases. At the same time, the technological economy continues to boom, starting new businesses and employing ever more workers. Because of the type of work, however, these new jobs are being created in urban counties. Therefore, being a rural county means poverty should rise, and being in an urban county means poverty should fall. This is the market's way of encouraging people to abandon their rural lifestyle and move to the nearest large city, it has nothing to do with the retail market.

Wal-Marts are usually built in rural counties, therefore we have a self-selection problem. Wal-Mart is correlated with poverty not because it causes poverty but because it chooses to locate in areas prone to poverty.

[Edited on August 17, 2006 at 2:28 PM. Reason : .,.]

8/17/2006 2:26:54 PM

Loneshark is the only sane right winger here. He actually uses facts and stuff....crazy.

8/17/2006 2:34:28 PM

Quote :

""After controlling for other factors determining changes in the poverty rate over time, we find that both counties with more initial Wal-Mart stores and with more additions of stores between 1987 and 1998 experienced greater increases (or smaller decreases) in family poverty rates during the 1990’s economic boom period," Stephan Goetz a Professor of Agricultural and Regional Economics at The Pennsylvania State University states. Although Wal-Mart employs many people living in its communities, for most, the hours worked and the wages paid do not help these families transition out of poverty."

8/17/2006 2:40:39 PM

Quote :

"After controlling for other factors determining changes in the poverty rate over time"

And I'm saying they probably did a poor job.

Look, could you lay out a plausible mechanism by which Wal-Mart harms society? Destroying jobs is the purpose of capitalism, it makes all of us better off, so if wal-mart is "death to communities" it isn't because it is destroying jobs. Now, the article you quoted mentions that is displaces entrepreneurs, which it does. But entrepreneurs are just like workers, they should adjust to serve alternate activities. If my small town grocery store goes under, set up a car lot, or maybe a lazer-tag arena. The money people save at Wal-Mart does not vanish, the people will want to spend it somewhere, maybe they will eat out more... start a new restaurant.

Now, these people may decide to spend the money they saved at Wal-Mart (instead of a 20" TV they bought at 30" TV). This is perhaps the only route by which Wal-Mart can harm a local economy, but it is still making everyone better off. That larger TV is creating jobs elsewhere, so these displaced workers and entrepreneurs should pull up stake and move to the nearest large city to fill those new jobs.

Therefore, even if this last effect is large enough to matter (I'm not convinced) it doesn't follow that anything should be done to stop it. Should the individuals of the town be sacrificed to save the town itself?

Without wal-mart: the town's people buy 20" TVs (their current standard of living), town population remains static.
With Wal-Mart: the town's people get more for their money, buying 30" TVs (a higher standard of living), some people of the town leave to take jobs elsewhere (at a higher standard of living), and the local economy (at least on paper) appears to suffer while the individuals prosper (just in another county).

Of course, there is also another effect of Wal-Mart: it makes it cheaper for people to buy stuff from elsewhere (China, midwest, etc), which pulls cash out of the local economy, with less cash chasing more goods locallized deflation results (the cost of living falls). As the cost of living falls, wages fall, and people look poorer, although their smaller paychecks are buying the same goods and services as before.

[Edited on August 17, 2006 at 3:13 PM. Reason : .,.]

8/17/2006 3:09:50 PM

Quote :

"abonorio: And you don't have to sign it."

Quote :

"abonorio: so you eliminate that 3rd taco because you don't technically need it but it is nice to have."

---

Quote :

"TGD: I love anecdotal evidence"

Is that like what gets cited when I ask about the good stuff going on in Iraq? Or about the liberal media? Or about the misguided activities of "some leftist?"

[Edited on August 17, 2006 at 3:36 PM. Reason : ...]

8/17/2006 3:33:07 PM

It's a great thing the ends of stock value and productivity justifies any means.

And that there's no such thing as exploitation.

