Penn & Teller on Walmart

[Universe Prince]

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.

Better the woman had no job than to work for Wal-Mart, is that it?

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.

Progress over abject poverty, yeah. The workers make more than they would otherwise, and children work because their poverty makes it a necessity. So they'd would be better off with less money and/or no jobs? Yeah, that's going make life better for the children.<--sarcasm

[Michael Tee]

Q:  <<(a) who really gives a shit about the consumer?>>


A:  <<The company. Without consumers, the company fails.>>

---------------------------------------------------------------------

OK, you got me there.  I admit it.  Sloppy phraseology on my part.  Should have asked, "Who really gives a shit about the customer getting the best possible deal, if the best possible deal comes out of the owners' own pocket instead of the store workers'?

[Xavier_Onassis]

Better the woman had no job than to work for Wal-Mart, is that it?

Quote from: Xavier_Onassis on Today at 03:19:33 PM

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.


Progress over abject poverty, yeah. The workers make more than they would otherwise, and children work because their poverty makes it a necessity. So they'd would be better off with less money and/or no jobs? Yeah, that's going make life better for the children.<--sarcasm

------------------------------------------------------
Sop your theory is that if Wal*Mart could not get its merchandise made for pennies on the dollar and they had to pay this poor woman $10 an hour, there would be no Wal*Mart and all of them would just have to starve?

My way or the highway, that's capitalism for you, and it's good for us all that that's the way it is, too?

[Universe Prince]

Sop your theory is that if Wal*Mart could not get its merchandise made for pennies on the dollar and they had to pay this poor woman $10 an hour, there would be no Wal*Mart and all of them would just have to starve?

Heh. No, of course not. My question was whether you were arguing that the people were somehow better off without getting higher wages than they otherwise have available or without jobs. You're complaining that the people making the products are being paid low wages, but in fact in their society they're being paid higher wages than they otherwise have available to them. They are in a better economic position now than before, but now you are apparently taking the stand they should be paid $10 and hour. You too seem to be thinking these costs are somehow just going to absorbed by Wal-Mart. There is no rational reason to think such would occur.

My way or the highway, that's capitalism for you, and it's good for us all that that's the way it is, too?

I don't recall having said anything remotely like that. Seems to me you're the one suggesting there should be inflexible adherence to your arbitrary rules.

[Xavier_Onassis]

What arbitrary rules?

You are saying basically that Wal*Mart is great, because if not for it, the impoverished Chinese children would starve and the Balck woman would be on welfare, because Wal*Mart will pay $8.00 and not one cent more, and will buy their merchandise only at slightly above starvation wages.

I think the whole country would be better off if people belonged to unions and could collectively bargain their wages and benefits. At least everyone who chose this. It is impossible to set up a union in the USA today outside of the public sector.

[Michael Tee]

<<You sat that [corporate revenue and retained earnings provide alternative ways for the increased costs of a unionized operation to be absorbed without passing them on to the customer] as if you actually expect a successful business to start paying executives less.>>

I expect them to do what circumstances force them to do.  If they DO go union and the customers rebel at paying close-to-conventional prices, they'll have to choose between going out of business and taking executive pay cuts.  What'll PROBABLY happen then is that they'll loot the company with golden parachute settlements, throw it or let it go into bankruptcy and let some leaner, meaner operators buy up the pieces.

<<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.>>

Never a part of my plan.  Those profits are used for everything from corporate jets to $1,000-an-hour call girls to Caribbean mansions for the bosses.  Everything but, God forbid, a living wage for the workers who create the wealth in the first place.

<<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.>>

Sorry, wrong number.  I don't deny that some part of the cost increase would be passed on to the customer.  I don't agree that all of it would be, because that could equate to driving the customers out of the store with fire hoses.

<<Actually, you've got it backwards. It was factual [no, it wasn't - - it implied that all the costs of unionization would be passed on to the hapless customer, which lacks any factual basis] and rational [again, what's rational about assuming that ALL the costs of unionization would be shunted onto the customers?] and even reasonable [and what's "reasonable" about calling union activists and protectors of downtown communities "asshole," "shithead," etc.?]  .

<<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.>>

I gave you a fairly detailed exposition in a previous post about WHY I called it fascist, and my reasons had nothing to do with it being "such a well-made argument."  I would rather call it "well-made sophistry," clever but intellectually dishonest, as is all fascist argument.


