Author Topic: Supporting Small Business vs. Saving  (Read 22703 times)

grantmeaname

  • CM*MW 2023 Attendees
  • Walrus Stache
  • *
  • Posts: 5961
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Middle West
  • Cast me away from yesterday's things
Re: Supporting Small Business vs. Saving
« Reply #50 on: February 28, 2013, 05:29:30 PM »
I really like the forum here, but I find the idea of "saving the world through non-consumerism" at odds with patronizing big box stores, particularly Walmart.
Here are some aspects of Mustachianism and non-consumption I like:
  • the psychological benefits from producing things for yourself (think about how pleasant working in a woodshop or switching the brakes on a car is, and the skills and insight you gain from doing so)
  • The opportunity to be one of two full-time parents to my children.
  • The weight of the knowledge that I am part owner of every public corporation in the nation, and that the vast majority of gainfully employed Americans work as agents of me and my fellow shareholders.
  • The time to do time-intensive things right, like canning, homebrewing, gardening, and riding all the bikes. To quote Aida, I just want the time to be.
  • The ability to volunteer my labor in ways that benefit me, for that reason, and in ways that benefit society, for that reason, when that's what I want.
How many of those have to do with the moral superiority of buying smaller amounts of things at a time? Not a one.

Quote
People hate to be called out, I get it, so do I. People defend what they do and how they think, particularly those with the zeal of the newly converted.
Here's the eye-roller. You're not calling me out for not following my values, you're making an ass of yourself by calling me out for not following your values! I don't feel the tiniest pinge of guilt when I buy Gordon Food Service frozen mango by the monstrous bag or Costco toilet paper by the 60, let me tell you, and it's not because I've turned off my moral sensibilities. My spending is in line with my values, despite the fact that it's not in line with yours. Is that so incomprehensible?

Bakari

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1799
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Oakland, CA
  • Veggie Powered Handyman
    • The Flamboyant Introvert
Re: Supporting Small Business vs. Saving
« Reply #51 on: February 28, 2013, 08:39:31 PM »
Its not like there's a limit on how many moral values one can hold.  Listing off other various things you value doesn't particularly support or deny the negative factors that Walmart (and other similar mega-chains) has on society.
You may as well respond to the abortion debate by saying you support funding for libraries and space exploration.

If you are going to defend shopping there, why not address the issues raised regarding their detrimental effect on labor and independent business?  If you feel no need to, why respond at all?

One could also debate whether a tenant of Mustachianism really is "saving the world through non-consumerism", or whether Walmart really does represent the pinnacle of consumerism.

If we accept that Walmart represents consumerism (and not just how you personally use it, but for the general population - does it's existence encourage more consumption?), and we accept that consumerism is bad for "the world", and if we also accept that "saving the world" is a positive value, then Deano's statement would be valid.

meadow lark

  • CM*MW 2023 Attendees
  • Walrus Stache
  • *
  • Posts: 7836
  • Location: Louisiana
Re: Supporting Small Business vs. Saving
« Reply #52 on: February 28, 2013, 09:48:40 PM »
This is one I struggle with.  I see why Walmart's not great - but my other options are Smiths or Albertsons, also large national chains.  I shop some at Trader Joes, another national chain.  I haven't researched to see who treats their employees better.  Also Sprouts, a chain. Little stores here would all be ethnic stores, and I have one that I frequent, but it is pretty limited in what I buy there.  I go there for spices, coconut milk, and occasional veggies.
  I do buy 1/2 a cow from a farmer.  I am thinking about buying a pig this year.  And we are soon to go back to raising chickens for eggs.  My thing about Walmart, though, is that they match prices from other stores, so I bring my circulars, and buy the loss leaders.  In particular we have a really inexpensive store with really poor quality meats and produce.  So I love to go to Walmart and buy my 5 mangoes for $1, 5 cucumbers for $1, etc at a store with better food.  And how does the extra gas figure in, if I shop at several places, instead of one?  And if I spend more, I am putting off retirement, and I think it is a social good to get me out of the workforce as soon as possible so another person can get my paycheck...  Obviously these are all convenient justifications, but I also see them as true...

Bakari

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1799
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Oakland, CA
  • Veggie Powered Handyman
    • The Flamboyant Introvert
Re: Supporting Small Business vs. Saving
« Reply #53 on: March 01, 2013, 10:45:56 AM »
This is one I struggle with.  I see why Walmart's not great - but my other options are Smiths or Albertsons, also large national chains.  I shop some at Trader Joes, another national chain.  I haven't researched to see who treats their employees better.

I sympathies with the rest of your post, and I (rarely) shop there too, for things that there is no reasonably convenient alternative for.
Just wanted to point out that Albertson's has a unionized workforce.  I don't know Smith's, but the internet says they are too.  Trader Joes (and Whole Foods) are not, and of course WalMart - well, to be fair, the CEO of whole foods is probably just as adamantly anti-union as Walmart.  Walmart may be one of the bad ones, but it is kind of unfair that they get all the attention for it, when they aren't the only one.

