Maybe there is hope for Walmart.

[Trav]

On big problem that i see every day is Americans in general especially younger ones (not all of course) don't even know what quality is and don't see any value in it.
I see it with my nieces and nephews, they use something till it breaks and buy another, buying something that will last a lifetime doesn't enter their mind.

I bought a high end leather living room set with oak end tables, their comment was its nice but in a couple of years it will be old fashioned anyway so why spend so much on it?
Their mentality is to buy one for cheap money and throw it away for something modern in a couple of years.

How do you argue with the mentality? They always want the latest and greatest, everything is disposable.
My kids on the other hand save their money and buy the best they can afford. I taught them from being small to appreciate quality and craftsmanship.

IMHO the key to reversing this trend is exactly the way it got started, by educating the youngsters.
It took 40+ years to get to this point and its going to as long to get away from it.
Kids learn from their parents, if the parent buy one high end item instead of 5 cheap pieces of junk and explain the benefits the kids will get the idea that quality is many times cheaper in the long run.

The other sore point for me is too many people feel they are entitled to have things.
No one is entitled to a cell phone, PC, SUV (or even a used car for that matter), a house, jewellery, big screen TV, play station and all the other trimming now accepted as necessities.

The poor need to realize they must live poor or get a better skill set or go to work, thats all there is to it.
You cant live fat on $300 a week or on welfare. I know this is not PC but its the truth and places like Walmart cater to this entitled mentality.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: Trav
The other sore point for me is too many people feel they are entitled to have things.
No one is entitled to a cell phone, PC, SUV (or even a used car for that matter), a house, jewellery, big screen TV, play station and all the other trimming now accepted as necessities.

The poor need to realize they must live poor or get a better skill set or go to work, thats all there is to it.
You cant live fat on $300 a week or on welfare. I know this is not PC but its the truth and places like Walmart cater to this entitled mentality.




+1

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
It means that "minimum wage" might need to be $20/hour. That's just a rather arbitrary number I am throwing out there.

I take it then you would support a tiny group of people you don't know setting arbitrary prices on everything?

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
And aren't consumer to a lesser extent telling others what they can get if they demand the lowest price over everything else,

Yes. Consumers pay a certain amount of money for a certain product. This indicates the value they have for these items. Lamborghini's cost more than a Kia, but they will both get you from point A to B.

Quote:
Seems to me always someone is trying or is dictating what someone else can have, and the higher up on the economic totem pole the more they can and do it.


As opposed to what?

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
The reality is that the United States, Canada, Germany, England....etc, these are EXPENSIVE places to live. A LOT more expensive than China or Mexico.

And why is that?

Quote:
This whole system is jaded. The driving factor is profit and whatever helps with that bottom-line gets exploited.

So I take it that you voluntarily take pay cuts, and voluntarily pay more for things than you have to?

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Tempest

And why is that?


Oh boy, it's Capitalism time with Tempest! I'm ecstatic

You already know the answer to your question. But if you'd rather have 3rd world living conditions I would definitely pay your way to go have a lobotomy in Bangladesh. Not that it is likely that you'd survive the procedure of course......

Quote:

So I take it that you voluntarily take pay cuts, and voluntarily pay more for things than you have to?


Ahh yes, some more typical Tempest propaganda. Why is it that when I point out that the system is jaded towards profit that you would think that I would propose taking a pay cut. Doesn't that sound a bit backwards? I make what I do because I'm [censored] good at my job. It also helps that my job wouldn't be easily out-sourced. People would make MORE money if there was more money being fed back into the system instead of shipped overseas to China. It is a feedback mechanism, the cyclical flow of money. If you have lower unemployment and more people employed, you have a broader tax base, more money going into the system to pave roads, pay your employees....etc. When that money instead goes to the 3rd world, that means that money does NOT get reinvested in the community.

If there were adequate regulations in place to keep manufacturing jobs in North America, I'd actually get to see MORE of my paycheque because less of it would need to be taxed-off to feed, cloth and shelter those who've been unemployed by your revered profit-monstering Tempest. THAT is the reality.

