[extropy-chat] Seven cents an hour? (was: Riots in France)

[spike]

> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Jef Allbright
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Seven cents an hour? (was: Riots in France)
> 
> On 11/12/05, spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > It's a moral paradox.  If one is poor, then clearly
> > it is OK to shop at Walmart...
> >
> 
> Like all paradox, it results from seeing the system at an insufficient
> level of context.  At a higher level these pieces have to fit (and new
> paradox can then arise.)...
> - Jef

Thanks Jef for the insight that a new paradox can then arise.

If we call out Walmart, we must include other places that are
lousy places to work.  How about Fry's Electronics?  The idea
was a good one: run an electronics store like you would a
grocery store, plenty of cash registers to reduce the checkout
time (our local Fry's has 60 going simultaneously, 60!), the
lowest cost employees that can manage to show up to work, enormous
volume sales, etc.  So Fry's and Walmart.  But wait, what about
Target?  Salvation Army?  McDonalds?

A number of paradoxes arise.  

Assume half of the Walmart employees live below the poverty level:
  
	Does it still count if they are unemployable *anywhere else* 
	besides Walmart?  Would they stay at Walmart if they could 
	get a job elsewhere?  Why?

	Would they not still be below the poverty line if they had
	no job at all?  

	What if they live below the poverty level but are part-time 
	workers by choice?  Do they count?  

	Do we measure "living below poverty level" by the
	amount of money they earn?  If so what about those
	who have a home and no debts, so they can live just fine 
	on the income that is defined as poverty level?  An
	example would be the retired greeters, who may
	have a paid-off house and a paid-off car already.  Do 
	they count?

	How do you count people who would be above the
	poverty level if single but they have children, which 
	puts them below the poverty level as a family.  Walmart
	isn't allowed to pay more because of one's family
	status. 

Suppose we decided, as a society, to ruin Walmart by
collectively not shopping there.  OK, Wallyworld is
gone.  But now there is a new retailer that is at
the bottom of the heap for how it treats workers, so
let's nuke that one too.  But now a new one is again
the worst place in the world to work.  No matter
how many times we lather, rinse and repeat, somebody
has to be Walmart.

Or what?  Suggestions welcome.

spike