On a related note, if WalMart manages to “drive mom and pop stores out of business” by selling affordable groceries to under-served urban neighborhoods, that’s what I would call a triumph for human progress.And our friend Ethan asks, slightly astonished despite himself:
Yeah, it's great, because then mom and pop can join the ranks of the "under-served," too. And, hey, maybe one day every single person in the country can be underpaid by the same company that's the only one they can afford to buy necessities from. Honestly, do people like him really think that some people are "under-served" and others aren't for just no reason at all?IOZ answers:
Yes.Like a lot of collegegraduates and newyorktimesreaders, Matthew Yglesias has picked up a vague language of socioeconomy, a sort of loose vocabulary cobbled together from the business press, Brad Delong, and Nobel Paul Krugman, recipient of the Rhinegolden Nordic Memorial Guilty Conscience Pseudoprize for Piggybank Essayism. Perhaps he read a Michael Lewis book somewhere along the way. He is self-convinced, because he is able to deploy a somewhat particularized economics argot, that he understands "economics," but like so many collegegraduates who have never worked in a business, who took Econ 101 but never learned what to them appears a lower-order, secretarial skill like, oh, say, the basic principles of accounting, the actual movement and recording of money continues to elude him. He understands graphs, but not budgets; He has opinions on quantitative easing, but give him a deal, a couple of partners, some income streams, some shared expenses, and a blank Excel sheet, and he will stare in mute incomprehension. Don't forget to do the cash rec, Matty!
So, to the world's Yglesiasses: yes, some people and communties are "under-served" for effectively no reason at all. Oh, they understand that some kind of vague tidal forces of inequality and inequity are at work; especially in minority communities, they may prattle half-sympathetically about, oh, the legacy of Jim Crow or whatever. The end of manufacturing and the decline of labor does not especially concern them. What these people need are the new skills to win the future of the economy today for the children of tomorrow. Ethan bitterly jokes that "every single person in the country can be underpaid by the same company that's the only one they can afford to buy necessities from," but that's being unkind to Yglesias. Only half of the country will be underpaid by the same company that's the only one they can afford to shop at. The quarter of the country above that will get paid to update their twats, and the quarter above that will work for Goldman.
The so-called mom-and-pop model of manufacture, wholesale, distribution, and retail that WalMart et al. have destroyed did make a pound of sugar or a pair of jockey shorts a bit more expensive relatively speaking, but because actual human beings were employed throughout the entire nodal system of production, distribution, warehousing, wholesaling, further distribution, and retail sales, the modest relative increase in final retail price could be offset by the distribution of income throughout the entire system. I guess in the eyes of a DC think-tank scumbag this whole thing reeks of "inefficiency," but a world of Ben Franklin general stores seems to me to be far preferable to a world in which there are a dozen Walton family billionaires and a billion people of WalMart. To an Yglesiass, there is no correlation between these things, obviously; that the destruction of traditional modes of production and distribution in order to sell more crap for less has not only lowered prices, but lowered income, driving more people to buy the cheapest shit possible, causing corporate retail to behave in an even more predatory manner when it comes to pricing by making up for in volume what it loses on the margins, is totally beyond his capacity to understand. In part, this is because he is an privileged, oblivious dickhead whose encounters with the less fortunate consist of watching The Wire and yipping about social realism. In equal part, this is because for all his superbandant recent discovery of the obfuscatory language of economics, the most complex encounters he's ever had personally with money consist of balancing a checkbook and filing a 1040EZ.
To return to those "under-served communities," I think it is worth noting that Jim-Crow style apartheid was a crude and blunt instrument, and that the twined drug-war penal system and "service" economy economic segregation are no less destructive but far more resistent and resilient.
44 comments:
"Mom-and-pop model of manufacture, wholesale, distribution and retail?"
Are you talking about Brooklyn, dude?
What do you need, Neo?
Pickles. Lots of pickles.
maybe one day every single person in the country can be underpaid by the same company that's the only one they can afford to buy necessities from. Let's hope so. Monopoly is the goal of every single capitalist on earth. And, if successful, this king of all capital will proceed to keep the population functioning at the lowest level possible consistent with avoiding a humanitarian crisis just like states do.
drip
Also, Muslims, Wal-Mart, within the city limits...that ain't legal.
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2011/02/tomorrow-protest-the-ground-zero-mosque-1pm-49-51-chambers-street-.html
PUNISHING THE WOODCHUCK.
Best brutalization of the Woodchuck that's been on this site so far. That fat, evil, wormy, slimy little piece of shit.
Echoing Nonny at 11:34.
It occasionally shocks me to realize that advocates of Reaganomics with a side order of hand-wringing are now considered economically leftist. That's what three decades of the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama ratchet gets you.
Did Matty see his shadow yesterday? I didn't.
You know, you would think a harvardphilosophymajor would understand that just as a matter of decorum you should not pose as if you understand a discipline when you're so utterly ignorant of it that you don't even understand which of its premises can and can't be challenged. I mean, gun at your head, fat fuck: What are the macro- and micro-economic benefits of efficiency? What are we measuring by "growth"?
