Red Mosquito

Green Habit wrote:Biking is actually a very cost-efficient way to commute. I know it from my own experience. Encouraging it would definitely help out the poor.

The typical user of the bike sharing program (somewhat related to bike paths) in D.C. is a caucasian college graduate. A tiny minority of users only have a high school degree. Its pretty easy to look at this and say that bike sharing is largely a subsidy for the middle/ upper middle class.

cutuphalfdead wrote:lol

respect your elders, chudly

--- wrote:

malice wrote:

--- wrote:

malice wrote:

--- wrote:

broken iris wrote:

--- wrote:http://www.cnbc.com/id/100880377

Wal-Mart to Pull Out of D.C. After Minimum-Wage Vote

Wal-Mart is not happy with recently passed legislation to raise the minimum wage in Washington, D.C. So much so that the retail giant has said it will scrap three planned stores in the area.

Following the vote, Wal-Mart spokesman Steven Restivo issued a statement regarding the future of D.C. Wal-Mart stores.

"‪Nothing has changed from our perspective: we will not pursue Skyland, Capitol Gateway, and New York Avenue and will start to review the financial and legal implications on the three stores already under construction. This was a difficult decision for us—and unfortunate news for most D.C. residents—but the Council has forced our hand," he said.

The decision to pass the bill came after a team of Wal-Mart executives and lobbyists delivered their ultimatum personally to D.C. Council members less than 24 hours before the vote.

But remember guys, minimum wages don't have disemployment effects.

This is a big blow to DC's Ward 7.

Art galleries and bike paths create prosperity for the least economically-advantaged amongst us, not Wal-Marts.

please explain this - not the bit about walmart - in what way do art galleries and bike paths create prosperity for the least economically advantaged?

I'm not being obtuse. I want to know where you're going with that statement. I'm all about art and the cultural value of having access to art galleries, and even the value of bike paths but I must be dumb because I've never known either to create economic value for poor people.
intellectual value - yes. spiritual value - yes (not in the religious sense) but I'm interested in understanding how they specifically create economic value.

They...they don't. Or at least, relative to commercial organizations whose business model is predicated on delivering to lower- and middle-classes affordable consumer goods - raising the standards of living of those same lower- and middle-classes - they don't. I was only satirizing the rather large left-wing set who don't understand that there's a tradeoff involved in subordinating the material improvement of the lower classes (which of course they claim to care about above all else) to cultural considerations like art galleries and bike paths.

I'm always amused by folks - not you, malice - who think standards of living will rise by advocating for policies whose effects are to make consumer goods more expensive and reduce competition in the labor market.

I read this a bit earlier and have come to the conclusion that I thought you were serious because of your expertise on the subject. thought maybe you had a realistic set of circumstances you were indicating and I was curious to understand.
or, you know, maybe I'm just getting too old to pick up on sarcastic humor after a long day :/

either way - thanks for explaining. what you wrote is much more in line with my own assumptions about this kind of stuff - plus walmart has inflicted so much damage on this country with their business practices that I'm ready to blame them for the downfall of the middle and lower classes in the USA and no amount of cultural upside (claimed or otherwise) could ever make up for it.

.

--- wrote:

malice wrote:walmart has inflicted so much damage on this country with their business practices that I'm ready to blame them for the downfall of the middle and lower classes in the USA and no amount of cultural upside (claimed or otherwise) could ever make up for it.

Such as? How do they hurt the lower- and middle-classes?

The products Walmart sells used to be made by the lower class and sold in stores run by the middle class. The ironic thing is that the people shopping at Walmart literally shopped their jobs away.

--- wrote:http://www.cnbc.com/id/100880377

Wal-Mart to Pull Out of D.C. After Minimum-Wage Vote

Wal-Mart is not happy with recently passed legislation to raise the minimum wage in Washington, D.C. So much so that the retail giant has said it will scrap three planned stores in the area.

Following the vote, Wal-Mart spokesman Steven Restivo issued a statement regarding the future of D.C. Wal-Mart stores.

