TomatoPie wrote:Stepping back, we need to take the 50,000 foot view.

Railing at WalMart (or Amazon, or Microsoft) in 2015 is little different than a buggy whip maker yelling at Ford, or the ice house foreman yelling at GE because the refrigerator was destroying his business.

it's also like mounting a generations-long campaign to codify the 40-hour workweek*, which did not happen of itself, much as you may imagine it just came out that way.

Unless people understand that they are the economy, they might succumb as you have to the fantasy that economics is like physics, "and there's nothing you can do about it"

*substitute "heightening environmental concerns", or "insisting on more seat-belt usage", or, well, you get the idea

drsmooth wrote:
Walmart literally profits on externalizing its "true" costs to all us others whether we ever shop there or not.

Can you elablorate on how you feel that WalMart externalizes its true costs?

For example, do you mean pollution and waste in the 3rd world places where WalMart goods are made?

if you read other people's posts we already discussed it.


i'd like to get TP and PTK in a room and see who talks over whom

I think they both could agree on big bottomed girls and Asian (FOREIGN) women.

drsmooth wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:Stepping back, we need to take the 50,000 foot view.

Railing at WalMart (or Amazon, or Microsoft) in 2015 is little different than a buggy whip maker yelling at Ford, or the ice house foreman yelling at GE because the refrigerator was destroying his business.

it's also like mounting a generations-long campaign to codify the 40-hour workweek*, which did not happen of itself, much as you may imagine it just came out that way.

Unless people understand that they are the economy, they might succumb as you have to the fantasy that economics is like physics, "and there's nothing you can do about it"

*substitute "heightening environmental concerns", or "insisting on more seat-belt usage", or, well, you get the idea

I hear ya, Doc, but not really sound analogies.

Replacing inefficiencies (the local store, the horse and buggy) with better faster cheaper (Amazon, Prius) is a no-brainer.

Seat-belt usage, 40-hour work week, clean environment -- all arguably good things, but none of the are new efficiencies nor do they fly in the face of acheiving other efficiencies.

Soren wrote:I think they both could agree on big bottomed girls and Asian (FOREIGN) women.

Oddly, these are almost non-intersecting categories!

TomatoPie wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:Stepping back, we need to take the 50,000 foot view.

Railing at WalMart (or Amazon, or Microsoft) in 2015 is little different than a buggy whip maker yelling at Ford, or the ice house foreman yelling at GE because the refrigerator was destroying his business.

it's also like mounting a generations-long campaign to codify the 40-hour workweek*, which did not happen of itself, much as you may imagine it just came out that way.

Unless people understand that they are the economy, they might succumb as you have to the fantasy that economics is like physics, "and there's nothing you can do about it"

*substitute "heightening environmental concerns", or "insisting on more seat-belt usage", or, well, you get the idea

I hear ya, Doc, but not really sound analogies.

Replacing inefficiencies (the local store, the horse and buggy) with better faster cheaper (Amazon, Prius) is a no-brainer.

Seat-belt usage, 40-hour work week, clean environment -- all arguably good things, but none of the are new efficiencies nor do they fly in the face of acheiving other efficiencies.

how are 40 hour work weeks efficient?

how is the local store inefficient?

did the invisible hand deem it so?

pacino wrote:
how is the local store inefficient?

did the invisible hand deem it so?

One big retailer can sell the same volume as, let's say, 1,000 small retailers.

Right off the bat, you have eliminated 999 physical spaces. You have elimnated 999 computer and inventory systems. You have eliminated the need for 999 accounting, HR, etc systems and staff.

The big retailer can manage inventories with greater flexibility and variety.

This stuff is not Econ 101 - it's the prerequisite.

Now, there are some trade-offs. You can get better service at the small retailer. When it comes to hardware, it's often worth the higher price to have a guy there who knows the product and how to use it. When it comes to K-cups, not so much.

TomatoPie wrote:

pacino wrote:
how is the local store inefficient?

did the invisible hand deem it so?

One big retailer can sell the same volume as, let's say, 1,000 small retailers.

Right off the bat, you have eliminated 999 physical spaces. You have elimnated 999 computer and inventory systems. You have eliminated the need for 999 accounting, HR, etc systems and staff.

The big retailer can manage inventories with greater flexibility and variety.

This stuff is not Econ 101 - it's the prerequisite.

Now, there are some trade-offs. You can get better service at the small retailer. When it comes to hardware, it's often worth the higher price to have a guy there who knows the product and how to use it. When it comes to K-cups, not so much.

People then get beyond 101 and decide to try tougher courses with much more nuance requiring much deeper thinking.

TomatoPie wrote:I don't enjoy the WalMart shopping experience

But the Walmart shopping experience is everything Homo Economicus (that's you) should drool over. In the microeconomic shrines you worship before (and confuse with macroeconomic realities), your squandering of your own scarce resources on something so contrived, so externally stimulated, as a "shopping experience" labels you as, well, something you probably wouldn't be happy to be labeled as.

TomatoPie wrote:

drsmooth wrote:
Walmart literally profits on externalizing its "true" costs to all us others whether we ever shop there or not.

