Nate--Just for fun, where would I get cheaper school supplies, dog food, and beer? Not to mention cut bait, shotgun shells, and dandelion killer?
The roadside organic dog food stall? Enviro-Friendly Notebook Paper and Colored Pencil, Inc.? The Che Guevera Collective Shotguns and Weed Killer Store?
You're both right...in fact, technically, Wal-Mart already has a president :)
As far as beer, if you're in the St Louis area, might I suggest Dirt Cheap? I hope you don't have chains with the same level of annoyingness in their advertisements.
But in all seriousness, you're talking to somebody from the heart of Wal-Mart country. The main problems with Wal-Mart are that they move locations (a common practice is to open up two stores, put local businesses out of business, then close both stores and build a supercenter in between. It takes more time for a community to adjust to these kinds of transitions than a company. The second thing they do is underpay their employees, which, aside from the moral and other implications, causes an increased tax burden on the rest of us, especially in the form of medicaid and food stamps.)
In the big picture, those are small problems with workable solutions. If you don't like Wal-Mart, don't shop there, and vote down zoning proposals if you live somewhere where there isn't a Wal-Mart yet. Don't keep the rest of us from our big store fun.
But, it becomes a deeper problem when Wal-Mart attempts to subvert the democratic process. Wal-Mart has committed tremendous resources to certain parts of the country on PR and advertising trying to get around popular opposition and city councils. Either we live in a democracy where corporations exist for the benefit of the state in which they're incorporated and to which they are subject, or they are the state. It can't be both ways.
This is an interesting history of the rise of corporations. It's obviously biased, but it's hard to find much these days that isn't regarding the role of large corporations. Take a look.
Oh, I just thought of another thing about Wal-Mart (Wal-Mart is good for nearly infinite fun, by the way). They are running commercials about donating money and supplies when you visit Wal-Mart stores. Well, both of my roommates were immediately like, 'I will never give money to Wal-Mart'.
Yet Wal-Mart was actually one of the first on the scene in the Gulf Coast. Their logistics and operations are world class, and they're recognized as being one of the first and best responders to the need.
As for your question, I actually would argue first, that it's not their money. That money belongs to shareholders, and there are a lot of issues about corporate governance or the lack thereof relating to the role of shareholders in large companies. Second, there are issues about fraud, misleading the public, violating labor laws, and violating electioneering laws in some instances.
But more importantly, it is a fundamental question of legality. Corporations were originally chartered for the public good. They were subservient to the people. But activist judges, to borrow a favorite phrase from the veiled-violence-against-judges-is-ok-crowd, created a host of doctrines to shield corporate officers and directors from public accountability and grant the same rights to "legal" persons as the Constitution gives to natural persons.
What's really amazing is that most of the good things apply to legal persons, yet they are protected from many of the downsides of being a natural person. For example, a company can be found guilty of criminal conduct and not be deprived of its freedom, which is the whole point of a criminal justice system in the first place. If a criminal conviction meant an injunction against doing business for five to ten years, companies wouldn't break the law nearly so often. If there was a program where convict corporations wouldn't be allowed to do certain things even after serving their time, there would be even less corporate crime. Yet companies that inflict tremendous economic damage or even kill people rarely do more than pay an insignificant fine (after all, the shareholders, not the people who orchestrated the crime, are footing the bill). The "death penalty" (revoking a charter) isn't un-American; it is a right that has been exercised extensively until recent times.
Either (natural) people (in particular, voters) are sovereign over corporations, or corporations can do what they want regardless of the wishes of voters. In practice, part of what that means has to be limiting the ability of companies to bring very large resources to bear to influence local elections, particularly when the claims are often misleading. It could be that democracy is outdated. There are a lot of people who think that the modern transnational corporation is the best thing since sliced bread. But at the end of the day, you can't simply give corporations a blank check while also claiming support for democratic governance.
You raise an important point, particularly for large companies that employ thousands and thousands of people. But in the end, you're talking to a business major, not a socialist. I happen to think the decline of manufacturing (as a percentage of the workforce) is a good thing, just like the decline of agriculture (as a percentage of the workforce) was a good thing. Very few people graduate from college and say, gee, I wish I could be a farmer or a coal miner or a steelworker.
I support basic government interference in the labor markets (the right to regulate slavery, child labor, dangerous workplaces, unionization, and such) that address problems of moral hazard, asymmetric information, the costs of bargaining, and so forth.