And yes, I certainly pay more for plenty of things. In fact I make it a habit to go out of my way to shop locally for meat at the butcher, for parts made in first-world nations for my cars, shoes made in first-world nations, I buy first world whenever possible. I DO put my money where my mouth is and am not just an on-line windbag carrying on about the virtues of a system that unless you are deaf, dumb, blind and severely hindered, is quite OBVIOUSLY NOT WORKING! That's why you have a SIXTEEN TRILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT!!!!!!

You are going to "free market" yourself into a cardboard shanty with your sole means of transportation being a shopping cart. But hey, you'll be able to post from the public library, nope, wait, scratch that, that's the government using tax dollars, you'll be able to post from some terminal in a starbucks (if they let you in the door smelling like feces and unwashed dog) about what wheel bearing lubricant to use on your shopping cart wheels, right?

Please show me an actual functioning example of what "Tempest Capitalist Utopia (patent pending)" results in, in operation. Is there a country out there that operates based on your notions of what constitutes "right" here?

I mean, from my side of the fence, I'm looking at Germany and thinking "wow, they have low unemployment, low debt, higher taxes, higher wages, more unions, more government involvement and pretty much everything that is preached as being wrong from Camp Capitalist and yet they are doing a whole [censored] of a lot better than we are."

That's a working (quite literally) example of regulated and controlled trade with 3rd world nations ensuring that the country in question has adequate jobs of all types for its populous. So let's see yours!

 

[DBMaster]

Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
It means that "minimum wage" might need to be $20/hour. That's just a rather arbitrary number I am throwing out there.

I take it then you would support a tiny group of people you don't know setting arbitrary prices on everything?


No, not really. Just expressing ideas. Many of the regulations and limits set by us or forced upon us are arbitrary. When automobiles first started appearing towns set ridiculously low speed limits out of fear. One of the most significant impediments, if not THE most significant impediment to progress is fear. It seems to me that a majority of politicians prey upon fear of change to support their efforts. It also seems interesting that a lot of people who consider themselves "conservative" have issues with offshoring of jobs. Remember that one particular party believes in little to no regulation of business because capitalism best regulates itself.

I am a member of no major party and support candidates of all platforms at one point or another. The reason, to me, is simple - if you want to be consistent and avoid hypocrisy you have to raise your own sail, fly your own flag, etc. What was great about the USA in the past is that somehow we managed to bring together a variety of seemingly opposing viewpoints and get things done that were generally to the benefit of the majority. I think it is possible we have become too large for that. My interest in history has taught me that empires collapse when they overreach. If you don't think we are an empire you might want to think again.

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: javacontour
I did not realize WalMart forced folks to work for a wage.

Why does someone in the US have more of a right to a job than someone in China or Mexico or any place else?

Why don't the factory workers in other natiins have the right to work and earn for their families? By saying we should produce products via narrowly defined labor policies one is saying others don't have the right to their jobs.

I have no illusions that business is more ethical than any other organization. But then I hold all organizations, corporate, government and others in the same regard. They are all staffed by humans. Therefore, they are morally equal.



First of all, not all organization are morally equal. I would not have the same opinion about Nazi Germany or Taliban with Walmart or Target. I would also not have the same opinion about those who have a tax shelter in Swiss or Bermuda as someone who pay all his tax without lobbying for a loophole.

Secondly, while each person should have an equal right to a job and support his or her family, for the benefit of a local government (local as in county, city, state, federal) it is better to have a job here than half way around the world because of the economic factor of income tax, property tax, reduction in unemployment benefit claims, reduction in crime rate, population stability, etc. So it is "fair" and the "right" of a local government to expect these benefit compensated or reimbursed when the jobs that provide them are off shored or they have the right to pay incentive to businesses and organization to keep them here.

Ideally, if standard of living is close among all nations, governments would ban trade barriers because they are not good for economy. In practice, there are one sided trade barrier that keep foreign competition from entering a market, so there are retaliation in trade barriers.

So it make sense that if we have trade barrier against our product (i.e. not allowing US cars or chips to be sold to compete in Japan) we should also threaten them with trade barriers as a bargaining tool, until both sides drop their barriers.

