Penn & Teller on Walmart

[Xavier_Onassis]

Wal*Mart is a better place to work than K-Mart, and he prices are lower, too.
Unions are pretty much the only way for workers to have a say in how much they are paid, but in most of the uS it's impossible to actually start a union. The NLRB is mostly toothless these days. You have a better chance of starting a union in Poland than in the USA.

Unions have been responsive to the demands of a competitive business. They gave back again and again at Chrysler and TWA, and the executives reaped the majority of the rewards.

[Universe Prince]

Very well-done and entertaining.  Best fascist agitprop I've seen in a long time.

Perhaps you would point out what part of it was fascist?

Their excuses for union-busting were hilarious.

Perhaps, but they were truthful.

Most likely the costs of union wages would come from the obscene profit margins that Wal-Mart owners and senior execs are gouging out of revenues and not from the customers at all.

Now that's hilarious. And by that I mean laughable.

[Michael Tee]

<<Well, you were responding to MY post where I described a restaurant owned by a person who worked in the shop, doing what ever needed to be done - cooking, greeting customers, running the register, etc. All typical of mom and pop shops. You were the one trying to make an extreme, apparently.>>

What am I missing here?  Your post described a one-man operation.  I never ate in one.  Now you say what was described doesn't have to be a one-man operation - - could be a mom and pop place.  I've eaten in mom & pop places.  Lots of times.  Never in a one-man or one-woman operation.

I wasn't trying to make an extreme of anything, I was responding to what I or any reasonable reader would have assumed you were referring to.

[Michael Tee]

<<Perhaps you would point out what part of it was fascist?>>

Union-busting, mega-bucks POV put over with the "Big Lie" technique, slickly using the media, the lie being that the unions would ruin Wal-Mart AND the American public by jacking up the cost of consumer goods.

The truth is that the costs of union wages probably couldn't be passed off onto the customers without cutting into Wal-Mart's retail volume, the reasonable solution would be to reduce profits and executive compensation, which are probably at obscenely high levels anyway.

<<Perhaps, but they [in justifying their union-busting] were truthful.>>

Ridiculous.  This is the SECOND time I've pointed out the Big Lie at the heart of their fascist agitprop.

<<Now that's [the idea that union wage costs would cut into executive compensation and profits rather than being loaded onto the consumer] hilarious. And by that I mean laughable.>>

Yeah.  I GET what hilarious means.  Stupid me made another big mistake.  I guess Wal-Mart doesn't make a profit and its senior executives and major shareholders are eating out of dogfood cans rejected as damaged goods by most reputable merchants.  Who woulda thunk?

[Universe Prince]

Stupid me made another big mistake.

I'm not saying you're stupid, but, uh, yeah, I'm pretty sure you did.

I guess Wal-Mart doesn't make a profit and its senior executives and major shareholders are eating out of dogfood cans rejected as damaged goods by most reputable merchants.  Who woulda thunk?

I'm not suggesting Wal-Mart doesn't make a profit, or that the executive or shareholders are poor. But I think you're being a wee bit too unrealistic to think that somehow increased costs for Wal-Mart would merely be absorbed by cutting profits and executive wages and never passed on to the customers. I mean, I know there is this notion that profits made by companies like Wal-Mart are all stored away in boxes in a huge underground Raiders of the Lost Ark style warehouse, but that simply isn't true. But you know that, so there is no reason to bother with explaining it.

Pointing out that forced higher wages will result in higher prices is neither fascist nor agitprop. It's a reasonable explanation of what generally happens in the real world. Costs go up; prices go up. This ain't rocket science.

On the other hand, your posts look a lot like agitprop of another kind. Let's face facts here. You immediately started using the term "fascist" and complaining about Wal-Mart's supposedly "obscene profit margins". Who is trying to agitate here? You are. Who is using the propaganda terminology? You are. I'd say all the agitprop was coming from your end.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Pointing out that forced higher wages will result in higher prices is neither fascist nor agitprop. It's a reasonable explanation of what generally happens in the real world. Costs go up; prices go up. This ain't rocket science.

