[Vision2020] Costco Preferred Over Wal-Mart

[Andreas Schou]

On 8/30/06, g. crabtree <jampot at adelphia.net> wrote:
> I  have admitted in the past that Jeff is a far smarter and better looking
> fellow then myself and I still hold firmly to that position. Perhaps he will
> chime in and fill me in on what your post has to do with the price of goose
> liver in Moscow. If I'm reading you correctly it would seem that you're
> saying that there are workers who are so destitute and dull that they can't
> weigh risk and opportunity to advance in the workplace and that because of
> this they are at the mercy of their current employer.

Gary? I'm not saying that they can't weigh the risks versus the
rewards. I'm saying that they *do*, and when they do, the answer comes
up "don't leave your job." The potential for increased earning power
and nominal financial stability are not worth the risk of
homelessness, hunger, and -- for people who have serious medical
conditions -- potential death. I'm not saying that when you're in
working poverty and make that decision, you *automatically* risk utter
destitution -- but the chance exists.

When you change jobs, these are not things you or I have to worry
about. I can pick up and move with my skill set and remain relatively
assured that, even if my new job falls through, my life will be only a
little more than moderately inconvenienced. Hell, even if things go
totally to hell, I can continue to write you e-mails from the comfort
of my mother's basement.

> If I've got this
> right, (hard to believe) let me offer up a tip to all these poor benighted
> souls. If your working at some demeaning, going nowhere job at minimum wage
> or less and are receiving no benefits, take a step in the right (upward)
> direction and sign on at Wally World. You'll probably be glad ya did.

There are jobs that are worse than Wal-Mart. This area has a surplus
of them. It's not that I'm not concerned with them, it's just that
that tilting at every last windmill is perfectly pointless.

-- ACS

> gc
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Andreas Schou" <ophite at gmail.com>
> To: "g. crabtree" <jampot at adelphia.net>
> Cc: "Joe Campbell" <joekc at adelphia.net>; "Moscow Vision 2020"
> <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 6:17 PM
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Costco Preferred Over Wal-Mart
>
>
> > On 8/30/06, g. crabtree <jampot at adelphia.net> wrote:
> >> My goodness, why argue using half measures? I'm surprised that you didn't
> >> take your supposition to its inevitable ridiculous conclusion. Costco
> >> comes
> >> to town and pays its lowliest hot dog vendor $16.00 per hour to start.
> >> All
> >> is sunshine and lollypops. Wal-Mart arrives and, in the throws of
> >> corporate
> >> greed, not only doesn't pay its employees a living wage, it charges them
> >> for
> >> the privilege of working  for a company as vicious and mean as them.
> >> Using
> >> this business model WM drives Costco and all Mom & Pop stores into
> >> receivership and eventually brings about the end of the world. This would
> >> have been the ultimate in proof that WM is a cross between a Cambodian
> >> re-education camp and hell.
> >>
> >> I find this technique for arguing against Wal-Mart to be puzzling. Pit
> >> them
> >> against a hypothetical paragon of virtue that isn't even a player in the
> >> local game, accuse them of indignities and atrocities that they do not
> >> engage in, blend well and present the results as though you had just read
> >> them out of a year end stock holders report. It succeeds in presenting WM
> >> as
> >> evil, I guess,  but it has no basis in reality. The one thing that you
> >> continually leave out of the worker/wage equation is the fact that the
> >> employees always have at least two choices when it comes to working for
> >> the
> >> dreaded corporate monster. There is no such thing as "no other work
> >> option."
> >> Unless, that is, we want to dive back into your "for the sake of argument
> >> fantasy world."
> >
> > Dear Gary --
> >
> > Please tell me about the world you live in, wher approximating the
> > economic forces affecting a real person's life involves entirely
> > ignoring the unacceptable risk -- for an individual making too little
> > to save -- of leaving a job they *have* for a job they *might* have?
> > For people making low wages without robust social safety nets, they're
> > forced to suck up the opportunity cost of *not* leaving for another
> > job because they don't have enough money to mitigate the risk if
> > something *does* go wrong. Their employer therefore gets to do
> > whatever they want.
> >
> > Unlike Jeff, I'm not sure that you actually know this.
> >
> > -- ACS
> >
>
>
>