Down-loading music from Walmart

[Jazzmoose]

Um...just out of curiosity of course, which Target do your wives frequent?

[Ron S]

Um...just out of curiosity of course, which Target do your wives frequent? 

I can't tell you exactly where it is, but I CAN tell you that this DVD was filmed there:

[j lee]

So... you think minimum wage is communistic. Okay... that's your right. Your attitude towards those with Ph.D's who fight for this kind of stuff is a very negative one.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm grateful for the social reformers of the past and present that do everything they can to make it possible for those you refer to (obese uselessness of many of their patrons) to have a decent wage.

I also have news for you. People can't really live on the minimum wage anymore. I'm sure you figure they're living it up already.

Maybe I should change my attitude. Maybe something like, "Fuck the weak; they're stupid, ugly, fat and worthless. They don't deserve to be as happy as I do; since I'm superior."

No... I wouldn't think like that for all the money in the world.

I think it's the epitome of arrogance for one person or group of people to dictate what another's "minimum" wage ought to be -- and to thereby attempt to control or limit both the sorts of jobs and the quantity of jobs from which another person may be able to select.

One person may find a job at $5.00 an hour, at a location five minutes from her house, a better deal than a job at $10.00 an hour, involving a difficult commute, necessity of an automobile, etc. Who am I, or anyone else, to decide the price at which another woman or man may sell his or her labor?

In other words, start a thread, dudes -- and stop the crude, inchoate insults. The Austrian School of Economics is not exactly an unknown subject, so perhaps it's time to stop flinging sand and sucking thumbs and read a few books, if you find the concepts difficult or my position unorthodox. von Mises's _Human Action_ is a great place to start, and it's available for free in PDF at at least one easy-to-find website. Or, if cartoons are your thing, http://www.jonathangullible.com/mmedia/Phi...glish_music.swf is always good -- you can watch with your kids.

The chicks can stay, and I hope that the next time I visit this thread they will have become even frothier and more alluring. Er...you know, time-preference, subjective value -- I mean, the women have the right to remain.

[AfricaBrass]

So... you think minimum wage is communistic. Okay... that's your right. Your attitude towards those with Ph.D's who fight for this kind of stuff is a very negative one.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm grateful for the social reformers of the past and present that do everything they can to make it possible for those you refer to (obese uselessness of many of their patrons) to have a decent wage.

I also have news for you. People can't really live on the minimum wage anymore. I'm sure you figure they're living it up already.

Maybe I should change my attitude. Maybe something like, "Fuck the weak; they're stupid, ugly, fat and worthless. They don't deserve to be as happy as I do; since I'm superior."

No... I wouldn't think like that for all the money in the world.

I think it's the epitome of arrogance for one person or group of people to dictate what another's "minimum" wage ought to be -- and to thereby attempt to control or limit both the sorts of jobs and the quantity of jobs from which another person may be able to select.

One person may find a job at $5.00 an hour, at a location five minutes from her house, a better deal than a job at $10.00 an hour, involving a difficult commute, necessity of an automobile, etc. Who am I, or anyone else, to decide the price at which another woman or man may sell his or her labor?

In other words, start a thread, dudes -- and stop the crude, inchoate insults. The Austrian School of Economics is not exactly an unknown subject, so perhaps it's time to stop flinging sand and sucking thumbs and read a few books, if you find the concepts difficult or my position unorthodox. von Mises's _Human Action_ is a great place to start, and it's available for free in PDF at at least one easy-to-find website. Or, if cartoons are your thing, http://www.jonathangullible.com/mmedia/Phi...glish_music.swf is always good -- you can watch with your kids.

The chicks can stay, and I hope that the next time I visit this thread they will have become even frothier and more alluring. Er...you know, time-preference, subjective value -- I mean, the women have the right to remain.

I understand your argument in theory, but theory doesn't match real life. You suggest that someone will take a job at half the pay rate because it's closer, etc... but can you really live on $5 hour? That's my question. The problem is that there will always be someone who's willing to work for less than you are. I see it happening all the time.

How is it arrogant that I support keeping the playing field fair?

So you insult me by suggesting that I read a few books. That's fine, but will the books give me good rationale to not care about the welfare of others.

I'm sorry if I was a jerk to you, but I'm tired of seeing business models played out at the expense of people's lives.

I appreciate the idea of self ownership. I really do. I'm no fan of big government; but as long as we view using people as something we can just use, I can't support what you suggest. When people believe that always treating each other with respect and kindness is the way to be, then I'll see no need for the minimum wage.

[catesta]

I've found that walmart.com was the best source for a recent purchase of all of the Pete Johnson and most of the Ammons Chronological Classics.  It's a fact that they have one  of the best inventories of this label available and at a low cost.

Walmart's "damaging business model" is as such only if one believes that people are entitled to such things as minimum wages (determined by "smart people" with like, uh, Ph.D.s and stuff, note), union "representation," and the like -- I don't agree with such egalitarian, communistic principles, and if Walmart were not already supported/propped up by various strata of government (that is, by taxes upon my own revenues), it would be a slam dunk to support their efficient business model.