"‪Nothing has changed from our perspective: we will not pursue Skyland, Capitol Gateway, and New York Avenue and will start to review the financial and legal implications on the three stores already under construction. This was a difficult decision for us—and unfortunate news for most D.C. residents—but the Council has forced our hand," he said.

The decision to pass the bill came after a team of Wal-Mart executives and lobbyists delivered their ultimatum personally to D.C. Council members less than 24 hours before the vote.

But remember guys, minimum wages don't have disemployment effects.

they don't if they've got an employer of last resort backing them up.

although this story doesn't necessarily tell us about disemployment effects of a minimum wage. will this encourage other stores to set up shop in the area, stores who were scared they couldn't compete vs. wal mart due to economies of scale or other reasons? would wal mart have forced local stores out of business, essentially negating the employment boost and removing local flavor and local ownership (which often comes with a certain commitment to the area) in favor of a god damned wal mart?

dkfan9 wrote:

--- wrote:http://www.cnbc.com/id/100880377

Wal-Mart to Pull Out of D.C. After Minimum-Wage Vote

Wal-Mart is not happy with recently passed legislation to raise the minimum wage in Washington, D.C. So much so that the retail giant has said it will scrap three planned stores in the area.

Following the vote, Wal-Mart spokesman Steven Restivo issued a statement regarding the future of D.C. Wal-Mart stores.

"‪Nothing has changed from our perspective: we will not pursue Skyland, Capitol Gateway, and New York Avenue and will start to review the financial and legal implications on the three stores already under construction. This was a difficult decision for us—and unfortunate news for most D.C. residents—but the Council has forced our hand," he said.

The decision to pass the bill came after a team of Wal-Mart executives and lobbyists delivered their ultimatum personally to D.C. Council members less than 24 hours before the vote.

But remember guys, minimum wages don't have disemployment effects.

they don't if they've got an employer of last resort backing them up.

although this story doesn't necessarily tell us about disemployment effects of a minimum wage. will this encourage other stores to set up shop in the area, stores who were scared they couldn't compete vs. wal mart due to economies of scale or other reasons? would wal mart have forced local stores out of business, essentially negating the employment boost and removing local flavor and local ownership (which often comes with a certain commitment to the area) in favor of a god damned wal mart?

An employment boost that drives prices up is harmful, specially when inflation is actually way higher then the horrible FED methodology says.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-07-1 ... ity-ensues

broken iris wrote:

--- wrote:

malice wrote:walmart has inflicted so much damage on this country with their business practices that I'm ready to blame them for the downfall of the middle and lower classes in the USA and no amount of cultural upside (claimed or otherwise) could ever make up for it.

Such as? How do they hurt the lower- and middle-classes?

The products Walmart sells used to be made by the lower class and sold in stores run by the middle class. The ironic thing is that the people shopping at Walmart literally shopped their jobs away.

this.

apparently b_i and I are fast becoming bffs online because I agree with the above statement.
also, walmart has been number one on the Fortune 1000 list for as long as I can remember (one of the haphazard and relatively useless bits of information my head's been crammed with over the years in my 'industry' of business information) - they run the world (exaggeration but still...)

they force their vendors to sell to them at vastly lower prices which walmart then acts as the distributor of those goods- to make good on their claims of underselling the competition.
while I don't have much ability to give precise data that I can cite here (although you probably could, '---') I'm pretty sure that by itself has damaged the country's trade agreements with other nations, cause huge shifts in the way we handle import/export taxes, as well as how other countries do business with the USA in general.
Walmart forced a change on not only their trading partners (foreign and domestic) due to their position in the retail market, but on industries outside of their milieu (forgive my use of the lowercaser term, nothing more easily descriptive comes to mind)
- each market in our economy, as I understand it, is caught in a loop of sustainability with all other markets - as one changes, so all are changed- often without understanding how or why, and are therefore unable to maintain their own viability, so go bankrupt and get eaten by some more successful company, or die.
I suppose on one count, walmart shouldn't be blamed for finding the most successful ways to generate profit, but they are relentless in their desire to continue to acquire wealth (and increase shareholder value, as all well behaved mission statements must include) -and the result has destroyed many small businesses, forced the ones that have survived to raise prices, which keeps customers away, or lower prices to attempt to remain competitive, which kills the business eventually anyway.

