Re: Wal-Mart and Wages?

From: Albert (alwagner_at_tcac.net)
Date: 07/22/04 

Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2004 10:40:54 -0500

"wilfred" <wilfred@europe.com> wrote:
 
> "Albert" <alwagner@tcac.net> wrote in message
> news:20040721173958.6b2efa3e@lfs.mydomain.com...
> > "wilfred" <wilfred@europe.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > "Albert" <alwagner@tcac.net> wrote in message
> > <snip>
> > > > It's, of course, up to the individual firm to decide what
> > > > is the greatest good: (1) A bigger slice of the existing
> > > > pie(probably spit in) or (2) a smaller piece of a bigger
> > > > and better pie.
> > >
> > > For the individual firm, the largest slice. Why should we
> > > expect firms to be altruistic, especially in competative
> > > situations?
> >
> > I am not arguing for altruism. I am arguing for cooperation
> > and justice in distribution of earnings. Income should be in
> > proportion to contribution to production. Are you going to
> > make the lame argument that dumb, lazy workers need the
> > intelligent, enthusiastic capitalists to supply them with
> > cushy jobs?

Let's back up a moment and clarify. I suspect that we are closer
that this dialog indicates.
 
> No. I'm arguing that firms will inevitably choose the 'largest
> bit of pie' under a market system.

I agree with a qualification: firms with short term goals will
indeed choose the larger piece of the current pie; However, a
longer term strategy would, in some cases, yield more profit
overall, even if that greater dollar amount was a smaller piece
of a larger pie.

The reasons for the current predominance of short term goals is
another worthy topic.

> You've gone from arguing
> that increased wages leads to increased production (without an
> upper boundary),

True, I didn't specify an upper boundary, though you are correct
that there must logically be one. However, knowing that there is
an upper boundary is not an argument for not moving as far in
that direction as is possible.

> to arguing that firms ought to consider their
> effects on the wider economy, which is an unrealistic
> assumption unless this increases their own returns.

Yes, as a matter of survival, a firm ought to consider their
effect on the wider economy. As an artifice allowed, subsidized
and chartered by the host community, they are under a moral
obligation to play by rules that have a net benefit to the host
community. When a firm becomes a net liability to the host
community, then they no longer have any justification for
existence. They have thereby become a parasite reducing overall
productivity of the host. The fact that cancer cells are
cooperating with each other and are thriving within the host is
no justification for giving them carte blanc. 

-- 
"Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the
range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally
impossible, because there will be no words in which to express
it."
    -- George Orwell as Syme in "1984"

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Wal-Mart and Wages?
    ... >> bit of pie' under a market system. ... > longer term strategy would, in some cases, yield more profit ... Firms aiming to maximise share price ... > obligation to play by rules that have a net benefit to the host ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Wal-Mart and Wages?
    ... > I am not arguing for altruism. ... No. I'm arguing that firms will inevitably choose the 'largest bit of pie' ... You've gone from arguing that increased wages leads ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: Petersons Death Sentence
    ... >> Then you're arguing that it becomes human when it leaves the host, ... I'm arguing that it stops being a biological parasite when it can ... parasitism would end with the onset of, as John Woodgate explained, ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Petersons Death Sentence
    ... >> Then you're arguing that it becomes human when it leaves the host, ... I'm arguing that it stops being a biological parasite when it can ... parasitism would end with the onset of, as John Woodgate explained, ...
    (comp.os.linux.networking)
  • Re: Petersons Death Sentence
    ... It's a parasite until it leaves the host. ... > Then you're arguing that it becomes human when it leaves the host, ... > John Fields ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
Quantcast