<<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.>>

That's my educated guess.  I have every confidence in it till proven wrong.  It seems to me to be ludicrous in the extreme to assume that Wal-Mart is teetering on the brink of bankruptcy and that its owners are living in poverty.  It seems much more likely to assume that the company is doing extremely well and that its owners are living in the lap of luxury.  Put another way, if anyone were to offer me a 10% interest in the company in exchange for my home with only 30 seconds to think it over, I'd probably take them up on it.  You are free to come up with your own conclusions about the profitability of the company and the wealth of its owners.  I speak only for myself.

<<Anyway, who are Penn & Teller trying to agitate? >>

Are you shitting me?  Who the fuck do you think they are trying to agitate?  The same people that hte anti-Walmarters are after.  They wanna neutralize anti-Walmart agitation.

<<What do you think they expect people to want to do after seeing this episode of their show? Shop at Wal-Mart? >>

PLEASE get real - - this and your last question were unworthy of you, Prince.  THINK.

<<  I was thinking of trying to look up that last girl to take off a T-shirt. >>

OK, now THAT'S thinking.

<<Again, you're the one throwing around "fascist" "obscene" "Big Lie". You're telling me you're not trying to agitate? >>

I already told you, I was COMMENTING on somebody else's agitprop.  I'm just one guy at a keyboard, their effort was professional, very expensive and designed to persuade millions.

<<I was not born yesterday.>>

Coulda fooled me. 

[Universe Prince]

You are saying basically that Wal*Mart is great, because if not for it, the impoverished Chinese children would starve and the Balck woman would be on welfare, because Wal*Mart will pay $8.00 and not one cent more, and will buy their merchandise only at slightly above starvation wages.

I don't recall having made those sort of claims. As I recall, the woman in the show made $8.50/hour, and also I believe the show said Wal-Mart pays full time employees an average of $10.51/hour, so there is the "$8.00 and not one cent more" claim busted. As for buying the merchandise "only at slightly above starvation wages", I'm skeptical and would like to see the numbers on that one. As I understand it, they usually get paid well above "starvation wages". It's one of the reasons people bother to do the work.

Anyway, actually what I'm saying is that Wal-Mart is not evil. Wal-Mart provides jobs here and helps to support jobs overseas. This is not a bad thing.

[Universe Prince]

Those profits are used for everything from corporate jets to $1,000-an-hour call girls to Caribbean mansions for the bosses.  Everything but, God forbid, a living wage for the workers who create the wealth in the first place.

Oh, I see. My mistake. You don't think the profits are unused; you think they're all pissed away on trivialities. Yes, I'm sure they never use that money for anything useful at all, like, say, for example, oh, trying to provide help to victims of massively destructive hurricanes. Better to nationalize Wal-Mart so it can be run efficiently and for the benefit of the people just like, like, say, for example, oh, FEMA. (Yes, more sarcasm.)

I don't deny that some part of the cost increase would be passed on to the customer.  I don't agree that all of it would be, because that could equate to driving the customers out of the store with fire hoses.

Could be that explains in part Wal-Mart's resistance to unions.

<<Actually, you've got it backwards. It was factual [no, it wasn't - - it implied that all the costs of unionization would be passed on to the hapless customer, which lacks any factual basis]

Right, because businesses never pass costs of operation on to the consumers. Except of course for all the times they do. But so far, you're giving me an opinion, not a proof that the episode was not factual.

 and rational [again, what's rational about assuming that ALL the costs of unionization would be shunted onto the customers?]

What isn't rational about saying something that is basically true. Higher costs of operations are going to be passed onto the customers in the form of higher prices.

and even reasonable [and what's "reasonable" about calling union activists and protectors of downtown communities "asshole," "shithead," etc.?]  .

I believe they called specific individuals assholes and shitheads. As for protectors of downtown communities, I think the episode gave us a really good example of what happens to downtowns when self-appointed "protectors" decide to drive business away, the businesses go away and stay away. Frankly, someone who thinks that is a good thing for a community probably deserves to be called an asshole.

I gave you a fairly detailed exposition in a previous post about WHY I called it fascist, and my reasons had nothing to do with it being "such a well-made argument."  I would rather call it "well-made sophistry," clever but intellectually dishonest, as is all fascist argument.

Yes, you explained that you called it fascist because it was, according to you, fascist. Kinda circular reasoning there. I think it's kinda funny that you're defending the so-called "protectors of downtown communities" who want to keep jobs out of the community, and then trying to claim that Penn & Teller are engaging in some sort of class warfare for bothering to point out that Wal-Mart employs a lot of people without a union and helps to keep prices low by not having a union.

<<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.>>

That's my educated guess.  I have every confidence in it till proven wrong.

Ah. I see.

It seems to me to be ludicrous in the extreme to assume that Wal-Mart is teetering on the brink of bankruptcy and that its owners are living in poverty.  It seems much more likely to assume that the company is doing extremely well and that its owners are living in the lap of luxury.

