But you have to understand a LOT of Americans think this is good (give or take a few % about 50% of the populus based on the last 2 elections) and vote for political leaders who institute the policies and trafe agreements that promote this. THis is what people want.
fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.
Well if you say so then it must be true, no need to post any data suggesting what casual observation contradicts. Where I live two more factories in the last month have announced layoffs. Meanwhile feel free to post where Walmart doesn't consule their employees in how to get medicaid etc.
fundamentalism, fundamentally wrong.
That manufacturing is going overseas is true, but it's not the fault of Walmart or any other businesses -- it's the fault of our being insufficiently productive in manufacturing, and the difference is much more than a few pennies. Protecting our manufacturing would only make things worse, not better.
Walmart has nothing to with our trade deficit. Again, the problem is lack of productivity and competitiveness. You do no one a favor by trying to protect them; in fact, just the opposite, because everyone loses that way. Better to focus instead on ways to increase productivity.
The real causes of our trade deficit are underinvestment in education, job training, infrastructure, research and development, etc., as well as having the strongest market in the world. Blaming Walmart is crazy, just serving to divert attention from the real problems.
I'm not the one making the wild charges, which need much more than casual observation to support.
Has nothing to do with Walmart, and everything to do with being uncompetitive.
Again, I'm not the one making the wild charges. Feel free to post any credible evidence of such a policy.
Gee, John- I could have sworn that I saw a post from you last night indicating that you were done with this thread. I guess your word is as full of holes as your opinions.
Now give it a reast.
16:20:27
I don't presume to tell anyone what to do, any more than you do the same when you argue "deregulation is good for consumers".
Either that or the chains are simply more available and more well-known. Many explanations exist beyond your over-simplification. For example, I tend to fill the gas tank at gas stations owned by giant multinational corporations because, by-and-large, that is what is available when I'm on the road and I need to fill the tank. To be so presumptuous in such cases to proclaim "people prefer gas stations run by giant multinational corporations over locally-owned ones" is absurd given that set of circumstances.
How you came to that bizarre conclusion based on the text cited above is anyone's guess.
Actually you seem to be making a bunch of bizarre assumptions about my comments that simply aren't there.
Actually what I am saying is that people often cut off their nose to spite their face, particularly when they are working with biased information or when their actions are dictated in large measure by various powerful entities (political or corporate) that limit one's options. I actually think that laws such as helmet, seatbelt and many drug laws, and laws that criminalize those who wish to end their lives because of medical suffering are far more "big brotherish" and intrusive to citizen rights than the kind of stuff I am talking about here. Yet those laws have a huge base of supporters.
Of course I expected this from you. There are plenty of facts, including detailed studies of economic impact by academic groups who specialize in this sort of thing. You predictably call into question the validity of these facts, and that's just fine with me. I know how rare it has been over the years for you to take a position and then climb-down from it, so I have no illusions in that regard. Nothing to see here folks..
I happen to agree with his arguments much more than I do the arguments from ATT/Verizon. When you lose the local businesses and independence, it's often lost for good, and I am no fan of the increasing encroachment of large multinational corporations on every aspect of community life in this society. The problem with the corporate angle is that they are often very sneaky about saying one thing and meaning/doing another, and this has been specifically documented in this community, for example with the tactics that Home Depot has used to strongarm communities to get their stores built here - in particular in SF (as I mentioned) and in Mountain View. (as Malcolm mentioned)
Talk about situational ethics. You will bitch and moan about someone not being "fair" to the corporate view, yet when they are given clear favors (another way that society pays for these organizations that doesn't show up in, ie Walmarts "community contribution posters" in stores), you say "tough". You do crack me up.
Unfortunately, as with all of economics and its orthodoxy, such things are not easily "provable", particularly to partisans who already have their mind made-up.
You are engaging in precisely what you accuse me or the study authors of - assuming facts not in evidence. In case you didn't notice, the study limits its Wal-Mart comparisons to other "large scale retail businesses", in other words, Wal-Mart competitors. Why you feel that you have a reason to assume that these people (who you apparently look down upon) cannot possibly "get a job anywhere else" is anyone's guess. (my guess: simply because it fits your pre-existing position)
Who was doing that, Mr. Spinmeister? Certainly not me.
