[Vision2020] I thought you might be interested in this article
Mark Solomon
msolomon at moscow.com
Thu Aug 31 18:19:05 PDT 2006
Yes Moscow, No SuperWalmart will review and comment on Peterson's
report when it is available. At this writing, he has only made public
a summary and not the 200 pages of data that he says forms its basis.
Until that time, I can only speculate on his reported findings and
will not engage in that game.
Mark Solomon
At 3:12 PM -0700 8/31/06, lfalen wrote:
>This is being resent. It seams to have gotten lost.
>
>Andreas
>
>Idaho's self made billionaire, (Jack Simplot) started with nothing
>and only an 8th grade education.
>
>I do not understand the continued reference to Wal-mart as being low
>pay and not paying health benefits. According to Stephen Peterson (
>an Economist at the University of Idaho) Wal-mart pays an average of
>$10.58 per hour, which is higher than the local average supermarket.
>I t has been said on Vision 2020 that Wal-mart does not pay health
>benefits. According to Peterson 75% of their employees are covered
>by health benefits, the other 25% are covered by their spouses plan.
>
>Roger
>
>-----Original message-----
>From: "Andreas Schou" ophite at gmail.com
>Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 23:54:29 -0700
>To: "Jeff Harkins" jeffh at moscow.com
>Subject: [Spam] Re: [Vision2020] I thought you might be interested
>in this article
>
>> On 8/30/06, Jeff Harkins <jeffh at moscow.com> wrote:
>> > Andreas,
>> >
>> > We can have a robust conversation but please try to avoid slurs about
>> > my knowledge and understanding of issues - I will not castigate or
>> > denegrate your knowledge and understanding. Otherwise, I am
>> > confident that a dialogue would serve no purpose.
>>
>> Jeff --
>>
>> I wasn't accusing you of being an incompetent economist. I was
>> accusing you of being disingenuous, or at least of providing
>> chest-thumping boilerplate instead of actually talking about what is,
>> in fact, a very complicated issue that involves principles at least as
>> much as facts. What I was frustrated about was that I know that you
>> knew what you said below when you were responding before(1):
>>
>> > Social mobility studies suggest that the friction that restricts
>> > movement of low income levels to higher income classes is highly
>> > correlated to education (quality and level achieved) and a set of
>> > transferable/marketable skills (ability to provide value added
>> > services). If one wants to enhance the opportunity for moving from
>> > one social class to another, improve access to quality education
>> > systems. Other significant factors appear to be indifference (don't
>> > care), place bound (not able or unwilling to relocate) or believe the
>> > shift would require too much effort on their part.
>>
>> This is true but insufficient.
>>
>> First, there is, at least for the forseeable future, the labor market
>> -- especially for intangibles, where there literally no disadvantage
>> to offshoring -- is deeply imbalanced in favor of large employers.
>> National borders are permeable for large purchasers of labor, but
>> impermeable for individuals wishing to sell their labor. I cannot
>> follow my job to India, nor could an equally qualified Mexican worker
>> take my job.
>>
>> Second, the employer gains bargaining power by being able to subject
>> low-wage employees to unacceptable levels of risk. I'm not talking
>> just about insurance, though the ability of an employer to extend or
>> remove an employee's access to potentially life-saving treatment is
>> certainly part of it. A person making $7.00/hr has no real capacity to
>> buffer themself against the potential of a lost job: even assuming
>> that they have the capacity to save, fixed costs -- like energy and
>> rent -- occupy a proportionately larger portion of their income. This
>> makes the consequences of a drop in income, and the potential anxiety
>> accompanying the threat of a drop in income, much more severe.
>>
>> If I suddenly get poorer, I drop my cable Internet. If I stay poorer,
>> I miss a credit card payment, or several. If I suddenly drop to zero
> > income, it will likely be some time before my landlord decides that I
>> am no longer welcome, or Avista decides that I'd be better off without
>> power. Even if I suddenly become grossly incapable of meeting any of
>> my financial commitments, I go live in my mother's basment and likely,
>> Mr. Harkins, harangue you from there, though I suspect with much less
> > credibility.
>>
>> Third, you might note that higher social mobility correlates with
>> functional, well-administrated social welfare systems. This may have
>> to do with the fact that education is a relatively high-order need;
>> one you are unlikely to be concerned with if you are worried about
>> what or whether you are going to be eating tomorrow morning.
>>
>> > These same studies support the notion that human will/spirit is the
>> > prime element in moving from one income class to another.
