PDA

View Full Version : Re: Wal-Mart Wars?


Albert Wagner
June 30th 03, 09:51 AM
On 30 Jun 2003 04:28:44 GMT
(JoelnCaryn) wrote:
<snip>

I can't believe that you have actually tried to lecture me on The
Prisoner's Dilemma, as if after all of my posts I am unfamiliar with it.


<snip>
At this point most work is done on what modifications to capitalism
> (say, for example, socialist democracies like in the Netherlands) are
> the best ones for achieving a solution to this problem.

Agreed. So please don't try to draw into yet another argument as to why
I dislike laissez faire capitalism.

<snip>
>
> > And secondarily because you continue to insist that
> >without having read them I lack the proper education to vote.
>
> That is fairly well-established.

Only in your own mind. According to your personal criteria, 99% of
voters should be denied the vote on the basis of your elitist
qualifications.
<snip>

Albert Wagner
June 30th 03, 09:51 AM
On 30 Jun 2003 04:28:44 GMT
(JoelnCaryn) wrote:
<snip>

I can't believe that you have actually tried to lecture me on The
Prisoner's Dilemma, as if after all of my posts I am unfamiliar with it.


<snip>
At this point most work is done on what modifications to capitalism
> (say, for example, socialist democracies like in the Netherlands) are
> the best ones for achieving a solution to this problem.

Agreed. So please don't try to draw into yet another argument as to why
I dislike laissez faire capitalism.

<snip>
>
> > And secondarily because you continue to insist that
> >without having read them I lack the proper education to vote.
>
> That is fairly well-established.

Only in your own mind. According to your personal criteria, 99% of
voters should be denied the vote on the basis of your elitist
qualifications.
<snip>

Chloe
June 30th 03, 12:44 PM
"Don Klipstein" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, linda-renee wrote:
> >
> >How many so-called poverty wages are going to support not one, but five
or
> >six or ten individuals, because they chose to have families they couldn't
> >support?
>
> How about the hardware store owner or employee who had children and then
> afterwards Wal Mart moved into town and did their thing?

Based on a lot of personal observation and academic studies, I'll tell you
that the hardware store owner either changed the focus of his business so he
didn't have to compete with Wal-Mart--and likely prospered because the very
presence of a Wal-Mart massively increases the amount of money changing
hands in the community--or he didn't, and likely went out of business.

News flash for you: employees of micro size businesses in small, rural towns
don't generally earn any more than Wal-Mart employees with similar jobs, and
their employment is pretty much at the whim of the business owner. It ain't
Utopia either.

Chloe
June 30th 03, 12:44 PM
"Don Klipstein" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, linda-renee wrote:
> >
> >How many so-called poverty wages are going to support not one, but five
or
> >six or ten individuals, because they chose to have families they couldn't
> >support?
>
> How about the hardware store owner or employee who had children and then
> afterwards Wal Mart moved into town and did their thing?

Based on a lot of personal observation and academic studies, I'll tell you
that the hardware store owner either changed the focus of his business so he
didn't have to compete with Wal-Mart--and likely prospered because the very
presence of a Wal-Mart massively increases the amount of money changing
hands in the community--or he didn't, and likely went out of business.

News flash for you: employees of micro size businesses in small, rural towns
don't generally earn any more than Wal-Mart employees with similar jobs, and
their employment is pretty much at the whim of the business owner. It ain't
Utopia either.

JoelnCaryn
June 30th 03, 04:40 PM
>Fresh meat, Caryn?

What is that supposed to mean?
--
"...if my CURRENT-SUPPOSITIONS-intender malfunctions and tokens a |Jodie Foster
is president| when it should have tokened a |George W. Bush is president|
....this may lead to certain false beliefs, such as the belief that I will
probably be wanting to watch more presidential addresses on television in the
future..."

JoelnCaryn
June 30th 03, 04:40 PM
>Fresh meat, Caryn?

What is that supposed to mean?
--
"...if my CURRENT-SUPPOSITIONS-intender malfunctions and tokens a |Jodie Foster
is president| when it should have tokened a |George W. Bush is president|
....this may lead to certain false beliefs, such as the belief that I will
probably be wanting to watch more presidential addresses on television in the
future..."

JoelnCaryn
June 30th 03, 04:45 PM
>I can't believe that you have actually tried to lecture me on The
>Prisoner's Dilemma, as if after all of my posts I am unfamiliar with it.

You appear not to have internalized it very well.

><snip>
> At this point most work is done on what modifications to capitalism
>> (say, for example, socialist democracies like in the Netherlands) are
>> the best ones for achieving a solution to this problem.
>
>Agreed. So please don't try to draw into yet another argument as to why
>I dislike laissez faire capitalism.

I would suggest that starting with the premise "Capitalism is evil", since you
wish to retain it as a system, is misguided.

><snip>
>>
>> > And secondarily because you continue to insist that
>> >without having read them I lack the proper education to vote.
>>
>> That is fairly well-established.
>
>Only in your own mind.

No. Noise swamps the signal.

>According to your personal criteria, 99% of
>voters should be denied the vote on the basis of your elitist
>qualifications.

That is also false. I have no interest in denying anyone the vote. I do have
an interest in teaching people to recognize when they are voting to make magic.

--
"...if my CURRENT-SUPPOSITIONS-intender malfunctions and tokens a |Jodie Foster
is president| when it should have tokened a |George W. Bush is president|
....this may lead to certain false beliefs, such as the belief that I will
probably be wanting to watch more presidential addresses on television in the
future..."

JoelnCaryn
June 30th 03, 04:45 PM
>I can't believe that you have actually tried to lecture me on The
>Prisoner's Dilemma, as if after all of my posts I am unfamiliar with it.

You appear not to have internalized it very well.

><snip>
> At this point most work is done on what modifications to capitalism
>> (say, for example, socialist democracies like in the Netherlands) are
>> the best ones for achieving a solution to this problem.
>
>Agreed. So please don't try to draw into yet another argument as to why
>I dislike laissez faire capitalism.

I would suggest that starting with the premise "Capitalism is evil", since you
wish to retain it as a system, is misguided.

><snip>
>>
>> > And secondarily because you continue to insist that
>> >without having read them I lack the proper education to vote.
>>
>> That is fairly well-established.
>
>Only in your own mind.

No. Noise swamps the signal.

>According to your personal criteria, 99% of
>voters should be denied the vote on the basis of your elitist
>qualifications.

That is also false. I have no interest in denying anyone the vote. I do have
an interest in teaching people to recognize when they are voting to make magic.

--
"...if my CURRENT-SUPPOSITIONS-intender malfunctions and tokens a |Jodie Foster
is president| when it should have tokened a |George W. Bush is president|
....this may lead to certain false beliefs, such as the belief that I will
probably be wanting to watch more presidential addresses on television in the
future..."

Albert Wagner
June 30th 03, 04:47 PM
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 11:54:31 -0400
JohnDoe <> wrote:
<snip>
> as soon as you start taking the advice of the intellectuals, you're in
> it deep

Right, the advice of idiots is much safer.

Albert Wagner
June 30th 03, 04:47 PM
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 11:54:31 -0400
JohnDoe <> wrote:
<snip>
> as soon as you start taking the advice of the intellectuals, you're in
> it deep

Right, the advice of idiots is much safer.

Dennis
June 30th 03, 05:30 PM
On 30 Jun 2003 06:43:48 GMT, (JoelnCaryn)
wrote:


>How about by requiring people, via laws, to pay the true costs? Then they can
>keep going on being selfish capitalists, but the worse a product is for the
>environment and the more it truly costs to produce, the more it will cost in
>the marketplace. And then it will be in their best interest to buy fewer
>things, and to buy only the ones produced at less cost to the environment and
>to others.

Here is an interesting article about including social costs in the
price of doing business. This Nobel prize winner's take is that it is
viable as long as you can control the transaction cost of
collecting/distributing the money to compensate for true costs.

"Part of what Coase showed was that, for some problems, there is no
legal rule, no form of regulation, that will generate a fully
efficient solution. He thus anticipated public choice economists, such
as James Buchanan (another Nobel winner), in arguing that the real
choice was not between an inefficient market and an efficient
government solution but rather among a variety of inefficient
alternatives, private and governmental. In Coase's words: "All
solutions have costs and there is no reason to suppose that government
regulation is called for simply because the problem is not well
handled by the market or the firm."