I'm sorry for ever doubting you, Walmart

8/17/2006 7:16:26 PM

^ Now you get it. Making the majority suffer for the comfort of a few is irrational.

Mankind is better off accepting the productivity gains, taxing a portion of the proceeds, and paying the dislocated to stay home and do nothing.

Imagine how much better it is, then, if instead of sitting home and doing nothing they go get another job, society wins two fold: productivity gains and a new good/service is being provided.

8/17/2006 9:03:20 PM

Quote :

"As the cost of living falls, wages fall, and people look poorer, although their smaller paychecks are buying the same goods and services as before."

If that were true, then the doubling of food stamp dependence would not have doubled in areas that had Wal-mart stores.

8/18/2006 12:51:25 AM

Quote :

"Making the majority suffer for the comfort of a few is irrational."

uhm.

define suffer.

it is a relative term after all. compared to the few atop the pyramid that is our current distribution of wealth, practically all of us are SUFFERING by an order of magnitude that most of us can't even fathom. you'd realize they were suddenly thrown into a reality tv show and made to live like the other half...

[Edited on August 18, 2006 at 1:18 AM. Reason : .]

8/18/2006 1:16:48 AM

Business influencing politicians is NOT new.

Business pressuring employees on how to vote IS new.

Its new becuase nobody has dared to even try it until now. We live in the thing called a democracy where you get to vote without being pressured by your employer

8/18/2006 2:56:03 AM

Quote :

"it is a relative term after all. compared to the few atop the pyramid that is our current distribution of wealth, practically all of us are SUFFERING by an order of magnitude that most of us can't even fathom. you'd realize they were suddenly thrown into a reality tv show and made to live like the other half..."

You're usually on base, but not this time. The top of our pyramid generally lives very modest lives. The CEOs of major corporations don't represent your average millionaire. For an idea of how they live, check out "The Millionaire Next Door." Your average millionaire drives a car that's 3-5 years old and is made by Ford or GM. Your average millionaire doesn't live in a million-dollar home. They don't eat caviar all day or sip $400 champagne on the weekends. They live a lot like the middle class. sure, its worlds apart from the lowest income earners on the planet, but here's a news flash most people don't know. The majority of people in the bottom income bracket will also spend some point in time in the highest income bracket in their lifetime too. Its because its generally a life-cycle as to why you're poor. Me, right now I qualify for food stamps, but I don't use them. I'm starting a business and because of that, I appear to be utterly impoverished. For statistics purposes, I live WELL BELOW the poverty line. But I'm not poor, its just the cycle of my life right now.

Also, businesses pressuring employees who to vote for may be new, but unions have been doing that for decades. And besides, were they actually pressuring them, or were they simply issuing a voter's guide?

8/18/2006 8:05:43 AM

unions have been doing this since unionized labor was born. But you never hear the liberals complain about that. Because the pressuring usually goes in the direction of voting for liberals.

8/18/2006 8:17:38 AM

Quote :

"If that were true, then the doubling of food stamp dependence would not have doubled in areas that had Wal-mart stores."

Re-read what I wrote:
"As the cost of living falls, wages fall, and people look poorer, although their smaller paychecks are buying the same goods and services as before."
After localized deflation occurs everyone's salaries are literally lower, it is just that each dollar buys more. But federal agencies do not adjust for local costs of living, so you are eligible for food stamps and other assistance once you are poorer than X, regardless of whether you live in New York City where bus drivers earn $50,000 or rural alabama where a similar bus driver gets paid $20,000 and with five kids is eligible for food stamp assistance. Only an idiot refuses free money.

But like I said I don't believe this effect is the main cause of the effect seen in your article. Self Sellection is likely the largest uncontrolled bias in the study.

8/18/2006 8:33:22 AM

Quote :

"bgmims: The top of our pyramid generally lives very modest lives."

Modest compared with what? The circumstances of the average reader of The Millionaire Next Door (which I've read btw)? Or the circumstances of the average American citizen?