Can you elablorate on how you feel that WalMart externalizes its true costs?

For example, do you mean pollution and waste in the 3rd world places where WalMart goods are made?

do you not understand the economic implications of the "Walmart employees qualifying for Medicaid" conversation that's been carried on, I'm quite certain, for years around here?

TomatoPie wrote:[ When it comes to K-cups, not so much.

right, you DEFINITELY need 'people of wal-mart' for THOSE puppies

drsmooth wrote:
do you not understand the economic implications of the "Walmart employees qualifying for Medicaid" conversation that's been carried on, I'm quite certain, for years around here?

And.... take away WalMart, now those folks no longer need Medicaid?

Maybe you need to look at it in a more realistic way -- some poor folks, on Medicaid, manage to stay off welfare because they can get a job at WalMart when there otherwise would be no jobs available.

Do you have any basis to believe that working at WalMart causes people to qualify for Medicaid? WalMart is paying market wages, often above the minimum wage. These are the best jobs that these workers can get. What good do you serve by taking away that option?

TomatoPie wrote:And.... take away WalMart, now those folks no longer need Medicaid?

Uhmmm....what?

This is not how your little econ 101 homilies play out. you need to assume your walmart, and assume your labor inputs, and assume your labor force environment. Otherwise, the cheap suit of your Econ 101 models collapses. But you know that.

Everything else you wrote there... I don't know what to tell you. It's like you're speaking in tongues

take 'em

And by "speaking in tongues" I mean this - this - what even IS this?

Do you have any basis to believe that working at WalMart causes people to qualify for Medicaid?

nothing of what we're talking about has anything to do with walmart "causing people to qualify for Medicaid"

drsmooth wrote:

TomatoPie wrote:And.... take away WalMart, now those folks no longer need Medicaid?

Uhmmm....what?

This is not how your little econ 101 homilies play out. you need to assume your walmart, and assume your labor inputs, and assume your labor force environment. Otherwise, the cheap suit of your Econ 101 models collapses. But you know that.

Everything else you wrote there... I don't know what to tell you. It's like you're speaking in tongues

You're dodging, brother. Don't play dumb or play to the left side of the audience here.

Tell us how WalMart externalizes its costs. It seems that you are starting from a place that every employer (but especially ones owned by wealthy families) must pay a wage that permits one person to comfortably support a family of four. If that is your premise, it's a different argument than insisting that WalMart pay above-market prices for labor.

In 1900, Americans spent 43% of their income on food and 14% on apparel.

In 1950, Americans spent 30% of their income on food and 12% on apparel.

In 2012, Americans spent 13% of their money on food and 3% on apparel.

As the world has become more interconnected and technology has continued to make great strides and big box stores have proliferated, the cost of clothing, which used to make up a huge portion of a family's annual expenditure, has seen far less inflation compared to other sectors of the economy. Mom and pop stores that needed to charge high margins on products to make a profit fell by the wayside, while most consumers benefit from paying significantly less. Goods are manufactured more efficiently and inexpensively, harming the textile worker in North Carolina (for example) while everyone else who buys clothes benefits.

The poorest members of society spend a much greater share of their income on food and clothing because these are essentials. The working poor benefit more from these savings than any other segment of society, and can allocate this into other aspects of their lives. Some people are made worse off, but the benefits, while more diffuse, are significantly greater than the costs.

Annualized increase of selected major components and aggregates, 1951–1968:
Food, 1.3 percent
Rent, 2.0 percent
Apparel, 1.2 percent
Medical care, 3.8 percent
Transportation, 2.1 percent
Services, 3.2 percent
Commodities, 1.1 percent
Gasoline, 1.9 percent

Annualized increase of selected major components and aggregates, 1969–1982:
Food, 7.1 percent
Energy, 9.9 percent
All items less food and energy, 7.0 percent
Rent, 5.7 percent
Apparel, 4.2 percent
Medical care, 8.4 percent
Transportation, 7.3 percent
Services, 8.2 percent
Commodities, 6.6 percent
Gasoline, 9.1 percent

Annualized increase of selected major components and aggregates, 1983–2013:
Food, 2.9 percent
Energy, 3.0 percent
All items less food and energy, 2.9 percent
Rent, 3.3 percent
Apparel, 0.8 percent
Medical care, 4.9 percent
New vehicles, 1.3 percent
Services, 3.5 percent
Commodities, 2.1 percent
Gasoline, 3.8 percent

The 1970s were a hell of a decade.

drsmooth wrote:And by "speaking in tongues" I mean this - this - what even IS this?

Do you have any basis to believe that working at WalMart causes people to qualify for Medicaid?

nothing of what we're talking about has anything to do with walmart "causing people to qualify for Medicaid"

You cite WalMart workers on Medicaid as externalizing its costs, no?

If WalMart is not CAUSING that, then it's gonna happen with or without Walmart. So it invalidates the notion that Walmart is externalizing its costs -- unless you believe that a natural or consitutional cost of doing business is buying health care for people.