Total Posts:36|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Consumerism - a scenario

Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2011 10:38:25 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
There's this township. It has a railway station a few miles from it. Some people of the township use horse-buggies to ferry commuters to and from the station to the town.

Now, a rich guy comes in, and starts a bus service. The horse people are out of a job. Now that the rich guy has pocketed this income, he sees that a few more people run shops selling groceries/convenience stuff. He then uses the money from his bus service, to open a mart, thus rendering the grocers moot. He has now pocketed this money too.

Now that the horsies and the grocers are out of a job, they have no choice but to emigrate in search of new jobs, and gradually, the township becomes one where almost all are just consumers, and this rich guy is the vendor.

The rich guy has done nothing but use his money to funnel the money earned by a few people into his own pocket. Considering that the poor people have hardly the resources nor the knowhow to innovate and learn new skills, and the guy with the money has both, shouldn't the rich guy use the money to create wealth, rather than just simply redistribute it, into his own pocket, in the name of consumer satisfaction and efficiency?

Why is consumerism the sole criterion? Is this kind of rampant consumerism making us to be intolerant to any inefficiency, and goading us to think that since we have the money, we are entitled to so many things irrespective of the real cost?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2011 2:31:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/4/2011 10:38:25 AM, Indophile wrote:

Now, a rich guy comes in, and starts a bus service. The horse people are out of a job.

Except

There are now new jobs from busing
More resources (humans, physical capital) are freed up to go satisfy other wants/needs

Now that the rich guy has pocketed this income, he sees that a few more people run shops selling groceries/convenience stuff. He then uses the money from his bus service, to open a mart, thus rendering the grocers moot. He has now pocketed this money too.

He can only do this if he provides a superior service (in the eyes of consumers).

Now that the horsies and the grocers are out of a job, they have no choice but to emigrate in search of new jobs, and gradually, the township becomes one where almost all are just consumers, and this rich guy is the vendor.

If a large number of people emigrate, then the rich guy's businesses will do poorly.

This is just a failure of imagination on your part though. Permanent unemployment will only come when all human wants are satisfied.

The rich guy has done nothing but use his money to funnel the money earned by a few people into his own pocket.

No. He replaced horses with CARS and made FOOD cheaper.

Considering that the poor people have hardly the resources nor the knowhow to innovate and learn new skills, and the guy with the money has both, shouldn't the rich guy use the money to create wealth, rather than just simply redistribute it, into his own pocket, in the name of consumer satisfaction and efficiency?

If the same opportunities are available to all "rich guys" or any combination of resource pools (financial groups), the expected profits will not exceed market rates of return.

Profit opportunities are sought out and eliminated. This is why they like, have cars everywhere.

Why is consumerism the sole criterion? Is this kind of rampant consumerism making us to be intolerant to any inefficiency, and goading us to think that since we have the money, we are entitled to so many things irrespective of the real cost?

Inefficient by which standard?
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2011 3:12:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/4/2011 2:31:03 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 4/4/2011 10:38:25 AM, Indophile wrote:

Now, a rich guy comes in, and starts a bus service. The horse people are out of a job.

Except

There are now new jobs from busing
More resources (humans, physical capital) are freed up to go satisfy other wants/needs
Hmm...it can be reasonably assumed that if 50 guys were needed for the horse drawn carts, 5 guys could drive the bus for the same amount of passenger traffic. 45 guys are freed up to satisfy other wants/needs, but only by finding other jobs, since driving the horse carts was enough for them. The bus owner has taken the wages of these 45 people.


Now that the rich guy has pocketed this income, he sees that a few more people run shops selling groceries/convenience stuff. He then uses the money from his bus service, to open a mart, thus rendering the grocers moot. He has now pocketed this money too.

He can only do this if he provides a superior service (in the eyes of consumers).
I was again assuming that a Walmart like setup would provide a superior service (in the eyes of consumers) than 20 different stores spread about.

Now that the horsies and the grocers are out of a job, they have no choice but to emigrate in search of new jobs, and gradually, the township becomes one where almost all are just consumers, and this rich guy is the vendor.

If a large number of people emigrate, then the rich guy's businesses will do poorly.
Only the guys that are out of a job emigrate. The consumer population is still intact. Only they are now being serviced by this rich guy. Again, I think it's a basic assumption that any society will have more consumers than service providers.

This is just a failure of imagination on your part though. Permanent unemployment will only come when all human wants are satisfied.
Again, where did I talk about permanent unemployment?

The rich guy has done nothing but use his money to funnel the money earned by a few people into his own pocket.

No. He replaced horses with CARS and made FOOD cheaper.
Yes. Consumers have benefited. But not the original service providers. The consumers have clearly influenced the replacement of the original service providers.