But at the end of the day, I think we should view ourselves as consumers, not producers. There's no right to a job; an "employee" is only important in that it is also a citizen. What's most important is productivity and living standards. Can you take your kids to the doctor and feed them and send them to college? That's what's important. (I would also note that your sentiment of putting companies in the hopper applies exactly to drug users in prison. You are depriving their family and the government of valuable financial and other support.)
Transitioning from one company to another is not easy, but most of the more jarring events are not natural business failures; they are usually brought on by negligence or outright fraud of the senior executives and board members (think Enron here). I don't think Wal-Mart's charter should be revoked, just a little stronger enforcement of labor, electioneering, and deceptive practices laws in the more extreme cases. I also think Wal-Mart, even after all the dollars the auto industry pumps into healthcare, may end up being singlehandedly responsible for a universal single payer health insurance system in this country.
To put it differently, it's not "workers" that would suffer if Wal-Mart got shut down. All the other chain stores pay better wages, anyway. It's consumers, who would pay slightly more in a lot of areas for a whole range of goods. That's what's awesome about Wal-Mart; nobody else can quite deliver the way they can.
And don't forget that jobs are created and destroyed all the time, on a huge scale, from mergers and aquisitions to growing startups to outsourcing to changes in government programs.
Nate--You have a little bit of a business major/college grad. conceit going here.
Wal-mart doesn't have too terribly many college grads working for them (at least not at the one i go to).
What would this vast pool of unskilled labor do, if not for places like Wal-Mart putting them to good use and turning them into consumers of a higher order?
The more you fetter business, with a bunch of regulation, the more you fetter their abilit to put unskilled labor to work.
I know most of the folks you are hanging with have that white collar thing going on, but the majority of the parents I work with are sporting the blue variety.
I'm talking specific to retail, Wal-Mart pays lower wages than Costco, Target, Walgreen's, grocery stores, and so on. Comparable jobs in comparable industries, regardless of need for high school or college degrees.
Also, I find that many college educated people are in need of a little business education as much as anyone else. Much of my economic debates are not with people more conservative than me, but more liberal than me. What I'm describing is diametrically opposed to protectionism and having a "strong manufacturing base".
I like Wal-Mart. It is the coolest place to hang out when you go up to Kirksville :) I kid you not, the biggest thing I complained about when I came to St. Louis was living so far away from the closest Wal-Mart (and it wasn't even a 24 hour SuperCenter).
But in my priority list, I place government of the people ahead of increased GDP per person, particularly when opposed by the ultimate in a command-driven dictatorship that is today's large transnational corporation. (Are you suggesting they are a democratic, market-based entity, instead?)
You make an assertion that is a common sentiment about regulation of business. The claim is that, by definition, government interference is bad. But I think the evidence shows otherwise. Some government regulation actually makes things better.
You don't need formal education to disagree with me; you just need to say where my ideas are wrong and suggest alternatives. I don't think my high school kids have ever once worried about the fact they don't even have a high school degree while I have a fancy college one. And it's blue collar workers who are less mobile and encounter more difficulty changing jobs and industries quickly that lose most in a laissez-faire economy that instructs government to let big businesses do whatever they want. Lawyers, accountants, CEOs, doctors, they can all just go somewhere else and land another job, at least much more easily than someone without a high school diploma or college degree. But I certainly won't apologize for an eagerness to learn about what's going on in the world and share my opinions. It's a lack of curiosity, not a lack of education, that prevents a good exchange of ideas (imho...).
In fact, it's funny you bring up my college degree. I love college; it's a great place to hang out. I went to a "great school", and I would certainly recommend it; it is one of the most beautiful college campuses in the world. There's nowhere else in the world I would rather be. Except, I hate school; the only reason I went is to get the piece of paper (of course, you can't say that on your application, because that's part of the game). I think learning happens in the library and the dorm room; class is just what you have to go to in order to get the piece of paper. Sure, I learned a few things in class, but I could probably cram everything I learned in four years into a one month course, and spend the other 47 months just having fun. When people say they have a master's or a doctorate I don't assume they know more than me, and I don't assume high school kids are idiots because they don't have any degree. There are drug dealers who are way smarter than Harvard grads. Having degrees is your signal to society that you are worth something. It doesn't mean that you actually are.
Now try squaring that paragraph with my contention that we should be spending more money on our educational system :)
10 comments:
One day Walmart is going to appoint a president.
Nate--Just for fun, where would I get cheaper school supplies, dog food, and beer? Not to mention cut bait, shotgun shells, and dandelion killer?
