That is a poor analogy, to criticize a voluntary transaction between two people or companies that happen to be headquartered in different nations. Slavery is entirely unrelated to that.
Who gets to decide what wages are fair and reasonable? How about we leave that to the people who are actually parties to the transaction? A wage that’s an insult to you might be a life-changing boon to someone else. You don’t get to decide that for him, and keep him out of a job or toiling in a rice paddy so that you can feel good about yourself.
What is “our fault as Americans”? The fact that Chinese people have jobs? The fact that we allow voluntary exchanges of goods and services?
Right, and have you ever wondered why the US had such a large supply of people willing to earn $18,000 a year?
In an ecological sense, the US provided a environment that was perfect for a walmart-style operation to thrive in and grow. Walmart didn’t invent the concept, and dozens of other countries and dozens of other walmart-like stores. Growing up in Canada we had Canadian tire, Zellers, Kmart, Byway, just to name a few.
I put your quotes together because I’m not sure how to do it seperately.
I don’t think you fully understand what I’m saying. I’m not directly criticizing Walmart for the failures of Walmart. Although, some of their practices are morally ambigous, it is ultimately the responsibility of the people.
But your trying to say that a paycheck cannot be demeaning? What about someone making 1 or 2 dollars an hour working 12-16 hours a day? They break their back and their children starve. They’re virtually powerless. And your trying to say that an honest principle is that a paycheck cannot be demeaning?
It’s not a poor analogy either. Sure they’re not technically slaves, in the sense that they are owned and work without pay, but it’s not that far off the mark. When the corporation controls all of their resources, including things like water and food, you call that a voluntary contract? Sounds more like coercion to me.
Who gets to decide the wages? That’s a good question. Most economists can figure out what an actual “fair pay” would be. I’ve seen it quoted that you need to make at least $11-12 an hour to survive in this country, unless of course you do nothing but work.
But, at the same time, you have a point. A business should be free to make choices on their own. Interfering with their decisions is not right either.
So here’s the solution. We, the people, focus on our priorities. Food, Shelter, Environmental Protection, Healthcare, Justice, Military, and a myriad of other social development programs that serve as a foundation for our country.
If that was being taken care of, we would not even be having this discussion. Walmart would be more free then than they are now.
The idea that anyone who can’t get a six-figure job as a social marketing consultant should just go on government assistance instead of working like a sucker does run through a good number of left-wing attitudes.
I understand this. Your criticisms are systemic, not particular to any one retailer.
That is correct. I have to demean as meaning “to lower in dignity, honor, or standing; debase.”
Working for a wage you freely accept at legal, honest toil is not and cannot be demeaning. It is a source of dignity, not the lack of it. Thinking that it is is a symptom of viewing the poor as powerless victims, which does no one any favors, and has been incredibly harmful to the poor in the United States.
You’re brushing off what slavery actually means as a technicality. Your hyperbole is telling.
What corporation controls all resources, again? Any corporation I’m familiar with does not have the power to force laborers to do anything. You’re describing state powers, not commerce.
No, they can’t, because what’s fair and what’s acceptable is a purely individual decision.
I know people who survive on less than that, so whomever quoted that is mistaken.
I don’t know what specific proposals you have in mind, but focusing on measures that will create what you want, rather than demonizing others for not creating it, is a better direction.
Lets see. Making only a few dollars an hour. Working long, brutal shifts. Watching their children starve to death , which is quite common around the world. Being ravaged by disease with no support from the government, let alone the corporation. No access to education to empower themselves.
Tell me, in what ways are they benefitting from this situation?
Agreed. Once you decide that the poor are powerless victims, then expecting them to work at low wages becomes wrong, like asking them to collaborate in a system that oppresses them.
Nevermind that working hard at honest toil while making responsible choices is precisely how people have escaped poverty and made better lives for their children, throughout our nation’s history.
I’m mentioned it before, but Juan Williams’s formula for avoiding poverty comes to mind.
I think the fact that Wal-Mart has reason to believe that a measly $60 a month extra in payroll taxes is keeping customers out of their stores speaks volumes. Why are so many Americans facing such precarious financial circumstances, such that an extra $60 is a problem for them? Why do so many business models seem to require tax breaks and government assistance to be viable? Why has labor not been sharing in the gains to productivity?
I think lower incomes and higher debt are definitely driving our economic stagnation, not just in corporate earnings but in the overall business environment. So much investor attention is devoted to tech, but most of the new products and web-based services seem like marginal innovations to me.
It helps to think of the market for goods and services as a kind of election, with our money acting as the votes. Buying a good or service is a signal to the producer that they’re providing something of value. If we lack disposable income, the universe of goods and services we can “vote” for becomes very small. All manner of worthy products can fall by the wayside because consumers lack the means to provide that signal.
Or to put it another way, imagine if everyone here was limited to 10 posts total on the messageboard per month. There would be all kinds of threads that you’d love to obstinately run your mouth in, or derail with some errant nonsense. but you’d have to forgo that in favor of posting only in the threads where you really, really feel your wit and erudition would best be employed. But how would you divide them up? Post whenever inspiration strikes? Use them in the first week? Hoard them until the end of the month? The messageboard would be dead most of the time. Now imagine if Ed Zotti was permitted 25,000 posts per month. Would his generous allotment of posts allow him to carry the messageboard all by himself?
A few dollars an hour is a good wage in China. Those people left farms to better themselves. Farms where people did watch the children starve. Farms, where education is expensive and hard to come by. Farms, where there is no such thing as a “shift”-- the work never ends.
And you know what the reaction was when FOXXCOM recently tired to cut back on shift hours? The employees protested, because they make more money on longer shifts.
And you know what would happen to those workers if they didn’t have those factory jobs? They’d be back on the farms, working more, earning less, and having waaaaay less opportunity than the city life offers them. The Chinese government limits the number of people who can move from the “country” to the “city” because the entire countryside would pretty much be emptied if everyone was allowed to do what they wanted, and China has not invested enough in agricultural technology that it can afford, like the US, to have 2% of the population work in farming.
n.b.: I am not saying I agree with Chinese policy, but I am simply pointing out that your typical “exploited” Chinese worker would be spitting on you if he or she were not allowed to their job because you think they should make as much as an American worker.
You ask what corporations control the resources? Here you go. This a long documentary and I don’t expect you to watch it if you don’t want. However, don’t stick your head in the sand and pretend like this is not an issue.
You can’t compare what happened in the past on the farms to modern day. That’s not fair. You can’t say what would happen if they went back either. Technology has improved a great deal since then. Unless of course you have a cite?
As a wise man said, “the alternative to bad jobs isn’t good jobs, it’s no jobs.”
I can’t access videos from this PC, can you summarize or link to a summary?
We’ve touched on this already, but if you want that to be the minimum wage, that’s one thing. If you chastise Wal-Mart for not offering that wage because it’s immoral not to do so, that’s absurd.
See John Mace’s post. What land is this that there’s only one employer or industry? I asked why a person would work the job you described. Clearly, the answer is that it’s the best opportunity they were able to find.
Blue Gold: World Water Wars examines environmental and political implications of the planet’s dwindling water supply, and posits that wars in the future will be fought over water. The film also highlights some success stories of water activists around the world and makes a strong case for community action.
I’m not saying it should be the minimum wage, however I don’t see how it’s an ethical practice for Walmart. It would be one thing if they couldn’t afford it, but that is far from the case. So, basically it’s a decision being made. These are either ethical or not.