it's also worthwhile to include walmart's treatment of their employees- even now. more part-time than full time employment- which cuts down on walmart having to pay out in benefits, insurance, stock options, retirement - all clean and clear profit for the corporate body, and all damaging to the workforce of the company, especially in the long term -
many of your generation don't have a ton of work experience so far (which is fine, I'm not being a dick in mentioning it- just using it as a jumping off point) - as a result, you haven't had to experience losing half your retirement savings in a failing economy, and don't have to worry about how you're going to survive if/when you become too feeble or addle brained to continue working. hopefully none of you will have experience it...

I actually have experienced this, and assume I'm going to take up residence in a cardboard box at some future point in my life- so I speak with at least some knowledge of what not having adequate savings can do to your self-stability, economically, after working for a good 25 years give or take.

walmart seems to be creating this situation for the majority of its workforce in not providing anything for the future lives of their employees, and a lack of health insurance coverage in many cases as well, that can be just as damaging to an employee's economic future - one bad accident or unknown disease, and poof- no more money for anything.

this drags on the government's ability to provide public assistance - which I know, many people here feel shouldn't be offered anyway - but none of you (and not me either) have first hand knowledge of what the country was like prior to welfare, medicare, medicaid, a host of public assistance programs - my father is 87 in one week - he grew up in the depression, fought in WWII, and is full of stories about what it was like to have grown up so poor, endure a wartime economy, and eventually be able to reap the benefits of the post war economy, including the GI bill, that allowed him to complete his education and take up a good profession that in turn allowed him the ability to raise his children to take advantage of good educations and good careers - thus contributing to a vibrant economy that benefits everyone in the country.

when employers stop participating in that loop of sustainability, everything goes to shit - witness how the country is that you live in today - does anyone truly believe this is a good economy? I don't. does anyone think we can survive just fine on flat salaries and corporations that continue to become more and more successful vehicles for their upper management to become filthy rich from? I don't. does walmart further this practice in just about every business action it take - I think so...

think any of that is valid reason for the downfall of the middle and lower classes? unfortunately, I do. yet I live here too, and use walmart to obtain things at lower prices too.
I don't shop there exclusively, but I do shop there for specific items because I live on a limited budget the same and anyone else (except doug rr, I guess) and due to walmart's presence in my own personal economy, I must use them in order to have money for use in other areas of my life.

I'm what I think is best described as 'middle, middle class' - not a blue collar worker, not on welfare, and have a steady job, or as steady as jobs can be these days... yet, I'll never be rich, and I could very easily begin to slide down that slippery slope into poverty at some point. so perhaps I fear walmart for the potential damage they can inflict on me, personally? I don't know, I just see (or think I see) how walmart injures the lower classes of this society and assume it can touch me too at some point.

Human Bass wrote:

dkfan9 wrote:

--- wrote:http://www.cnbc.com/id/100880377

Wal-Mart to Pull Out of D.C. After Minimum-Wage Vote

Wal-Mart is not happy with recently passed legislation to raise the minimum wage in Washington, D.C. So much so that the retail giant has said it will scrap three planned stores in the area.

Following the vote, Wal-Mart spokesman Steven Restivo issued a statement regarding the future of D.C. Wal-Mart stores.

"‪Nothing has changed from our perspective: we will not pursue Skyland, Capitol Gateway, and New York Avenue and will start to review the financial and legal implications on the three stores already under construction. This was a difficult decision for us—and unfortunate news for most D.C. residents—but the Council has forced our hand," he said.

The decision to pass the bill came after a team of Wal-Mart executives and lobbyists delivered their ultimatum personally to D.C. Council members less than 24 hours before the vote.