Considering that the poor people have hardly the resources nor the knowhow to innovate and learn new skills, and the guy with the money has both, shouldn't the rich guy use the money to create wealth, rather than just simply redistribute it, into his own pocket, in the name of consumer satisfaction and efficiency?

If the same opportunities are available to all "rich guys" or any combination of resource pools (financial groups), the expected profits will not exceed market rates of return.
It doesn't matter which rich guy comes in.

Profit opportunities are sought out and eliminated. This is why they like, have cars everywhere.

Why is consumerism the sole criterion? Is this kind of rampant consumerism making us to be intolerant to any inefficiency, and goading us to think that since we have the money, we are entitled to so many things irrespective of the real cost?

Inefficient by which standard?
Inefficient with respect to time, comfort, whatever. My point was that it's so easy for guys with capital to redistribute such shared income. Since consumers feel entitled to get more, much faster and easier for the same or lesser amount, especially when they are given a taste of this, they'll always opt for this kind of service.

One can deem it as progress, but it always eliminates the weaker, if you can call it, people so that they have to go and find other avenues of work. When they are clearly not equipped to do so.

And the rich guy benefits, just because he's a rich guy. Well, he must've worked hard for his intial capital, but then it becomes easier for him to just snap up such "inefficient distribution services", and leave those running the original system hanging out to dry.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2011 9:39:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/4/2011 3:12:16 PM, Indophile wrote:

Hmm...it can be reasonably assumed that if 50 guys were needed for the horse drawn carts, 5 guys could drive the bus for the same amount of passenger traffic. 45 guys are freed up to satisfy other wants/needs, but only by finding other jobs, since driving the horse carts was enough for them. The bus owner has taken the wages of these 45 people.

Or the wages/costs in transportation might get proportionately reduced. Its not like bus drivers really earn 10x what coach drivers earned.

If a large number of people emigrate, then the rich guy's businesses will do poorly.
Only the guys that are out of a job emigrate. The consumer population is still intact. Only they are now being serviced by this rich guy. Again, I think it's a basic assumption that any society will have more consumers than service providers.

Err... I just said this to mitigate widespread repercussions. If the store/coach market is *small*, then the effects will be negligible. But if we take your scenario to its maximal conclusion, it where the rich guy is a monopolist getting no profits because he destroys his consumer base.

Again, where did I talk about permanent unemployment?

Nowhere. You just seem to think this is inefficient for some reason. Its more efficient if people can go get other more useful jobs.

No. He replaced horses with CARS and made FOOD cheaper.
Yes. Consumers have benefited. But not the original service providers. The consumers have clearly influenced the replacement of the original service providers.

The OSPs get the shaft in this particular scenario, but if you rinse-repeat this process in every market, they benefit because everything is now cheaper for them.

It doesn't matter which rich guy comes in.

It matters that any of them COULD come in because that competition puts a hard cap on his expected profits.

Inefficient by which standard?
Inefficient with respect to time, comfort, whatever. My point was that it's so easy for guys with capital to redistribute such shared income.
How did the rich guy redistribute anything? Who's income did he take? For all we know his rate of profit is LOWER than the people he bid out. If there is any redistribution, it is a temporary wealth transfer from OSPs to the general public of which the OSPs are also members of.

Since consumers feel entitled to get more, much faster and easier for the same or lesser amount, especially when they are given a taste of this, they'll always opt for this kind of service.

And you call that "inefficient"?

One can deem it as progress, but it always eliminates the weaker, if you can call it, people so that they have to go and find other avenues of work. When they are clearly not equipped to do so.

It eliminates the weakest organization structures, not individuals. Part of maximizing profit is finding a way to make use of even the weakest or most incompetent workers.

And the rich guy benefits, just because he's a rich guy. Well, he must've worked hard for his intial capital, but then it becomes easier for him to just snap up such "inefficient distribution services", and leave those running the original system hanging out to dry.

So, at least one of your complaints is that its really easy for rich people. That MAY be true, but I don't see why its at all relevant to efficiency/organization.

I WANT there to be people who can organize capital really easily. God forbid we live in a world where massive financial groups have to persuade a thousand slobs to give up their big macs and beer.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2011 9:51:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/4/2011 9:39:50 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 4/4/2011 3:12:16 PM, Indophile wrote:

Hmm...it can be reasonably assumed that if 50 guys were needed for the horse drawn carts, 5 guys could drive the bus for the same amount of passenger traffic. 45 guys are freed up to satisfy other wants/needs, but only by finding other jobs, since driving the horse carts was enough for them. The bus owner has taken the wages of these 45 people.

Or the wages/costs in transportation might get proportionately reduced. Its not like bus drivers really earn 10x what coach drivers earned.