I'm not questioning the facts in the book, just what bearing they have on the conclusion that compared to the few atop the pyramid in our current distribution of wealth, practically all of us are suffering by an order of magnitude that most of us can't even fathom, and that it'd be far more commonly understood if anyone from the top 10% were suddenly thrown into a reality tv show and made to live like the proverbial "other half."

The facts you reference, IIRC, were more illustrative of how one becomes wealthy, usually by avoiding debt, than they were of representing the average lifestyle of those who share the top 10% of the nation's wealth. Broken down, the distribution of our total net worth looks like this:



Translating that into useful, but not perfectly illustrative figures:

~3 million people share ~$13,861,268,400,000 of the wealth, about $4,620,423 per person--not household.

~12 million people share ~$10,597,300,000,000 of the wealth, about $883,108 per person--not household

~15 million people share ~$5,129,093,200,000 of the wealth, about $341,940 per person--not household

~120 million people share ~$4,645,856,320,000 of the wealth, about $38,715 per person--not household

~150 million people share ~$1,186,897,600,000 of the wealth, about $7,913 per person--not household

We can see here that 69.8% of wealth in America is shared between 30 million individuals--a large number of people, but only about a quarter the size of only the next 40% of individuals in the U.S. Half the country hasn't even been included, yet. The other 30.2% of wealth is split not between them, but between more than twice the number of them.

These figures represent net worth, including primary residences. Fully 270 million people, or 90% of us, are worth less than $40,000, with our houses included. Keep that in mind as we move along...

Quote :

"bgmims: The CEOs of major corporations don't represent your average millionaire."

Nor do they have to.

Conservatively, are 8.2 million millionaires in this country, representing about 2.7% of the population. Given that 90% of us are worth less than $40,000, or 0.4% of that, it's still fair and logical to say that compared with your average millionaire, practically all of us are SUFFERING still, by an order of magnitude that most of us, the vast majority of the public, can fathom.

According to financial net worth, capital income earned, non-home equity wealth, consumer debt, health, education, measures of general sense of well-being, life span, and practically every other measure you can think of that affects a person's sense of his standard of living relative to others, 90% of us suffer compared with the 10% who share 71% of the wealth, and a greater percentage of us suffer compared with those worth $1 million or more.

The rest, I'll just interject into your post for illustration...

Quote :

"For an idea of how they live, check out "The Millionaire Next Door." Your average millionaire (who represents the average individual among the top 2.7% of the population according to total net worth) drives a car that's 3-5 years old and is made by Ford or GM. Your average millionaire doesn't live in a million-dollar home. They don't eat caviar all day or sip $400 champagne on the weekends. (Average millionaires don't control the vast majority of the wealth.) They live a lot like the middle class. sure, its worlds apart from the lowest income earners on the planet (and within our own country, as illustrated by the fact that each has 111 times the wealth as the bottom 50% of the population.)..."

This is where the disagreements become serious...

Quote :

"bgmims: but here's a news flash most people don't know. The majority of people in the bottom income bracket will also spend some point in time in the highest income bracket in their lifetime too."

Now this is just silly, and slightly misleading.

Silly
What motivates you to believe that the majority of people in the bottom income bracket will someday spend even one minute in the highest income bracket?

Misleading
Income isn't the same thing as wealth, though they are related. Even so, I find it hard--if not damn near impossible--to believe that the bottom, say...quarter of the 80% of people who earned 41.4% of all income in 2000, will ever be among the future 1% that earned more 20% of all income in the same year. The increased consolidation of income within the top 1% since 1994, due largely to capital income increases, suggests otherwise.

Quote :

"bgmims: Its because its generally a life-cycle as to why you're poor."

What, aside from your own personal experience (a sample of 1), makes you think that?

Quote :

"bgmims: I'm starting a business and because of that, I appear to be utterly impoverished. For statistics purposes, I live WELL BELOW the poverty line. But I'm not poor, its just the cycle of my life right now."

