ola que tal bico_1516 (at) hotmail.com peru

Who decides what a "living wage" is? By what right do you force somebody to pay a rate of pay far above the value of their work product? Your hatred of people who produce wealth sickens me. Because you are incapable of creating, you can only destroy the work of others.

Well, 'Sez Who,' if you really what to calculate the average hourly value created by 'Big Box' workers, it shouldn't be too hard to figure out -- if they give you some accurate numbers and not 'cooked books.'

But I'd be willing to make a friendly wager that it's quite a bit more than the $10 rate plus $3 benefits being asked for.

Otherwise, how does an outfit like Costco, which pays an average hourly wage over $15, plus a decent health package, and a union to boot, survive and thrive? Yet they still make more average profit per employee than their Walmart rival Sam's club, precisely because when you have better pay and working conditions, you get more workforce stability and productivity.

No, I think you'd do a lot better to talk to actual business people about economic matters like this than to simply repeat crap from right-wing talk radio.

It's not profits vs loss that's the issue here.

It's longterm profits plus sustainability vs shortterm 'superprofits' plus 'race to the bottom' policies.

That's what the fight's about--and you're rooting for the destructive, unsustainable side of it.

Hi Carl,
Thanks for the condescending rant. I infer you have not received the benefit of a high school education in economics nor have you managed any part of a business.
I actually do know the hourly output of various service workers in the United States by specific region. Much of that research was included in my PhD defense in economics. I also examined Costco, which has an admirable CEO and business model.
If you had any business experience, aside from trashing the local Starbucks windows, you might know that workers usually seek the best opportunity available to them. For example, if Costco is always a better workplace, every Walmart and Target employee would seek a position there. To compete, the "big-boxes" would raise wages. One of those two is not happening.
Do you even know what right-wing means? It is a historical reference to tyrants like Hitler and Mussolini, who were very strong advocates of government controlled business. I, on the other hand, oppose government tyranny and the form of fascism you endorse.
A business operates to make a profit. I know this is a difficult concept for you. You work at some dead-end job to get a paycheck, and I know you wouldn't give up any wage for the "common good." Nor should any business.
If a business like Walmart is not sustainable, it will vanish, yet here it is.

aside from debating the ordinance itself, its rather unfortunate that the choice has been made to rhetorically transform the community members who oppose it into "corporate opposition". they lined the gallery with their voices just as acorn/seiu did, but without the benefit of a national infrastructure supporting them. i believe even dorothy tillman expressed concerns that this ordinance is being "rammed down the black community's thoat." they should not be disappeared from the debate simply because their economic interests don't match progressives' aesthetic preference for boutiques.

Sorry, 'Sez Who,' but I do own and run a business, and have worked for a few too, at various levels. And I'm not into trashing Starbucks, but a regular customer of theirs.

And, yes, I know businesses need to make profits and be competitive, under capitalism or socialism, even without a PhD in economics.

But I also take into account the interests of workers and the wider community as well. Despite my admiration of Adam Smith as a thinker, I know that the market is never completely 'free,' infallible or capable of solving everything. I think even Adam Smith would agree.

But do businesses, or any given business, need to make superprofits or maximum profits, supplied by hidden government subsidies, with little regulation, and a variety of 'low road' practices?

That's a different matter. And that's the real debate her.

You first suggested that Walmart or other 'big boxes' would go broke at $10 plus $3 in benefits an hour because the workers there produced less value than that.

I challenged that by giving you an example, here in town, Costco, where that was not the case. I also think the 'big boxes' are bluffing, and they will come to town, or stay in town, even at $13 an hour. If you don't think so, I wouldn't play much poker if I were you.

So you wrote the thesis. Tell us what did you find about the average value per hour created by the average worker was at a 'Big Box'?

Plus sustainability is not just a question of a company itself, but also its impact on its workers , suppliers and surrounding communities. That's why every corporate charter has a public interest clause, even if often ignored.

So unless you're just taking the position of 'maximim profits uber alles and screw everything else,' which even many business people will tell you is bad policy, why don't you join the real argument instead of showing how good you are at 'ad hominen' fallacies.

Show us what else you learned to get that PhD.