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Coase_World.html

the Dennis formerly known as (evil)
--
The honest man is the one who realizes that he cannot
consume more, in his lifetime, than he produces.

Dennis
June 30th 03, 05:30 PM
On 30 Jun 2003 06:43:48 GMT, (JoelnCaryn)
wrote:


>How about by requiring people, via laws, to pay the true costs? Then they can
>keep going on being selfish capitalists, but the worse a product is for the
>environment and the more it truly costs to produce, the more it will cost in
>the marketplace. And then it will be in their best interest to buy fewer
>things, and to buy only the ones produced at less cost to the environment and
>to others.

Here is an interesting article about including social costs in the
price of doing business. This Nobel prize winner's take is that it is
viable as long as you can control the transaction cost of
collecting/distributing the money to compensate for true costs.

"Part of what Coase showed was that, for some problems, there is no
legal rule, no form of regulation, that will generate a fully
efficient solution. He thus anticipated public choice economists, such
as James Buchanan (another Nobel winner), in arguing that the real
choice was not between an inefficient market and an efficient
government solution but rather among a variety of inefficient
alternatives, private and governmental. In Coase's words: "All
solutions have costs and there is no reason to suppose that government
regulation is called for simply because the problem is not well
handled by the market or the firm."

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Coase_World.html

the Dennis formerly known as (evil)
--
The honest man is the one who realizes that he cannot
consume more, in his lifetime, than he produces.

JoelnCaryn
June 30th 03, 06:14 PM
>>How about by requiring people, via laws, to pay the true costs? Then they
>can
>>keep going on being selfish capitalists, but the worse a product is for the
>>environment and the more it truly costs to produce, the more it will cost in
>>the marketplace. And then it will be in their best interest to buy fewer
>>things, and to buy only the ones produced at less cost to the environment
>and
>>to others.
>
>Here is an interesting article about including social costs in the
>price of doing business. This Nobel prize winner's take is that it is
>viable as long as you can control the transaction cost of
>collecting/distributing the money to compensate for true costs.

<snip>

>http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Coase_World.html

Thanks. I was looking for an accessible version of some of this stuff.

Some short points from the article which refer directly to Lockean etc.
arguments:

"The second step in Coase's argument is to observe that, as long as the parties
involved can readily make and enforce contracts in their mutual interest,
neither direct regulation nor Pigouvian taxes are necessary in order to get the
efficient outcome. All you need is a clear definition of who has a right to do
what and the market will take care of the problem."

....

"With only one landowner, there would be no problem--he would offer to pay the
mill for the cost of the pollution control equipment, plus a little extra to
sweeten the deal. But a hundred landowners face what economists call a public
good problem. If ninety of them put up the money and ten do not, the ten get a
free ride--no pollution and no cost for pollution control. Each landowner has
an incentive to refuse to pay, figuring that his payment is unlikely to make
the difference between success and failure in the attempt to bribe the steel
mill to eliminate its pollution. If the attempt is going to fail even with him,
then it makes no difference whether or not he contributes. If it is going to
succeed even without him, then refusing to contribute gives him a free ride.
Only if his contribution makes the difference does he gain by agreeing to
contribute.

"There are a variety of ways in which such problems may sometimes be solved,
but none that can always be expected to work."

--
"...if my CURRENT-SUPPOSITIONS-intender malfunctions and tokens a |Jodie Foster
is president| when it should have tokened a |George W. Bush is president| ...
this may lead to certain false beliefs, such as the belief that I will probably
be wanting to watch more presidential addresses on television in the future..."

JoelnCaryn
June 30th 03, 06:14 PM
>>How about by requiring people, via laws, to pay the true costs? Then they
>can
>>keep going on being selfish capitalists, but the worse a product is for the
>>environment and the more it truly costs to produce, the more it will cost in
>>the marketplace. And then it will be in their best interest to buy fewer
>>things, and to buy only the ones produced at less cost to the environment
>and
>>to others.
>
>Here is an interesting article about including social costs in the
>price of doing business. This Nobel prize winner's take is that it is
>viable as long as you can control the transaction cost of
>collecting/distributing the money to compensate for true costs.

<snip>

>http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Coase_World.html

Thanks. I was looking for an accessible version of some of this stuff.

Some short points from the article which refer directly to Lockean etc.
arguments:

"The second step in Coase's argument is to observe that, as long as the parties
involved can readily make and enforce contracts in their mutual interest,
neither direct regulation nor Pigouvian taxes are necessary in order to get the
efficient outcome. All you need is a clear definition of who has a right to do
what and the market will take care of the problem."

....

"With only one landowner, there would be no problem--he would offer to pay the
mill for the cost of the pollution control equipment, plus a little extra to
sweeten the deal. But a hundred landowners face what economists call a public
good problem. If ninety of them put up the money and ten do not, the ten get a
free ride--no pollution and no cost for pollution control. Each landowner has
an incentive to refuse to pay, figuring that his payment is unlikely to make
the difference between success and failure in the attempt to bribe the steel
mill to eliminate its pollution. If the attempt is going to fail even with him,
then it makes no difference whether or not he contributes. If it is going to
succeed even without him, then refusing to contribute gives him a free ride.
Only if his contribution makes the difference does he gain by agreeing to
contribute.

"There are a variety of ways in which such problems may sometimes be solved,
but none that can always be expected to work."

--
"...if my CURRENT-SUPPOSITIONS-intender malfunctions and tokens a |Jodie Foster
is president| when it should have tokened a |George W. Bush is president| ...
this may lead to certain false beliefs, such as the belief that I will probably
be wanting to watch more presidential addresses on television in the future..."

R.White
June 30th 03, 06:59 PM
Albert Wagner > wrote in message >...
> On 30 Jun 2003 06:43:48 GMT
> (JoelnCaryn) wrote:
> <snip>
> Fresh meat, Caryn?

It means this thread will go on and on and on........

R.White
June 30th 03, 06:59 PM
Albert Wagner > wrote in message >...
> On 30 Jun 2003 06:43:48 GMT
> (JoelnCaryn) wrote:
> <snip>
> Fresh meat, Caryn?

It means this thread will go on and on and on........

Albert Wagner
June 30th 03, 07:28 PM
On 30 Jun 2003 16:14:50 GMT
(JoelnCaryn) wrote:
<snip>
> Some short points from the article which refer directly to Lockean
> etc. arguments:
<snip>

Damn. Do you realize that if I had read Locke, then I would have won
the Nobel?

Albert Wagner
June 30th 03, 07:28 PM
On 30 Jun 2003 16:14:50 GMT
(JoelnCaryn) wrote:
<snip>
> Some short points from the article which refer directly to Lockean
> etc. arguments:
<snip>

Damn. Do you realize that if I had read Locke, then I would have won
the Nobel?

linda-renee
June 30th 03, 09:55 PM
"Brian Dermody" > wrote in message

> >>How many so-called poverty wages are going to support not one, but five
> or
> >>six or ten individuals, because they chose to have families they
couldn't
> >>support?

> This argument that the lower-income people shouldn't have more children
than
> they can afford to support may have merit. I firmly believe that
population
> control, a topic currently out of favor, will eventually be required on a
> global scale.

> But, just for a second, consider approaching LIFE as something more
precious
> than the economy. Those families that *are* in existence are children of
> God, or children of the universe, or at least part of the family of man.
> I don't think that they are of less value than those that are marketable.

Although I wrote what is quoted first above, I don't believe that children
of poor families are less valuable than children of rich families. But the
reality is that someone is going to have to support those children. I'd
just prefer that someone not be me.

linda-renee
June 30th 03, 09:55 PM
"Brian Dermody" > wrote in message

> >>How many so-called poverty wages are going to support not one, but five
> or
> >>six or ten individuals, because they chose to have families they
couldn't
> >>support?

> This argument that the lower-income people shouldn't have more children
than
> they can afford to support may have merit. I firmly believe that
population
> control, a topic currently out of favor, will eventually be required on a
> global scale.

> But, just for a second, consider approaching LIFE as something more
precious
> than the economy. Those families that *are* in existence are children of
> God, or children of the universe, or at least part of the family of man.
> I don't think that they are of less value than those that are marketable.

Although I wrote what is quoted first above, I don't believe that children
of poor families are less valuable than children of rich families. But the
reality is that someone is going to have to support those children. I'd
just prefer that someone not be me.