What seems ludicrous to me is to try to create a false dichotomy of either the "brink of bankruptcy" or "obscene profit margins". Particularly since no one has argued that Wal-Mart is unprofitable or unsuccessful.

Are you shitting me?  Who the fuck do you think they are trying to agitate?  The same people that hte anti-Walmarters are after.  They wanna neutralize anti-Walmart agitation.

So, they're not agitating. They're trying to neutralize agitation. Yeah, that sounds about right.

<<What do you think they expect people to want to do after seeing this episode of their show? Shop at Wal-Mart? >>

PLEASE get real - - this and your last question were unworthy of you, Prince.  THINK.

I did and am. That is why I question your categorization of the episode as agitprop.

<<Again, you're the one throwing around "fascist" "obscene" "Big Lie". You're telling me you're not trying to agitate? >>

I already told you, I was COMMENTING on somebody else's agitprop.  I'm just one guy at a keyboard, their effort was professional, very expensive and designed to persuade millions.

Oh, right. You're not at all trying to stir up an emotional dislike of the episode or Wal-Mart. Yeah, go on, pull the other one.

[Cynthia]

OK, that was well worth the time to watch.  I know that Wally World has its problems and if Ark was around he would catalog them, but I kinda like the idea of low prices and convenience.  I choose to shop there because I save a lot of money. 

I love the Tee-shirt makers.  Old people are the bottom of the barrel.  Damn those old people!  Don't they know they are supopsed to retire and go on social security or just die?  If they keep providing for themselves, they'll make the rest of us look bad.

I miss Ark. What ever happened to him. He sent me his drawings and such in the US mail about 5 years ago. Bless him. I will always hold a place in my heart for ark.....

Cindy

[Michael Tee]

<<Oh, I see. My mistake. You don't think the profits are unused; you think they're all pissed away on trivialities. Yes, I'm sure they never use that money for anything useful at all, like, say, for example, oh, trying to provide help to victims of massively destructive hurricanes. Better to nationalize Wal-Mart so it can be run efficiently and for the benefit of the people just like, like, say, for example, oh, FEMA. (Yes, more sarcasm.)>>

For sarcasm to work, it has to have some grounding in reality.  Whatever mistakes FEMA made, spending the funds they had on call-girls, corporate jets, Caribbean retreats and other purchases favoured by the executive class was not one of them.   I suppose you are going to tell me that business is not wasteful, business does not make mistakes, business does not spend money foolishly.  Yeah, right.

<<Could be that [pissing off customers by raising prices] explains in part Wal-Mart's resistance to unions.>>

Get real; the bottom line explains Wal-Mart's resistance to unions.  Nothing more, nothing less.

<<Right, because businesses never pass costs of operation on to the consumers. Except of course for all the times they do. But so far, you're giving me an opinion, not a proof that the episode was not factual.>>

When the business is deliberately going after customers, not on location, not on luxury, not on loyalty, but strictly on price, then they are certainly going to think twice before passing on ANY operating costs increase to the customers, and do so, if at all, with great reluctance.  Making the customers pay could be very dangerous for them.

<<What isn't rational about saying something that is basically true. Higher costs of operations are going to be passed onto the customers in the form of higher prices.>>

Passing higher costs on to the customers is not the only alternative and it's absurd and ridiculous to assume that it is.  They can squeeze their suppliers, their landlords, their subcontractors, the local governments and a whole lot of other people before they decide to saddle their customers with the full amount of the increase.

<<I believe they called specific individuals assholes and shitheads. >>

Oh, of course that makes it a whole lot more rational.  I thought they were just ranting at the human race in general, or maybe at all warm-blooded vertebrates.

<<As for protectors of downtown communities, I think the episode gave us a really good example of what happens to downtowns when self-appointed "protectors" decide to drive business away, the businesses go away and stay away. Frankly, someone who thinks that is a good thing for a community probably deserves to be called an asshole.>>

Well, apart from your totally unproven assumptions of what caused the downtown to pack up and leave, I'd say that anyone who thinks it's a good thing to encourage a bunch of millionaires to get rich off the backs of an army of underpaid wage slaves taking their jobs out of desperation and/or to seal the fate of a deserted downtown core deserves to be called an ass-hole too.  But I don't think it's necessarily a reasonable thing to call them an ass-hole in a publicly distributed video and so I took issue with your characterization of that piece of fascist shit as "reasonable."

