[Vision2020] Costco Preferred Over Wal-Mart

[g. crabtree]

Mr. Schou, let's take this discussion back to its original starting point 
which was, I believe, the contention that Wal-Mart should be kept out of the 
community because Costco was a more desirable employer and examine your 
argument. How is the worker who is unemployed/under employed served by there 
being one less option available to him? I would be willing to concede the 
point that there is some group of people that take a job at WM that will 
stagnate in a low level position. How is this worse then their starting 
point? Some will rise in the organization to better paying jobs. Some will 
parlay their work experience to more lucrative jobs with other companies, 
perhaps even the much esteemed pinnacle of success, Costco. Unfortunately, 
some will also quit or be fired but even then they are little worse off then 
when they started. I know you are a compassionate guy but I fail to see how 
depriving the area of a potential source of entry level employment does 
anyone any favors. The idea that because the next step up from no job at all 
isn't a position that pays $16.00/hr with a  benefits package and all the 
hot dogs you can eat makes no sense to me at all. It would seem that what 
you are seeking is a world where people with no skill or drive can jump into 
a situation where they will be provided for (at some arbitrary level 
determined by?)  and settle in for life. No further effort will or should be 
required on their part. I think that this has been tried and found wanting.

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 8:09 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Costco Preferred Over Wal-Mart


> 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
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>