And what percentage of the poor do you think yourself and others whose poverty is "life-cycle-induced" make up?

Quote :

"bgmims: Also, businesses pressuring employees who to vote for may be new, but unions have been doing that for decades."

I fully agree that bitching over businesses "pressuring" or trying to pressure employees to vote a certain way is misguided. One reason you've given. Another is that corporations already influence employees to vote certain ways by virtue of the industries in which they operate, and have forever. It's never a certainty how anyone will vote, though, and the records are private anyway. What's to stop employees from telling their bosses they'll vote for a Republican and then not doing so?

Quote :

"bgmims: And besides, were they actually pressuring them, or were they simply issuing a voter's guide?"

I'd imagine it's probably just a voter's guide, which very few employees will read, and which will end up influencing very few of their votes. Honestly, I think it represents a more calculated move in a larger PR war between them and some populism-obsessed Democrats.

Sources

http://www.faireconomy.org/research/wealth_charts.html

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

http://www.ml.com/index.asp?id=7695_7696_8149_63464_67074_67212

http://www.ml.com/media/67216.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty#Causes_of_poverty

[Edited on August 18, 2006 at 4:48 PM. Reason : .]

8/18/2006 4:43:24 PM

Being poor compared to the rest of your country is nothing compared to being literally poor. Our top 1% may or may not work hard, but they are effective. After Norway, a special case, America's middle income earners are only bested by Norway, a special case of oil wealth.

8/18/2006 5:37:36 PM

Quote :

"Our top 1% may or may not work hard, but they are effective."

Effective at what?

Concentrating wealth? No arguments here.

Concentrating income? No kidding. The top 1% earned more than 20% of the money earned in 2000.

---

I was looking at that Merill Lynch report today and it's pretty fucking staggering. According to it, 0.001% of people in the world have at least 7% of the world's wealth.

That's using the data's most conservative assumptions; ultra-HNWI's, for example, who number slightly more than 85,000 people on Earth, are only worth $30 million.

Bill Gates, the ultra-HNWI, is actually worth about 1357 times that much. Jim Goodnight, 112th richest in the world, is only worth 100 times that. Accounting for the actual net worths of those two, and including the other 7 American billionaires among the top 20 in the world, the same percentage of the people just gained over 1% of the entire world's wealth.

From 9 people.

Adding the net worths of all the billionaires in the world into the total, the ultra-HNWI have at least 15.53% of the world's wealth.

[Edited on August 18, 2006 at 7:00 PM. Reason : shit]

8/18/2006 6:43:37 PM

Quote :

"Bill Gates, the ultra-HNWI, is actually worth about 1357 times that much. Jim Goodnight, 112th richest in the world, is only worth 100 times that. Accounting for the actual net worths of those two, and including the other 7 American billionaires among the top 20 in the world, the same percentage of the people just gained over 1% of the entire world's wealth. From 9 people. Adding the net worths of all the billionaires in the world into the total, the ultra-HNWI have at least 15.53% of the world's wealth. "

Question (and a serious one at that) how much of private charitable donations comes from the wealthiest people in the world and how much of private investments come from the same?

In other words, we know they have the wealth on paper, but what are they doing with it? Surely it's not sitting in a matress somewhere.

8/18/2006 7:54:08 PM

^^ So? What is your point? So the rich own everything, so what? You would first need to demonstrate that we are poor because they are rich. However, the evidence shows the exact opposite; thanks to economic liberty most of us are better off. Yes, economic liberty empowers some to become ridiculously wealthy, but it is a small price to pay for economic and technological advancement.

Check that table I posted. The top 10% of the United States earn 69% more than the wealthy of France, I suspect this is because America's mixed economy is tilted slightly more towards competition (more bankruptcies, more successes). Our reward for this dynamic economy is America's middle-class enjoys a 29% higher per-capita income, and that ignores America's higher average family size. Yes, this constant economic flux (lost jobs, fierce wage competition) reduces the per-capita income of America's poorest 10% by 12% compared to their peers in France (again, ignores America's higher average family size and higher percentage of recent immigrants).