<<Yes, you explained that you called it fascist because it was, according to you, fascist. Kinda circular reasoning there.>>

Maybe you should try reading for comprehension.  I called it fascist because of its role in class warfare, the interests it defended, the interests it attacked.  There was nothing circular about it.  I identified characteristics of the video that are also characteristics of fascism.  Went from point A (the video) to point B (fascism.)  In a straight line.  Maybe what you need to look up are the definitions of straight lines and circles.  You'll find they are two different things.

<<I think it's kinda funny that you're defending the so-called "protectors of downtown communities" who want to keep jobs out of the community . . . >>

I think what they want to keep out of their community is economic exploitation of the community's most vulnerable sector.

<< . . .  and then trying to claim that Penn & Teller are engaging in some sort of class warfare for bothering to point out that Wal-Mart employs a lot of people without a union and helps to keep prices low by not having a union.>>

I think most sane and normal people would understand that when the bosses try to prevent their  workers from organizing a union to demand higher wages, that's about as clear a demonstration of the class war as it's possible to find.  Most people also seem to have no problem understanding that the bosses' motivation is, very simply, the bottom line.  More money in their pockets, to put it a little more crudely.  What's absolutely hilarious is your attempt to portray these Herculean union-busting activities as some kind of noble endeavour to promote the common weal by keeping prices low for Mr. and Mrs. Joe Six-Pack.  Just in case you got taken in by your own sophistry, I will repeat my conjecture, based on considerable real-world experience, that there are plenty of alternatives available to Wal-Mart for spreading the costs around, and in fact if they want to keep their high-volume store traffic, they will avail themselves of them.

<<So, they're not agitating. They're trying to neutralize agitation. Yeah, that sounds about right.>>

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd say agitprop works both sides of the street - - there's agitation and there's counter-agitation.  That's the essence of the class war - - each side promoting its own interests.

<<Oh, right. You're not at all trying to stir up an emotional dislike of the episode or Wal-Mart. Yeah, go on, pull the other one.>>

I wasn't agitating anything till I had Penn and Teller's agitprop pushed into MY face.  They're not reacting to me, I am reacting to them.

[Universe Prince]

For sarcasm to work, it has to have some grounding in reality.

Which explains why mine always works brilliantly. (Hubris? Whatever do you mean?)

Whatever mistakes FEMA made, spending the funds they had on call-girls, corporate jets, Caribbean retreats and other purchases favoured by the executive class was not one of them.

No, as I recall FEMA spent money on unused trailers and keeping any effective help away from the people who needed it most. That's so much better, eh? (Sarcasm, again.)

I suppose you are going to tell me that business is not wasteful, business does not make mistakes, business does not spend money foolishly.  Yeah, right.

I would never say that. But you seem to have missed the point of the comparison. After Hurricane Katrina, Wal-Mart responded quickly with trucks of supplies. FEMA responded quickly by trying to keep the trucks out, and proceeded to make a horrible situation worse. So while you're trying to demonize Wal-Mart, from where I sit, Wal-Mart is not, generally, the bad guy, and is, generally, more effective at actually helping people.

<<Could be that [pissing off customers by raising prices] explains in part Wal-Mart's resistance to unions.>>

Get real; the bottom line explains Wal-Mart's resistance to unions.  Nothing more, nothing less.

Heh. Okay, let's put it this way: Could be that pissing off customers by raising prices which would negatively effect the bottom line explains in part Wal-Mart's resistance to unions.

When the business is deliberately going after customers, not on location, not on luxury, not on loyalty, but strictly on price, then they are certainly going to think twice before passing on ANY operating costs increase to the customers, and do so, if at all, with great reluctance.  Making the customers pay could be very dangerous for them.

Hence the resistance to unions. Am I the only one here thinking this is really not that hard to understand?

Passing higher costs on to the customers is not the only alternative and it's absurd and ridiculous to assume that it is.  They can squeeze their suppliers, their landlords, their subcontractors, the local governments and a whole lot of other people before they decide to saddle their customers with the full amount of the increase.

So, your hypothesis is that they'll piss off everyone with whom they do business to keep prices low. I'm not an economist, but I have to say, your solution seems, well, not realistic.

I'd say that anyone who thinks it's a good thing to encourage a bunch of millionaires to get rich off the backs of an army of underpaid wage slaves taking their jobs out of desperation and/or to seal the fate of a deserted downtown core deserves to be called an ass-hole too.