Albert Wagner
June 30th 03, 10:02 PM
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 21:19:45 -0400
JohnDoe > wrote:

> On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 09:47:21 -0500, Albert Wagner >
> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 11:54:31 -0400
> >JohnDoe <> wrote:
> ><snip>
> >> as soon as you start taking the advice of the intellectuals, you're
> >in> it deep
> >
> >Right, the advice of idiots is much safer.

> you seem to have plenty to offer

Sure, you need advice?

Albert Wagner
June 30th 03, 10:02 PM
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 21:19:45 -0400
JohnDoe > wrote:

> On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 09:47:21 -0500, Albert Wagner >
> wrote:
>
> >On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 11:54:31 -0400
> >JohnDoe <> wrote:
> ><snip>
> >> as soon as you start taking the advice of the intellectuals, you're
> >in> it deep
> >
> >Right, the advice of idiots is much safer.

> you seem to have plenty to offer

Sure, you need advice?

Albert Wagner
June 30th 03, 11:56 PM
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 23:09:46 -0400
"Lee K" > wrote:

>
> "Albert Wagner" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On 29 Jun 2003 20:20:07 GMT
> > (Andy.3rd) wrote:
> >
>
> > >
> > > A person's valus is determined SOLELY by their usefulness to an
> > > enterprise as determined BY THE ENTERPRISE.
> >
> > I determine my own value. And it is totally unrelated to what any
> > "enterprise" thinks. I have taken jobs at considerable less than my
> > value and delivered more than I was paid for, but I was hungry.
>
> ?? You just supported the argument you refuted in the same
> paragraph!!!
>
> "I determine my own value" .... "I have taken jobs at considerable
> (sic) less than my value..."

Not really. "Value" is used in multiple ways above. I have value to
myself and my family and friends that is not measured in dollars. A
capitalist employer is unconcerned with that kind of value and uses a
more restrictive definition of value: dollars.

> > > A person's [dollar] valus is determined SOLELY by their usefulness
> > > to an enterprise as determined BY THE ENTERPRISE.
> >
> > I determine my own [true] value. And it is totally unrelated to
> > what any"enterprise" thinks. I have taken jobs at considerable less
> > than my[true] value and delivered more [dollar value] than I was
> > paid for, but I was hungry.

This should make it clearer.

Albert Wagner
June 30th 03, 11:56 PM
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 23:09:46 -0400
"Lee K" > wrote:

>
> "Albert Wagner" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On 29 Jun 2003 20:20:07 GMT
> > (Andy.3rd) wrote:
> >
>
> > >
> > > A person's valus is determined SOLELY by their usefulness to an
> > > enterprise as determined BY THE ENTERPRISE.
> >
> > I determine my own value. And it is totally unrelated to what any
> > "enterprise" thinks. I have taken jobs at considerable less than my
> > value and delivered more than I was paid for, but I was hungry.
>
> ?? You just supported the argument you refuted in the same
> paragraph!!!
>
> "I determine my own value" .... "I have taken jobs at considerable
> (sic) less than my value..."

Not really. "Value" is used in multiple ways above. I have value to
myself and my family and friends that is not measured in dollars. A
capitalist employer is unconcerned with that kind of value and uses a
more restrictive definition of value: dollars.

> > > A person's [dollar] valus is determined SOLELY by their usefulness
> > > to an enterprise as determined BY THE ENTERPRISE.
> >
> > I determine my own [true] value. And it is totally unrelated to
> > what any"enterprise" thinks. I have taken jobs at considerable less
> > than my[true] value and delivered more [dollar value] than I was
> > paid for, but I was hungry.

This should make it clearer.

Shag
July 1st 03, 04:17 AM
"Don Klipstein" > wrote in message
...
>
> Most relevant U.S. economic statistics are published by the Bureau of
> Labor Statistics, an agency in the Dept. of Labor.
>
> I can say that per-capita US GDP, after adjusting for inflation, has
> increased at an average rate around 1-1.5% per year since 1973, while
> median wages (after adjustment for inflation) are lower now than then.
> The nation has gotten richer but working stiffs got poorer.

You can say that, but it wouldn't be true. Real median household
income has increased from 1973 to today, per the Census Bureau.

Shag
July 1st 03, 04:17 AM
"Don Klipstein" > wrote in message
...
>
> Most relevant U.S. economic statistics are published by the Bureau of
> Labor Statistics, an agency in the Dept. of Labor.
>
> I can say that per-capita US GDP, after adjusting for inflation, has
> increased at an average rate around 1-1.5% per year since 1973, while
> median wages (after adjustment for inflation) are lower now than then.
> The nation has gotten richer but working stiffs got poorer.

You can say that, but it wouldn't be true. Real median household
income has increased from 1973 to today, per the Census Bureau.

JoelnCaryn
July 1st 03, 06:02 AM
>> Some short points from the article which refer directly to Lockean
>> etc. arguments:
><snip>
>
>Damn. Do you realize that if I had read Locke, then I would have won
>the Nobel?

Yes. Of course, someone beat you to it. :-)

There are plenty of arguments for why capitalism is an inaccurate model. It's
just that it happens to be the best model we've got. Feel free to come up with
a better model. You are, right now, a capitalist yourself -- of the welfare
liberal variety.

You *can't* do it by saying, "laissez-faire capitalism is immoral". There is
not broad agreement to that intuition. You have to start with premises to
which a majority of reasonable people would agree...

--
"...if my CURRENT-SUPPOSITIONS-intender malfunctions and tokens a |Jodie Foster
is president| when it should have tokened a |George W. Bush is president| ...
this may lead to certain false beliefs, such as the belief that I will probably
be wanting to watch more presidential addresses on television in the future..."

JoelnCaryn
July 1st 03, 06:02 AM
>> Some short points from the article which refer directly to Lockean
>> etc. arguments:
><snip>
>
>Damn. Do you realize that if I had read Locke, then I would have won
>the Nobel?

Yes. Of course, someone beat you to it. :-)

There are plenty of arguments for why capitalism is an inaccurate model. It's
just that it happens to be the best model we've got. Feel free to come up with
a better model. You are, right now, a capitalist yourself -- of the welfare
liberal variety.

You *can't* do it by saying, "laissez-faire capitalism is immoral". There is
not broad agreement to that intuition. You have to start with premises to
which a majority of reasonable people would agree...

--
"...if my CURRENT-SUPPOSITIONS-intender malfunctions and tokens a |Jodie Foster
is president| when it should have tokened a |George W. Bush is president| ...
this may lead to certain false beliefs, such as the belief that I will probably
be wanting to watch more presidential addresses on television in the future..."

Andy.3rd
July 1st 03, 06:26 AM
>You have to start with premises to
>which a majority of reasonable people would agree...

ok- Here is the starting premise.

It is better that all should have some rather than a few have too much and many
have too little.

Now- how do we define "all", "some", "few", "too much", "many", and"too
little"?

The line forms at the right-



His Illustrious and Most Serene Jadedness, Andy, RSM

Andy.3rd
July 1st 03, 06:26 AM
>You have to start with premises to
>which a majority of reasonable people would agree...

ok- Here is the starting premise.

It is better that all should have some rather than a few have too much and many
have too little.

Now- how do we define "all", "some", "few", "too much", "many", and"too
little"?

The line forms at the right-



His Illustrious and Most Serene Jadedness, Andy, RSM

JoelnCaryn
July 1st 03, 07:06 AM
>>You have to start with premises to
>>which a majority of reasonable people would agree...
>
>ok- Here is the starting premise.
>
>It is better that all should have some rather than a few have too much and
>many
>have too little.
>
>Now- how do we define "all", "some", "few", "too much", "many", and"too
>little"?

And as I said (much earlier, somewhere back in the mists of this thread or one
like it), at this point it gets *much* more quantitative.

"All" seems quite trivial, though.

--
"...if my CURRENT-SUPPOSITIONS-intender malfunctions and tokens a |Jodie Foster
is president| when it should have tokened a |George W. Bush is president| ...
this may lead to certain false beliefs, such as the belief that I will probably
be wanting to watch more presidential addresses on television in the future..."

JoelnCaryn
July 1st 03, 07:06 AM
>>You have to start with premises to
>>which a majority of reasonable people would agree...
>
>ok- Here is the starting premise.
>
>It is better that all should have some rather than a few have too much and
>many
>have too little.
>
>Now- how do we define "all", "some", "few", "too much", "many", and"too
>little"?