I know it is callous to proclaim "the greatest good for the greatest many" but this result was not imposed on anyone, one the contrary, it was arrived at by having greater respect for human rights. And it isn't done, America's economy is growing twice as fast as most of Western Europe. In a decade or so the pie will be substantially larger, I find it hard to believe none of that new wealth will accrue to the poorest. So, not only has America managed to make 90% of the population wealthier than peer countries, it did so on the moral grounds of human rights and economic liberty.

[Edited on August 19, 2006 at 9:51 AM. Reason : .,.]

8/19/2006 9:50:30 AM

Raising the minimum wage causes unemployment. At least, that's what LoneSnark has been trying to explain to me since forever. I don't buy it. We raised the minimum wage during the Clinton years and saw a drop in unemployment. What am I missing?

[Edited on August 19, 2006 at 11:37 AM. Reason : OFF TOPIC SORRY]

8/19/2006 11:35:04 AM

Easy, two points: #1, the economic boom was driving down unemployment, it easily swamped the ill effect from the higher minimum wage; in other words it would have been even lower without a higher minimum wage. #2, to be counted as unemployed you need to be polled and honestly say you are seeking employment but cannot find any. The people most likely to be hurt by the minimum wage are are the poorest of the poor, which don't have phones to answer surveys.

8/19/2006 12:15:34 PM

Quote :

"1337 b4k4: Question (and a serious one at that) how much of private charitable donations comes from the wealthiest people in the world and how much of private investments come from the same?"

Oh, undoubtedly just about all of it. Read the Merill Lynch report on these folks. The UHNWI's account for practically all charitable/nonprofit donations, and their children tend to run the charities and nonprofits. It's not surprising though. Just one of them can blink a fortune out of a checkbook about 7 times greater that I would've made in a 20 year career as a financial advisor.

Private investment definitely comes largely from them, even after the rise of the middle investor at the end of the 20th century.

Quote :

"LoneSnark: Making the majority suffer for the comfort of a few is irrational."

Quote :

"Gamecat: uhm. define suffer. it is a relative term after all. compared to the few atop the pyramid that is our current distribution of wealth, practically all of us are SUFFERING by an order of magnitude that most of us can't even fathom. you'd realize [that if] they were suddenly thrown into a reality tv show and made to live like the other half..."

Oh, and no real point besides that. I hadn't gone out and looked for the data to see how concentrated the wealth in the world had become in a while, so I tangentially did so. I posted it b/c I figured others might wanna see it. I'll move it to a different thread if you'd like, since it's not really relevant.

Primarily, I wanted to establish that suffer and comfort are pretty important terms to define here. The "few" living in comfort are definitely living in far more than what most of us imagine to be "comfort." And the "suffering" the majority is doing relative to them, factored by the many measures of standard of living, is rather enormous.

Most of us aren't living in anything we'd consider suffering. Not on TWW, anyway. At least I don't get that impression. Comparitively though, if you looked at the data, you'd see that it's a matter of many more degrees than most of us actually realize. And that a LOT more people have a LOT less than most really think.

[Edited on August 19, 2006 at 1:04 PM. Reason : ...]

8/19/2006 12:51:11 PM

Bridget, whether or not raising the minimum wage causes unemployment aside...

You know its simply false to say that because you raised it in the Clinton years and unemployment drops means it doesn't.

You can't look and say Y happened after X, therefore X caused Y because the economy is not a simply system. There are hundreds of other variables (nay, thousands) that affect the unemployment rate other than wage costs. Thinking of it in simple minded terms like that is like saying that dumping water in a bucket won't overflow it because you dumped water in a bucket and the water level went down, without bothering to notice the gaping hole in the bottom.

8/19/2006 2:50:08 PM