I want to have world peace too, but due to human nature, I am not expecting it. Therefore I also do not expect perfect free and fair trades between nations.

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
javacontour:

One only has to take a glance 'cross the pond at Germany to see that this standard of living is perfectly sustainable. They don't have a multi-trillion dollar deficit. But they have strict rules in regulations in place with respect to industry that ENSURE that this is the case.

And as you noted, this country was a giant rubble pile after WW2, and then half of it was under Soviet control until the fall of the wall, yet look how far they've come!!

You forgot that they do not have to pay for a huge military that cost exceed the rest of the world's budget combined. Actually I think they got a cut of this "more than half of the world's" defense budget as local stimulus.

Same in Japan, they got a cut of our defense budget as local stimulus.

 

[mechanicx]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL

If the world was perfect and every country competed on a level financial playing field what you argue might make sense.
That's how this crooked machine operates and how we encourage it to operate with our buying habits. Because one of the few things we can leverage to keep this in-check is shopping based on country of origin instead of price. But since the majority of consumers don't shop this way, there's no hope of any progress here. That is the sad truth.


This is it. We did it to ourselves by demanding the lowest priced junk and then wanting even more cheaper!!


No to disagree with you specifically, but your reply was the most succinct. I agree to an extent, but I and many consumer didn't ask for any thing to be outsourced or imported let alone demand it. Sure, I want the lowest price, best value like anyone else. But I didn't demand the textile industry, electronics, crafstman tools, cars etc to be outsourced/imported. I was against NAFTA/free trade and so were many others. Big producers and the gov went and did this mostly on their own accord and weren't forced to originally.

After a few were allowed to do it, then they all were pressured to do it. But the people controlling the trade policy and economical policies were most responsible.

 

[mechanicx]

Originally Posted By: javacontour
I think you nailed it. So as long as folks want cheap stuff, you are not going to get a bunch of $20/hour factory jobs.

Some have said that others in the world don't have the right to supply the US with goods or services.

Really?

Did we not come about as a nation and grow to the prosperity we have because we did just that? We were an important colony for England because we had trees and other resources they lacked.

We benefited from the industrial revolution and once the rest of Europe and Japan was left largely in rubble after WWII, we supplied the world with just about everything.

Yet folks now want to say that others don't have the right to supply us after we became rich and prosperous by supplying the world?

Seems like a double standard to me.

The problem is us. We think we have a right to our standard of living, and nothing should threaten it. The problem is, to maintain our standard of living, we may have to do different things than we did in the past.

Either that, or it's really not sustainable and things will revert to what we can sustain.

An empire in decline isn't a fun place to be. But wishing the rest of the world isn't out there trying to get their piece of the pie is just sticking your head in the sand.

Originally Posted By: DBMaster
How about a twist on title of this thread?

WE are the problem. Wal Mart is a symptom.

Discuss...


That's not correct. Part of the reason for the revolution was because England was buying natural resources from America at a lower cost, then selling finished goods to us at a higher price. America didn't get wealthy by running trade deficits. It got wealthy by manufacturing and doing for itself when we had an industrial revolution in the US. America was wealthy and an industrial powerhouse long before WWII and even WWI.

We mostly supplied countries that didn't have industry in the sector.We didn't for the most part go into their already thriving markets and take it away. You know, a lot of things were invented and developed in the US.

 

[eljefino]

Originally Posted By: DBMaster

Here's something that goes back to my college economics classes. In a truly GLOBAL economy each region supplies goods/services for which it has a competitive advantage. This does work on the assumption that if cheap labor is your competitive advantage the quality of output is similar to the regions that lack that advantage. That would mean huge changes. It is a pipe dream, actually. It would mean, literally, giving up those industries in which you cannot compete.


We're pretty good at Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate. In fact around every corner the powers that be want us to open another brokerage account or get insurance for something else. They figure people insured for everything will be more likely to spend money loosely, IMO.

I don't understand why I need an IRA that's separate from my wife's, and two 529 plans for my kids. It's all money getting saved tax free for later. But all these open accounts generate fees for Wall Street.

