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

[Rafal Smigrodzki]

On 11/16/05, Rik van Riel <riel at surriel.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Nov 2005, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
>
> > > So do you consider Walmart's increasing of the number of
> > > people living below the poverty line to be a win or a loss ?
> >
> > Dumb, whoever wrote it. Walmart obviously is not increasing the number
> > of poor people, it is paying them money, not taking it away from them.
> > Anybody with even a modicum of economic sense will see it.
>
> Like the folks at Berkeley, who quantified some of the
> disadvantages of Wal-Mart economy:
>
> http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/lowwage/walmart.pdf

### I don't read propaganda from the Socialist Republic of Berkeley
------------------------------
>
> > Wal-Mart is nothing but a glorified trucking business,
>
> I'm not arguing with that.
>
> What I object to is that Wal-Mart is introducing socialism
> through the back door, by underpaying its workers so badly
> that they have to rely on government help to make ends meet.
> This is a travesty of capitalism.
>
> To quote some figures from the Berkeley paper:
>  - The families of Wal-Mart employees in California utilize
>   an estimated 40 percent more in taxpayer-funded health
>   care than the average for families of all large retail
>   employees.
>  - The families of Wal-Mart employees use an estimated
>   38 percent more in other (non-health care) public assistance
>   programs (such as food stamps, etc) than the average for
>   families of all large retail employees.
>
> Now you tell me how increasing the reliance of workers on
> government assistance is good capitalism.

### Sure,  providing government assistance is stupid socialism. Using
it to boost your bottom line is however good business sense. You see
the tension there, right? The meaning of collective action differs
from the meaning of private responses to it. A collective action makes
it useful and remunerative for individuals to act in a destructive
manner. Walmart is not underpaying workers, it simply avails itself of
the artificially increased supply of job applicants willing to work
for low wages. If the government didn't give out money for nothing,
Walmart would be paying a little bit more (it would be also probably
taxed less), and job applicants would demand more money, knowing that
they won't be getting any from Uncle Sam.

In fact, government assistance programs are the cause of low wages. As
long as Wal-Mart is not actively influencing the government to provide
assistance, they are not the guilty party.

It's the same with Social Security - I feel that my being forced to
pay for the SS is wrong, and a humongous waste of money but, once I am
retired, I won't relinquish any SS payments due me,  on moral grounds.
That is, if the SS still has money left.

The correct response to government stupidity is to oppose government
stupidity (i.e. government assistance programs), not to go on bashing
honest businessmen.

Rafal