Posted on 05/11/2005 4:42:13 AM PDT by JBW
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.
***
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
This article in the NYT said that Walmart should pay more benefits, such as GM and Ford had done. The next day, both Ford and GM had their debt downgraded to junk status. Great advice for Walmart to follow...
And United Airlines got permission by their bankruptcy judge to SH**CAN their entire pension system.
it is the responsibility of business to maintain a strong middle-class. our nations strength depends upon it. how many billionaires on the list of the richest men in the world are wal-mart executives? this is an issue where neither "party" has the high ground. clearly business cannot be restricted by undue government regulation but neither is it acceptable to create a new "elite" class of wealthy businessmen while the middle-class is reduced to serfdom...
What a shame that black thinkers like Sowell represent such a small percentage of the black population.
Great post! Thanks!
I agree. And the best way for Wal-Mart to do that is to make the middle-class consumer's dollar stretch farther.
Pop quiz: If Wal-Mart could provide the same service with, say, a third of the employees they use right now, would it be better or worse for the economy? If we didn't need Wal-Mart at all, but were magically able to buy directly from each of Wal-Mart's suppliers, would it be better or worse for the economy?
Newspapers are going down hard ~ they are, in fact, following a pattern first noticed among the traditional African-American newspapers after the passage of the civil rights acts in the 1960s.
This is different than the disappearance of Post, Life, Look or American-Mercury.
The problem is technological replacement ~ not just loss of an audience.
How is it "the responsibility of business to maintain a strong middle-class"? How is it that business is creating a "new elite class . . . while the middle-class is reduced to serfdom"?
Private businesses have no responsibility to do anything with a view towards the larger economy. Private businesses are obligated to obey the law and create profits, nothing more.
If every private business did nothing more than obey the law and make a profit, our entire society would be better off. To the extent our economy is healthy today (and it is) it is the result of free-market principles. On the contrary, our greatest economic failures have been when legislatures or activists have tried to impose other (non-market) obligations on business.
Today's middle class in America is the wealthiest in history. Even the poor have cell phones, air conditioning, television and the Internet.
By contrast, only a few decades ago the poor lacked indoor plumbing, electricity and enough food to eat.
How can you possibly claim that anyone today is "being reduced to serfdom"?
"And United Airlines got permission by their bankruptcy judge to SH**CAN their entire pension system."
You think these people would have been happy having their own personal plans?
I NEVER invest in the company I work for. Just like Enron, unless I get the same benefit and priveledge as the top guy, I am not interested.
Nicely put.This post reminds me of the friend who advocated that it wasn't right for any employer not to pay for all employee's health insurance. My question was, "do you pay for anyone else's health insurance? Do you have any intention of hiring anyone else?"
Her answer was no - but she still thought it was her business to demand that others bear burdens that she wouldn't touch with her little finger. Sigh . . . some Christians are like that!
What a shame that thinkers like Sowell represent such a small percentage of the population. Period.
neither is it acceptable to create a new "elite" class of wealthy businessmen while the middle-class is reduced to serfdom...
Yeah, we don't want anyone competing with the old elite class of businessmen.
And the best way for Wal-Mart to do that is to make the middle-class consumer's dollar stretch farther.
Exactly, I don't see how paying more for my office supplies would help my business.
"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."
Mr. Sowell is 'da bomb! I tell those who work with me and bitch, "You have the best job you could get." The qualifications of the average Wal Mart employee is just above McDonalds level. There is nothing wrong with that but to make money you have to move up the skills food chain.
Most liberals that wine have never owned a business.
LOL! Nicely put.And did that person also own two cars, a suburban home, and a pleasure boat?
Yes, that's why in fact we do go to Walmart. But if we got the information and could buy over the Internet and "magically" know what we were getting as well as we learn that by shopping in the store, and "magically" could get the product when we want it rather than waiting for delivery as we in truth do when we order something via the Internet, then you have to admit that we would be better off without paying WalMart, its stockholders or its employees.
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.