------------------------------------------------
And yet, there are stores that sell for LESS than Wal*Mart, and pay their employees more. So it is possible. Target pays more, Costco pays more, and some of their prices are lower. Save-A Lot charges less, but  don;t know what they pay compared to Wal-Mart.

Penn and Teller are doing propaganda here, and if the employees did have a union, they would be better off with regard to wages and benefits, because it would give them a say in this through collective bargaining. But they can't have a union, because Wal*Mart would simply close that store. For all practical purposes, unions are illegal in the USA these days.

[Amianthus]

What am I missing here?  Your post described a one-man operation.  I never ate in one.  Now you say what was described doesn't have to be a one-man operation - - could be a mom and pop place.  I've eaten in mom & pop places.  Lots of times.  Never in a one-man or one-woman operation.

Here are the previous posts in that series. Don't know where you got that it was a "one man" operation (even though those exist, and I've eaten in them...)

I guess I was a little confused.  I thought the customer blew $2,000 on some kind of celebration or party.  Now it's clearer than ever. The $2,000 is pure waste, it's a profit on the labour of a dozen or two workers who put in many more hours than the owner.  Had the restaurant been run by a worker collective, they could have kept the prices down and given the customers better value (same meal, cheaper price) or alternatively rewarded themselves by sharing the $2,000.  The $2,000 "profit" would have gone to the workers who produced the meal in the first place or to the customers they served (who paid for the meal) in lower, fairer prices - - all by simply eliminating the parasite who stands between the producer and the consumer.

The $2,000 is pure waste, it's a profit on the labour of a dozen or two workers who put in many more hours than the owner.

Guess you've never worked in a restaurant - typically the owner puts in more hours than any of the employees.

all by simply eliminating the parasite who stands between the producer and the consumer.

So, you do think that the owner should work as a slave for you. Glad that's clear.

<<So, you do think that the owner should work as a slave for you. Glad that's clear.>>

Point is, the owner doesn't WORK.  He's a fucking parasite profiting off the labour of the cooks, servers, busboys and cleaners.

<<Guess you've never worked in a restaurant - typically the owner puts in more hours than any of the employees.>>

Sure he does - - watching to see the employees don't steal any of "his" money.  What that adds to the meal I'm still trying to figure out.

So, you tell me, where did I describe a "one man operation"?

What I said was that in most restaurants (mom and pops outnumber chains) the owner works alongside the employees, and generally fills in where ever needed, so he must be cook, busboy, waiter, greeter, etc... According to you, however, all the owner does is sign a few bank forms and watch the employees to make sure they don't steal.

[Michael Tee]

<<I'm not suggesting Wal-Mart doesn't make a profit, or that the executive or shareholders are poor. But I think you're being a wee bit too unrealistic to think that somehow increased costs for Wal-Mart would merely be absorbed by cutting profits and executive wages and never passed on to the customers.>>

And I'm not suggesting that every last penny of the wage and other expense increases brought in by unionization would come out of profits with zilch being passed down to the consumer.  But,
(a) who really gives a shit about the consumer?  I mean, the essence of the capitalist system is that vendors and buyers compete in an unfettered marketplace with each trying to get the best deal they can.  It's not the place of the worker to ensure the lowest price for the consumer at the expense of his own pay-cheque and it's not the place of the boss to spread the wealth around through low prices any more than the self-interest of either will dictate.  And,

(b) there seems to be plenty of revenue and even retained earnings to cushion the blows of unionization.  If the people are too fucking dumb to demand the nationalization of the Wal-Mart and other big-box stores and the elimination of the parasitical middlemen and shareholders, then the least they can be asking for is the reduction in the gap between the owners and the workers who create the owners' wealth in the first place.

<<I mean, I know there is this notion that profits made by companies like Wal-Mart are all stored away in boxes in a huge underground Raiders of the Lost Ark style warehouse, but that simply isn't true. But you know that, so there is no reason to bother with explaining it.>>

There was actually no reason to bother making it in the first place, since it has zip to do with this argument.