The roadside organic dog food stall? Enviro-Friendly Notebook Paper and Colored Pencil, Inc.? The Che Guevera Collective Shotguns and Weed Killer Store?
Right.
Charles
You're both right...in fact, technically, Wal-Mart already has a president :)
As far as beer, if you're in the St Louis area, might I suggest Dirt Cheap? I hope you don't have chains with the same level of annoyingness in their advertisements.
But in all seriousness, you're talking to somebody from the heart of Wal-Mart country. The main problems with Wal-Mart are that they move locations (a common practice is to open up two stores, put local businesses out of business, then close both stores and build a supercenter in between. It takes more time for a community to adjust to these kinds of transitions than a company. The second thing they do is underpay their employees, which, aside from the moral and other implications, causes an increased tax burden on the rest of us, especially in the form of medicaid and food stamps.)
In the big picture, those are small problems with workable solutions. If you don't like Wal-Mart, don't shop there, and vote down zoning proposals if you live somewhere where there isn't a Wal-Mart yet. Don't keep the rest of us from our big store fun.
But, it becomes a deeper problem when Wal-Mart attempts to subvert the democratic process. Wal-Mart has committed tremendous resources to certain parts of the country on PR and advertising trying to get around popular opposition and city councils. Either we live in a democracy where corporations exist for the benefit of the state in which they're incorporated and to which they are subject, or they are the state. It can't be both ways.
This is an interesting history of the rise of corporations. It's obviously biased, but it's hard to find much these days that isn't regarding the role of large corporations. Take a look.
Nate--Is Wal-Mart breaking laws when they spend THEIR money on PR?
Just wondering.
Charles
Oh, I just thought of another thing about Wal-Mart (Wal-Mart is good for nearly infinite fun, by the way). They are running commercials about donating money and supplies when you visit Wal-Mart stores. Well, both of my roommates were immediately like, 'I will never give money to Wal-Mart'.
Yet Wal-Mart was actually one of the first on the scene in the Gulf Coast. Their logistics and operations are world class, and they're recognized as being one of the first and best responders to the need.
As for your question, I actually would argue first, that it's not their money. That money belongs to shareholders, and there are a lot of issues about corporate governance or the lack thereof relating to the role of shareholders in large companies. Second, there are issues about fraud, misleading the public, violating labor laws, and violating electioneering laws in some instances.
But more importantly, it is a fundamental question of legality. Corporations were originally chartered for the public good. They were subservient to the people. But activist judges, to borrow a favorite phrase from the veiled-violence-against-judges-is-ok-crowd, created a host of doctrines to shield corporate officers and directors from public accountability and grant the same rights to "legal" persons as the Constitution gives to natural persons.
What's really amazing is that most of the good things apply to legal persons, yet they are protected from many of the downsides of being a natural person. For example, a company can be found guilty of criminal conduct and not be deprived of its freedom, which is the whole point of a criminal justice system in the first place. If a criminal conviction meant an injunction against doing business for five to ten years, companies wouldn't break the law nearly so often. If there was a program where convict corporations wouldn't be allowed to do certain things even after serving their time, there would be even less corporate crime. Yet companies that inflict tremendous economic damage or even kill people rarely do more than pay an insignificant fine (after all, the shareholders, not the people who orchestrated the crime, are footing the bill). The "death penalty" (revoking a charter) isn't un-American; it is a right that has been exercised extensively until recent times.
Either (natural) people (in particular, voters) are sovereign over corporations, or corporations can do what they want regardless of the wishes of voters. In practice, part of what that means has to be limiting the ability of companies to bring very large resources to bear to influence local elections, particularly when the claims are often misleading. It could be that democracy is outdated. There are a lot of people who think that the modern transnational corporation is the best thing since sliced bread. But at the end of the day, you can't simply give corporations a blank check while also claiming support for democratic governance.
*Walton for President 2008*
At least then I know the white house wouldn't be spending $10000 on toilet paper a month.
Nate--If you throw a derelict company in the hoosegow, what about their employees?
Don't you think that's a consideration before you bonk a company--considering that employees with paychecks keep innumerable companies going?
Charles
You raise an important point, particularly for large companies that employ thousands and thousands of people. But in the end, you're talking to a business major, not a socialist. I happen to think the decline of manufacturing (as a percentage of the workforce) is a good thing, just like the decline of agriculture (as a percentage of the workforce) was a good thing. Very few people graduate from college and say, gee, I wish I could be a farmer or a coal miner or a steelworker.
