A starving man will clutch at any straw. I wonder if this article informs us how good Wal-Mart is, or how bad off the locals are.Economist said:Just out of curiousity, why do you think that's relevant?
This is not in the link you posted. This is nonsense, please post the link to this.Economist said:Evil Wal-Mart by Russell Roberts
A lot of people think that when Wal-Mart comes to town, wages fall along with the quality of life. Wal-Mart jobs are low-paying which drains money from the community. Wal-Mart jobs don't have enough benefits along with the low wages. Wal-Mart jobs exploit workers because Wal-Mart workers aren't unionized.
The article was actually positive on Walmart, there are a lot of people that need these jobs.jimmysnyder said:A starving man will clutch at any straw. I wonder if this article informs us how good Wal-Mart is, or how bad off the locals are.
Economist said:You seem to have got a few things mixed up. Yes, minimum wages tend to raise the wages of those at, or slightly above the minimum wage, but at the expense of the lower paid/skilled (by making them less employable).
Furthermore, your last paragraph is flawed. It is true that manufacturing jobs are more likely to be outsourced given minimum wages. But your assumption that this industry is "unique" precisely because you can outsource to cheaper labor, misses the fact that substitutes for things are everywhere. For example, movie theatres used to have ushers to walk people to their seats. If the minimum wage was increased, they wouldn't be "stuck" because they can't outsource. This is because there are other substitutes, such as scratching the job altogether and letting people find their own seat. Likewise, if you own a gas station and hire someone to pump the gas, a raise in the minimum wage may lead you to decide that you will let people pump their own gas. Or imagine that you are a business owner and you have a team of 10 janitors, and the minimum wage increases. Well, now it maybe best to just keep 1 or 2 janitors and invest in expensive equipment/machinery/technology which allows them to do the job that used to require 10 janitors. Essentially, you are missing one of the fundamental principles of Econ 101, which is that (virtually) everything has substitutes!
Unless you properly cite these stats, you are simply resorting to an appeal to authority. If you can't cite the stats, don't say the words!Economist said:Walter Williams points out that [...]. He then points out how [...]. Walter Williams also points out the ways in which [...].
Will RR come back to us with the number of people that lose their jobs at the smaller stores that will inevitably have to close down?Russell Roberts said:In just two days, and with virtually no advertising or even any signs, a staggering 7,500 people filled out applications for one of the 350 to 400 available jobs.
That is the sad truth. Wal-Mart typically horns into little Maine towns offering a promise of lots of new jobs, and demanding tax-incremented financing, which the towns often grant in order to get short-term boosts in construction employment, etc. Wal Mart pays little or nothing in local taxes for years, while forcing little local retailers out of business, thereby reducing the tax-base of the town, and increasing the tax-load on residents with homes. They also pull in unemployed or underemployed people from outlying towns, many of them young families or single-parent families with kids, and those kids have to be educated, straining the school system. These people find apartments or trailers to rent, and contribute nothing to the local tax base, while consuming services and increasing taxes on homeowners. Wal Mart is bad news. My wife and I left Skowhegan because of the civic deterioration and skyrocketing property taxes resulting from "development" such as this.Gokul43201 said:Will RR come back to us with the number of people that lose their jobs at the smaller stores that will inevitably have to close down?
Gokul43201 said:Unless you properly cite these stats, you are simply resorting to an appeal to authority. If you can't cite the stats, don't say the words!
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/05/wage.htmlBureau of Labor Statistics unemployment data confirms the economic prediction about minimum wage effects. Currently, the teen unemployment rate is 16 percent for whites and 32 percent for blacks. In 1948, the unemployment rate for black teens (16-17) was lower (9.4 percent) than white teens (10.2 percent). Plus, black teens were more active in the labor force.
How might we explain that? How about arguing that there was less racial discrimination in 1948, or back then black teens were more highly educated than white teens? Of course, such arguments would be nonsense. The fact of the matter is that while there was a minimum wage of 40 cents an hour prior to 1948, it had been essentially repealed by the post-World War II inflation; however, with successive increases in the minimum wage, black teen unemployment rose relative to white teens to where it has become permanently double that of white teens.
If the minimum wage law has these effects, then how does it pass political muster?
jimmysnyder said:A starving man will clutch at any straw. I wonder if this article informs us how good Wal-Mart is, or how bad off the locals are.