And as I said (much earlier, somewhere back in the mists of this thread or one
like it), at this point it gets *much* more quantitative.

"All" seems quite trivial, though.

--
"...if my CURRENT-SUPPOSITIONS-intender malfunctions and tokens a |Jodie Foster
is president| when it should have tokened a |George W. Bush is president| ...
this may lead to certain false beliefs, such as the belief that I will probably
be wanting to watch more presidential addresses on television in the future..."

Albert Wagner
July 1st 03, 08:17 AM
On 1 Jul 2003 11:33:20 GMT
Ed Clarke > wrote:

> In article >, Lee K wrote:
>
> >
> > What is the economic worth of a "greeter"? If ever there was a
> > make-work job........
>
> There'll be a lot more competition for these jobs according to the
> DMA. That evil national "Do Not Call" list is going to put thousands
> of telemarketers out of a job.

National news says $100 billion in lost earnings and 4 million
unemployed.

>
> http://donotcall.gov/DNC/default.aspx
>
> I weep big tears for the Direct Marketing Association, perveyors of
> spam, siding for apartments and new automobile financing for the
> blind.

Albert Wagner
July 1st 03, 08:17 AM
On 1 Jul 2003 11:33:20 GMT
Ed Clarke > wrote:

> In article >, Lee K wrote:
>
> >
> > What is the economic worth of a "greeter"? If ever there was a
> > make-work job........
>
> There'll be a lot more competition for these jobs according to the
> DMA. That evil national "Do Not Call" list is going to put thousands
> of telemarketers out of a job.

National news says $100 billion in lost earnings and 4 million
unemployed.

>
> http://donotcall.gov/DNC/default.aspx
>
> I weep big tears for the Direct Marketing Association, perveyors of
> spam, siding for apartments and new automobile financing for the
> blind.

Albert Wagner
July 1st 03, 08:45 AM
On 01 Jul 2003 04:02:13 GMT
(JoelnCaryn) wrote:
<snip>
> There are plenty of arguments for why capitalism is an inaccurate
> model.

I've been googleing for that subject. If you run across any of those
arguments, please share them with me.

> It's
> just that it happens to be the best model we've got. Feel free to
> come up with a better model.

I hope to. It may be a model that is not likely to be adopted in the
near future, but to be true to myself I have to give it a go.

> You are, right now, a capitalist yourself -- of the welfare
> liberal variety.

Yes, you have used this term to refer to my beliefs before, and it was
probably accurate. But my beliefs are currently in flux.

>
> You *can't* do it by saying, "laissez-faire capitalism is immoral".
> There is not broad agreement to that intuition. You have to start
> with premises to which a majority of reasonable people would agree...

Yes, you are right. At the moment it is just intuition. I am searching
and reading for justifications of that intuition. Although,
"reasonable" might require redefinition. As used by capitalists the
word means "seeking your own self interest regardless of long term
consequences."

Albert Wagner
July 1st 03, 08:45 AM
On 01 Jul 2003 04:02:13 GMT
(JoelnCaryn) wrote:
<snip>
> There are plenty of arguments for why capitalism is an inaccurate
> model.

I've been googleing for that subject. If you run across any of those
arguments, please share them with me.

> It's
> just that it happens to be the best model we've got. Feel free to
> come up with a better model.

I hope to. It may be a model that is not likely to be adopted in the
near future, but to be true to myself I have to give it a go.

> You are, right now, a capitalist yourself -- of the welfare
> liberal variety.

Yes, you have used this term to refer to my beliefs before, and it was
probably accurate. But my beliefs are currently in flux.

>
> You *can't* do it by saying, "laissez-faire capitalism is immoral".
> There is not broad agreement to that intuition. You have to start
> with premises to which a majority of reasonable people would agree...

Yes, you are right. At the moment it is just intuition. I am searching
and reading for justifications of that intuition. Although,
"reasonable" might require redefinition. As used by capitalists the
word means "seeking your own self interest regardless of long term
consequences."

Albert Wagner
July 1st 03, 08:46 AM
On 01 Jul 2003 04:26:13 GMT
(Andy.3rd) wrote:

> >You have to start with premises to
> >which a majority of reasonable people would agree...
>
> ok- Here is the starting premise.
>
> It is better that all should have some rather than a few have too much
> and many have too little.
>
> Now- how do we define "all", "some", "few", "too much", "many",
> and"too little"?
>
> The line forms at the right-

Hell, don't stop there. You forgot "better" (for who) and "have"
(property rights)

Albert Wagner
July 1st 03, 08:46 AM
On 01 Jul 2003 04:26:13 GMT
(Andy.3rd) wrote:

> >You have to start with premises to
> >which a majority of reasonable people would agree...
>
> ok- Here is the starting premise.
>
> It is better that all should have some rather than a few have too much
> and many have too little.
>
> Now- how do we define "all", "some", "few", "too much", "many",
> and"too little"?
>
> The line forms at the right-

Hell, don't stop there. You forgot "better" (for who) and "have"
(property rights)

Dennis P. Harris
July 1st 03, 09:58 AM
On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 12:10:22 -0400 in
misc.consumers.frugal-living, JohnDoe <> wrote:

> there ain't a one thing keeping you here, see ya

no, you fascists should be the ones leaving. go to singapore,
they love to exploit workers and jail the most innocuous
opposition.

Dennis P. Harris
July 1st 03, 09:58 AM
On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 12:10:22 -0400 in
misc.consumers.frugal-living, JohnDoe <> wrote:

> there ain't a one thing keeping you here, see ya

no, you fascists should be the ones leaving. go to singapore,
they love to exploit workers and jail the most innocuous
opposition.

Ed Clarke
July 1st 03, 01:33 PM
In article >, Lee K wrote:

>
> What is the economic worth of a "greeter"? If ever there was a make-work
> job........

There'll be a lot more competition for these jobs according to the DMA.
That evil national "Do Not Call" list is going to put thousands of
telemarketers out of a job.

http://donotcall.gov/DNC/default.aspx

I weep big tears for the Direct Marketing Association, perveyors of spam,
siding for apartments and new automobile financing for the blind.

Ed Clarke
July 1st 03, 01:33 PM
In article >, Lee K wrote:

>
> What is the economic worth of a "greeter"? If ever there was a make-work
> job........

There'll be a lot more competition for these jobs according to the DMA.
That evil national "Do Not Call" list is going to put thousands of
telemarketers out of a job.

http://donotcall.gov/DNC/default.aspx

I weep big tears for the Direct Marketing Association, perveyors of spam,
siding for apartments and new automobile financing for the blind.

R.White
July 1st 03, 03:29 PM
"Chloe" > wrote in message >...
> "Lee K" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Chloe" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > "Pat Meadows" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 20:32:39 -0400, "linda-renee"
> > > > <[email protected]!net.> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >It's pretty naive to assume that all lower-paid workers are victims
> of
> > > > >circumstance and have no responsibility for their "misfortune," such
> as
> it
> > > > >is. There's no sin in taking a minimum wage job--BTDT--but
> languishing
> in
> > > > >that job indefinitely has to reflect at least somewhat on the
> worker's
> > > > >ambition.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Or their (inborn) ability. I have known hardworking,
> > > > conscientious people who were just plain dumb, stupid. Not
> > > > their fault - they were born that way. They couldn't handle
> > > > a job with any complexity whatsoever.
> > >
> > > Me, too, and I consider it a positive rather than a negative that
> because
> of
> > > companies like WalMart there are employment opportunities for those
> people
> > > that might not exist otherwise. From that point I guess we get back into
> the
> > > old debates about just what a job stocking shelves is "worth."
> >
> > What is the economic worth of a "greeter"? If ever there was a make-work
> > job........
>
> Oh, I'd say about minimum wage. Since I don't have the kind of simplistic "I
> hate Wal-Mart because Wal-Mart is evil" attitude of some of the people
> posting here, I kind of enjoy walking into the store and having somebody say
> hello and give me a cart. It's a terrible situation for somebody trying to
> support a big family, but probably not so bad for someone collecting
> retirement who doesn't have problems with their feet and who wants to get
> out of the house a few hours a day. I assume there are greeters in both
> categories as well as in between.

But some of us hate Wal-mart becuase we have actually worked there in
both the retail and distribution operations and know first hand what
kind of "evil" company they are.

