[Vision2020] Costco Preferred Over Wal-Mart

g. crabtree jampot at adelphia.net
Fri Sep 1 06:43:48 PDT 2006

Oops, I see that you're in the midst of a particularly virulent outbreak. To 
down play it as "no big deal" is outstandingly brave! Be strong, lil cowboy, 
be strong! Ask momma to rub on some salve and soon you'll able to go out and 
play just like the normal kids.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joe Campbell" <joekc at adelphia.net>
To: "g. crabtree" <jampot at adelphia.net>
Cc: "'Moscow Vision 2020'" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 8:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Costco Preferred Over Wal-Mart

> Gary asks: "Is there a name for the ocular condition that causes you to 
> see insults everywhere you look?"
> Yes. The name is "insulting," as in you are insulting, which would explain 
> why always see insults in your posts!
> It's not a big deal. It is just my way of pointing out that your 
> criticisms are not very substantive. It also might explain why, even 
> though I provide counterexamples to your arguments, you keep repeating 
> them as if you're saying something new.
> Does it make sense now?
> Best, Joe
> ---- "g. crabtree" <jampot at adelphia.net> wrote:
> =============
> Wow, I'm ever so sorry, Joe. I didn't realized the enormous handicaps that
> you were struggling with. Is there a name for the ocular condition that
> causes you to see insults everywhere you look? And what about that nasty
> dermal syndrome where the skin thins and chaffs in response to the first
> malady?  I really admire the way you soldier on in the presence of these
> burdens. I'm going to notify Jerry Lewis as to your condition and perhaps
> he'll devote a few minutes of his next telethon to you. Good luck and stay
> strong!
> gc
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Joe Campbell" <joekc at adelphia.net>
> To: "g. crabtree" <jampot at adelphia.net>
> Cc: "'Moscow Vision 2020'" <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 7:48 AM
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Costco Preferred Over Wal-Mart
>>I see the insults but I can't any argument, Gary!
>> Not sure what to say since it is clear that you didn't carefully read my
>> post. You made a general claim about Wal-Mart and I refuted it with a
>> hypothetical example. As it turns out, the example is not entirely
>> hypothetical since the comparison between Cosco and Wal-Mart is real. 
>> Your
>> comments below seem to miss these points entirely.
>> Sorry for engaging in abstract, logical reasoning! Next time I'll use
>> pictures.
>> --
>> Joe Campbell
>> ---- "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."
>> gc
>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>> From: "Joe Campbell" <joekc at adelphia.net>
>> To: "g. crabtree" <jampot at adelphia.net>
>> Cc: "'Moscow Vision 2020'" <vision2020 at moscow.com>; "Tom Hansen"
>> <thansen at moscow.com>; "Joan Opyr" <joanopyr at moscow.com>
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 7:14 AM
>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Costco Preferred Over Wal-Mart
>>> Gary,
>>> Notice that your story turns out exactly the same regardless of how much
>>> money Wal-Mart pays its employees. Eventually it does translate into a
>>> bad
>>> thing. Let me try to illustrate the point.
>>> Suppose Costco pays its employees a minimum of $10 an hour and Wal-Mart
>>> pays its employees a minimum of $9, in an effort to keep competitive.
>>> Sounds like a win-win situation here. Suppose instead Wal-Mart pays its
>>> employees $8. This doesn't sound so bad either and it represents your
>>> second option: Wal-Mart employs "the lesser skilled members of the
>>> workforce that Costco rejected." Still a win-win situation.
>>> But once we notice that Wal-Mart is selecting folks who have no other
>>> work
>>> option we realize that they have no motivation at all to stop at $8. Why
>>> not go to $6, or $4, or $2, or $1? In an entirely "free market," there 
>>> is
>>> no incentive for Wal-Mart to stop at any particular point. For any 
>>> dollar
>>> amount that it might stop, your point still holds: they are employing
>>> "lesser skilled members of the workforce" who can't get a job anywhere
>>> else. Hey, $1 is better than nothing, right?
>>> Thankfully the market is not entirely free and there are minimum wage
>>> laws. In Idaho the minimum wage is $5.15 an hour, so Wal-Mart is
>>> prevented
>>> by law from going any lower than that. At this point the numbers start 
>>> to
>>> matter, so here is an interesting quote from the web (I can't recall the
>>> website but you can google to quote to find out if you'd like):
>>> "Costco wouldn't have to raise salaries with Kerry's proposal to 
>>> increase
>>> the minimum wage to $7 an hour, from $5.15 now. It already pays hot-dog
>>> vendors as much as $16 an hour, and the lowest wage it pays is $10 an
>>> hour."