Evo said:This is not in the link you posted. This is nonsense, please post the link to this.
The article was actually positive on Walmart, there are a lot of people that need these jobs.
Gokul43201 said:Unless you properly cite these stats, you are simply resorting to an appeal to authority. If you can't cite the stats, don't say the words!
turbo-1 said:Can you imagine people working on Wal Mart wages staying with these businesses for decades, raising families, building homes, etc?
The Walmart here has a small hardware department, of course Lowe's and Home Depot are also in the same area, but there is a nearby family owned hardware store that I and apparently a lot of other people go to because if I need to do serious work, I know that they will not only tell me which products I need and explain the differences and options, they'll also tell me how to get the job done correctly. At Home Depot, I'm lucky if I can find someone to tell me which isle the duct tape is on.turbo-1 said:I have not personally worked in small-business retail, but if I patronize local hardware, office-supply, and building-supply stores, I find myself dealing with knowledgeable employees that I have known and dealt with for 15-20 years or so. My best friend works in a little local office-supply store and he and his wife (my cousin, who is a clerical worker in a medical practice) raised two lovely young women, helped put one of them through college, and recently built a very nice retirement home for themselves. Can you imagine people working on Wal Mart wages staying with these businesses for decades, raising families, building homes, etc?
Who said they thought this?chemisttree said:Why do you think that smaller retailers pay their employees better and offer better benefits?
Not when you make specific references to data that is not common knowledge.Economist said:People say things all the time without having citations.
2) Citations of sources for any factual claims (primary sources should be used whenever possible).
But it's impossible to have a meaningful discussion this way. First you paraphrase Walter Williams, and then you ask: "How exactly does what you're saying explain this?"Economist said:It's not like we're writing and academic journal article here, we're just having a discussion.
chemisttree said:Have you guys ever worked for a small retail store? I have. The Wal Mart job would look good to me.
Why do you think that smaller retailers pay their employees better and offer better benefits? Do you have any statistics to cite or are you resorting to an appeal to authority?
Gokul43201 said:Not when you make specific references to data that is not common knowledge.
Gokul43201 said:But it's impossible to have a meaningful discussion this way. First you paraphrase Walter Williams, and then you ask: "How exactly does what you're saying explain this?"
Gokul43201 said:How exactly is someone supposed to answer that question without being able to look at the data?
How is that relevant? People jumped off the WTC building because it was their current best opportunity. The article fails to provide any reason to believe that having a Wal-Mart in town is a good thing except that a lot of people applied for a small number of jobs. How many already had jobs and were looking to improve their position?Economist said:How's this relevant? In both cases, the Wal-Mart job is making people better off. In both cases, Wal-Mart is their current best opportunity.
That's the case at Wal Mart, Home Depot, etc. Most of the employees lack product knowledge, and are not prepared to offer any help with application info. The small local hardware stores retain skilled help with good knowledge of their product lines, and can help with advice for proper application. Also, at Wal Mart, when they're out of something, you get a blank look from the "sales associate". When the mom-and-pop hardware store is out of something, the salesperson takes my phone number, special-orders the item, and calls me when it comes in. The little stores can compete with Wal Mart, not by going toe-to-toe on prices, but by offering real customer service.Evo said:...there is a nearby family owned hardware store that I and apparently a lot of other people go to because if I need to do serious work, I know that they will not only tell me which products I need and explain the differences and options, they'll also tell me how to get the job done correctly. At Home Depot, I'm lucky if I can find someone to tell me which isle the duct tape is on.
jimmysnyder said:How is that relevant? People jumped off the WTC building because it was their current best opportunity. The article fails to provide any reason to believe that having a Wal-Mart in town is a good thing except that a lot of people applied for a small number of jobs. How many already had jobs and were looking to improve their position?
Economist said:His point was that a lot of people want the Wal-Mart job. He was not trying to convince anyone that Wal-Mart is good for a town. I'm sure that debate has been handled at many other places (in fact, he's probably discussed it on cafehayek in the past).
As I indicated in my first reaction to this quote. His 7,500 arguments are flawed. How many of those 7,500 already had jobs and were looking for better ones. Without that piece of information, the article fails to make its own point.CAFEHAYEK said:A lot of people think that when Wal-Mart comes to town, wages fall along with the quality of life. Wal-Mart jobs are low-paying which drains money from the community. Wal-Mart jobs don't have enough benefits along with the low wages. Wal-Mart jobs exploit workers because Wal-Mart workers aren't unionized.