I'm not a consumer of their downloads -- but I think it's a propos to offer an opposing viewpoint to what I think is an illiterate dismissal of walmart.com.  FWIWIMO their brick-and-mortar stores are a horror, from the regimented, abhorrent treatment of their employees down to the obese uselessness of many of their patrons.

And of course, walmart.com and the brick-and-mortar Walmarts are two distinct and separate entities...

No shit.

Wal-Mart is Wal-Mart.

[j lee]

I understand your argument in theory, but theory doesn't match real life. You suggest that someone will take a job at half the pay rate because it's closer, etc... but can you really live on $5 hour? That's my question. The problem is that there will always be someone who's willing to work for less than you are. I see it happening all the time.

How is it arrogant that I support keeping the playing field fair?

So you insult me by suggesting that I read a few books. That's fine, but will the books give me good rationale to not care about the welfare of others.

I'm sorry if I was a jerk to you, but I'm tired of seeing business models played out at the expense of people's lives.

I appreciate the idea of self ownership. I really do. I'm no fan of big government; but as long as we view using people as something we can just use, I can't support what you suggest. When people believe that always treating each other with respect and kindness is the way to be, then I'll see no need for the minimum wage.

Thank you for your civility, AfricaBrass -- I had not just the intention of insulting you when I suggested that the insults flung my way (not just by you) were the result of, for example, playground primitivism and lack of education (defined autocratically by me as having read the right books). It's certainly my opinion that the unintended consequences of well-meaning concern for others can be dire indeed, and that a properly ethical world-view demands a willingness to let others choose for themselves their own paths -- precisely because the consequences of making choices for others (whether it is setting an arbitrary minimum wage or determining in which apartment one may live) can't be determined with any more certainty than Pretty Pony to show in the 3:10 race. Statistically, sure, one may come out ahead some days on the ponies, behind on others, but the stakes are too high when one bets on someone's ability to feed themselves or their kin -- I don't think any man should gamble on the life of another, and I think that's exactly what's happening when one interferes with the contracts another man may or may not agree to. There's a lot to be criticized in the way Walmart deals with its contractors, but I think the criticism should be more sharply aimed than at the free-market, as concept, itself.

I'm in no way suggesting that $5.00/hour (or whatever number the federal minimum wage is) is sufficient for most people, let alone the classic, "feeding a family of four" or what-have-you. But *even in practice* I don't see how it is possible that a company could find employees willing to work for an unacceptable wage, unless that wage *were* acceptable to those selling in a free manner their labor. In the U.S. the problem is compounded by the fact that there are diverse regions with different "costs of living" (as though this were something determinable), and further compounded when one refers to, for example, the classic arguments against expelling, for example, illegal migrant farm or restaurant workers -- namely, that they're willing to do the "dirty work" for lower wages than the U.S.'s own citizens.

My point has everything to do with the implausibility that an outside observer, however armed with statistical records and data of all manner, can determine what is the correct minimum price of labor -- how *can*, even the most educated, the most astute observer possibly "level the playing field" from *outside* the field in which his or her objects play? It's not just a theoretical point, but it's a practical one as well -- as in, how does one do it? And how does one know one is doing it right? After all, resources being scarce and all, if one fixes prices at a certain point, rather than another, the net result is that jobs are *lost*, exported, mechanized, etc. A major problem is that the authors of such-and-such a critical price are *not* accountable for their mistake -- but those on the ground, in fact, suffer dearly for their incompetence. I'm not willing to set the correctness of an official price-setter's information against an individual's well-being, and I think that's the core of the issue between us, respect though I do that one may be trying to *help* level in the best of intentions what is a rough, mutable field.

There's obviously a lot of complexity in the current US situation, and I'm not competent to unravel what's going on. But one thing seems certain to me (and, as I've indicated, I'm not exactly a solitary voice in the wilderness on this point): we *can't* determine what the standard, minimum, de facto "living wage" *is* -- it's sheerly impossible! It's proven every day that when a migrant worker subsists on far less per diem than a US national, this notion that a living wage is in fact subjective and relative. "Living wage" is completely relative to various other subjective decisions the author of a wage contract has already made -- for example, how far from his or her jobsite he or she is willing to live, with what degree of privacy he or she is willing to live, with what amenities. That *alone* is enough to convince me that any attempt to establish standards in this region is counterproductive, at best, and, at worst, authoritarian.

There are, needless to say, a few other points to be made (and liminal cases to be considered: what about all of those restaurant FOH cats who depend on tips to make their bread? Most I know, and I've been there myself, wouldn't have it any other way!), but let me end on a note which I'm sure we can all agree upon: namely, that when an institution like Walmart conspires with the government to the effect of receiving benefits which aren't accorded smaller companies, the playing field is grossly uneven, to the detriment of us all. To me, that's the more serious issue regarding Walmart and our current dear heads of state.

Edited February 26, 2005 by j lee

[j lee]

No shit.

Wal-Mart is Wal-Mart.