>>> The difference between $10 and $5.15 per hour is significant. If these
>>> workers are doing more or less the same work, then it seems as if
>>> Wal-Mart
>>> is not paying its fair share. Until the minimum wage is raised to 
>>> correct
>>> the problem I think it is wise to discourage companies that are 
>>> motivated
>>> purely by profit considerations from locating in our fine state.
>>> --
>>> Joe Campbell
>>> ---- "g. crabtree" <jampot at adelphia.net> wrote:
>>> =============
>>> Why don't we all impose an enormous strain on our imaginations and
>>> presume
>>> that everything Mr. Reed presented in his letter is correct. I'll give
>>> you
>>> all a moment to bring that imposing struggle under control. Now the
>>> question
>>> that needs to be asked is so what? The fact of the matter is that
>>> Wal-Mart
>>> has expressed a desire to build in the area and Costco hasn't. Now lets
>>> say
>>> that Costco was interested in expanding into the Moscow/Pullman area and
>>> that they did indeed provide a workplace that was twice as wonderful as
>>> Wal-Mart. Since the management of WM can't round up employees at gun
>>> point
>>> it would seem that they would have to be competitive to attract warm
>>> bodies
>>> or, they would employ the lesser skilled members of the workforce that
>>> Costco rejected. Either way there would be greater employment
>>> opportunities
>>> in the area, not to mention increased economic vitality. How, exactly
>>> does
>>> that translate into a bad thing?
>>> Perplexed,
>>> gc
>>> ----- Original Message ----- 
>>> From: "Tom Hansen" <thansen at moscow.com>
>>> To: "Joan Opyr" <joanopyr at moscow.com>; "'Moscow Vision 2020'"
>>> <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 6:23 PM
>>> Subject: [Vision2020] Costco Preferred Over Wal-Mart
>>>> >From today's (August 29, 2006) Moscow-Pullman Daily News with a 
>>>> >special
>>>> thanks to T.V. Reed of Pullman.
>>>> -------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Costco preferred over Wal-Mart
>>>> Two of the handful of fanatical Wal-Mart advocates in town have 
>>>> recently
>>>> written that Costco would never come to Pullman because our per capita
>>>> income is lower than places like Clarkston where the store has located.
>>>> But
>>>> anyone with basic economic understanding knows the per capita income 
>>>> for
>>>> Pullman (and Moscow) is skewed downward by the presence of so many
>>>> students
>>>> whose actual spending power, thanks to parents, is far beyond what
>>>> income
>>>> would indicate.
>>>> The median income for folks 25 and over in Pullman is $50,416. That
>>>> figure
>>>> represents more than 9,000 people - more than the entire population of
>>>> Clarkston with its per capita income of $29,100. There is no reason why
>>>> Costco and many other stores won't find this area attractive. Attempts
>>>> to
>>>> convince us that only Wal-Mart would be interested in Pullman are
>>>> misleading
>>>> and denigrate our considerable attractiveness as a community.
>>>> What Costco has proven definitively is that Wal-Mart's elitist model of
>>>> low
>>>> wages, meager, expensive benefits, and vicious anti-union activity is
>>>> not
>>>> necessary to big-box success. One local Wal-Mart booster traveled to
>>>> Arkansas to get the "facts" about the corporation, and was apparently
>>>> wowed
>>>> to talk to big boss Lee Scott himself who told him what a wonderful
>>>> company
>>>> he runs.
>>>> As any competent journalist or researcher for government, business or
>>>> academia knows, you never take at face value the self-reporting of the
>>>> research subject. Digging for the facts beneath Wal-Mart's claims and
>>>> comparing them to rival Costco reveals a clear, objective contrast.
>>>> Costco
>>>> has twice as many employees enjoying health benefits, and the company
>>>> pays
>>>> for 90 percent of those benefits as opposed to 60 percent for Wal-Mart.
>>>> Starting salaries at Costco average $3-$6 per hour higher than at
>>>> Wal-Mart.
>>>> Not surprisingly, Wal-Mart has twice the employee turnover rate of
>>>> Costco.
>>>> These differences belie Wal-Mart's claims, and prove their elitist
>>>> model,
>>>> where wealth supposedly trickles down from the Waltons (five of
>>>> America's
>>>> 10
>>>> richest individuals), can be replaced by one where workers are paid
>>>> fairly
>>>> and let their money trickle up into the economy.
>>>> T.V. Reed, Pullman
>>>> -------------------------------------------------------
>>>> Seeya round town, Moscow.
>>>> Tom Hansen
>>>> Moscow, Idaho
>>>> "If I wanted to overhear every tedious scrap of brain static rattling
>>>> around
>>>> in your head, I'd read your blog."
>>>> - Bill Maher
>>>> =======================================================
>>>> 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
>>>> =======================================================
>>> =======================================================
>>> 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