And you'd be right. But that isn't what is happening here. Wal-Mart does what government only talks about. It creates jobs. It helps the average working consumer afford basic everyday things. I am kinda curious though if you really think Alderman Emma Mitts, you know, in the show the African-American woman working for the government who responded to what she saw in her community by asking Wal-Mart to step in and replace an abandoned factory with a Wal-Mart, is an asshole. Do you really think her goal was to enrich Wal-Mart and help it exploit the people in her community? On the other hand, Alderman Joe Moore, seems clear to me from his comments in the episode, wanted to keep Wal-Mart jobs out of Chicago, he wanted to keep business and the creation of jobs away because he believed it would be bad for his community. Let's see, one wants to bring in business that creates jobs and benefits the working class with lower prices, and the other wants to keep those jobs and lower prices out of the community. Hm...

But I don't think it's necessarily a reasonable thing to call them an ass-hole in a publicly distributed video and so I took issue with your characterization of that piece of fascist shit as "reasonable."

Well, Jillette routinely calls people assholes on Bullshit. It's kinda his shtick, on the show at least. I think you'd like the show on the whole. Anyway, I think the show is always reasonable in the cases it makes, even the ones with which I don't totally agree.

Maybe you should try reading for comprehension.

Oh I do. All the time.

I called it fascist because of its role in class warfare, the interests it defended, the interests it attacked.

Yet, oddly, they never mentioned class, and spent a good portion of the episode with a young woman who was clearly not one of the upper class rich, and who benefited from and was even glad to work at Wal-Mart. So, by pointing out that someone not rich benefited from the presence of a Wal-Mart in her community, defending her interests, attacking the interests of the folks who hate Wal-Mart, Penn & Teller were engaging in class warfare? I've got to write this down, let's see now, defending the interests of the lower and middle classes is really class warfare on behalf of the wealthy. Oh yeah, it all makes perfect sen... no, no it doesn't.

There was nothing circular about it.  I identified characteristics of the video that are also characteristics of fascism.  Went from point A (the video) to point B (fascism.)  In a straight line.  Maybe what you need to look up are the definitions of straight lines and circles.  You'll find they are two different things.

Not really what I saw. More like, you seemed to start with the fascism bit and then pulled out of the air this class warfare claim and "Hitlerian in its ridicule" stuff. Sort of like saying it's fascist because it's fascist. Or in other words, you went from point A (fascism) to point B (fascism). Circular. That's my perception, anyway, and you haven't said anything yet that makes me think it's wrong.

I think most sane and normal people would understand that when the bosses try to prevent their  workers from organizing a union to demand higher wages, that's about as clear a demonstration of the class war as it's possible to find.  Most people also seem to have no problem understanding that the bosses' motivation is, very simply, the bottom line.  More money in their pockets, to put it a little more crudely.

And oddly enough, it results in more money in the pockets of the people who work the jobs created and who save money there. Class warfare by benefiting the lower "classes". Hm. Then again, maybe it isn't class warfare at all.

What's absolutely hilarious is your attempt to portray these Herculean union-busting activities as some kind of noble endeavour to promote the common weal by keeping prices low for Mr. and Mrs. Joe Six-Pack.

Am I attempting that? I thought I was saying could be that pissing off customers by raising prices which would negatively effect the bottom line explains in part Wal-Mart's resistance to unions. Hang on, let me check... Yes, that is in fact what I said.

Just in case you got taken in by your own sophistry, I will repeat my conjecture, based on considerable real-world experience, that there are plenty of alternatives available to Wal-Mart for spreading the costs around, and in fact if they want to keep their high-volume store traffic, they will avail themselves of them.

Oh, yes, there are alternatives, but let's just say that based on real-world experience, I doubt they would work out as you seem to think.

<<So, they're not agitating. They're trying to neutralize agitation. Yeah, that sounds about right.>>

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd say agitprop works both sides of the street - - there's agitation and there's counter-agitation.  That's the essence of the class war - - each side promoting its own interests.

You're wrong, and I'm correcting you. Agitprop is by definition propaganda intended to agitate. Agitation propaganda. But I have to say, I was not aware promoting one's interests was warfare.

I wasn't agitating anything till I had Penn and Teller's agitprop pushed into MY face.  They're not reacting to me, I am reacting to them.

Pushed into your face? Someone held you down and forced you to watch the videos? Wow. That sucks. You should totally spit in the eye of whoever did that. Anyway, that you're reacting to the videos doesn't lessen the fact that you're also clearly trying to stir-up emotional dislike of the episode and Wal-Mart.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Political agitation is a technique. It can be used with many messages, and Penn & Teller have used it here to suggest that we have these two choices: Wal*Mart or no Wal*Mart, and have chosen the former.

I shop at Wal*Mart from time to time and they do often have the best prices. Certainly not on meat and veggies, but for cheese, deli, dairy, soymilk and other boxed, bottled and canned stuff they are usually the lowest in price. Their GV soymilk spoils in half the time of 5th Continent, I have found.