>> >
>> > Your model would seem to imply that being a member of a society
>> > entitles you to a "social equity" income class - sounds like a pitch
>> > for welfare to me and not far removed from the "living wage"
>> > concept.
>>
>> I believe in the distinctly un-leftist principle that work should have
>> something to do with wealth, which, at this moment, it does not. A
>> minimum wage is not welfare. A fair wage is not welfare. A living wage
>> is not welfare. Though, to warn you, I wholeheartedly recommend
>> welfare as well: the presence of a robust welfare state correlates
>> fairly well with social mobility. The absence of market controls does
>> not.
>>
>> An aside: are you aware of what monthly TANF benefits are in the
>>state of Idaho?
>>
>> > The fact there is no reason for a business entity to pay
>> > more for labor than the value of the labor in the production and
>> > delivery of goods and services.
>>
>> This definition is circular. The value of labor is the consensus of
>> what employers are willing to pay.
>>
>> And, again, you're arguing that the valuation of labor is
>> intrinsically rational. Though it has historically been, there's been
>> a total decoupling between productivity gains and median wage growth.
>> Unless you can tell me with a straight face that the gains in
>> productivity have almost entirely been restricted to the top quintile
>> (and have been in the high double digits for the top quintile of the
>> top quintile), the labor market is behaving in a way that appears to
>> be at odds with any rational valuation of labor.
>>
>> > Thus, unless the employee
>> > contributes to the value of the enterprise (marginal revenue product
>> > exceeds marginal cost), there is no reason to employ that
>> > individual. And over time, unless that individual enhances their
>> > value (e.g., added or improved skills, lower error rate), there is no
>> > basis for increasing the wage compensation of that individual.
>> >
>> > The fact is though - very little can stop the cream from rising to
>> > the top.
>>
>> I don't mean to discount the importance of personal accomplishment,
>> but the history of "self-made men" is one of the merely well-off
>> transforming themselves into the obscenely wealthy. Bill Gates'
>> parents were millionaires. J.P. Morgan inherited a ten million dollar
>> fortune. Henry Ford's parents owned one of the largest farms in
>> Michigan. E.I. DuPont was descended from French nobility.
>>
>> Andrew Carnegie's family, though, was pretty much broke. There's
>>one for you.
>>
>> > Persistence and determination, coupled with observation and
>> > ingenuity will nurture a robust opportunity for individuals to move
>> > through the social stratums. There seems little substitution for
>> > effort and achievement.
>>
>> This is a statement of faith as much as it is a statement of fact. I
>> believe in individual acocmplishment, and I believe in the strength of
>> markets, but I don't believe in the infallability of markets. This is
>> the same sort of magical thinking disguised as economic theory that,
>> for instance, brought us the Laffer Curve.
>>
>> > You seem to confuse achievement with consumption. Why would you
>> > define the "American Dream" in the context of a gold-plated Rolls
>> > Royce? The American Dream that I subscribe to is built on the notion
> > > that "if you are willing to make the necessary sacrifices and
>> > efforts, you have a great likelihood that you can be what you want to
>> > be. In this world, there is no free lunch.
>>
>> The economic system in this country is a gaming table where certain
>> people are betting their pocket change and others are betting their
> > lives. While I don't recommend the equal distribution of money and
>> misery, the idea that both groups are rational economic actors in
>> exactly the same sense is a convenient pretense and very little more
>> -- and the ways in which the working poor cannot make what would
>> otherwise be rational economic decisions are being exploited, very
>> much to their detriment.
>>
>> -- ACS
>>
>> (1) This is not a very well-constructed sentence.
>>
>> > I've read volumes about the captains of American Industry. I've
>> > carefully selected the recommended biographies.
>> >
>> > At 11:03 AM 8/29/2006, you wrote:
>> > >On 8/28/06, Jeff Harkins <jeffh at moscow.com> wrote:
>> > >>Bill,
>> > >>
>> > >>Here is a simple thought for you to ponder ...
>> > >>
>> > >>The ultimate force that assures that competitive behavior and free
>> > >>choice will provide a check on greed is that there is nothing that
>> > >>can prevent you from becoming the next CEO earning $200 million - you
>> > >>simply have to be willing to commit to that agenda and be willing to
>> > >>make the sacrifices necessary to achieve your goal.
>> > >
>> > >This is utter nonsense, Jeff. As an economist, you should know
>> > >full-well that it's utter nonsense.