But remember guys, minimum wages don't have disemployment effects.

they don't if they've got an employer of last resort backing them up.

although this story doesn't necessarily tell us about disemployment effects of a minimum wage. will this encourage other stores to set up shop in the area, stores who were scared they couldn't compete vs. wal mart due to economies of scale or other reasons? would wal mart have forced local stores out of business, essentially negating the employment boost and removing local flavor and local ownership (which often comes with a certain commitment to the area) in favor of a god damned wal mart?

An employment boost that drives prices up is harmful, specially when inflation is actually way higher then the horrible FED methodology says.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-07-1 ... ity-ensues

if you have a choice between inflation + jobs or price stability + no jobs, then it's a choice of what one values--it's not objectively bad. pareto efficiency doesn't really exist, so almost every economic outcome involves trade-offs, even price stability. and in a world with finance, you've got to consider inflation's relationship to the value of new and old debt and the sustainability of existing debts.

Inflation is always bullshit, dont buy the philips curve mumbo jumbo. Inflation is not about a trade off, it is about a temporary illusion of prosperity.

One of the little discussed effects of Walmart's rise is the ubiquitous adoption of the "Just In Time" inventory system. They didn't invent it, but they took to a multinational level that few in business believed was possible. Walmart's implementation one of the most amazing and profitable applications of science, mathematics, and technology in the history of retail and transformed how large retailers operate. There is a dark side to though, as the continuous flow of goods in the supply chain is as important as keeping cashiers at the registers, and any disruption to the supply chain (such as super storm sandy) will cause shortages within a day or two. This is fine for the cheap plastic crap that Walmart sells, but for people who rely on Walmart for food (because it drove out the competition) or one of the chain grocers who have mimicked Walmart's inventory system, not having food on the shelf for a few days could cause major problems. So far we have been lucky that the federal government has been willing to move product to supplement store supplies are natural disasters, but we are one major hurricane away from seeing just how bad things can get when everyone cuts out the warehouse middle man.

Human Bass wrote:Inflation is always bullshit, dont buy the philips curve mumbo jumbo. Inflation is not about a trade off, it is about a temporary illusion of prosperity.

i was just using your premise ("An employment boost that drives prices up is harmful"). I don't buy the Phillips Curve, but inflation, deflation, and price stability all involve trade offs, the most important of which are financial (though deflation is an issue as well because it makes money a disproportionately attractive investment).

.

.

I haven't seen posts like that since the heydays of kthodos.

Green Habit wrote:I haven't seen posts like that since the heydays of kthodos.

heh - I wish i had the time right now to go through that post, but honestly it's so full of dense language (for me), that I really need time to work through it and at least attempt a reply - that strikes me as a really good thing for the good ole N&D forum...

Classic government bull:

D.C. Government Doesn't Pay a "Living Wage"
By Chuck Thies

| Tuesday, Jul 16, 2013 | Updated 10:43 AM EDT


Thies: D.C. Government Doesn't Pay a "Living Wage"

“People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.”

Someone needs to carve those words onto a wall in the D.C. Council legislative chamber.

Last week, the Council approved a measure that would require Walmart and other large retailers doing business in the District to pay a “living wage” of $12.50 per hour.

But… uh oh. Hypocrisy alert.

District government pays less than $12.50 per hour.

According to the D.C. Department of Human Resources, some full-time school maintenance workers and custodians make $11.75 per hour. The rate for a clerk at the University of the District of Columbia is $10.40.

Council members went to great lengths to criticize Walmart's pay scale. They should have taken care of their own business first.

The Council's thinking is flawed on other accounts, too. Their law targets Walmart while exempting other businesses from paying higher salaries.

Here is a better idea: Raise the current minimum wage in D.C. -- $8.25 per hour -- for every worker. Scale it up incrementally over time.

And here is another idea: If you are a politician extolling the virtues of a living wage, make sure the government employees over whom you preside are making a living wage.

The D.C. Council's shenanigans are scaring off potential employers, not just Walmart. In a city where unemployment is a huge problem, that’s bad business.

Oops.

broken iris wrote:

Oops.

Im not an Obama supporter by any stretch, but he obviously wasn't talking about the city.

Green Habit wrote:I haven't seen posts like that since the heydays of kthodos.

My first thought was thodoks is back.