Duh.

[king ubu]

so this thread boils down to the fact that walmart is communist, or did i get something wrong here?

got a good laugh...

[Soul Stream]

imho, i don't see the difference between a walmart, target, best buy, home depot, lowes, petsmart, circuit city, mcdonalds, wendy's, taco bell, chilis, and on and on.

mass stuff to stuff the masses. not sure there's anything wrong with it. just seemed inevitable.

don't think the business practices are different among any of these, except the people at chick-fil-et get sunday off.

[Jazzmoose]

You're wrong, Soul Stream. At Target, it's no big thing to be able to qualify for company sponsored health insurance. At Wal-mart? Forget it. They'd rather have the rest of us pay more taxes so they can force their employees to get their medical care through Medical (or whatever your state has as their program for the poor to obtain medical care). There's a big difference, at least between those two.

[j lee]

walmart is communist, or did i get something wrong here? 

got a good laugh...

Check the Moose's last post -- it's about right, and I agree. Walmart is an artifact of corporatist leanings in US government which have their roots in Civil War-era American government and which, as such, are only different in quantity from the equally statist manner in which socialism conceives of the engine of progress. Broadly speaking, Walmart is a result of a government fundamentally unclear about the extent to which unfair favoring of corporations differs or does not differ from state-controlled collectivism, i.e., socialism.

And I don't see what's particularly amusing about the examination of the sources of human suffering, however sanctimonious and self-righteous some of us may become in the process (I'm speaking about myself, but also of the forms). Although, coming from a pataphysician, the notion that one may respond to honest attempts to uncover the sources of this suffering with laughter seems about right.

Edited February 26, 2005 by j lee

[Soul Stream]

Politics is something I dare even step into. No one sees eye to eye.

I also want to say, I'm anti-everything big in the retail business. I mourn the loss of mom and pop places. Locally owned businesses and retail diversity serve a purpose. More than we care to admit. And it's come around to bite us in the ass. We all wanted six pair of socks for a dollar, no matter what it meant to the worker in China or the U.S., hence the success of Walmart and other super discount retailers.

That said, I just think the philosophical differences are negligable. It's always the bottom line. Walmart has a concept that the lowest price for the consumer is their goal while enhancing their bottom line as much as they can. If that means low pay, no benefits, having foreigners work in sweatshops for 30 cents a day, ect, so be it. That's the American way, sad as it is.

If Walmart is that bad of a place to work. Don't work there. Or Unionize. If you don't like the way they do business, don't shop there. But let's face it...unions and social protest are a thing of the past. We've done this to ourselves. Like they say, If Walmart didn't exist, we would have created it.

[Soulstation1]

shit

i was just thinking about downloading james and wes for $.88

jimmy is on fire on this cut.........

ss1

anyone make a dub of jimmy smith plays fats waller??

[j lee]

shit

i was just thinking about downloading james and wes for $.88

jimmy is on fire on this cut.........

ss1

anyone make a dub of jimmy smith plays fats waller??

"JS Plays Fats" is a hot album. Did that ever come out on CD?

[Soulstation1]

i think only a japanese import and from canada

[AfricaBrass]

Thank you for your civility, AfricaBrass...

Thank you for yours, J Lee.

You make some great points in this post. I can't believe it... but I agree with your thoughts on this topic.

My only concern on this whole subject is that people aren't making it and it disturbs me when profits outweigh the employer's concern for their employees. I think/hope there's a balance that can be found.

I don't have the answers; I wish I did.

[ghost of miles]

FWIWIMO their brick-and-mortar stores are a horror, from the regimented, abhorrent treatment of their employees down to the obese uselessness of many of their patrons.

You mock people who won't buy at Wal-Mart because they pride themselves on union-busting, and then you complain about how they treat their employees on the floor? Unions do make a difference; that's one of the reasons why Wal-Mart fights them so hard. They just busted an attempt to unionize in Colorado by firing a pro-union employee and transferring six anti-union workers into the shop, then bombarding the employees several times a day with anti-union videos and talks, and not allowing a union representative to witness the election. In the two instances I know of where a Wal-Mart or a Wal-Mart dpt. did unionize (a store in Canada, and a meat dpt. in the U.S.) Wal-Mart closed the store or shut down the department. Sends a nice message to those trying to organize, don't you think?

Things like unions and the minimum wage didn't come about because employers and big businesses were swell people and the workers got along with them just fine and nobody was being exploited because of their economic desperation. They came about because greed and human nature require some modifications to our free-market system. Unfortunately, laissez-faire, 19th-century, let-the-chips-fall-where-they-may thinking really seems to have come back into vogue in the past two decades. Suffice to say that I will never give Wal-Mart a penny for anything... and I hope that their "associates" (great Orwellian word for employees, that) are one day able to win their fight to unionize. As in many other matters, looks like we're going to have to fight the battles of the early-20th-century all over again.

Edited February 26, 2005 by ghost of miles

[Big Wheel]

Or Unionize.

Try that in a union-friendly environment and see what happens.