>> > >
>> > >Social mobility has declined since the 1970s. 42% of people born in
>> > >the lowest income quintile die in the lowest income quintile. 24% move
>> > >up a quintile. Less than 5% reach the top income quintile. Likewise,
>> > >36% of people in the top income quintile remain in the top income
>> > >quintile. Note, also, that this is lifetime social mobility --
>> > >including the expected increase in wages over a lifetime. This is a
>> > >problem, both in terms of social equity and in terms of efficiency:
>> > >talent is spread more widely than income, and we are insufficiently
>> > >capitalizing on the talents of our low-income citizens.
>> > >
>> > >For God's sake, Jeff, social mobility is higher in Finland, Norway,
>> > >Germany, France, Canada, and Denmark. Only Britain has a lower degree
>> > >of social mobility than the United States. The "American Dream", at
>> > >least insofar as the "American Dream" involves becoming a
>> > >multi-billionaire capable of gold-plating his Rolls Royce, is, in the
>> > >21st century, a collective hallucination on the part of the American
>> > >people.
>> > >
>> > >>Yes indeed - you could be the CEO of WalMart and you could then
>> > >>restructure that company or any other multinational firm as you see
>> > >>fit - as long as you satisfy the return on capital demands of the
>> > >>shareholders and the expectations of the capital markets.
>> > >>
>> > >>It really is that simple.
>> > >>
>> > >>You might consider reading the biographies of Dupont, Firestone,
>> > >>Ford, Hughes, Vanderbilt, Osborne - even Gates (to name a few) to
>> > >>gain a sense of how this is possible.
>> > >
>> > >You might want to consider reading the biographies of Paris Hilton,
>> > >John E. Du Pont George W. Bush, Edsel Bryant Ford. You might then want
>> > >to take a chance with the biographies of the second generation of
>> > >robber barons: the children of Astor, Morgan, Carnegie, and
>> > >Vanderbilt. Then you might take a moment to remember that Ford was a
>> > >vocal pro-fascist who used his considerable wealth to promote very
>> > >little other than anti-Semitism. Then you might take a moment to
>> > >consider the social good acomplished by ridiculous and unprecedented
>> > >concentration of wealth in the hands of a small number of people.
>> > >
>> > >-- ACS
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> =======================================================
>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>> http://www.fsr.net
>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > =======================================================
>>
>Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 09:59:28 -0700
>From: lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com>
>Reply-To: lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com>
>To: "Andreas Schou" <ophite at gmail.com>,
> "Jeff Harkins" <jeffh at moscow.com>
>Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
>Subject: [Spam] Re: [Vision2020] I thought you might be interested in this
> article
>Message-ID: <14946c92724f89efc18bf9413df41d7f at turbonet.com>
>X-Mailer: IceWarp Web Mail 5.6.6
>X-Originating-IP: 129.101.14.12
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>Andreas
>
>Idaho's self made billionaire, (Jack Simplot) started with nothing
>and only an 8th grade education.
>
>I do not understand the continued reference to Wal-mart as being low
>pay and not paying health benefits. According to Stephen Peterson (
>an Economist at the University of Idaho) Wal-mart pays an average of
>$10.58 per hour, which is higher than the local average supermarket.
>I t has been said on Vision 2020 that Wal-mart does not pay health
>benefits. According to Peterson 75% of their employees are covered
>by health benefits, the other 25% are covered by their spouses plan.
>
>Roger
>
>-----Original message-----
>From: "Andreas Schou" ophite at gmail.com
>Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 23:54:29 -0700
>To: "Jeff Harkins" jeffh at moscow.com
>Subject: [Spam] Re: [Vision2020] I thought you might be interested
>in this article
>
>> On 8/30/06, Jeff Harkins <jeffh at moscow.com> wrote:
>> > Andreas,
>> >
>> > We can have a robust conversation but please try to avoid slurs about
>> > my knowledge and understanding of issues - I will not castigate or
>> > denegrate your knowledge and understanding. Otherwise, I am
>> > confident that a dialogue would serve no purpose.
>>
>> Jeff --
>>
>> I wasn't accusing you of being an incompetent economist. I was
>> accusing you of being disingenuous, or at least of providing
>> chest-thumping boilerplate instead of actually talking about what is,
>> in fact, a very complicated issue that involves principles at least as
>> much as facts. What I was frustrated about was that I know that you
>> knew what you said below when you were responding before(1):
>>
>> > Social mobility studies suggest that the friction that restricts
>> > movement of low income levels to higher income classes is highly
>> > correlated to education (quality and level achieved) and a set of
>> > transferable/marketable skills (ability to provide value added
>> > services). If one wants to enhance the opportunity for moving from
>> > one social class to another, improve access to quality education
>> > systems. Other significant factors appear to be indifference (don't
>> > care), place bound (not able or unwilling to relocate) or believe the
>> > shift would require too much effort on their part.