R.White
July 1st 03, 03:29 PM
"Chloe" > wrote in message >...
> "Lee K" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Chloe" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > "Pat Meadows" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > On Sat, 28 Jun 2003 20:32:39 -0400, "linda-renee"
> > > > <[email protected]!net.> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >It's pretty naive to assume that all lower-paid workers are victims
> of
> > > > >circumstance and have no responsibility for their "misfortune," such
> as
> it
> > > > >is. There's no sin in taking a minimum wage job--BTDT--but
> languishing
> in
> > > > >that job indefinitely has to reflect at least somewhat on the
> worker's
> > > > >ambition.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Or their (inborn) ability. I have known hardworking,
> > > > conscientious people who were just plain dumb, stupid. Not
> > > > their fault - they were born that way. They couldn't handle
> > > > a job with any complexity whatsoever.
> > >
> > > Me, too, and I consider it a positive rather than a negative that
> because
> of
> > > companies like WalMart there are employment opportunities for those
> people
> > > that might not exist otherwise. From that point I guess we get back into
> the
> > > old debates about just what a job stocking shelves is "worth."
> >
> > What is the economic worth of a "greeter"? If ever there was a make-work
> > job........
>
> Oh, I'd say about minimum wage. Since I don't have the kind of simplistic "I
> hate Wal-Mart because Wal-Mart is evil" attitude of some of the people
> posting here, I kind of enjoy walking into the store and having somebody say
> hello and give me a cart. It's a terrible situation for somebody trying to
> support a big family, but probably not so bad for someone collecting
> retirement who doesn't have problems with their feet and who wants to get
> out of the house a few hours a day. I assume there are greeters in both
> categories as well as in between.

But some of us hate Wal-mart becuase we have actually worked there in
both the retail and distribution operations and know first hand what
kind of "evil" company they are.

The Real Bev
July 1st 03, 06:03 PM
Albert Wagner wrote:
>
> Ed Clarke > wrote:
>
> > Lee K wrote:
> >
> > > What is the economic worth of a "greeter"? If ever there was a
> > > make-work job........
> >
> > There'll be a lot more competition for these jobs according to the
> > DMA. That evil national "Do Not Call" list is going to put thousands
> > of telemarketers out of a job.
>
> National news says $100 billion in lost earnings and 4 million
> unemployed.

Ha. They should be glad we let them live.

> > http://donotcall.gov/DNC/default.aspx
> >
> > I weep big tears for the Direct Marketing Association, perveyors of
> > spam, siding for apartments and new automobile financing for the
> > blind.

--
Cheers,
Bev
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The way England treats her prisoners, she doesn't
deserve to have any." --Oscar Wilde

The Real Bev
July 1st 03, 06:03 PM
Albert Wagner wrote:
>
> Ed Clarke > wrote:
>
> > Lee K wrote:
> >
> > > What is the economic worth of a "greeter"? If ever there was a
> > > make-work job........
> >
> > There'll be a lot more competition for these jobs according to the
> > DMA. That evil national "Do Not Call" list is going to put thousands
> > of telemarketers out of a job.
>
> National news says $100 billion in lost earnings and 4 million
> unemployed.

Ha. They should be glad we let them live.

> > http://donotcall.gov/DNC/default.aspx
> >
> > I weep big tears for the Direct Marketing Association, perveyors of
> > spam, siding for apartments and new automobile financing for the
> > blind.

--
Cheers,
Bev
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The way England treats her prisoners, she doesn't
deserve to have any." --Oscar Wilde

Don Klipstein
July 1st 03, 06:40 PM
In article >, Shag wrote:
>"Don Klipstein" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Most relevant U.S. economic statistics are published by the Bureau of
>> Labor Statistics, an agency in the Dept. of Labor.
>>
>> I can say that per-capita US GDP, after adjusting for inflation, has
>> increased at an average rate around 1-1.5% per year since 1973, while
>> median wages (after adjustment for inflation) are lower now than then.
>> The nation has gotten richer but working stiffs got poorer.
>
>You can say that, but it wouldn't be true. Real median household
>income has increased from 1973 to today, per the Census Bureau.

Sure real median household income can increase while real median
individual income decreases since more families need a second income due
to decreasing median real individual income.

- Don Klipstein )

Don Klipstein
July 1st 03, 06:40 PM
In article >, Shag wrote:
>"Don Klipstein" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Most relevant U.S. economic statistics are published by the Bureau of
>> Labor Statistics, an agency in the Dept. of Labor.
>>
>> I can say that per-capita US GDP, after adjusting for inflation, has
>> increased at an average rate around 1-1.5% per year since 1973, while
>> median wages (after adjustment for inflation) are lower now than then.
>> The nation has gotten richer but working stiffs got poorer.
>
>You can say that, but it wouldn't be true. Real median household
>income has increased from 1973 to today, per the Census Bureau.

Sure real median household income can increase while real median
individual income decreases since more families need a second income due
to decreasing median real individual income.

- Don Klipstein )

Don Klipstein
July 1st 03, 06:43 PM
In article >, Lee K wrote:
>
>"Chloe" > wrote in message
>>
>> Me, too, and I consider it a positive rather than a negative that
>> because of companies like WalMart there are employment opportunities
>> for those people that might not exist otherwise. From that point I
>> guess we get back into the old debates about just what a job stocking
>> shelves is "worth."
>
> What is the economic worth of a "greeter"? If ever there was a
> make-work job........

Public Relations

- Don Klipstein )

Don Klipstein
July 1st 03, 06:43 PM
In article >, Lee K wrote:
>
>"Chloe" > wrote in message
>>
>> Me, too, and I consider it a positive rather than a negative that
>> because of companies like WalMart there are employment opportunities
>> for those people that might not exist otherwise. From that point I
>> guess we get back into the old debates about just what a job stocking
>> shelves is "worth."
>
> What is the economic worth of a "greeter"? If ever there was a
> make-work job........

Public Relations

- Don Klipstein )

Shag
July 1st 03, 11:51 PM
"Don Klipstein" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Shag wrote:
> >"Don Klipstein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> Most relevant U.S. economic statistics are published by the Bureau of
> >> Labor Statistics, an agency in the Dept. of Labor.
> >>
> >> I can say that per-capita US GDP, after adjusting for inflation, has
> >> increased at an average rate around 1-1.5% per year since 1973, while
> >> median wages (after adjustment for inflation) are lower now than then.
> >> The nation has gotten richer but working stiffs got poorer.
> >
> >You can say that, but it wouldn't be true. Real median household
> >income has increased from 1973 to today, per the Census Bureau.
>
> Sure real median household income can increase while real median
> individual income decreases since more families need a second income due
> to decreasing median real individual income.

Did you even bother to look this up? Real median per capita income
has increased also, per the Census Bureau (from $14,291 in 1973
to $22,851 in 2001, in 2001 dollars). That's a growth rate of about
1.7% annually, roughly in line with real per capita GDP growth.

Now, about the working stiffs getting poorer...

Shag
July 1st 03, 11:51 PM
"Don Klipstein" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Shag wrote:
> >"Don Klipstein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> Most relevant U.S. economic statistics are published by the Bureau of
> >> Labor Statistics, an agency in the Dept. of Labor.
> >>
> >> I can say that per-capita US GDP, after adjusting for inflation, has
> >> increased at an average rate around 1-1.5% per year since 1973, while
> >> median wages (after adjustment for inflation) are lower now than then.
> >> The nation has gotten richer but working stiffs got poorer.
> >
> >You can say that, but it wouldn't be true. Real median household
> >income has increased from 1973 to today, per the Census Bureau.
>
> Sure real median household income can increase while real median
> individual income decreases since more families need a second income due
> to decreasing median real individual income.

Did you even bother to look this up? Real median per capita income
has increased also, per the Census Bureau (from $14,291 in 1973
to $22,851 in 2001, in 2001 dollars). That's a growth rate of about
1.7% annually, roughly in line with real per capita GDP growth.

Now, about the working stiffs getting poorer...

lpogoda
July 2nd 03, 02:36 AM
Lee K wrote in message >...
>
>
>What is the economic worth of a "greeter"? If ever there was a make-work
>job........
>
I've never been to England, let alone been to England back in the 1970's, so
I don't know how accurate an example this may be, but I do recall a
"Britcom" still occasionally seen on public TV called "Are you being
served?". The floorwalker character, (Captain Peabody ?) was a greeter.