Here are 7,500 arguments on the other side:
jimmysnyder said:As I indicated in my first reaction to this quote. His 7,500 arguments are flawed. How many of those 7,500 already had jobs and were looking for better ones. Without that piece of information, the article fails to make its own point.
Do you claim it?Economist said:Do you deny that this is their best option and that this job will make them better off?
jimmysnyder said:Do you claim it?
jimmysnyder said:Do you claim it?
No, but I addressed it anyway in post #47. I am not for or against Wal-Mart, but you have left me with the feeling that you form your opinion based on that article. In my opinion it is deficient for the purpose to which it is being put. You ought to post a better one. Millions of people smoke tobacco. I can't see that as an argument that tobacco is good.Economist said:Yes I do. Ever heard of revealed preference?
A good analogy for both views. Agreed, one can't use the 'millions' to say tobacco is good, but on the other hand the 'millions' should give pause to those who smugly want to ban it everywhere (city streets in a Ca town) out of a smug conviction by the 'enlightened' that's it is ok to decide for the other millions. Same goes for Walmart.jimmysnyder said:... Millions of people smoke tobacco. I can't see that as an argument that tobacco is good.
Economist said:I think this is a matter of opinion. I would argue that it really doesn't make a difference. Either way, people see Wal-Mart as their best option. Not to mention, if they really treat employees so bad (as many people claim) then why do 7,500 people apply for 300 - 400 positions?
Furthermore, it seems to me that he was mainly trying to claim that they don't exploit workers. I think those numbers prove that.
So once again, can you explain to me why are you so caught up on whether they already had a job? Do you deny that this is their best option and that this job will make them better off?
This is a really good point, Bob. Wal Mart didn't bring any net gain of jobs in my old home-town, as far as I could tell, because they killed a lot of little businesses in the process, some of them several towns away. You can argue that new jobs were created, but when Wal Mart kills small businesses, there may be a net loss of jobs. This is hard to gauge because little businesses with a few employees don't make much of a splash when they fold. There is a little tire business in our old home town that has managed to hold on. They special-order tires with a 1-2 day turn-around and they offer free tire rotation and low-cost conversions from summer to winter tires to customers who bought the tires from them. Wal Mart does not do this.BobG said:As is, the article doesn't really give a good picture of whether Walmart brought more good jobs to town or whether the town just has a horribly depressed economy. And I agree bringing any kind of jobs is a good thing if it's really adding new jobs.
I wouldn't ban Wal-Mart. But neither would I advance the argument that a thing which has any positive aspect no matter how inconsequential is good, regardless of any further investigation. The article claims 7500 arguments in favor of Wal-Mart, but that argument is flawed. Are there better employers who might bring better jobs than these? How many would sign up if an employer came to town with jobs good enough to entice those who already have a steady gig? Or did most of the applicants already have jobs? In my opinion, the article is worthless for reasoned judgment.mheslep said:A good analogy for both views. Agreed, one can't use the 'millions' to say tobacco is good, but on the other hand the 'millions' should give pause to those who smugly want to ban it everywhere (city streets in a Ca town) out of a smug conviction by the 'enlightened' that's it is ok to decide for the other millions. Same goes for Walmart.
Yes, understood, but its clear that there are many who would.jimmysnyder said:I wouldn't ban Wal-Mart.
Agreed.But neither would I advance the argument that a thing which has any positive aspect no matter how inconsequential is good, regardless of any further investigation.
Good points, the 7500 is not a basis by itself to weigh the benefits for a given community. Heck I'd probably vote for you for city mayor and support a decision by you to hinder Walmart given your demonstrated desire to get to the facts. However, there's a lot a populism that says in effect "Walmart is absolute an bad", wrecks the local buis., the jobs are worthless and only an idiot would want to work there. The 7500 is enough evidence to counter that line.The article claims 7500 arguments in favor of Wal-Mart, but that argument is flawed. Are there better employers who might bring better jobs than these? How many would sign up if an employer came to town with jobs good enough to entice those who already have a steady gig? Or did most of the applicants already have jobs? In my opinion, the article is worthless for reasoned judgment.