Deano

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 216
Re: Supporting Small Business vs. Saving
« Reply #54 on: March 01, 2013, 03:07:31 PM »
I really like the forum here, but I find the idea of "saving the world through non-consumerism" at odds with patronizing big box stores, particularly Walmart.
Here are some aspects of Mustachianism and non-consumption I like:
  • the psychological benefits from producing things for yourself (think about how pleasant working in a woodshop or switching the brakes on a car is, and the skills and insight you gain from doing so)
  • The opportunity to be one of two full-time parents to my children.
  • The weight of the knowledge that I am part owner of every public corporation in the nation, and that the vast majority of gainfully employed Americans work as agents of me and my fellow shareholders.
  • The time to do time-intensive things right, like canning, homebrewing, gardening, and riding all the bikes. To quote Aida, I just want the time to be.
  • The ability to volunteer my labor in ways that benefit me, for that reason, and in ways that benefit society, for that reason, when that's what I want.
How many of those have to do with the moral superiority of buying smaller amounts of things at a time? Not a one.

Quote
People hate to be called out, I get it, so do I. People defend what they do and how they think, particularly those with the zeal of the newly converted.
Here's the eye-roller. You're not calling me out for not following my values, you're making an ass of yourself by calling me out for not following your values! I don't feel the tiniest pinge of guilt when I buy Gordon Food Service frozen mango by the monstrous bag or Costco toilet paper by the 60, let me tell you, and it's not because I've turned off my moral sensibilities. My spending is in line with my values, despite the fact that it's not in line with yours. Is that so incomprehensible?

It's clear I touched a nerve. Easy Tex. If you want to piss on the world, that's fine. I was calling out people who profess to want to do good things for the world and yet still shop at places that do bad things for the world. You're a greedy jingo maybe, I could care less. I don't care about your lack of guilt, I care about those who care because they are the ones who might care about what I posted. It's clear you have the answers and you want to list them for me in handy html. Kudos.

You were most certainly not the target of my post, I apologize if you assumed you were.


Deano

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 216
Re: Supporting Small Business vs. Saving
« Reply #55 on: March 01, 2013, 03:12:29 PM »
This is one I struggle with.  I see why Walmart's not great - but my other options are Smiths or Albertsons, also large national chains.  I shop some at Trader Joes, another national chain.  I haven't researched to see who treats their employees better.

I sympathies with the rest of your post, and I (rarely) shop there too, for things that there is no reasonably convenient alternative for.
Just wanted to point out that Albertson's has a unionized workforce.  I don't know Smith's, but the internet says they are too.  Trader Joes (and Whole Foods) are not, and of course WalMart - well, to be fair, the CEO of whole foods is probably just as adamantly anti-union as Walmart.  Walmart may be one of the bad ones, but it is kind of unfair that they get all the attention for it, when they aren't the only one.

We get quite a range on MMM here don't we? I would choose to patronize a union shop, but by the sounds of it others would rather see a unionized worker burn in hell.

In any event, it's fairly easy where I'm from to never set foot in a Walmart. In fact, the only place I've ever been to a Walmart in is Palm Springs CA...absolutely the only place in town to buy a hotplate to cook on. I went everywhere to find one...Walmart was it.

For me though, it's not just how Walmart treats it's workers, it's the effect they have on workers for other stores as well as their suppliers. It's bad all around.

Deano

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 216
Re: Supporting Small Business vs. Saving
« Reply #56 on: March 01, 2013, 03:22:57 PM »
This is one I struggle with.  I see why Walmart's not great - but my other options are Smiths or Albertsons, also large national chains.  I shop some at Trader Joes, another national chain.  I haven't researched to see who treats their employees better.  Also Sprouts, a chain. Little stores here would all be ethnic stores, and I have one that I frequent, but it is pretty limited in what I buy there.  I go there for spices, coconut milk, and occasional veggies.
  I do buy 1/2 a cow from a farmer.  I am thinking about buying a pig this year.  And we are soon to go back to raising chickens for eggs.  My thing about Walmart, though, is that they match prices from other stores, so I bring my circulars, and buy the loss leaders.  In particular we have a really inexpensive store with really poor quality meats and produce.  So I love to go to Walmart and buy my 5 mangoes for $1, 5 cucumbers for $1, etc at a store with better food.  And how does the extra gas figure in, if I shop at several places, instead of one?  And if I spend more, I am putting off retirement, and I think it is a social good to get me out of the workforce as soon as possible so another person can get my paycheck...  Obviously these are all convenient justifications, but I also see them as true...

I think that if you're not sure that you should be shopping at Walmart, try not doing it for a month or two. You can then assess what it will mean for you personally and decide if it's worth it. You could spend some time getting a range of information about Walmart and its practices in the meantime.

I can't speak for MMM, but I was under the impression that he believed (as I do I), that financial freedom shouldn't come at the expense of society. Personally, I think the quest for financial freedom can be very much in line with the goal of a better society and I doubt very much that a better society includes hordes of workers on food stamps.