Ok, not in the same way as those people at Wal-Mart, but still. I know, I
know, the show was a parody, but presumably it was parodying something that
actually existed.

lpogoda
July 2nd 03, 02:36 AM
Lee K wrote in message >...
>
>
>What is the economic worth of a "greeter"? If ever there was a make-work
>job........
>
I've never been to England, let alone been to England back in the 1970's, so
I don't know how accurate an example this may be, but I do recall a
"Britcom" still occasionally seen on public TV called "Are you being
served?". The floorwalker character, (Captain Peabody ?) was a greeter.

Ok, not in the same way as those people at Wal-Mart, but still. I know, I
know, the show was a parody, but presumably it was parodying something that
actually existed.

lpogoda
July 2nd 03, 02:45 AM
linda-renee wrote in message ...
>"R.White" > wrote in message
>
>> But some of us hate Wal-mart becuase we have actually worked there in
>> both the retail and distribution operations and know first hand what
>> kind of "evil" company they are.
>
>Aren't you the guy who also told the horror stories of working at KMart?
>You'd think you'd learn to stay out of discount retail....
>
Some of the best jobs I've ever had, places that treated you like a real
human being, that paid well, had good benefits, interesting work, reasonable
hours, were flexible about additional time off if you needed it, good
working conditions, considerable autonomy, etc. were filled with employees
who daily bitterly complained about what terrible places these were.

It's at least partly human nature to complain about work, and I don't know
about discount retail in general or Wal-Mart in particular, but some people
wouldn't know a decent job if it hit them in the face.

lpogoda
July 2nd 03, 02:45 AM
linda-renee wrote in message ...
>"R.White" > wrote in message
>
>> But some of us hate Wal-mart becuase we have actually worked there in
>> both the retail and distribution operations and know first hand what
>> kind of "evil" company they are.
>
>Aren't you the guy who also told the horror stories of working at KMart?
>You'd think you'd learn to stay out of discount retail....
>
Some of the best jobs I've ever had, places that treated you like a real
human being, that paid well, had good benefits, interesting work, reasonable
hours, were flexible about additional time off if you needed it, good
working conditions, considerable autonomy, etc. were filled with employees
who daily bitterly complained about what terrible places these were.

It's at least partly human nature to complain about work, and I don't know
about discount retail in general or Wal-Mart in particular, but some people
wouldn't know a decent job if it hit them in the face.

lpogoda
July 2nd 03, 02:49 AM
Albert Wagner wrote in message
>...
>On 1 Jul 2003 11:33:20 GMT
>Ed Clarke > wrote:
>
>> In article >, Lee K wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > What is the economic worth of a "greeter"? If ever there was a
>> > make-work job........
>>
>> There'll be a lot more competition for these jobs according to the
>> DMA. That evil national "Do Not Call" list is going to put thousands
>> of telemarketers out of a job.
>
>National news says $100 billion in lost earnings and 4 million
>unemployed.
>
I'm old enough to remember when they predicted the same sort of thing when
the proposal to outlaw cigarette advertising on TV was first made. There
must have been problems and adjustments, but last time I looked, the world
wasn't going 'round any slower.

lpogoda
July 2nd 03, 02:49 AM
Albert Wagner wrote in message
>...
>On 1 Jul 2003 11:33:20 GMT
>Ed Clarke > wrote:
>
>> In article >, Lee K wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > What is the economic worth of a "greeter"? If ever there was a
>> > make-work job........
>>
>> There'll be a lot more competition for these jobs according to the
>> DMA. That evil national "Do Not Call" list is going to put thousands
>> of telemarketers out of a job.
>
>National news says $100 billion in lost earnings and 4 million
>unemployed.
>
I'm old enough to remember when they predicted the same sort of thing when
the proposal to outlaw cigarette advertising on TV was first made. There
must have been problems and adjustments, but last time I looked, the world
wasn't going 'round any slower.

Don Klipstein
July 2nd 03, 02:51 AM
In article >, Shag wrote:
>
>Did you even bother to look this up? Real median per capita income
>has increased also, per the Census Bureau (from $14,291 in 1973
>to $22,851 in 2001, in 2001 dollars). That's a growth rate of about
>1.7% annually, roughly in line with real per capita GDP growth.

Show me the link... I would like to see "mediam per capita" anything.
Per capita by definition is normally a mean rather than a median.
Been to the income page at the Census bureau site and did not see an
obvious path to that one.

And whatever they actually call it, is this not income per person,
rather than income per working person?

>Now, about the working stiffs getting poorer...

Sure did if they did not have housemates get jobs that they did not need
to get in 1973!

- Don Klipstein )

Don Klipstein
July 2nd 03, 02:51 AM
In article >, Shag wrote:
>
>Did you even bother to look this up? Real median per capita income
>has increased also, per the Census Bureau (from $14,291 in 1973
>to $22,851 in 2001, in 2001 dollars). That's a growth rate of about
>1.7% annually, roughly in line with real per capita GDP growth.

Show me the link... I would like to see "mediam per capita" anything.
Per capita by definition is normally a mean rather than a median.
Been to the income page at the Census bureau site and did not see an
obvious path to that one.

And whatever they actually call it, is this not income per person,
rather than income per working person?

>Now, about the working stiffs getting poorer...

Sure did if they did not have housemates get jobs that they did not need
to get in 1973!

- Don Klipstein )

Shag
July 2nd 03, 03:43 AM
"Don Klipstein" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Shag wrote:
> >
> >Did you even bother to look this up? Real median per capita income
> >has increased also, per the Census Bureau (from $14,291 in 1973
> >to $22,851 in 2001, in 2001 dollars). That's a growth rate of about
> >1.7% annually, roughly in line with real per capita GDP growth.
>
> Show me the link... I would like to see "mediam per capita" anything.
> Per capita by definition is normally a mean rather than a median.

You're quite right -- what the heck would "median per capita" mean,
anyway? The chart (http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/p01.html)
doesn't explicitly say whether it's mean or median; one of the footnotes
says something about medians, but it's got to be mean data. In any
event, real (mean) per capita income has increased.

> Been to the income page at the Census bureau site and did not see an
> obvious path to that one.
>
> And whatever they actually call it, is this not income per person,
> rather than income per working person?

Yep, 282 million for 2001 and 208 million for 1973. For working
people, look at http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/p54.html.
Again, real income per working person (whether mean or median) has
increased since 1973, albeit most of that is gains by women.

> >Now, about the working stiffs getting poorer...
>
> Sure did if they did not have housemates get jobs that they did not need
> to get in 1973!

Real wages have increased since 1973. Other members of the
household getting jobs is not a "need", methinks; it's for a little
extra to get "luxuries", like cable TV, vacations to Cabo, and
a hot tub. (Just to bring this back to m.c.f-l.)

Shag
July 2nd 03, 03:43 AM
"Don Klipstein" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Shag wrote:
> >
> >Did you even bother to look this up? Real median per capita income
> >has increased also, per the Census Bureau (from $14,291 in 1973
> >to $22,851 in 2001, in 2001 dollars). That's a growth rate of about
> >1.7% annually, roughly in line with real per capita GDP growth.
>
> Show me the link... I would like to see "mediam per capita" anything.
> Per capita by definition is normally a mean rather than a median.

You're quite right -- what the heck would "median per capita" mean,
anyway? The chart (http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/p01.html)
doesn't explicitly say whether it's mean or median; one of the footnotes
says something about medians, but it's got to be mean data. In any
event, real (mean) per capita income has increased.

> Been to the income page at the Census bureau site and did not see an
> obvious path to that one.
>
> And whatever they actually call it, is this not income per person,
> rather than income per working person?

Yep, 282 million for 2001 and 208 million for 1973. For working
people, look at http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/p54.html.
Again, real income per working person (whether mean or median) has
increased since 1973, albeit most of that is gains by women.

> >Now, about the working stiffs getting poorer...
>
> Sure did if they did not have housemates get jobs that they did not need
> to get in 1973!

Real wages have increased since 1973. Other members of the
household getting jobs is not a "need", methinks; it's for a little
extra to get "luxuries", like cable TV, vacations to Cabo, and
a hot tub. (Just to bring this back to m.c.f-l.)