There are many choices, not just two: Wal*Mart would be a better place to work if they had collective bargaining. We'd have a more prosperous country if everyone had it. The states that are the most unionized are the most prosperous. Many, maybe most Wal*Mart employees are part-timers here in South Florida, and they are not making $8.50 per hour, either.

The Wal*Mart stores are much tidier and neater than the alternatives: K-Mart and Winn-Dixie are messy, and their habit of puttling a $3.89 product on a shelf above a $2.99 price is both unethical and deliberate. K-Mart likes to advertise low, low prices on items that are not actually in the store. Hell, they could advertise to give it away if they don't have any.

There are no stores that have collective bargaining here in South Florida. The labor laws are written so that it is damned near impossible to organize. So I suppose that I will continue to buy some items at Wallyworld. But I don;pt worship it like Penn&Teller do, and I do think that Wal*Mart's detractors make some excellent points.

Nuclear power is a better deal than Wal*Mart.

Cheap solar panels on my roof would be better than nuclear power. But they aren't available yet.

[Michael Tee]

<<I would never say that. But you seem to have missed the point of the comparison. After Hurricane Katrina, Wal-Mart responded quickly with trucks of supplies. FEMA responded quickly by trying to keep the trucks out, and proceeded to make a horrible situation worse. So while you're trying to demonize Wal-Mart, from where I sit, Wal-Mart is not, generally, the bad guy, and is, generally, more effective at actually helping people.>>

Yeah, and Mafia dons give away turkeys at Christmas and Thanksgiving.  Here's a concept I think you'd enjoy learning about:  public relations.  Sending a few truckloads of supplies is a cheap and easy stunt that provides short term relief that in all probability was superfluous.  FEMA's responsibilities were infinitely bigger.

<<Okay, let's put it this way: Could be that pissing off customers by raising prices which would negatively effect the bottom line . . . >>

Exactly.  Now you're starting to understand why they will try a lot of alternatives before actually passing on the costs of unionization to their customers.  Including sharing a little bit more of their corporate revenue and retained earnings.

<< . . . explains in part Wal-Mart's resistance to unions.>>

(sigh . . . )  Once again, the bottom line is all that is needed to explain ANY employer's resistance to unions.  It's really pretty basic.


<<Hence the [i.e. because their customer loyalty is based on low prices] resistance to unions. Am I the only one here thinking this is really not that hard to understand?>>

You seem to be the only one with a problem understanding that (1) maximizing profit and senior executive compensation is the primary reason behind Wal-Mart's or any business' opposition to unions and (2) there are many ways the cost of unionization could be absorbed, starting with senior executive compensation and perks and the profit margin, therefore (3) the costs of unionization need not impact directly on the Wal-Mart customer unless the greedy bastard owners insist on keeping their fists firmly clenched over an unfair share of the company profits.

<<So, your hypothesis is that they'll piss off everyone with whom they do business to keep prices low. I'm not an economist, but I have to say, your solution seems, well, not realistic.>>

You don't need to be an economist, just a businessman, or failing that, just someone with average to above-average skills in recognizing how the real world works, to realize that everything is negotiable, including rents, including the cost of supplies, including interest, including even local (municipal) taxes and the availability of tax breaks. 

Most business people do not get "pissed off" if someone with whom they have had a long and profitable relationship with them comes to them and says, "Look, I have a problem.  This fucking union is costing me $X per day and we can't keep on doing business the same old way.  How about some tax relief?  How about 10% rent reductions for the next six months?"  What if anything do you really think is non-negotiable?  People in business have to be flexible.  Nobody likes being stuck with an empty building, a decamped tax-paying business, etc.  Very few people doing business with Wal-Mart can afford to get pissed off at them, especially if Wal-Mart's demands are reasonable and understandable.  Please refer to various academic studies of the Goose and the Golden Eggs.

<<I am kinda curious though if you really think Alderman Emma Mitts, you know, in the show the African-American woman working for the government who responded to what she saw in her community by asking Wal-Mart to step in and replace an abandoned factory with a Wal-Mart, is an asshole. >>

Not at all.  I respected her.  She had a short-term plan to realize immediate community benefits and she  acted on it promptly and effectively.

<<Do you really think her goal was to enrich Wal-Mart and help it exploit the people in her community? >>

See my answer to your last question.