Bakari

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1799
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Oakland, CA
  • Veggie Powered Handyman
    • The Flamboyant Introvert
Re: Supporting Small Business vs. Saving
« Reply #57 on: March 01, 2013, 03:33:09 PM »

We get quite a range on MMM here don't we?

its funny cause Grant and I seemed to be mostly on the same page throughout the several philosophy/morality threads I mentioned earlier.
I don't think he's amoral, just doesn't believe that Walmart actually does bad things for the world
Also, he has a tendency to play devil's advocate and to search for logical flaws in arguments, as far as I can tell, just on general principal.  Which in general is a good thing for the forum.  I don't know, maybe you really did touch a nerve, I actually thought that post was a little uncharacteristic...

arebelspy

  • Administrator
  • Senior Mustachian
  • *****
  • Posts: 28444
  • Age: -997
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: Supporting Small Business vs. Saving
« Reply #58 on: March 01, 2013, 04:57:36 PM »
It's clear I touched a nerve. Easy Tex. If you want to piss on the world, that's fine. I was calling out people who profess to want to do good things for the world and yet still shop at places that do bad things for the world. You're a greedy jingo maybe, I could care less. I don't care about your lack of guilt, I care about those who care because they are the ones who might care about what I posted. It's clear you have the answers and you want to list them for me in handy html. Kudos.

You were most certainly not the target of my post, I apologize if you assumed you were.

We prefer more respectful disagreement around here.  Being a dick isn't going to win anyone over.
I am a former teacher who accumulated a bunch of real estate, retired at 29, spent some time traveling the world full time and am now settled with three kids.
If you want to know more about me, this Business Insider profile tells the story pretty well.
I (rarely) blog at AdventuringAlong.com. Check out the Now page to see what I'm up to currently.

grantmeaname

  • CM*MW 2023 Attendees
  • Walrus Stache
  • *
  • Posts: 5961
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Middle West
  • Cast me away from yesterday's things
Re: Supporting Small Business vs. Saving
« Reply #59 on: March 01, 2013, 06:21:54 PM »
its funny cause Grant and I seemed to be mostly on the same page throughout the several philosophy/morality threads I mentioned earlier.
I don't think he's amoral, just doesn't believe that Walmart actually does bad things for the world
I'm sure Walmart has some shitty practices. I'm just not convinced that Walmart does more bad things for the world than its competitors do, especially after the total lack of evidence that was presented in the thread (and don't start on unions, because the teamster's union is among the scummiest organizations in the nation and none of my Kroger friends and classmates could name a thing their union did to earn its enormous dues -- it's just not that simple). Setting all that aside, I'm even more unconvinced that consumerism at smugger stores like Trader Joe's or Whole Paycheck is any different than consumerism at Walmart. Is an Aston Martin really less 'consumeristic' than a Toyota? Is a sweatshop Macbook really less 'consumeristic' than a sweatshop Acer Aspire?

Deano, while your post may have irked me, it's not like it touched a personal nerve-- I don't shop at Walmart by choice, and Costco and Giant Eagle both pay their employees well and treat them even better, as I happen to know from being close friends with employees (the exception of Costco subcontracting their free samples notwithstanding). What irritates me is when somebody wanders into a thread, only halfway reads what's been said, says "I know the secrets of MMM morality", and then paints this diverse and reasonable group of people with varying and nuanced views with the same broad brush. I was simply trying to point out that there are a whole lot of things about MMM that speak to me that have nothing to do with assholishy stated generalizations, and that maybe "don't shop at Walmart" is not the entire truth of how to live a virtuous life.

johnnylighthouse

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 52
  • Location: Philadelphia
Re: Supporting Small Business vs. Saving
« Reply #60 on: March 01, 2013, 07:24:16 PM »
Mr Grant, I did provide a couple of links, did you find the sources deficient?  I don't think you can claim a total lack of evidence without first rebutting what's been put out there.  But I don't begrudge you your skepticism and I agree that they're certainly not alone.

Deano

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 216
Re: Supporting Small Business vs. Saving
« Reply #61 on: March 01, 2013, 09:30:07 PM »

We prefer more respectful disagreement around here.  Being a dick isn't going to win anyone over.

You're right, when he called me an ass he was kind of being a dick. Thanks for that, I'm new here so I think it's great I've got someone on my side. You're tops!

Let's not be too hard on him though, we all get worked up sometimes.

Deano

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 216
Re: Supporting Small Business vs. Saving
« Reply #62 on: March 01, 2013, 10:27:25 PM »

Deano, while your post may have irked me, it's not like it touched a personal nerve-- I don't shop at Walmart by choice, and Costco and Giant Eagle both pay their employees well and treat them even better, as I happen to know from being close friends with employees (the exception of Costco subcontracting their free samples notwithstanding). What irritates me is when somebody wanders into a thread, only halfway reads what's been said, says "I know the secrets of MMM morality", and then paints this diverse and reasonable group of people with varying and nuanced views with the same broad brush. I was simply trying to point out that there are a whole lot of things about MMM that speak to me that have nothing to do with assholishy stated generalizations, and that maybe "don't shop at Walmart" is not the entire truth of how to live a virtuous life.

I think it's fair to say that a lot of people on this forum shop at places like Walmart. Furthermore I think that I was spot on in the discussion (see name of thread Re: Supporting Small Business vs. Saving), it was totally in line. I was adding my varied and nuanced view of something that I noticed, and, if you read a quick comment I made to Bakari, you'd realize I recognized the variety of the group. I also made a previous statement (to you, if you read it) that I was directing my comment to people who were thinking about the issue at hand (such as the original poster, you were quite clear that you weren't thinking about it, you've already made up your mind).