So much of the world's paper shuffling goes through the USA. Has its minuses like the corruption and cronyism but hey at least it doesn't pollute like a tannery!!!

I'm aware that we have reciprocal treaties with China and can't tax their stuff without them taxing us in retaliation. I don't see why we can't hold them to, oh, 1980 environmental standards. Get them mired in their own Clean Air & Water acts and Superfund. We have environmental consultants who are running out of business as stuff's been remediated or abandoned. Let's send them to China for the next big thing!

PS a part of our Industrial Revolution involved stealing a British patent for a weaving loom inside a guy's head so we could add value to our raw materials Stateside! Intellectual property theft is nothing new.

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
You already know the answer to your question.

I do. The main point I am asking is: Where do prices come from?

Quote:
It is a feedback mechanism, the cyclical flow of money. If you have lower unemployment and more people employed, you have a broader tax base, more money going into the system to pave roads, pay your employees....etc. When that money instead goes to the 3rd world, that means that money does NOT get reinvested in the community.

So you want to close off all of your borders to foreign commerce then...so as not to interrupt the cycle? And of course the US should do the same? Would this be "adequate regulations"?

""Tempest Capitalist Utopia (patent pending)""

There is no such thing as a utopia, only limited resources, and the uses of them. Does a third party know better than two people wishing to engage in their own commerce?

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
I don't understand why I need an IRA that's separate from my wife's, and two 529 plans for my kids. It's all money getting saved tax free for later. But all these open accounts generate fees for Wall Street.

It is the income tax that drives these inane, arbitrary "savings plans". No income tax, no 401k alphabet soup of individual programs.
Quote:
They figure people insured for everything will be more likely to spend money loosely, IMO.

Insurance rates vary depending on risk. The riskier the behavior, the higher the rates. This serves as an economic way to encourage good behavior. Though this only works if the insured party is actually paying the bill...

 

[OVERKILL]

:facepalm:

Where did I say close off the borders? Look at what the EU is doing (I posted that earlier) with respect to levying fees against nations (particularly China in this case) that devalue their currency and perform dumping to flood foreign markets with their products.

I'm not saying no trade. I'm saying no UNFAIR trade. Tariffs (I know you hate them) are necessary here to level the playing field with the 3rd world so that we aren't dragged down to their level.

Even the North American relationship with Japan is lopsided, and they are first-world! How many GM car dealerships are there in Japan? Exactly.

Checks and balances are crucial when playing a game where the rules are regularly disregarded or changed to suit a particular agenda. If American corporations were required to retain a particular % of their employees in their domestic market if they want to sell there (I believe Germany has a variation of this theme) then that would prevent the off-shoring of manufacturing jobs to China. And products produced in China by Chinese companies would be appropriately tariffed to keep their price on-par with products produced in first-world nations.

In the above scenario nothing changes really with respect to trade relations with England, Ireland, Scotland, France, Germany, Italy, Denmark, Switzerland, Canada, Japan, Australia, New Zealand....etc.

However, it DOES change the trade relations with China, India....etc and curbs the dumping of their products on our shores, displacing the first-world products, which cannot be price-competitive with the products manufactured by people making 50 cents an hour.

With respect to your last point, we aren't talking about people. We are discussing corporations, which are a manufactured identity with no conscience who's sole purpose is to make money for its shareholders. If that involves the exploitation of cheap labour, then that is what the people steering that entity will do. So you remove that incentive from the picture by keeping the field level, keeping the cost the same across the globe. Nobody is providing an obstacle to commerce. They are ensuring that if there is labour to be leveraged, that people in the United States and other first world nations are able to be competitive in vying for it.

 

[Tempest]

Originally Posted By: mechanicx

No to disagree with you specifically, but your reply was the most succinct. I agree to an extent, but I and many consumer didn't ask for any thing to be outsourced or imported let alone demand it. Sure, I want the lowest price, best value like anyone else. But I didn't demand the textile industry, electronics, crafstman tools, cars etc to be outsourced/imported. I was against NAFTA/free trade and so were many others. Big producers and the gov went and did this mostly on their own accord and weren't forced to originally.

