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

[Jef Allbright]

On 11/13/05, spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
> > 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.

Glad I could contribute that particular insight. ;-)


>
> 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?
>

<snip>

>
> 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.

Glad also that you reframed it away from being about "moral" choices
and toward being about relatively desirable places to work and trade.

When the system works well, with all agents having sufficient freedom
to adapt, the system will tend to ratchet in the desired direction
providing growth for all.

If we find ourselves locked into a system that is out of balance--the
ruinous competition mentioned earlier--then we must hope that soon
enough in the larger context our current system will be perturbed such
that we can continue to play.  For example, Walmart's cheap and
standard low-end products being outsold due to a greater variety of
more specialized goods being offered and transacted via Internet, or
Microsoft losing its dominance by being outmaneuvered by a more agile
company that gives aways most of it's product.

In the real world, we're gaining more and more access to the larger
context and it's becoming less and less likely that any company,
locality or state can hold a monopoly for long.

What I see lacking is popular recognition that neither pure capitalism
nor pure socialism is going to be effective enough to survive.  A more
effective, higher level of organization will combine the strengths of
a diverse free market under a shared framework that amplifies our
awareness, and thus our decision-making, beyond individual
capabilities.

- Jef