Now, to continue, I certainly don't think the entire truth of living a virtuous life is not shopping at Walmart. This is a generalization to be sure, though I'm going to be more charitable and not call it "assholishy". I also don't think I have the secret to MMM's morality, I based my comment on the title of one his posts. Hardly a secret. I really don't know him, the secret of his morality might be eating babies, he only exists on the internet for me, but I enjoy his writing and tips, they make me think. I've even changed my mind about some things, that's a valuable website that can do that.

Alright, to get back to the discussion, I think that a modest Toyota is indeed less consumeristic than an Aston Martin. One of the prime movers of a consumer society is commodity fetishism. A brown Corolla is not the object of many dreams, it doesn't encourage the consumption of newer, flashier versions of brown Corollas. Now, you're probably spot on about the Macbook and Acer, but one could say that a budget Lenovo might be less consumeristic, for the reason that I outlined above.

To make this a bit of a marathon post, I should outline that I don't think Walmart's only problem is how it treats it's workers (shitty), I have the following problems;
-getting tax breaks to open new stores (not needed, are they not profitable?)
-bribing people to get what they want (Mexico, but they're people too)
-forcing their suppliers to outsource (they do this with price pressure when the supplier is heavily invested in Walmart)
-their buildings are a blight on the landscape, same as Costco et al. (Here in Canada they're called Smart! Centres. Irony)
-They kill downtowns with independent businesses (which give our downtowns nuance and variety).

My position would be that I don't shop at Walmart and it's ilk because they damage my local community (see some of the points above). I suppose I've made up my mind on the issue, but I'm certainly open to discussion and I won't think anyone who thinks something other than me is attacking me in any way.



Bakari

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1799
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Oakland, CA
  • Veggie Powered Handyman
    • The Flamboyant Introvert
Re: Supporting Small Business vs. Saving
« Reply #63 on: March 02, 2013, 09:20:48 AM »
I'm just not convinced that Walmart does more bad things for the world than its competitors do,
Fair enough.  I have actually made that same exact argument myself many times.


Quote
and don't start on unions, because the teamster's union is among the scummiest organizations in the nation
I'm not meaning to suggest it is simple.  Whether any one specific union is corrupt is no more an indictment on the principal of organized labor than one (or many) corrupt politicians is on democracy or one (or many) corrupt corporations is on capitalism.

Quote
none of my Kroger friends and classmates could name a thing their union did

Pretty much everyone here, and nearly everyone alive, is too young to have experienced the world per-organized labor directly, but its pretty important that we acknowledge it.
Its not just a question of what this specific union did, its what the labor movement did.  The standard in the 19th century was 12-16 hours work days, 6-7 days per week (up to 100 hour weeks), for the inflation-adjusted equivalent of $1 to $4 per hour - half that if you were female, black, or a child (which were employed as young as 5 years old).
The company you worked for likely paid you in company scrip, not US currency, so you could only shop at the companies store, which had prices set to ensure you had to spend more than you made just for food and basic supplies. 
If you got injured by the companies cheap machinery breaking, you were fired because an injured worker is less productive.

Child labor, overtime, minimum wage, and OSHA laws didn't come about because the US government wanted to protect its citizens.  The US government sent not just cops, but military units to force peaceful strikers to not just disperse, but to go back to work, at gun point.  The courts consistently sided with those who owned the means of production (the "job creators").  Change happened only because the amount of American citizens, across cities, industries, race and gender lines, that banded together finally overwhelmed the inherent power imbalance between worker and boss due to capitalism.

Does anyone think for a second that Walmart and every other corporation would hesitate to undo all of that if they were given the opportunity?  Does anyone think that if Republicans ever gained control of both the white house and congress, and no labor unions existed anymore (because they are "no longer needed"), that there is any question other than "how quickly would labor laws be undone?"
Would Mitt have done it all on his first day?  Or we it be gradual, over a decade?

Hopefully we never find out, because American's seem to have very short memories.  This stuff isn't "ancient history", it is very, very recent.  Technology has changed, but capitalism has not.  Walmart is not alone, but there is evidence (some pointed out in this thread, and plenty available on line) is one of the worse offenders, in trying as hard as possible to go back in the direction of those times. 

The cumulative effect of choosing low prices over American made, or Union, or local, or handcrafted, is to encourage outsourcing, automation, and corporate consolidation, all of which drives unemployment, and in turn depresses real wages.  If these same things were happening on a micro level, within one town, the cause and effect would be obvious.  It should be no less obvious on a global scale, but since it is dilute, we can collectively pretend it has to do with market bubbles or government spending or interest rates or whatever.

Deano

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 216
Re: Supporting Small Business vs. Saving
« Reply #64 on: March 02, 2013, 11:09:56 AM »
Bakari, spot on post. I'd just add a few things.

I think we don't need to go back to the 19th Century to find the work/pay you describe. Steinbeck did an amazing job in Grapes of Wrath of highlighting conditions which were quite similar in the 30's, that would be the non-fiction part of the book. Steinbeck knew, he worked in those conditions and he knew the people who toiled in those conditions because they had no other choice. My grandmother certainly remembers, but she was born before WW1.

I also think that the Democratic party is under the same forces as the Republicans. To a Canadian, looking south, your two parties seem to differ very little, save for tone. Our Liberal and Conservative parties have a little more distinction between them, but they are coming closer together in their policy direction as time goes on, if not in tone.