>>
>> This is true but insufficient.
>>
>> First, there is, at least for the forseeable future, the labor market
>> -- especially for intangibles, where there literally no disadvantage
>> to offshoring -- is deeply imbalanced in favor of large employers.
>> National borders are permeable for large purchasers of labor, but
>> impermeable for individuals wishing to sell their labor. I cannot
>> follow my job to India, nor could an equally qualified Mexican worker
>> take my job.
>>
>> Second, the employer gains bargaining power by being able to subject
>> low-wage employees to unacceptable levels of risk. I'm not talking
>> just about insurance, though the ability of an employer to extend or
>> remove an employee's access to potentially life-saving treatment is
>> certainly part of it. A person making $7.00/hr has no real capacity to
>> buffer themself against the potential of a lost job: even assuming
>> that they have the capacity to save, fixed costs -- like energy and
>> rent -- occupy a proportionately larger portion of their income. This
>> makes the consequences of a drop in income, and the potential anxiety
>> accompanying the threat of a drop in income, much more severe.
>>
>> If I suddenly get poorer, I drop my cable Internet. If I stay poorer,
>> I miss a credit card payment, or several. If I suddenly drop to zero
>> income, it will likely be some time before my landlord decides that I
> > am no longer welcome, or Avista decides that I'd be better off without
>> power. Even if I suddenly become grossly incapable of meeting any of
>> my financial commitments, I go live in my mother's basment and likely,
>> Mr. Harkins, harangue you from there, though I suspect with much less
> > credibility.
>>
>> Third, you might note that higher social mobility correlates with
>> functional, well-administrated social welfare systems. This may have
>> to do with the fact that education is a relatively high-order need;
>> one you are unlikely to be concerned with if you are worried about
>> what or whether you are going to be eating tomorrow morning.
>>
>> > These same studies support the notion that human will/spirit is the
>> > prime element in moving from one income class to another.
>> >
>> > Your model would seem to imply that being a member of a society
>> > entitles you to a "social equity" income class - sounds like a pitch
>> > for welfare to me and not far removed from the "living wage"
>> > concept.
>>
>> I believe in the distinctly un-leftist principle that work should have
>> something to do with wealth, which, at this moment, it does not. A
>> minimum wage is not welfare. A fair wage is not welfare. A living wage
>> is not welfare. Though, to warn you, I wholeheartedly recommend
>> welfare as well: the presence of a robust welfare state correlates
>> fairly well with social mobility. The absence of market controls does
>> not.
>>
>> An aside: are you aware of what monthly TANF benefits are in the
>>state of Idaho?
>>
>> > The fact there is no reason for a business entity to pay
>> > more for labor than the value of the labor in the production and
>> > delivery of goods and services.
>>
>> This definition is circular. The value of labor is the consensus of
>> what employers are willing to pay.
>>
>> And, again, you're arguing that the valuation of labor is
>> intrinsically rational. Though it has historically been, there's been
>> a total decoupling between productivity gains and median wage growth.
>> Unless you can tell me with a straight face that the gains in
>> productivity have almost entirely been restricted to the top quintile
>> (and have been in the high double digits for the top quintile of the
>> top quintile), the labor market is behaving in a way that appears to
>> be at odds with any rational valuation of labor.
>>
>> > Thus, unless the employee
>> > contributes to the value of the enterprise (marginal revenue product
>> > exceeds marginal cost), there is no reason to employ that
>> > individual. And over time, unless that individual enhances their
>> > value (e.g., added or improved skills, lower error rate), there is no
>> > basis for increasing the wage compensation of that individual.
>> >
>> > The fact is though - very little can stop the cream from rising to
>> > the top.
>>
>> I don't mean to discount the importance of personal accomplishment,
>> but the history of "self-made men" is one of the merely well-off
>> transforming themselves into the obscenely wealthy. Bill Gates'
>> parents were millionaires. J.P. Morgan inherited a ten million dollar
>> fortune. Henry Ford's parents owned one of the largest farms in
>> Michigan. E.I. DuPont was descended from French nobility.
>>
>> Andrew Carnegie's family, though, was pretty much broke. There's
>>one for you.