So we both make money on our wits. That's good, I have a lot of respect in your response, although you seem to think that the employer owes his workers a living.
I am fairly well-known in the community as a well-off guy, but one that has contributed a bit as well. Of course, big boxes are bluffing. They can pay more, but would you pay more for bread or gasoline if you could avoid it?
I completely oppose the government helping businesses, as much as I oppose them dismantling business structure as in the Wagner Act.
So, what does the average big box worker contribute economically? It's a damned sight more than $13 an hour, especially after they've been there a few years and made friends among customers. Too bad only places like Costco know the value of that relationship.

Well, now we're getting somewhere, 'Sez Who.'

I think employers owe their workers exactly what they have agreed to pay them.

But as an employer, I know that if I want to keep a good worker, I'll sweeten the pot to keep them. Especially if they've gained some experience and training working with me--called 'human capital' or 'wetware' that exists, and grows, between the workers' ears. I don't want it walking out the door, especially to my competitor.

As a worker, if I've got any sense, I learn quickly that I produce more value than I get. If sales are up and orders are coming in, I'm going to bargain for more, together with my fellow workers.

The tussle back and forth is called class struggle--and I've been on both sides of it.

Not the best system, in my opinion, but it's what we got now.

Now here's an interesting point related to your dictim to 'completely oppose government helping businesses.'

I don't think such a situation exists, or ever existed, because the market is not just a relation between buyer and seller. It's really a three-sided relationship--buyer, seller and cop. The market requires the state and vice versa, even for the simple things like standard weights and measures, or courts so you can sue to get paid.

The Ohio valley where I grew up in Western PA and West Virginia had only barter among Native tribes until George Washington and General Broadhead and their troops (the state) showed up, built and secured Fort Pitt and the Fort at Beavertown from the French fur traders, and had their troops blaze the 'Broadhead Road' through the wilderness. My penniless Scots-Irish ancestors showed up 5 or 10 years later on those 'roads' and a few generations later, my Dad's truck and car repair garage was at a crossroads on that Broadhead Road, and his business wouldn't have existed a day without it, and a thousand other 'hidden subsidies' that make up the warp and woof of the market economy.

so it's not whether government assists business; it's how its done, and with what interests in mind. What values are built into their policies--'High Road' sustainability or 'Low Road' race-to-the bottom destruction, of long-term wealth creation instead of short-term 'maximum profit'.

These are not 'iron laws' here. We have choices to make, individually and publicly.

After all, that's why it's called POLITICAL economy, isn't it?

Not always good choices are made, for sure. I looked up all the old Land Deed and Warrants in Western PA made in General Washington's wake. Guess what they all include as a provision? 'White men only.' Free Blacks couldn't own land in Beaver county (there were only three families of free Blacks there at the time), even if they had the money.

Seems the state had an affirmative action program for white guys from day one, although we're not supposed to mention such things now that we supposedly have returned to where we only have 'colorblind' and merit' policies.

One doesn't know whether to laugh or cry when people cling to these myths.

Sorry,'AP' above is me

Carl,

The big box ordinance debate will soon be over, because it seems that enough aldermen changed their mind allowing Daley to veto this unconstitutional and discriminatory bill.

Perhaps so, Kurt.

While I support the ordinance, it's rather limited as a tactic, and has the drawbacks we've seen.

There's no end run, I think, around unionizing Walmart, but, given the compqany's business plan that is a very tough nut to crack. (Unless you're the Chinese CP!) It would require all the disciplined, secretive organization that the American communists brought to the labor movement to organize the CIO in the first place, and then some. Without it, union organizers and sympathizers are fired at the drop of a hat, regardless of their 'legal protections,' as we well know.

Meanwhile, organizing a high-road 'Co-Mart' option for the city areas lacking a viable retail sector, drawing in 'mom and pop' small businesses, worker and consumer coops, while mobilizing the capital of unions, churches, and public and private sector initiatives, would be a better, more creative 'solidarity economy' approach, to my way of thinking, anyway.

It's quite possible to defeat the likes of Walmart in the political sphere and the marketplace with better alternatives, if folks would think a little more creatively.

Google 'Eroski' for an example of how Walmart has been curbed in Spain and France

saw your show tonite ....11-1-06....outstanding....I want the troops to come home too!!!