We also have some common history in sending our workers back at gunpoint...during the Ludlow Massacre period, our future PM Laurier worked for Rockefeller. Yet, there he is, staring at me whenever I pay with a fiver. Bugger.


Peter

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 111
Re: Supporting Small Business vs. Saving
« Reply #65 on: March 02, 2013, 11:24:17 AM »
Paying more at local businesses has got to be the most inefficient way of "helping" people. Why not donate the savings from shopping at Walmart to whatever cause you want?

Speaking of ineffienencies - One of the main tenents of the MMM attitude is to conduct yourself in a manner that preserves the environment for future generations isn't it?

How much more efficient do you think Superstore is than Al's Grocery? In every measure: building, utility and energy costs, minimizing waste food, parking efficiency, merchandice delivery etc. The big guy has the little beat at every turn.

I read in Maclean's Magazine a while back a story about the negatives of organic farming. I don't remember the exact figures they expressed but the analogy that stuck with me was that: if everyone in the western world only ate "local" "organic" foods, instead of modernized big-farm foods, we would need additional arable land equivilant to the landmass area of South America....

grantmeaname

  • CM*MW 2023 Attendees
  • Walrus Stache
  • *
  • Posts: 5961
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Middle West
  • Cast me away from yesterday's things
Re: Supporting Small Business vs. Saving
« Reply #66 on: March 02, 2013, 12:17:01 PM »
Pretty much everyone here, and nearly everyone alive, is too young to have experienced the world per-organized labor directly, but its pretty important that we acknowledge it...
Helloooo, I just spent an entire year working directly with primary materials related to labor history in the industrial core of the country, full time, as a job! You can make the short memory argument if you'd like to, but it doesn't apply to me and probably doesn't apply to most of your audience.

You've got a particularly rosy view of unions' roles in things, and people disagreeing with that view doesn't necessarily mean that they don't know their history. While on the whole I agree that unions were a main driver for the dramatic improvement in working conditions in 1870-1940, you're leaving out a few pretty huge drawpacks that I think lend a little more nuance to the period. You're ignoring the effects of journalism and works like Sinclair's The Jungle. You're not mentioning all the organized violence committed by unions and their members as part of their strikes in the gilded age, or the extreme expense that would come with using US currency in backwoods coal and iron towns -- remember, even those workers that weren't paid in scrip were usually paid in bank notes, which were fundamentally little different. Scrip use was also declining by the time unions came onto the scene. And high prices at company stores could be related to the expense and difficulty of running supply chains across the nation and the overhead inherent in a company trying to function in an area outside its core competency, especially for a small company before the advent of scientific management. Your statements have part of the truth in them, but it's certainly not the whole truth. And even setting all of that aside: the fact that labor unions have done great things does not earn them a perpetual right to 10% of the salary of the lower class! If labor unions are not performing any service of value today, why do they continue to collect their dues?

Quote
Does anyone think for a second that Walmart and every other corporation would hesitate to undo all of that if they were given the opportunity?  Does anyone think that if Republicans ever gained control of both the white house and congress, and no labor unions existed anymore (because they are "no longer needed"), that there is any question other than "how quickly would labor laws be undone?"
Would Mitt have done it all on his first day?  Or we it be gradual, over a decade?
That would be a sensible argument in the early 1950s, when the AFL and CIO were peaking in power and the economy had never known weak labor unions since their advent. But I think there are a view instructive comparisons we could make to evaluate such an argument: for example, look how dramatically the American worker has been weakened in the last fifty years by such cruel and oppressive corporate legislation as the ADA, ERISA, the Civil Rights act (a terrific non-union example of citizens projecting their will into the policy sphere), and the ADEA in the time that the AFL-CIO has had a 33% membership decline amidst a booming economy, and the labor union participation rate has plummeted from 33% to 11% (with largely only the public sector's employees remaining unionized, and only 7% of private sector employees unionized). We've had an indisputable plummet in the strength of labor unions, and employment practices have not worsened along with it.

We could also look between peer firms in the same industry: Do Giant Eagle workers really work under worse conditions or crueler policies than Kroger workers? What about Honda plant workers compared to their UAW peers? On a larger scale, you could also do so between nations: do the Germans (participation rate 19%) live oppressive working lives compared to their Finnish neighbors (participation rate 70%), who otherwise live in a pretty comparable society? In each case, controlling as closely as possible for everything but labor unions suggests that they aren't earning their keep.

Finally, regarding the Republican party: remember, very nearly half the nation's voters choose to vote for it each election. It's not like there's an auction for seats and the owners of capital directly buy their influence. Many moderates lie in the middle, and nearly all Americans want both businesses and workers to prosper -- I for one would love to see an end to private-sector closed shops with involuntary membership, for example, but I didn't support my governor's 2011 attempt to end public unions in Ohio, SB 5. You're dramatically oversimplifying it by painting it as a contest with Democrats, unions, and virtue on one side and Republicans, Wally World, and greed on the other.