>>
>> > Persistence and determination, coupled with observation and
>> > ingenuity will nurture a robust opportunity for individuals to move
>> > through the social stratums. There seems little substitution for
>> > effort and achievement.
>>
>> This is a statement of faith as much as it is a statement of fact. I
>> believe in individual acocmplishment, and I believe in the strength of
>> markets, but I don't believe in the infallability of markets. This is
>> the same sort of magical thinking disguised as economic theory that,
>> for instance, brought us the Laffer Curve.
>>
>> > You seem to confuse achievement with consumption. Why would you
>> > define the "American Dream" in the context of a gold-plated Rolls
>> > Royce? The American Dream that I subscribe to is built on the notion
>> > that "if you are willing to make the necessary sacrifices and
> > > efforts, you have a great likelihood that you can be what you want to
>> > be. In this world, there is no free lunch.
>>
>> The economic system in this country is a gaming table where certain
>> people are betting their pocket change and others are betting their
> > lives. While I don't recommend the equal distribution of money and
>> misery, the idea that both groups are rational economic actors in
>> exactly the same sense is a convenient pretense and very little more
>> -- and the ways in which the working poor cannot make what would
>> otherwise be rational economic decisions are being exploited, very
>> much to their detriment.
>>
>> -- ACS
>>
>> (1) This is not a very well-constructed sentence.
>>
>> > I've read volumes about the captains of American Industry. I've
>> > carefully selected the recommended biographies.
>> >
>> > At 11:03 AM 8/29/2006, you wrote:
>> > >On 8/28/06, Jeff Harkins <jeffh at moscow.com> wrote:
>> > >>Bill,
>> > >>
>> > >>Here is a simple thought for you to ponder ...
>> > >>
>> > >>The ultimate force that assures that competitive behavior and free
>> > >>choice will provide a check on greed is that there is nothing that
>> > >>can prevent you from becoming the next CEO earning $200 million - you
>> > >>simply have to be willing to commit to that agenda and be willing to
>> > >>make the sacrifices necessary to achieve your goal.
>> > >
>> > >This is utter nonsense, Jeff. As an economist, you should know
>> > >full-well that it's utter nonsense.
>> > >
>> > >Social mobility has declined since the 1970s. 42% of people born in
>> > >the lowest income quintile die in the lowest income quintile. 24% move
>> > >up a quintile. Less than 5% reach the top income quintile. Likewise,
>> > >36% of people in the top income quintile remain in the top income
>> > >quintile. Note, also, that this is lifetime social mobility --
>> > >including the expected increase in wages over a lifetime. This is a
>> > >problem, both in terms of social equity and in terms of efficiency:
>> > >talent is spread more widely than income, and we are insufficiently
>> > >capitalizing on the talents of our low-income citizens.
>> > >
>> > >For God's sake, Jeff, social mobility is higher in Finland, Norway,
>> > >Germany, France, Canada, and Denmark. Only Britain has a lower degree
>> > >of social mobility than the United States. The "American Dream", at
>> > >least insofar as the "American Dream" involves becoming a
>> > >multi-billionaire capable of gold-plating his Rolls Royce, is, in the
>> > >21st century, a collective hallucination on the part of the American
>> > >people.
>> > >
>> > >>Yes indeed - you could be the CEO of WalMart and you could then
>> > >>restructure that company or any other multinational firm as you see
>> > >>fit - as long as you satisfy the return on capital demands of the
>> > >>shareholders and the expectations of the capital markets.
>> > >>
>> > >>It really is that simple.
>> > >>
>> > >>You might consider reading the biographies of Dupont, Firestone,
>> > >>Ford, Hughes, Vanderbilt, Osborne - even Gates (to name a few) to
>> > >>gain a sense of how this is possible.
>> > >
>> > >You might want to consider reading the biographies of Paris Hilton,
>> > >John E. Du Pont George W. Bush, Edsel Bryant Ford. You might then want
>> > >to take a chance with the biographies of the second generation of
>> > >robber barons: the children of Astor, Morgan, Carnegie, and
>> > >Vanderbilt. Then you might take a moment to remember that Ford was a
>> > >vocal pro-fascist who used his considerable wealth to promote very
>> > >little other than anti-Semitism. Then you might take a moment to
>> > >consider the social good acomplished by ridiculous and unprecedented
>> > >concentration of wealth in the hands of a small number of people.
>> > >
>> > >-- ACS
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>> =======================================================
>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>> http://www.fsr.net
>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>> =======================================================
> >
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list