Yipes....
http://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/33236410416906240
You said "argot" hehe. Is that jargon for jargon? I wanna see a post all in Polari.
I'm gonna lie and say that this is, almost word for word, the post I originally wrote, but then accidentally erased, which is why I ended up posting what I posted.
demize!, you just reminded me of a trainer at my last job who would go on and on about how when we were talking to clients we should "avoid internal jargon" and consistently pronounced it like the name of an alien from a 50s sci-fi movie: jar gone. There were a lot of muted phones on those conference calls, I tell you.
IOZ and like-minded commenters, would you be willing to admit that this is an empirical issue? Either Walmart increases or it decreases income inequality, and this is something you're more likely to discover with data than with narrative. My prior had been that, since the upper class does not generally shop at Walmart, its effect on inequality is likely to be salutary.
I'll take it as read that this tentatively-held belief exposes me as a moral monster residing somewhere in the vicinity of Yglesias and Pol Pot.
a billion people of WalMart.
You call folks out on classism often enough that I feel I ought to return the favor here. God don't make no trash, as it says on a number of (regretfully) unironic T-shirts.
Rowz,
That smells suspiciously like the scientific method. Around here we prefer to use literary tools and movie quotes to justify our preconceived notions about what benefits "the poor". Most likely you are a racist.
As an empirical matter, the largest study of which I am aware comes from the Minneapolis Fed, which says effectively that it is impossible to ascertain the net impact of WalMart (specifically) on community economies, that the measured results are negligible within the limited framework of the study, and that--pay attention to the man behind the curtain--nothing about the study should be in any way construed as suggesting any sort of causal relationship about anything at all anywhere ever one way or another.
On the other hand, real wages have stagnated and declined in America for more than thirty years in service of the service economy.
Ben Franklin--is that a shout-out to the general store of IOZ's college daze?
we can all look forward to that glorious day in the future when nutrient solution is delivered intravenously to the poor, very efficiently.
I know this isn't really the place to talk policy, but I can't resist.
Even if I were to concede that the power of labor has declined due to nefarious interventions on the part of corporations and governments, that's still not the whole story. Part of why unions used to be more powerful is that American manufacturers dominated the scene. Most people, when given the choice between a $10 widget bought at Walmart and made in China and a $20 widget sold by Mom&Pop and built in the factory down the road, are going to buy the cheaper product.
You can argue that most people are shortsighted boobs who would mortgage their futures and their livelihoods for a few cheap trinkets from the local big box store, but it doesn't change the fact that people generally prefer to pay less than to pay more.
How would you reassert the power of labor and restore manufacturing to its former percentage of the American workforce? Mandate union shops? Prohibitively high tariffs? Limit the use of technology in factories? None of these seem particularly anarchist-y
Not "H&R Cockblock"? Really, IOZ.
j r,
Its not about policy. Its about context. For instance, your second paragraph may as well be a bullet point on matty's cheatsheet when he writes his response.
I'll make it easy for you: Whats the simplest way to increase profit? Reduce labor costs...but throw in an increase of production and it is a veritable widget CEO wetdream. Low and behold, thats exactly what happened.
We are more productive than we were when "American manufacturers dominated the scene", but we're getting more fucked.
So let's split the difference and say that had unions not been systematically exterminated, our widget would cost $15 (due to increases in production alone). Based on the inevitable real income rising (due in no small part to our fictional unions) we would have hardly noticed the $5 dollar difference.
As far as your "policy" suggestions, the answer is you can't get there from here, bro.
my smallish brain seems unable to process the following:
"since the upper class does not generally shop at Walmart, its effect on inequality is likely to be salutary"
can someone explain how that is?
d. mantis,
I think that you are over-stating my point. I am making a set of simple empirical observations:
-Other countries have caught up to America in their manufacturing capability.
-Goods flow across borders more easily than labor and capital even more so.
-People prefer cheap imported goods to more expensive domestic ones.
Taking all that as a given, the only way to "split the difference" would be to enact a series of protectionist policies. As protectionism presupposed the nation state, how does one advocate on behalf of labor while upholding a belief in anarchy?
Now maybe you could say, "I don't advocate for domestic labor. I advocate for all labor." That, however, still presupposes some power with the ability to stop the free movement of capital, enforce minimum wages and worker protections and limit the flow of goods around the world.
ever notice how anonymous or unlinked people often pipe up to defend walmart when the opportunity presents itself? funny, that
"That, however, still presupposes some power with the ability to stop the free movement of capital, enforce minimum wages and worker protections and limit the flow of goods around the world."
Why is the fact that the free-flowing-flux of goods and capital rests entirely upon historical exercices of the same State power omitted from that sentence?
Excellent post, but ultimately tens of thousands of sophomoric Economist readers are going to buy MattY's tale, and not one will wonder if he has ever tried to get a service job or understands how that kind of work hollows out the human spirit.