Quote
The cumulative effect of choosing low prices over American made, or Union, or local, or handcrafted, is to encourage outsourcing, automation, and corporate consolidation, all of which drives unemployment, and in turn depresses real wages.  If these same things were happening on a micro level, within one town, the cause and effect would be obvious.  It should be no less obvious on a global scale, but since it is dilute, we can collectively pretend it has to do with market bubbles or government spending or interest rates or whatever.
If low prices are driving an increase in unemployment, aren't real wages buoyed back to their prior level by the decrease in the price level? If not, you're positing some sort of murky multiplier effect that you haven't mentioned -- do you have support for the existence of such a multiplier?

grantmeaname

  • CM*MW 2023 Attendees
  • Walrus Stache
  • *
  • Posts: 5961
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Middle West
  • Cast me away from yesterday's things
Re: Supporting Small Business vs. Saving
« Reply #67 on: March 02, 2013, 12:28:10 PM »
Mr Grant, I did provide a couple of links, did you find the sources deficient?  I don't think you can claim a total lack of evidence without first rebutting what's been put out there.  But I don't begrudge you your skepticism and I agree that they're certainly not alone.
Yes, we've had a couple of sources each way, and I think that, at least on the basis of the three or four studies in the thread, it's suggestive that numerically, big retailers are better than small retailers in general and that on the whole Walmart is worse than its big retailer peers. There are some pretty compelling anecdotes suggesting Walmart's lobbying practices and the like are undesirable, too. My point isn't that this is a total dark area unaddressed by social science, and I hope that didn't come across as me dismissing your sources out of hand -- there's not a total paucity of evidence. I just haven't seen whatever evidence exists that demonstrates that Walmart is as bad as its image.

Deano

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 216
Re: Supporting Small Business vs. Saving
« Reply #68 on: March 02, 2013, 02:19:24 PM »
Paying more at local businesses has got to be the most inefficient way of "helping" people. Why not donate the savings from shopping at Walmart to whatever cause you want?

Speaking of ineffienencies - One of the main tenents of the MMM attitude is to conduct yourself in a manner that preserves the environment for future generations isn't it?

How much more efficient do you think Superstore is than Al's Grocery? In every measure: building, utility and energy costs, minimizing waste food, parking efficiency, merchandice delivery etc. The big guy has the little beat at every turn.

I read in Maclean's Magazine a while back a story about the negatives of organic farming. I don't remember the exact figures they expressed but the analogy that stuck with me was that: if everyone in the western world only ate "local" "organic" foods, instead of modernized big-farm foods, we would need additional arable land equivilant to the landmass area of South America....

I can't actually agree with anything you wrote.
-money spent "locally" stays local, much more so than spending it at big box stores. It also moves around more as this article in Time magazine states (if you are going to use Macleans, I'll use something of the same quality) http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1903632,00.html

As far as environmental impact, I think if we compared a human scaled, walkable neighbourhoods, with work/commerce/residential, you'd find your statement does not add up. Here is a good look at the issues at hand http://www.theatlanticcities.com/politics/2012/08/failure-walmarts-sustainabiility-measures/2805/

Think of this scenario though, a common sight when I lived in the US. A woman gets in her Escalade (BIG!) and drives clear across town to go to Walmart. She loads up on everything she needs for the week in a building that uses the same amount of energy as about 1100 US homes (verifiable, Sierra Club study). Now,  another woman gets on her bicycle, scoots down to her local grocer and hardware stores to get what she needs for 2 or 3 days. She does this 2 or 3 times a week. Who uses more energy? Who is likely to consume more? You can find both scenarios in my small city (Ontario), one is my wife and one is my colleague. I think using economies of scale to reduce environmental impact can work in some areas, but I don't think this is one of them.

As far as the organic farming reference, that's a little off the question at hand, though I'm sure there is room to include it. While I think the argument is probably exaggerated, I would think, yes, we'd need a lot more land. Or less people. That's probably worth a different thread.

Deano

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 216
Re: Supporting Small Business vs. Saving
« Reply #69 on: March 02, 2013, 02:43:49 PM »

If low prices are driving an increase in unemployment, aren't real wages buoyed back to their prior level by the decrease in the price level? If not, you're positing some sort of murky multiplier effect that you haven't mentioned -- do you have support for the existence of such a multiplier?

Real wages are wages with inflation factored in. If prices have been dropping in some areas we would have low inflation (which both our countries currently have, Canada is at 2%, with the long term avg being a point or two higher). You're right, real wages would be higher with lower prices.

What you've ignored I think, is that the basket of goods that is measured to find inflation cannot all be found at Walmart, for instance. Housing, education, transportation...these items in the basket can't be found at Walmart (in direct terms). So, you can have decreasing prices in some areas, with increasing prices in others. This is precisely what has happened in the past few decades. The prices of food and clothing are at a low, and most other things are at a high. Sadly, the high prices have more than made up for the low priced goods found at Walmart (or other retailers).

So, to sum it up. Bakari is right in that there has been downward pressure on wages because of prices (pushing prices down in a store effects the amount you'll want to pay a worker in that store for instance). Now, if everything we need could be found at Walmart, you'd be right Grant, but that isn't the case. Higher prices for ed, health, and housing have not had the positive effect on wages that consumer goods would have if their prices were higher. How do I know this? It's common knowledge that real wages have been stagnant or nearly-stagnant for both our countries for probably 3 decades, a period of rising housing costs, transportation costs and health costs (your country more than mine).