I support basic government interference in the labor markets (the right to regulate slavery, child labor, dangerous workplaces, unionization, and such) that address problems of moral hazard, asymmetric information, the costs of bargaining, and so forth.
But at the end of the day, I think we should view ourselves as consumers, not producers. There's no right to a job; an "employee" is only important in that it is also a citizen. What's most important is productivity and living standards. Can you take your kids to the doctor and feed them and send them to college? That's what's important. (I would also note that your sentiment of putting companies in the hopper applies exactly to drug users in prison. You are depriving their family and the government of valuable financial and other support.)
Transitioning from one company to another is not easy, but most of the more jarring events are not natural business failures; they are usually brought on by negligence or outright fraud of the senior executives and board members (think Enron here). I don't think Wal-Mart's charter should be revoked, just a little stronger enforcement of labor, electioneering, and deceptive practices laws in the more extreme cases. I also think Wal-Mart, even after all the dollars the auto industry pumps into healthcare, may end up being singlehandedly responsible for a universal single payer health insurance system in this country.
To put it differently, it's not "workers" that would suffer if Wal-Mart got shut down. All the other chain stores pay better wages, anyway. It's consumers, who would pay slightly more in a lot of areas for a whole range of goods. That's what's awesome about Wal-Mart; nobody else can quite deliver the way they can.
And don't forget that jobs are created and destroyed all the time, on a huge scale, from mergers and aquisitions to growing startups to outsourcing to changes in government programs.
Nate--You have a little bit of a business major/college grad. conceit going here.
Wal-mart doesn't have too terribly many college grads working for them (at least not at the one i go to).
What would this vast pool of unskilled labor do, if not for places like Wal-Mart putting them to good use and turning them into consumers of a higher order?
The more you fetter business, with a bunch of regulation, the more you fetter their abilit to put unskilled labor to work.
I know most of the folks you are hanging with have that white collar thing going on, but the majority of the parents I work with are sporting the blue variety.
Charles
I'm talking specific to retail, Wal-Mart pays lower wages than Costco, Target, Walgreen's, grocery stores, and so on. Comparable jobs in comparable industries, regardless of need for high school or college degrees.
Also, I find that many college educated people are in need of a little business education as much as anyone else. Much of my economic debates are not with people more conservative than me, but more liberal than me. What I'm describing is diametrically opposed to protectionism and having a "strong manufacturing base".
I like Wal-Mart. It is the coolest place to hang out when you go up to Kirksville :) I kid you not, the biggest thing I complained about when I came to St. Louis was living so far away from the closest Wal-Mart (and it wasn't even a 24 hour SuperCenter).
But in my priority list, I place government of the people ahead of increased GDP per person, particularly when opposed by the ultimate in a command-driven dictatorship that is today's large transnational corporation. (Are you suggesting they are a democratic, market-based entity, instead?)
You make an assertion that is a common sentiment about regulation of business. The claim is that, by definition, government interference is bad. But I think the evidence shows otherwise. Some government regulation actually makes things better.
You don't need formal education to disagree with me; you just need to say where my ideas are wrong and suggest alternatives. I don't think my high school kids have ever once worried about the fact they don't even have a high school degree while I have a fancy college one. And it's blue collar workers who are less mobile and encounter more difficulty changing jobs and industries quickly that lose most in a laissez-faire economy that instructs government to let big businesses do whatever they want. Lawyers, accountants, CEOs, doctors, they can all just go somewhere else and land another job, at least much more easily than someone without a high school diploma or college degree. But I certainly won't apologize for an eagerness to learn about what's going on in the world and share my opinions. It's a lack of curiosity, not a lack of education, that prevents a good exchange of ideas (imho...).
In fact, it's funny you bring up my college degree. I love college; it's a great place to hang out. I went to a "great school", and I would certainly recommend it; it is one of the most beautiful college campuses in the world. There's nowhere else in the world I would rather be. Except, I hate school; the only reason I went is to get the piece of paper (of course, you can't say that on your application, because that's part of the game). I think learning happens in the library and the dorm room; class is just what you have to go to in order to get the piece of paper. Sure, I learned a few things in class, but I could probably cram everything I learned in four years into a one month course, and spend the other 47 months just having fun. When people say they have a master's or a doctorate I don't assume they know more than me, and I don't assume high school kids are idiots because they don't have any degree. There are drug dealers who are way smarter than Harvard grads. Having degrees is your signal to society that you are worth something. It doesn't mean that you actually are.
Now try squaring that paragraph with my contention that we should be spending more money on our educational system :)
Post a Comment