After a few were allowed to do it, then they all were pressured to do it. But the people controlling the trade policy and economical policies were most responsible.

NAFTA was positive in every sense of the word:
http://useconomy.about.com/od/tradepolicy/p/NAFTA_Advantage.htm

 

[javacontour]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
.

With respect to your last point, we aren't talking about people. We are discussing corporations, which are a manufactured identity with no conscience who's sole purpose is to make money for its shareholders. If that involves the exploitation of cheap labour, then that is what the people steering that entity will do. So you remove that incentive from the picture by keeping the field level, keeping the cost the same across the globe. Nobody is providing an obstacle to commerce. They are ensuring that if there is labour to be leveraged, that people in the United States and other first world nations are able to be competitive in vying for it.


Which means they are little different from government. Change a few of the pronouns, and what you wrote would perfectly fit the band of thieves in DC and likely in state and local office as well.

Which goes back to my moral equivalency argument. Government is no more moral than the citizenry. If our citizenry produced the current crop of capitalists that you find troubling, how is it logical to expect the crop of political leaders would be any better?

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: javacontour
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
.

With respect to your last point, we aren't talking about people. We are discussing corporations, which are a manufactured identity with no conscience who's sole purpose is to make money for its shareholders. If that involves the exploitation of cheap labour, then that is what the people steering that entity will do. So you remove that incentive from the picture by keeping the field level, keeping the cost the same across the globe. Nobody is providing an obstacle to commerce. They are ensuring that if there is labour to be leveraged, that people in the United States and other first world nations are able to be competitive in vying for it.


Which means they are little different from government. Change a few of the pronouns, and what you wrote would perfectly fit the band of thieves in DC and likely in state and local office as well.

Which goes back to my moral equivalency argument. Government is no more moral than the citizenry. If our citizenry produced the current crop of capitalists that you find troubling, how is it logical to expect the crop of political leaders would be any better?


Oh the Government is even worse with respect to spending taxpayer's money, no argument from me there.

However, that doesn't mean that implementing tariffs will have negative implications just because they are being done at the government level.

Further to that, this is likely the reason we DON'T have an anti-dumping/tariff system in place, because of the nature of the current governing body, who doesn't want to "offend" their trade partner that has bought-up so much of their debt

Is government in Germany held to a different standard? I don't know. Maybe Trav can answer that question. I'd like to know why they, and the rest of the EU have been successful in controlling trade relations with the 3rd world, while we've hung ourselves out to dry and are reaping the rewards of that with soaring unemployment, crippling debt and a very scary looking financial future.

 

[javacontour]

Germany would be the exception in the EU as it seems more members are closer to Greece than Germany in terms of fiscal health.

 

[Tempest]

Quote:
With respect to your last point, we aren't talking about people. We are discussing corporations, which are a manufactured identity with no conscience who's sole purpose is to make money for its shareholders

Shareholders aren't people? News to me. Are CEO's and corporate workers people?

Quote:
I'm saying no UNFAIR trade. Tariffs (I know you hate them) are necessary here to level the playing field with the 3rd world so that we aren't dragged down to their level.

So you want your countrymen to pay higher prices for things. How does that help their standard of living?

Should tariffs be placed on coffee so as to make coffee growing in Canada profitable? How about rice?

What "manufacturing" should be protected?

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: javacontour
Germany would be the exception in the EU as it seems more members are closer to Greece than Germany in terms of fiscal health.


True, Germany is the big "supporting player" here for the entire EU, but the trade stuff applies across the board, which is why I mentioned the EU in general rather than just focusing on Germany.

It is likely that if these tariffs were removed, the smaller nations that are part of the EU that are able to remain competitive because of them may be quickly bankrupt..... I think the EU depends on this regulation to stay afloat.

Things haven't declined as rapidly in North America primarily due to our size and wealth, but the US debt is, as noted, unsustainable. In fact envisioning eliminating it almost seems like a pipe-dream at this point given the sheer enormity of it