<<Pointing out that forced higher wages will result in higher prices is neither fascist nor agitprop. It's a reasonable explanation of what generally happens in the real world. Costs go up; prices go up. This ain't rocket science.>>

"Costs go up, profits go down" isn't rocket science either but it's an equally superficial analysis.  Fascism is the reaction to socialism in the class war.  This was very definitely a union-busting, lying, bullshitting work of agitprop by Penn and Teller, remarkably Hitlerian in its ridicule and coarse invective delivered against the perceived class enemy (organized labour) and in its total disregard for the truth.  Or even for simple common sense.  And professionally, I congratulate P & T for a job exceptionally well done.

<<On the other hand, your posts look a lot like agitprop of another kind. Let's face facts here. You immediately started using the term "fascist"  . . . >>

Damn straight.  Why NOT call a spade a spade?

<< . . . and complaining about Wal-Mart's supposedly "obscene profit margins".>>

Just an inspired guess on my part.  Wanna challenge by showing me how simply and humbly the owners are living and how little money they've made off this thing?

<< Who is trying to agitate here? >>

Obviously, Penn & Teller.  They put a lot more time and money into their bullshit agitprop than I put into critiquing it.  I hope you don't think those efforts weren't rewarded by someone.  Maybe even Walmart?

<<You are [trying to agitate here.]

Oh for God's sake get a grip.  I didn't produce a TV commercial about this, I'm just commenting on it.

<< Who is using the propaganda terminology? You are. >>

Yeah, that's a big mistake on my part.  Next time I try to critique a piece of anti-labour, union-busting propaganda, I'll try to remember to use the terminology of cattle breeding or mediaeval embroidery.

<<I'd say all the agitprop was coming from your end.>>

I think you just DID say it.  That was YOUR mistake.

[Michael Tee]

So, you tell me, where did I describe a "one man operation"?

What I said was that in most restaurants (mom and pops outnumber chains) the owner works alongside the employees, and generally fills in where ever needed, so he must be cook, busboy, waiter, greeter, etc... According to you, however, all the owner does is sign a few bank forms and watch the employees to make sure they don't steal.
======================================================================
That's a lot of work just to be able to say "Gotcha!" on a point that is obviously just based on a simple misunderstanding.  A point I had already clarified.  I made it clear that there was no inconsistency between my claims (a) never to have eaten in a one-person operation and (b) to have eaten in a mom-and-pop restaurant.  That should have ended this line of argument.  Who introduced the concept of a one-person operation or how clear it should have been to the participants in the discussion is of little or no interest regarding the points under discussion in this thread.

I'm not blaming you for playing "Gotcha!" which I've been known to do myself, but it's a helluva waste of everyone's time and I'm not interested in pursuing this any further.  Sorry if I mistook your original meaning but otherwise this part of the thread is going nowhere.

[BT]

In communist societies do mom and pop operations even exist?

[Michael Tee]

Sure they exist.  In Hungary, I believe, the cut-off at one point was fifty employees, but Hungary was generally a liberal practitioner of communism.  There's some flexibility in the system and the number of permissible employees in private commerce waxes and wanes, set by changing Party policies.  In socialist theory, of course, all private enterprise will vanish at some future point in time.

[Xavier_Onassis]

In socialist theory, of course, all private enterprise will vanish at some future point in time.

I fail to believe that this would ever happen. People are so diverse in their wants and needs that it would be impossible for even the most advanced state to try to satisfy them all. I am not talking about 50 brands of toothpaste, but actual different and unique producs invented by their maker for his own use and them acquiring great popularity.

Would Consolidated State Doll Factory No 12 ever think up Cabbage Patch kids? Who would think up and produce dancing Elmo? Walkmen? Ipods? or even tilapia tacos? I find this unlikely.

Private initiative is a good thing and should be around forever.

[Universe Prince]

And yet, there are stores that sell for LESS than Wal*Mart, and pay their employees more. So it is possible. Target pays more, Costco pays more, and some of their prices are lower.

Oh, some of their prices are lower. Were I a betting man, I'd say some of their prices are higher too. And some of their prices are probably about the same. Having shopped at Target and Wal-Mart, I think Target's prices are overall higher than Wal-Mart's. Not by a lot, but higher. But then, I prefer shopping at Target to shopping at Wal-Mart.

Penn and Teller are doing propaganda here, and if the employees did have a union, they would be better off with regard to wages and benefits, because it would give them a say in this through collective bargaining.