<<On the other hand, Alderman Joe Moore, seems clear to me from his comments in the episode, wanted to keep Wal-Mart jobs out of Chicago, he wanted to keep business and the creation of jobs away because he believed it would be bad for his community.>>

Moore may have been shafted by the producers of the video.  There may have been parts of his case that were just left out by design.  This is always the problem when you rely on agitprop for your understanding of a situation.  However, it's possible too that Moore was a man without a plan and without an alternative vision.  Merely opposing Wal-Mart does not automatically confer wisdom, sagacity or even common sense on anyone.

Since this is agitprop, you should consider the idea, actually pretty basic, that the propagandists chose their examples very, very carefully.  Joe Moore may not have been the most intelligent and articulate  Wal-Mart opponent to have interviewed.  The actual location of that particular store may not have been the worst place in America to put a Wal-Mart into.  All Wal-Marts are not equally bad for all communities. It might even be that for this community, for this location, for these people, Wal-Mart was a positive development.  That does not change the overall position on Wal-Mart generally.  For the location in question, Wal-Mart's battle was already won.  That location and that battle could have been cherry-picked for various factors - - mainly to set an example, the conclusions of which could be transported into other Wal-Mart battles, the ones that are still on-going.  Those are the battles that Wal-Mart needs to win, those are the battles this fascist agitprop shit was really made for.  So that in those battles, the arguments of the "Potemkin Village" Wal-Mart can be unthinkingly applied:  Wal-Mart good, opponents ass-holes, Wal-Mart good, opponents ass-holes.

<<Yet, oddly, they never mentioned class, and spent a good portion of the episode with a young woman who was clearly not one of the upper class rich, and who benefited from and was even glad to work at Wal-Mart. So, by pointing out that someone not rich benefited from the presence of a Wal-Mart in her community, defending her interests, attacking the interests of the folks who hate Wal-Mart, Penn & Teller were engaging in class warfare? >>

Uh, Prince, the "benefit" (wage slavery) was conferred upon a member of the working class.  Get over it.  This is how wage-slavery usually works.  When capitalists open a new enterprise and offer low-paying McJobs to the desperate and destitute local population, the would-be wage slaves lining up  in droves for the few low-paying jobs available do not usually bear illustrious family names like DuPont, Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, Bouvier, Mellon and Astor.  They are, like this single mother of colour, members of the underclass.  Surprised?  Well, you shouldn't be.  That's just how it works.  The DuPont family has actually contributed none of its members to the work-force on the Wal-Mart floor.

<<More like, you seemed to start with the fascism bit . . . >>

And how else would one describe fascst agitprop?

<< . . . and then pulled out of the air this class warfare claim >>

Imagine - - the owners of the company are union-busters, but class warfare has nothing to do with it.  They are altruistically crusading for low prices for the common man and woman.

<<and "Hitlerian in its ridicule" stuff. >>

Yeah, guess you got me there.  I should have just called it "Hitlerian" without giving any reason why I thought it was Hitlerian.

<<Or in other words, you went from point A (fascism) to point B (fascism). Circular. >>

Maybe I can help you here.  Go to the blackboard and grab some chalk.  Write a big letter "A" on one side of the board and a "B" on the other.  Join them as directly as possible, i.e. go from point A to point B.  You have a straight line.  Not a circle.  Remedial geometry 101.  Hope that helped.  You're welcome.

<<And oddly enough, it results in more money in the pockets of the people who work the jobs created and who save money there. Class warfare by benefiting the lower "classes". >> 

I think we already discussed this so-called incongruity between the concept of the class war and the "benefits" reaped by the wage-slaves.  Yes, it's class war, and yes it does, through the miracle of economic exploitation, grudgingly put a few cents into the pockets of the exploited workers who take the "job" out of economic desperation.  The class war aspect is not that these poor exploited souls get paid a few bucks but that the wages they deserve are being held back by a greedy and overnourished parasitic class of owners and senior executives growing fat off the labour of their wage slaves.


<<And oddly enough, it results in more money in the pockets of the people . . . who save money there.>>

Who are probably also being grossly overcharged on what they buy, the difference going straight into the mouths of the parasitic owners and merchants who run the shop.  And their ad agencies.  But that too is class warfare, since the savings in the pockets of the customers, probably on the whole more affluent than the store workers, comes straight out of what the store workers oughtta be earning.  They get the dregs while the bosses and even the customers are skimming off them.

<<But I have to say, I was not aware promoting one's interests was warfare.>>

Class warfare is the sum total of thousands of skirmishes like this one between Wal-Mart and its employees and adversaries.  The Penn and Teller video isn't the whole war, obviously.

<<Anyway, that you're reacting to the videos doesn't lessen the fact that you're also clearly trying to stir-up emotional dislike of the episode and Wal-Mart.>>

Nice try but the fact remains, I'm reacting to the video, the video isn't reacting to me.  It was made with intent and purpose, both within the context of the class war.