R.White
July 2nd 03, 04:07 AM
"linda-renee" <[email protected]!net.> wrote in message >...
> "R.White" > wrote in message
>
> > But some of us hate Wal-mart becuase we have actually worked there in
> > both the retail and distribution operations and know first hand what
> > kind of "evil" company they are.
>
> Aren't you the guy who also told the horror stories of working at KMart?
> You'd think you'd learn to stay out of discount retail....

My wife worked there if that's what you're talking about.
Alas, we are both out of retail.

R.White
July 2nd 03, 04:07 AM
"linda-renee" <[email protected]!net.> wrote in message >...
> "R.White" > wrote in message
>
> > But some of us hate Wal-mart becuase we have actually worked there in
> > both the retail and distribution operations and know first hand what
> > kind of "evil" company they are.
>
> Aren't you the guy who also told the horror stories of working at KMart?
> You'd think you'd learn to stay out of discount retail....

My wife worked there if that's what you're talking about.
Alas, we are both out of retail.

lpogoda
July 2nd 03, 04:26 AM
Don Klipstein wrote in message ...
>In article >, Shag wrote:
>>
>>Did you even bother to look this up? Real median per capita income
>>has increased also, per the Census Bureau (from $14,291 in 1973
>>to $22,851 in 2001, in 2001 dollars). That's a growth rate of about
>>1.7% annually, roughly in line with real per capita GDP growth.
>
> Show me the link... I would like to see "mediam per capita" anything.
>Per capita by definition is normally a mean rather than a median.
> Been to the income page at the Census bureau site and did not see an
>obvious path to that one.
>
> And whatever they actually call it, is this not income per person,
>rather than income per working person?
>
>>Now, about the working stiffs getting poorer...
>
> Sure did if they did not have housemates get jobs that they did not need
>to get in 1973!
>
So how old were you in 1973 (for the record, I was 24). There were a lot of
one-and-a-half (one spouse working part time) to two income families back
then, and people did not generally live nearly as "large" as they do today.

lpogoda
July 2nd 03, 04:26 AM
Don Klipstein wrote in message ...
>In article >, Shag wrote:
>>
>>Did you even bother to look this up? Real median per capita income
>>has increased also, per the Census Bureau (from $14,291 in 1973
>>to $22,851 in 2001, in 2001 dollars). That's a growth rate of about
>>1.7% annually, roughly in line with real per capita GDP growth.
>
> Show me the link... I would like to see "mediam per capita" anything.
>Per capita by definition is normally a mean rather than a median.
> Been to the income page at the Census bureau site and did not see an
>obvious path to that one.
>
> And whatever they actually call it, is this not income per person,
>rather than income per working person?
>
>>Now, about the working stiffs getting poorer...
>
> Sure did if they did not have housemates get jobs that they did not need
>to get in 1973!
>
So how old were you in 1973 (for the record, I was 24). There were a lot of
one-and-a-half (one spouse working part time) to two income families back
then, and people did not generally live nearly as "large" as they do today.

Chloe
July 2nd 03, 01:40 PM
"lpogoda" > wrote in message
...
>
> linda-renee wrote in message ...
> >"R.White" > wrote in message
> >
> >> But some of us hate Wal-mart becuase we have actually worked there in
> >> both the retail and distribution operations and know first hand what
> >> kind of "evil" company they are.
> >
> >Aren't you the guy who also told the horror stories of working at KMart?
> >You'd think you'd learn to stay out of discount retail....
> >
> Some of the best jobs I've ever had, places that treated you like a real
> human being, that paid well, had good benefits, interesting work,
reasonable
> hours, were flexible about additional time off if you needed it, good
> working conditions, considerable autonomy, etc. were filled with employees
> who daily bitterly complained about what terrible places these were.
>
> It's at least partly human nature to complain about work, and I don't know
> about discount retail in general or Wal-Mart in particular, but some
people
> wouldn't know a decent job if it hit them in the face.

I've had the same experience, and I'm hardly a chronic complainer about work
conditions. Matter of fact, at the little McJob I have now the five guys I
complete tasks for treat me with absolute respect and behave like perfect
gentlemen in my presence. This despite the fact that the job is not "worth"
much in terms of what it pays, so they're certainly not deciding how they
act toward me based on my status in the workplace.

I've also worked for a government nonprofit in a much more responsible and
better paid position where I was treated worse than an animal and finally
forced out by an excessive workload designed to get me to leave. My guess is
that Wal-Mart employees' experiences are similar, probably depending a lot
on how managers and coworkers behave.

Chloe
July 2nd 03, 01:40 PM
"lpogoda" > wrote in message
...
>
> linda-renee wrote in message ...
> >"R.White" > wrote in message
> >
> >> But some of us hate Wal-mart becuase we have actually worked there in
> >> both the retail and distribution operations and know first hand what
> >> kind of "evil" company they are.
> >
> >Aren't you the guy who also told the horror stories of working at KMart?
> >You'd think you'd learn to stay out of discount retail....
> >
> Some of the best jobs I've ever had, places that treated you like a real
> human being, that paid well, had good benefits, interesting work,
reasonable
> hours, were flexible about additional time off if you needed it, good
> working conditions, considerable autonomy, etc. were filled with employees
> who daily bitterly complained about what terrible places these were.
>
> It's at least partly human nature to complain about work, and I don't know
> about discount retail in general or Wal-Mart in particular, but some
people
> wouldn't know a decent job if it hit them in the face.

I've had the same experience, and I'm hardly a chronic complainer about work
conditions. Matter of fact, at the little McJob I have now the five guys I
complete tasks for treat me with absolute respect and behave like perfect
gentlemen in my presence. This despite the fact that the job is not "worth"
much in terms of what it pays, so they're certainly not deciding how they
act toward me based on my status in the workplace.

I've also worked for a government nonprofit in a much more responsible and
better paid position where I was treated worse than an animal and finally
forced out by an excessive workload designed to get me to leave. My guess is
that Wal-Mart employees' experiences are similar, probably depending a lot
on how managers and coworkers behave.

blech
July 2nd 03, 02:39 PM
(Dennis P. Harris) wrote in message >...
> On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 08:31:23 -0400 in
> misc.consumers.frugal-living, JohnDoe > wrote:
>
> > I never said that he HAD to go, I said that he was free to go. and
> > will you be the one who determines which one of you fascists will be
> > the arbiter of who stays and who goes?
>
> you misunderstand. it's you right wingnuts who are the fascists.
> the ones who support an unelected so-called president appointed
> by court fiat, not elected by a majority of the people.

Is that the same majority that was going to make sure the Democrats
were voted back in power last November?

blech
July 2nd 03, 02:39 PM
(Dennis P. Harris) wrote in message >...
> On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 08:31:23 -0400 in
> misc.consumers.frugal-living, JohnDoe > wrote:
>
> > I never said that he HAD to go, I said that he was free to go. and
> > will you be the one who determines which one of you fascists will be
> > the arbiter of who stays and who goes?
>
> you misunderstand. it's you right wingnuts who are the fascists.
> the ones who support an unelected so-called president appointed
> by court fiat, not elected by a majority of the people.

Is that the same majority that was going to make sure the Democrats
were voted back in power last November?

July 3rd 03, 01:03 AM
(Dennis P. Harris) wrote:
>On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 08:31:23 -0400 in
>misc.consumers.frugal-living, JohnDoe > wrote:
>
>> I never said that he HAD to go, I said that he was free to go. and
>> will you be the one who determines which one of you fascists will be
>> the arbiter of who stays and who goes?
>
>you misunderstand. it's you right wingnuts who are the fascists.
>the ones who support an unelected so-called president appointed
>by court fiat, not elected by a majority of the people.
>
>
Here's what I think about that election....

Maybe Al Gore won.
Maybe Al Gore should be in office.
If that were true, 49.9X percent would be upset by the result instead of
50.0X percent.
They both got half the vote, plus or minus something statistcally insignificant.
DEMOCRATS lost the office. The PEOPLE are still reprsented.

It doesn't upset me that George Bush is in office under these circumstances,
even though I've never voted for a republican candidate in my life. Their
party platform doesn't reflect many of my beliefs/concerns/hopes for the
future. But half the electorate (plus or minus some small number) voted
for the man.