IOZ, I think it's possible that you meant "twinned" rather than "twined" in the last paragraph. Just a heads up, not trying to be a douche.
I love that JR thinks IOZ has policy proposals. Sweetheart, look up anarchy in the dictionary. This is deeeescriptive, not preeescriptive.
well, how about this? I mean, you have to believe that is working about as much as you believe America exists, but still. can't hurt.
Does Wal*Mart sell grenade launchers?
j r--
As for the part about mandating unions, it's not necessary to do that. If all workers were to combine as a class, at the national and international level, business would have no choice but to accede to their demands. No need to even institutionalize or structure it.
That goes to the second point, as well, regarding the force to set minimum standards of health, labor, production, et cetera.
If you recognize that the fundamental imbalance of trade issues are a direct result of the state, then you see the issue differently. The state functions to protect the interest of the state through laws and regulations which create the imbalance you see. The state, then, is the problem.
But if international labor demands its due, outside of the purview of state power, then its a movement of individuals for themselves. No need to presuppose government as necessary for these things. Individuals have more power than any state.
No, it's not really policy. But like la Rana said, it's descriptive versus prescriptive. That's theory for you.
7:54 nonny: "Does Wal*Mart sell grenade launchers?"
I am 11:10 nonny. You can trust me. I buy my shotgun shells at Wal-mart, by the case[1]. They also have pickles. They also have "country ham". I don't buy either there. In fact ammo is all I buy at Wal-mart.
[1] I do love me some local free range quail. I should mail mr. hostman a recipe for Foody Friday.
Mom-and-pop manufacturing? I suppose it exists, but the image in my mind was always one of "satanic mills" dominated by economies of scale (though Kevin Carson argues that was an artifact of state intervention). Small businesses and self-employment is correlated with being poor across nations.
I second the comment on empiricism. There's been stagnancy and inequality, but that has happened in a number of developed countries (with the extreme gains to top 1% financiers more particularly American). Scott Sumner's argument is that the nations which subsequently performed best where the ones that did the most neoliberal reforming.
I think Yglesias would say people are underserved because they are poor, and the solution is to increase EITC and remove regressive cartelizing regulations on barbering dentists.
I do remember having some dislike of Wal-Mart when I worked retail. They were pushing for an increase in the minimum wage, the reason being that their employees started at a higher wage than their rival. Target (where I worked) gave a low initial wage, which was increased after a month or so whereas Wal-Mart kept their hires at the higher initial wage for longer. So I knew they were trying to fuck us over and buddying up with CPAC (Yglesias' employer) in the process. Baptists and bootleggers.
My reading comprehension must be as fucked as my 401k because I don't see how "Small businesses and self-employment is correlated with being poor across nations" is equal to "richer countries have a smaller self-employed share of the labor force than poorer ones."
For fucks sake, the difference is in the distribution of wealth, not the definition of a nations wealth.
Christ on a bicycle, lets just all review La Ranas post and go look at some porn.
Does this mean I can't like The Wire anymore?
"I love that JR thinks IOZ has policy proposals. Sweetheart, look up anarchy in the dictionary. This is deeeescriptive, not preeescriptive."
Yes, and speaking purely in descriptive terms anarchy and unionism are incompatible. A labor negotiation is a big game of prisoner's dilemma. Every worker knows that he gets the best deal through solidarity, but he also knows that if enough others defect he gets nothing.
Without labor laws, and by extension a government to enforce them, unions generally don't stand a chance. I know this, cause it's kind of what I do for a living.
You're vision of anarchy seems to be the police taking an extended lunch break. Everything the same, but no law. Thats how you get to the conclusion that "unions don't stand a chance."
against what?
The origin of your problems is the same as your proposed solution.
Somebody hasn't heard of Anarcho-Syndicalism.
Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
More stupid romanticizing of the "mom and pop" sector, most of which offers far higher prices, worse working conditions and lower wages than Wal-Mart. See what your Palestinian corner market is paying these days.
Matty's analysis sounds an awful lot like your standard-issue right-libertarian defense of WalMart. What it conveniently leaves out is that part of what accounts for the lower prices are govt subsidies. So, basically, the "Mom and Pops" get the privilege of paying for WalMart to come to town and put them out of business. See, e.g., David Cay Johnston's Free Lunch.
Without labor laws, and by extension a government to enforce them, unions generally don't stand a chance. I know this, cause it's kind of what I do for a living.
Without mercenary forces, and by extension a government to employ them, most Empires don't stand a chance. I know this, cause it's kind of what I do for a living.
--Erik Prince
My "corner Palestinian market" is currently being harassed by Israeli gunships. So parking is kinda iffy right now.
vbigfree classified ad posting blogging and backlinks generator Best online games and online forum
www.m11.in
www.classified.m11.in
www.classifieds.m11.in
www.blog.m11.in
www.games.m11.in
www.forum.m11.in
www.backlinks.m11.in
www.m11in.blogspot.com
www.noregclassified.co.cc
nice blog
very very nice
blog have written.
Goodness, there's a great deal of useful info in this post!
free games
Post a Comment