[Universe Prince]

Sending a few truckloads of supplies is a cheap and easy stunt that provides short term relief that in all probability was superfluous.

Or it was a genuine response to a disaster and people in need. But feel free to prove that food, water and supplies did not need to be delivered in the days after Katrina hit. I'd love to see you try.

FEMA's responsibilities were infinitely bigger.

Not sure I buy that, but frankly, they still screwed up.

You seem to be the only one with a problem understanding that (1) maximizing profit and senior executive compensation is the primary reason behind Wal-Mart's or any business' opposition to unions and (2) there are many ways the cost of unionization could be absorbed, starting with senior executive compensation and perks and the profit margin, therefore (3) the costs of unionization need not impact directly on the Wal-Mart customer unless the greedy bastard owners insist on keeping their fists firmly clenched over an unfair share of the company profits.

Actually I get all of that. But I just don't agree that Wal-Mart is going to damage its future ability to attract skilled management by cutting into their salaries and benefits or cut into their 3.5% profit margin. But by all means, please show me the mountain of evidence that indicates Wal-Mart would do this.

You don't need to be an economist, just a businessman, or failing that, just someone with average to above-average skills in recognizing how the real world works, to realize that everything is negotiable, including rents, including the cost of supplies, including interest, including even local (municipal) taxes and the availability of tax breaks.

Before they were going to squeeze, now they're going to negotiate. I'm sure they would negotiate, but I have doubts that would be enough to prevent them from raising prices.

Since this is agitprop,

Except that it isn't.

Uh, Prince, the "benefit" (wage slavery) was conferred upon a member of the working class.  Get over it.  This is how wage-slavery usually works.  When capitalists open a new enterprise and offer low-paying McJobs to the desperate and destitute local population, the would-be wage slaves lining up  in droves for the few low-paying jobs available do not usually bear illustrious family names like DuPont, Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, Bouvier, Mellon and Astor.  They are, like this single mother of colour, members of the underclass.  Surprised?  Well, you shouldn't be.  That's just how it works.  The DuPont family has actually contributed none of its members to the work-force on the Wal-Mart floor.

So offering jobs to poor people is "wage slavery"? A woman who was having trouble finding work is able to get a job with Wal-Mart, and I'm supposed to think this is some form of enslavement? Your argument reminds me of a Groucho Marx joke. "What makes wage slaves? Wages!"

Imagine - - the owners of the company are union-busters, but class warfare has nothing to do with it.  They are altruistically crusading for low prices for the common man and woman.

Again you try to make a false either/or situation. Either it's class warfare or else it's an altruistic crusade. The reality being that it's neither one.

Maybe I can help you here.  Go to the blackboard and grab some chalk.  Write a big letter "A" on one side of the board and a "B" on the other.  Join them as directly as possible, i.e. go from point A to point B.  You have a straight line.  Not a circle.  Remedial geometry 101.  Hope that helped.  You're welcome.

Go to the blackboard and grab some chalk. Write "fascism" on the board, and put under that a small dot. Now draw the simplest possible shape that both starts at the dot and ends at the dot. A circle. Not a straight line. Now label your "starting" dot A and your "ending" dot B. Hope that helped. You're welcome.

Who are probably also being grossly overcharged on what they buy, the difference going straight into the mouths of the parasitic owners and merchants who run the shop.

Grossly overcharged? Are you kidding? No, of course not, but it's funny anyway. I suppose next you'll tell me the dollar stores are overcharging.

But that too is class warfare, since the savings in the pockets of the customers, probably on the whole more affluent than the store workers, comes straight out of what the store workers oughtta be earning.  They get the dregs while the bosses and even the customers are skimming off them.

More affluent? So... you think Wal-Mart doesn't pay enough to allow it's workers to shop there? Have you ever been to a Wal-Mart?

Nice try but the fact remains, I'm reacting to the video, the video isn't reacting to me.  It was made with intent and purpose, both within the context of the class war.

No one is saying you're not reacting to the video. As I said before, that you're reacting to the videos doesn't lessen the fact that you're also clearly trying to stir-up emotional dislike of the episode and Wal-Mart.

[Xavier_Onassis]

As I said before, that you're reacting to the videos doesn't lessen the fact that you're also clearly trying to stir-up emotional dislike of the episode and Wal-Mart.

=================================
And that is somehow illegal? Immoral?

Isn't Penn & Teller's thing emotional dislike of hippies and others as well?

Is everything about Wal*Mart likable and above reproach?
 Perhaps they should be canonized, hunh?