Posted on 05/10/2005 9:00:46 PM PDT by CHARLITE
The latest liberal crusade is against the Wal-Mart stores.
A big headline on a long article in The New York Times asks "Can't A Retail Behemoth Pay More?"
Of course they can pay more. The New York Times could pay its own employees more. We could all pay more for whatever we buy or rent. Don't tell me you couldn't have paid a dime more for this newspaper. But why should any of us pay more than we have to?
According to The New York Times, there is a book "by a group of scholars" due to be published this fall, arguing that Wal-Mart has an "obligation" to "treat its employees better."
This can hardly be called news. Nothing is easier than to find a group of academics -- "scholars" if you agree with them -- to advocate virtually anything on any subject. Nor is this notion of an "obligation" new.
For decades, there has been lofty talk about the "social responsibility" of businesses or about a "social contract" between the generations when it comes to Social Security. Do you remember signing any such contract? I don't.
What all this pious talk amounts to is that when third parties want somebody else to pay for something, they simply call it a "social responsibility," an "obligation" or a "social contract."
So long as we keep buying this kind of stuff, they will keep selling it.
In order to make such demands look like more than just the arbitrary notions of busybodies -- which they are -- some of these busybodies refer to the official poverty level, as if it were something objective, rather than what it is in fact, simply an arbitrary line based on the notions of government bureaucrats.
According to The New York Times, Wal-Mart's average employee earns an income that is above the poverty line for a family of three but below the poverty line for a family of four. What are we supposed to conclude from this?
The fashionable notion of "a living wage" is a wage that will support a family of four. And, sure enough, The New York Times finds a Wal-Mart employee who complains that he is not making "a living wage."
How is he living, if he is not making a living wage?
Should people be paid according to what they "need" instead of according to what their work is worth? Should they decide how big a family they want and then put the cost of paying to support that family on somebody else?
If their work is not worth enough to pay for what they want, is it up to others to make up the difference, rather than up to them to upgrade their skills in order to earn what they want?
Are they supposed to be subsidized by Wal-Mart's customers through higher prices or subsidized by Wal-Mart's stockholders through lower earnings? After all, much of the stock in even a rich company is often owned by pension funds belonging to teachers, policemen and others who are far from rich.
Why should other people have to retire on less money, in order that Wal-Mart employees can be paid what The New York Times wants them paid, instead of what their labor is worth in the marketplace? After all, they wouldn't be working for Wal-Mart if someone else valued their labor more.
Nor are they confined to Wal-Mart for life. For many, entry-level jobs are a stepping-stone, whether within a given company or as experience that gets them a better job with another company.
Think about it: What the busybodies are saying is that third parties like themselves -- who are paying nothing to anybody -- should be determining how much somebody else should be paying those who work for them.
It would be devastating to the egos of the intelligentsia to realize, much less admit, that businesses have done more to reduce poverty than all the intellectuals put together. Ultimately it is only wealth that can reduce poverty and most of the intelligentsia have no interest whatever in finding out what actions and policies increase the national wealth.
They certainly don't feel any "obligation" to learn economics, out of a sense of "social responsibility," much less because of any "social contract" requiring them to know what they are talking about before spouting off with self-righteous rhetoric.
The late comedian Stan Kinnison (hope I spelled his name right) had a line in his routine where he talked about efforts to feed the starving living in desert areas. His solution was simple, give them suitcases so they could pack up and MOVE to places where the jobs are.
Almost nothing ticks me off more than some idiot standing in the middle of one of Maine's fourth growth (or fifth; who knows how many times the state has been cut over) forests rambling on about sustainability. Not only are they manipulative, but they assume the rest of us are dumb as a bag of hammers.
Great idea, but like you said, I wouldn't hold my breath.
I have a bachelor's degree, but I work at Walmart on the weekends and substitute teach during the week. I could work full-time there if I wanted to. The reason Walmart took the salary -equalizing step mentioned above is because of the major class-action lawsuit filed last year claiming the company discriminates against female employees. I make $9.00 an hour after one year with the company. There is no problem with surviving in our area (West Michigan) on what Walmart pays, especially if two people in the family are working.
In our area (West Michigan) Walmart has many more applicants than jobs. You cannot just walk in there and get a job. People wait for months to get an opportunity to interview there. My experience as an employee is that most people who work there appreciate having the job and like the company (Of course there are complainers everywhere). I agree the customer service is not what it used to be or could be though.
Agreed! I choose to keep working at Walmart even though I have a teaching degree, because I want to stay in our economically depressed area due to the need to be near my sick father and not to disrupt my daughter's schooling. I could get a teaching job easily by moving to the South, but I CHOOSE not to. Most people who stay in a low wage job are there by choice, but if they are unsatisfied they refuse to acknowledge their choice. They blame it on others.
My favorite scenario occured this summer when I was arguing with a young lady in the Walmart break room about the upcoming presidential election. She literally claimed that it was President Bush's fault that she couldn't pay her bills due to her wages at Walmart. I know for a fact that she makes more than $10 an hour, is single, lives in a rental unit, and has no major health problems. Therefore I have to speculate that if she is unable to make ends meet it is more due to out-of-control spending habits or credit-card debt than to President Bush's decisions.
It was Sam Kinnison. And it was move to where the food was. Very funny bit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.