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

[Jack Parkinson]

> Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 12:00:21 -0500
> From: "John K Clark" <jonkc at att.net> said:
> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Seven cents an hour? (was: Riots in
> To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Message-ID: <005d01c5ea06$2b4bf9f0$160b4e0c at MyComputer>

> > corporate activity should be judged by benefits
> > accruing to EVERY sector of society
>
> I pretty much agree, the only slight disagreement we have is who should
> judge a subjective and controversial thing like "benefit". I think it
should
> be judged by workers who vote with their feet and consumers who vote with
> their dollars. You think it should be judged by Jack Parkinson.

No, and it's not subjective either!
I think it should be done by an analysis of the financial benefit accruing
to each sector of society. Eg, How much does Wal Mart return to the
community in wages, how much to the nation in taxes, etc. Likewise, on the
debit side: How much does it cost. That is, how much financial support does
the government provide the company, and how much to the workers on low
wages - and finally how much do consumers really save because Wal Mart is
more 'efficient' than Mom and Pop..?

Then, its a matter of straightforward comparison: Would these figures be
overall better or worse in the hypothetical scenario that Wal Mart was
replaced by a host of smaller operators?

My guess is that smaller operators might well be better. Even if I base this
prediction solely on the Wal Mart wealth being in distributed useful usage
across a slew of businesses and the fact that those businesses would have to
compete in a far more fierce labor market - with far less government
assistance. So far no one has even attempted to show that this is wrong.

> Fine, if that's the way you feel then don't work at Wal-Mart and don't
shop
> at Wal-Mart, but what I object to is that you want in effect to force
people
> like me who profoundly disagree with your premise to act the same way you
do
> by shutting down Wal-Mart. You shop where you like, just let me do the
same.
>   John K Clark

Why do you so profoundly disagree? I'm not suggesting anything heretical
surely? Just a look at some basic economic premises that are hardly
religious in tone. And concepts like 'efficiency' ARE easily twisted to suit
an argument.

YOU say (if I understand you right) that 'efficient' means an organisation
that can achieve maximum concentration of wealth by keeping production,
distribution and selling costs low and selling as high as the market
permits.

I say on the other hand, that such an organisation is only efficient when
considered in isolation. There are other highly relevant factors which can
and should be considered before a judgment on real efficiency can be made in
absolute terms.  For example - taxpayer contributions in the form of
government support to support the company are a drag on efficiency, as also
are any social security and other government payments that need to be made
to the Wal Mart employees as a consequence of the company paying very low
wages.

On the plus side - you can shop where you want. I'm not trying to force you
or anyone else to do anything other than keep an open mind by asking why..?

Jack Parkinson