Now, quickly, when you mention the low rate of union membership in Germany and the high rate in Finland, both countries with relatively well functioning economies right now, you do a disservice to the effect that the 19% in Germany wields in their country. As you must know, German unions have an active role in deciding where their companies go and what they do, so to speak. This has an enormous effect on German industry as a whole. In fact, I wouldn't think you can find a time in history where such a small percentage of workers have such a large effect on a country's economy. It's worth some study, something that it sounds like you have the skill set to do.

I also think you do a disservice to the plight of many workers in your country. You spoke of The Jungle, are you aware of the miserable conditions faced by workers in the Colorado meat packing plants? Here is some info on that, just a primer, there is lots out there. http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/250/meat-packing.html Perhaps you could check out this article as well. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/25/amazon-working-conditions-warehouses_n_1545599.html. I found several about Amazon, but I'll just post one.

« Last Edit: March 02, 2013, 02:45:29 PM by Deano »

grantmeaname

  • CM*MW 2023 Attendees
  • Walrus Stache
  • *
  • Posts: 5961
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Middle West
  • Cast me away from yesterday's things
Re: Supporting Small Business vs. Saving
« Reply #70 on: March 02, 2013, 03:15:27 PM »
What you've ignored I think, is that the basket of goods that is measured to find inflation cannot all be found at Walmart, for instance. Housing, education, transportation...these items in the basket can't be found at Walmart (in direct terms). So, you can have decreasing prices in some areas, with increasing prices in others. This is precisely what has happened in the past few decades. The prices of food and clothing are at a low, and most other things are at a high. Sadly, the high prices have more than made up for the low priced goods found at Walmart (or other retailers).
That's a compelling argument and one I hadn't considered. I think that this would be diminished somewhat by the income effect of a decrease in the price level, but in general I can see how that makes sense.

Quote
I also think you do a disservice to the plight of many workers in your country. You spoke of The Jungle, are you aware of the miserable conditions faced by workers in the Colorado meat packing plants? Here is some info on that, just a primer, there is lots out there. http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/250/meat-packing.html Perhaps you could check out this article as well. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/25/amazon-working-conditions-warehouses_n_1545599.html. I found several about Amazon, but I'll just post one.
I've worked the shitty minimum wage job, as I 'd suspect nearly everyone here has. It's not that I haven't seen poor working conditions, manipulation of benefit laws past their original intent, or terrible pay. I just think that even though all of those things are bad, they merit critical thought rather than unthinking acceptance of things like unions that are supposed to help. It's like understanding that the college education attainment gap between races is a problem but still questioning the wisdom of affirmative action. I'm in no way trying to downplay the problems facing the working class, but that doesn't mean that I support unions as those problems' solution.

Bakari

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1799
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Oakland, CA
  • Veggie Powered Handyman
    • The Flamboyant Introvert
Re: Supporting Small Business vs. Saving
« Reply #71 on: March 03, 2013, 12:02:48 PM »
Paying more at local businesses has got to be the most inefficient way of "helping" people. Why not donate the savings from shopping at Walmart to whatever cause you want?
I actually think donating to causes is a fairly inefficient way of helping people.
Going directly against my principals just so I could donate would be counter-productive.

Quote
Speaking of ineffienencies...

How much more efficient do you think Superstore is than Al's Grocery? In every measure: building, utility and energy costs, minimizing waste food, parking efficiency, merchandice delivery etc. The big guy has the little beat at every turn...

Quite a few people have mentioned something along these lines.
Long before WalMart there was something called a "general store".  They sold all sorts of different things in one location.  They still exist in rural areas.  In the suburbs you have shopping centers, and even malls.  These bring together lots of different shops in one place, and they share a common building.  You can get everything you need in one car trip, adjacent buildings provide for mutual insulation, it basically addresses all of those factors, while spreading the wealth they generate among several different companies or owners.  Sure, each one has their own sales people and cashiers, but Walmart has sales people for every department, and 20 registers up front.  I don't see the difference in terms of efficiency, or even convenience.

Quote
I read in Maclean's Magazine a while back a story about the negatives of organic farming. I don't remember the exact figures they expressed but the analogy that stuck with me was that: if everyone in the western world only ate "local" "organic" foods, instead of modernized big-farm foods, we would need additional arable land equivilant to the landmass area of South America....
I'm willing to believe that, as far as it is worded.  If you are talking about certifiably organic, particularly using permaculture methods, yes, it can be more labor and land intensive than agrichemical monoculture methods on a calorie per basis.  But that's making a lot of assumptions.  One, "organic" and "local" are not interchangeable.  Flying produce from the other hemisphere in order to have out-of-season fruit in no way adds to efficiency.  Another is that Westerners (and esp. Americans) eat an extremely large amount of meat, much more than most of the world, and it is an order of magnitude less efficient than plants on a per land mass (or per water, or per energy input) basis.  The only thing that keeps it as cheap as it is, is the massive feed crop subsidies the US government has been providing for decades.  End those, and the land mass required to feed us drops as dramatically as going all organic would increase it.