Brian

July 3rd 03, 01:03 AM
(Dennis P. Harris) wrote:
>On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 08:31:23 -0400 in
>misc.consumers.frugal-living, JohnDoe > wrote:
>
>> I never said that he HAD to go, I said that he was free to go. and
>> will you be the one who determines which one of you fascists will be
>> the arbiter of who stays and who goes?
>
>you misunderstand. it's you right wingnuts who are the fascists.
>the ones who support an unelected so-called president appointed
>by court fiat, not elected by a majority of the people.
>
>
Here's what I think about that election....

Maybe Al Gore won.
Maybe Al Gore should be in office.
If that were true, 49.9X percent would be upset by the result instead of
50.0X percent.
They both got half the vote, plus or minus something statistcally insignificant.
DEMOCRATS lost the office. The PEOPLE are still reprsented.

It doesn't upset me that George Bush is in office under these circumstances,
even though I've never voted for a republican candidate in my life. Their
party platform doesn't reflect many of my beliefs/concerns/hopes for the
future. But half the electorate (plus or minus some small number) voted
for the man.

Brian

July 3rd 03, 01:06 AM
(Dennis P. Harris) wrote:
>On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 08:31:23 -0400 in
>misc.consumers.frugal-living, JohnDoe > wrote:
>
>> I never said that he HAD to go, I said that he was free to go. and
>> will you be the one who determines which one of you fascists will be
>> the arbiter of who stays and who goes?
>
>you misunderstand. it's you right wingnuts who are the fascists.
>the ones who support an unelected so-called president appointed
>by court fiat, not elected by a majority of the people.
>
>
Here's what I think about that election....

Maybe Al Gore won.
Maybe Al Gore should be in office.
If that were true, 49.9X percent would be upset by the result instead of
50.0X percent.
They both got half the vote, plus or minus something statistcally insignificant.
DEMOCRATS lost the office. The PEOPLE are still reprsented.

It doesn't upset me that George Bush is in office under these circumstances,
even though I've never voted for a republican candidate in my life. Their
party platform doesn't reflect many of my beliefs/concerns/hopes for the
future. But half the electorate (plus or minus some small number) voted
for the man.

Brian

July 3rd 03, 01:06 AM
(Dennis P. Harris) wrote:
>On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 08:31:23 -0400 in
>misc.consumers.frugal-living, JohnDoe > wrote:
>
>> I never said that he HAD to go, I said that he was free to go. and
>> will you be the one who determines which one of you fascists will be
>> the arbiter of who stays and who goes?
>
>you misunderstand. it's you right wingnuts who are the fascists.
>the ones who support an unelected so-called president appointed
>by court fiat, not elected by a majority of the people.
>
>
Here's what I think about that election....

Maybe Al Gore won.
Maybe Al Gore should be in office.
If that were true, 49.9X percent would be upset by the result instead of
50.0X percent.
They both got half the vote, plus or minus something statistcally insignificant.
DEMOCRATS lost the office. The PEOPLE are still reprsented.

It doesn't upset me that George Bush is in office under these circumstances,
even though I've never voted for a republican candidate in my life. Their
party platform doesn't reflect many of my beliefs/concerns/hopes for the
future. But half the electorate (plus or minus some small number) voted
for the man.

Brian

R.White
July 3rd 03, 06:47 AM
"lpogoda" > wrote in message >...
> linda-renee wrote in message ...
> >"R.White" > wrote in message
> >
> >> But some of us hate Wal-mart becuase we have actually worked there in
> >> both the retail and distribution operations and know first hand what
> >> kind of "evil" company they are.
> >
> >Aren't you the guy who also told the horror stories of working at KMart?
> >You'd think you'd learn to stay out of discount retail....
> >
> Some of the best jobs I've ever had, places that treated you like a real
> human being, that paid well, had good benefits, interesting work, reasonable
> hours, were flexible about additional time off if you needed it, good
> working conditions, considerable autonomy, etc. were filled with employees
> who daily bitterly complained about what terrible places these were.

"At Wal-Mart the average employee makes only $15,000 a year for
full-time work. Most are denied even this poverty income, for they're
held to part-time work. While the company brags that 70% of its
workers are full-time, at Wal-Mart "full time" is 28 hours a week,
meaning they gross less than $11,000 a year."

Are there any other places to work where full time is 28 hours a week?
Granted, I did get 32 hours a week, even so, that made my annual
income
on par with someone who made $8.60 hr. Many of the sheeple were
bragging
that they got paid $11.50 hr. but didn't understand the huge bite that
was being taking out of their anuual income due to Wal-Mart's
definition of full time. (this is for distribution work, not retail)
Also, the majority of workers could never afford the medical coverage
because they simply didn't make enough money. One benefit they did get
if
they had a family was they were eligable for food stamps.



> It's at least partly human nature to complain about work, and I don't know
> about discount retail in general or Wal-Mart in particular, but some people
> wouldn't know a decent job if it hit them in the face.

I would and it wasn't.

R.White
July 3rd 03, 06:47 AM
"lpogoda" > wrote in message >...
> linda-renee wrote in message ...
> >"R.White" > wrote in message
> >
> >> But some of us hate Wal-mart becuase we have actually worked there in
> >> both the retail and distribution operations and know first hand what
> >> kind of "evil" company they are.
> >
> >Aren't you the guy who also told the horror stories of working at KMart?
> >You'd think you'd learn to stay out of discount retail....
> >
> Some of the best jobs I've ever had, places that treated you like a real
> human being, that paid well, had good benefits, interesting work, reasonable
> hours, were flexible about additional time off if you needed it, good
> working conditions, considerable autonomy, etc. were filled with employees
> who daily bitterly complained about what terrible places these were.

"At Wal-Mart the average employee makes only $15,000 a year for
full-time work. Most are denied even this poverty income, for they're
held to part-time work. While the company brags that 70% of its
workers are full-time, at Wal-Mart "full time" is 28 hours a week,
meaning they gross less than $11,000 a year."

Are there any other places to work where full time is 28 hours a week?
Granted, I did get 32 hours a week, even so, that made my annual
income
on par with someone who made $8.60 hr. Many of the sheeple were
bragging
that they got paid $11.50 hr. but didn't understand the huge bite that
was being taking out of their anuual income due to Wal-Mart's
definition of full time. (this is for distribution work, not retail)
Also, the majority of workers could never afford the medical coverage
because they simply didn't make enough money. One benefit they did get
if
they had a family was they were eligable for food stamps.



> It's at least partly human nature to complain about work, and I don't know
> about discount retail in general or Wal-Mart in particular, but some people
> wouldn't know a decent job if it hit them in the face.

I would and it wasn't.

Don K
July 4th 03, 12:28 AM
"Don Klipstein" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Don K wrote:

> >Then if I want to sell thru Walmart, I should make my product idiot-proof
> >as much as possible. Maybe that means moving away from 2 cycle engines.
> >
> >Maybe it means I shouldn't clutter the instruction book with 5 separate
> >languages interspersed on random pages, but print 5 separate manuals
> >each in its own language, so the buyer can throw out those he can't read.
>
> Do you expect me to believe that Wal Mart is willing to pay Don's
> Manufacturing a higher price to cover 4 extra manual binding operations
> and 4-cycle chainsaw/weedwacker engines?

I don't know, maybe I'll pay for the 4 extra staples, myself.

I could build a PR campaign around the fact that my instruction
manuals are concise and each are printed only in one language.

People fed up flipping thru multi-lingual manuals printed
on alternately upside-down pages or in backwards order
will prefer a clear alternative, and will seek out my product.

Don

Don K
July 4th 03, 12:28 AM
"Don Klipstein" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Don K wrote:

> >Then if I want to sell thru Walmart, I should make my product idiot-proof
> >as much as possible. Maybe that means moving away from 2 cycle engines.
> >
> >Maybe it means I shouldn't clutter the instruction book with 5 separate
> >languages interspersed on random pages, but print 5 separate manuals
> >each in its own language, so the buyer can throw out those he can't read.
>
> Do you expect me to believe that Wal Mart is willing to pay Don's
> Manufacturing a higher price to cover 4 extra manual binding operations
> and 4-cycle chainsaw/weedwacker engines?

I don't know, maybe I'll pay for the 4 extra staples, myself.

I could build a PR campaign around the fact that my instruction
manuals are concise and each are printed only in one language.

People fed up flipping thru multi-lingual manuals printed
on alternately upside-down pages or in backwards order
will prefer a clear alternative, and will seek out my product.

Don

Google