I don't recall Penn & Teller suggesting a union would not result in higher wages and benefits. They did, however, correctly point out that those higher wages and benefits would end up being passed on to the consumer in the way of higher prices. This is not a lie. This is the way it would go down. Higher costs to a company pretty much always end up in the price consumers pay. This is not propaganda, this is simple, elementary level economics.

[Universe Prince]

(a) who really gives a shit about the consumer?

The company. Without consumers, the company fails.

(b) there seems to be plenty of revenue and even retained earnings to cushion the blows of unionization.

You sat that as if you actually expect a successful business to start paying executives less.

<<I mean, I know there is this notion that profits made by companies like Wal-Mart are all stored away in boxes in a huge underground Raiders of the Lost Ark style warehouse, but that simply isn't true. But you know that, so there is no reason to bother with explaining it.>>

There was actually no reason to bother making it in the first place, since it has zip to do with this argument.

It was a not very humorous way of pointing out that part of your plan seems to depend on the profit not being used for anything.

<<Pointing out that forced higher wages will result in higher prices is neither fascist nor agitprop. It's a reasonable explanation of what generally happens in the real world. Costs go up; prices go up. This ain't rocket science.>>

"Costs go up, profits go down" isn't rocket science either but it's an equally superficial analysis.

Profits go down is one of the reasons prices go up. Not sure why you seem to want to deny that increased costs will result in increased prices.

  Fascism is the reaction to socialism in the class war.  This was very definitely a union-busting, lying, bullshitting work of agitprop by Penn and Teller, remarkably Hitlerian in its ridicule and coarse invective delivered against the perceived class enemy (organized labour) and in its total disregard for the truth.  Or even for simple common sense.  And professionally, I congratulate P & T for a job exceptionally well done.

Actually, you've got it backwards. It was factual and rational and even reasonable. It was such a well made argument, so far the best you can do is call it fascist, as if somehow invoking fascism in and of itself is supposed to be enough of a counter argument.

Why NOT call a spade a spade?

When do you start?

Wanna challenge by showing me how simply and humbly the owners are living and how little money they've made off this thing?

No. I'd prefer to challenge you using the term "obscene profit margin"... Oh wait, I already did. So how about instead you tell us what you know about the profit margin and why it is obscene. You made the claim. You back it up.

<< Who is trying to agitate here? >>

Obviously, Penn & Teller.  They put a lot more time and money into their bullshit agitprop than I put into critiquing it.  I hope you don't think those efforts weren't rewarded by someone.  Maybe even Walmart?

I am fairly certain they get paid by Showtime for their show. That Wal-Mart even sells DVDs of their show was a surprise to me, given the general content of the show. Anyway, who are Penn & Teller trying to agitate? What do you think they expect people to want to do after seeing this episode of their show? Shop at Wal-Mart? I was thinking of trying to look up that last girl to take off a T-shirt. (Okay, not really, but you get my point, I hope.)

Oh for God's sake get a grip.  I didn't produce a TV commercial about this, I'm just commenting on it.

Again, you're the one throwing around "fascist" "obscene" "Big Lie". You're telling me you're not trying to agitate? I was not born yesterday.

<<I'd say all the agitprop was coming from your end.>>

I think you just DID say it.  That was YOUR mistake.

No, that was me doing the calling a spade a spade thing.

[Xavier_Onassis]

I don't recall Penn & Teller suggesting a union would not result in higher wages and benefits. They did, however, correctly point out that those higher wages and benefits would end up being passed on to the consumer in the way of higher prices. This is not a lie. This is the way it would go down. Higher costs to a company pretty much always end up in the price consumers pay. This is not propaganda, this is simple, elementary level economics.
=====================================================================================
So what?

Penn & Teller apparently are more concerned for the cheapness of the products rather than the welfare of the workers, despite how much they sympathized with the poor Black woman who was raising her kids on $8.00 per hour.

The people making the products were working for pennies an hour, and many they admited were children. But no matter, for Penn & Teller this is progress.

The bit at the end where the women all strip off their shirts was a tad on the exploitative side, too. One wonders if they were paid at least $8.00 per hour. I doubt they made union scale.