Bakari

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1799
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Oakland, CA
  • Veggie Powered Handyman
    • The Flamboyant Introvert
Re: Supporting Small Business vs. Saving
« Reply #72 on: March 03, 2013, 12:55:50 PM »
Helloooo, I just spent an entire year working directly with primary materials related to labor history in the industrial core of the country, full time, as a job! You can make the short memory argument if you'd like to, but it doesn't apply to me and probably doesn't apply to most of your audience.
Well, I really didn't think it was, which is why I was kind of surprised by your last statement!


Quote
You've got a particularly rosy view of unions' roles in things,
I said the "labor movement", not "unions" per say, and I don't define "union" as the formal organization which collects dues, but rather a collection of workers sticking together to balance the power differential between any one of them alone and the boss.  The Union, capital, that you are talking about has arisen as the defacto form that takes.

Quote
While on the whole I agree that unions were a main driver for the dramatic improvement in working conditions in 1870-1940, you're leaving out a few pretty huge drawpacks that I think lend a little more nuance to the period.
While I am curios what drawbacks during that period you are referring to are, I wasn't meaning to imply that everything workers do is admirable and beyond reproach, just that organized labor has a valuable role to play in society.

Quote
You're ignoring the effects of journalism and works like Sinclair's The Jungle.
Wasn't trying to do a thorough history of American labor laws.

Quote
You're not mentioning all the organized violence committed by unions and their members as part of their strikes in the gilded age,
The violence was both ways.  Would we deny the overall positive effect of our role in WWII on the grounds that our soldiers were violent?  I am aware of it, I just didn't see the relevance to the discussion

Quote
Your statements have part of the truth in them, but it's certainly not the whole truth.
fair enough.

Quote
And even setting all of that aside: the fact that labor unions have done great things does not earn them a perpetual right to 10% of the salary of the lower class! If labor unions are not performing any service of value today, why do they continue to collect their dues?
Why do police and firemen collect salaries even on days there are no crimes and no fires? 
I think the 10% question is valid, but separate from whether or not the need for organized labor has become obsolete.


Quote
We've had an indisputable plummet in the strength of labor unions, and employment practices have not worsened along with it.
well, during that same time period (1970s- to now), while GDP has risen consistently, and the CEOs and stock holders of corporations (those who own the means of production), have increased even more quickly, median real wages have stagnated, particularly that of the working class, and the average wealth of the poor has actually decreased.  I submit that the decline in worker organization may be one factor in that change.  Partially due to peoples feeling that company/employee conflicts have been "solved" by labor laws, making unions unnecessary, partially by corporations undermining labor via corporate consolidation, outsourcing, and automation.  If you need less workers to get the same amount of work done, workers lose their strength in numbers.  These sort of moves are all facilitated by the excess capital available to the largest corporations (which brings it all back to the original thread topic)

Quote
We could also look between peer firms in the same industry: Do Giant Eagle workers really work under worse conditions or crueler policies than Kroger workers? What about Honda plant workers compared to their UAW peers? On a larger scale, you could also do so between nations: do the Germans (participation rate 19%) live oppressive working lives compared to their Finnish neighbors (participation rate 70%), who otherwise live in a pretty comparable society? In each case, controlling as closely as possible for everything but labor unions suggests that they aren't earning their keep.

The fact that any workforce is unionized helps raise average salary throughout the industry, just like how one store with discounted prices drives down prices for the same product everywhere.  Even so, average salary at Giant Eagle: $25k.  At Kroger: $34k
http://www.indeed.com/salary/Giant-Eagle.html
http://www.indeed.com/salary/Kroger.html

Different cultures have different ideas of the proper balance between economic growth and wealth equality.  The executives at the big three are given salaries from 10 to 20 times as high as Japanese manufactures. 
Germany was once 1/2 communist, and the two main parties are Christians, and Socialists, so they are, as a culture, less likely to attempt to take advantage of workers.  Even so, Germany is 30 nations below Finland on the list of income equality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_distribution_of_wealth

Quote
You're dramatically oversimplifying it by painting it as a contest with Democrats, unions, and virtue on one side and Republicans, Wally World, and greed on the other.
lol, I could see how it might seem that way, but I didn't mention Democrats at all.  I wouldn't put them in the "virtue" category.  I mentioned Republicans because they are explicitly anti-union, anti-labor, anti-regulation.  Their candidate was Mitt Romney for cryin out loud!
I'm not talking about citizens who vote republican, I'm talking about the politicians themselves.

Quote
Quote
The cumulative effect of choosing low prices over American made, or Union, or local, or handcrafted, is to encourage outsourcing, automation, and corporate consolidation, all of which drives unemployment, and in turn depresses real wages.  If these same things were happening on a micro level, within one town, the cause and effect would be obvious.  It should be no less obvious on a global scale, but since it is dilute, we can collectively pretend it has to do with market bubbles or government spending or interest rates or whatever.
If low prices are driving an increase in unemployment, aren't real wages buoyed back to their prior level by the decrease in the price level? If not, you're positing some sort of murky multiplier effect that you haven't mentioned -- do you have support for the existence of such a multiplier?
That would only be true if 100% of the savings the corporation gained from outsourcing, etc went to lowering prices.  They don't.  Some percentage of it gets skimmed off to expand the business further, and to pay executive salaries and stock dividends.  That's why wealth inequality has increased so dramatically over the past few decades.  It is complex, and there isn't the direct cause and effect relationship I am implying, but these things are all correlated, and the trends line up.