That proves nothing. If you want to do a real study, and study the job applications that get received by every other comparably sized retail employer that opens its doors in the same location, then perhaps there will be more to learn here. Otherwise don't waste our time.
I don't accuse consumers are being "brainwashed" -- unlike you, I respect their choices (even when my own choices would be different).
That's a natural part of the market, and it wasn't always that way -- the chains replaced local outlets, and did so because they serve the market better and are more efficient.
Hardly. It's the cumulative effect of such decisions that results in the makeup of the market. The majority of consumers clearly do prefer to deal with these giant multinational corporations.
There you go again, thinking that you know better than they do.
Malcolm - are you just arguing for arguing's sake here, or do you really not know the distinction between the way laws are written and enforced in a place like Singapore vs a place like Berkeley?
I absolutely recognize that. I have also said that I believe one of the widespread problems in the USA these days is that citizens often make bad decisions based on bad/biased/manipulative information that they are being fed by various powerful entities with an axe (political or economic) to grind.
It used to be accepted that 12-year old children worked in factories too. Just because (as Einstein said, see .sig) "the prejudices of their social environment" dictated that those 12-year-olds were expected to work in the factory doesn't mean that was their eternal destiny. Likewise any employee who is led to believe that something is "the best they can do", and "they should be happy with their current lot in life". Bullshit, plain-and-simple!
JN decries arrogance and elitism?!? Precious!
If working doesn't pay better than welfare, than the employer has more than a bit of soul-searching to do about why they aren't paying a real living-wage. (Mr. Spinmeister)
Have you actually been to Singapore, or are you relying on USA Today? ;)
In other words, you know better than they do what's good for them. How arrogant and elitist.
What a fantastic leap-of-faith we have here. Impressive.
So what is your belief: that the USA should simply give up the manufacturing sector, or that somehow they should "reform" it so that it's "more productive". (remembering that the PRIMARY reason that asian manufacturing is "more productive" is that they make pennies-to-the-dollar of comparable US workers. Unless you are suggesting that this is what we should pay our manufacturing workers, I'd like to hear what you think we should do to make up that MASSIVE wage gap. More robotics? JIT manufacturing? Pay management less? I don't think it is a trivial matter to pay people here a living wage reflecting the local cost-of-living while making manufacturing here equally "productive".)
John must be an 8 year-old female,she knows all and must have the last word.
Two adjectives which no one in their right mind has ever applied to JN, no doubt
Like the spew from Walmart to the effect that they're good for the community.
Simple government methods to save the taxpayer the enormous expense of dealing with head injuries, etc. No different from HMOs providing free diabetic testing and medical siupplies to save themselves the much greater expense down the road of dealing with thme more serious consequences.
Because he's simply the elitist he spends so much time accusing you of being.
He basically considers anyone without his inside (or fabricated) information to be a loser, and therefore undeserving of sympathy or compassion.
Are you saying you agree with these "simple government methods?" If so, I have a much longer list of stuff that needs to be made "illegal" if you want to hit that slippery slope. For starters--using the helmet example--it seems to me we'd save a helluva lot more money if we forced car drivers to wear helmets, install industrial-strength roll-cages, etc. Seems to help the NASCAR crowd--at much higher speeds.
No need to stop there. What about smokers? How much do they cost society each year? I guess *that's* OK as long as the tax dollars keep rolling in. But should that stop...
And the possession of tobacco becomes a criminal offense or violation, what's next, Big Macs? The Six Dollar Burger? All red meat? Sky diving? Driving in the rain--or at night? Here's an easy target: obesity (costs far more than motorcycle accident victims dontcha know?).
What about alcohol? Oh wait, we tried that--and it was the worst social experiment to ever happen in America; of which the after-effects are still with us to this day.
"No different?" Methinks you failed to differentiate between a carrot and a stick.
Carrots are good. Nanny laws ain't.
Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.