He would pocket the income, there would be no market forces to drive his price any lower, than just low enough to put the horse and buggies out of business. However, what you can say is that the other 45 horse and buggy guys can open their own bus line to compete against him and force him to drive down his prices. This will leave customers with more shopping money (since less was spent on transportation) and so more demand for goods for everyone in the town.


If a large number of people emigrate, then the rich guy's businesses will do poorly.
Only the guys that are out of a job emigrate. The consumer population is still intact. Only they are now being serviced by this rich guy. Again, I think it's a basic assumption that any society will have more consumers than service providers.

Err... I just said this to mitigate widespread repercussions. If the store/coach market is *small*, then the effects will be negligible. But if we take your scenario to its maximal conclusion, it where the rich guy is a monopolist getting no profits because he destroys his consumer base.

A "walmart" still has a lot of jobs it needs filled. And there is always usually some kind of demand for local goods (especially local grown food).


Again, where did I talk about permanent unemployment?

Nowhere. You just seem to think this is inefficient for some reason. Its more efficient if people can go get other more useful jobs.

Correct, all those people that lost their jobs would be able to go provide other goods. Easy thing to look at is American Farming. Our country use to have over 40% of the population working on farms. Thanks to modern technology, less than 2% of the population works on farms, and that other 38% is not unemployed, they are doing other things.

Here in Oregon, the entire Willamette valley use to be farming, but now it has turned into grape vineyards, and makes some of the best Pinot Noir in the US.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2011 11:46:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Also, 45 ex-buggy drivers can now become musicians, artists, doctors, and scientists... or you could go back to the stone age where everyone had a stupid less productive job driving a buggy or working a field.

don't hate walmart!
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2011 11:48:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/4/2011 11:46:10 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Also, 45 ex-buggy drivers can now become musicians, artists, doctors, and scientists... or you could go back to the stone age where everyone had a stupid less productive job driving a buggy or working a field.

don't hate walmart!

I hate walmart for their crappy customer service and uneducated personel, but then, when the people at walmart are paid less than the guy at Fred Meyers who goes and collects shopping carts from the parking lot, what can you expect?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2011 12:13:54 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/4/2011 11:48:31 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/4/2011 11:46:10 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Also, 45 ex-buggy drivers can now become musicians, artists, doctors, and scientists... or you could go back to the stone age where everyone had a stupid less productive job driving a buggy or working a field.

don't hate walmart!

I hate walmart for their crappy customer service and uneducated personel, but then, when the people at walmart are paid less than the guy at Fred Meyers who goes and collects shopping carts from the parking lot, what can you expect?

You just don't like them because all the poor are huddled together for you to see. If you spread them out among a lot of smaller stores, will it make the experience more palatable for you?
Fabian_CH
Posts: 232
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2011 10:00:26 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
So what we should learn frm this is - buses should never have been invented, oh the poor horses? Oh, and, of course, railroads are evil, too. You see, before the railroad came in, the horse people could offer rides everywhere - now people just use the railroad and they only get to carry them the few miles to the station.

Couple other points:
If the people of the township really didn't like the rich guy, why would they buy stuff in his marts? It's not like he has some kind of magical ability to make them buy it. The only thing he can do is offer better service for less money. Is it such a bad thing that now the poor of the township get to eat a little more for their little money? But he hasn't "created" any wealth, has he...? I think, that, we should ask the poor whose kids aren't starving now thanks to rich guy.
And of course the horsies and the grocers can now buy everything for less, too.

But of course the evil, evil rich guy shouldn't be rewarded for this achievement, no, he's just "funneling the money earned by a few people into his own pocket," after all.

And two more remarks: first, there's those things called "jobs" that happen to always be just about where there's buses and marts and stuff. You know, the ones the horsies and grocers are looking for elsewhere. Second, this would be a profoundly stupid rich guy if he ruined a place like that - where are the consumers going to come from if no one has a job? But of course, it woud be pretty much impossible to ruin the place to begin with - for the reasons above, among others.
"What are we doing? Do we want to feed a starved humanity in order to let it live? Or do we want to strangle its life in order to feed it?"
- Andrei Taganov, We The Living (Ayn Rand)
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2011 10:06:13 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/5/2011 10:00:26 AM, Fabian_CH wrote:
So what we should learn frm this is - buses should never have been invented, oh the poor horses? Oh, and, of course, railroads are evil, too. You see, before the railroad came in, the horse people could offer rides everywhere - now people just use the railroad and they only get to carry them the few miles to the station.

Couple other points:
If the people of the township really didn't like the rich guy, why would they buy stuff in his marts? It's not like he has some kind of magical ability to make them buy it. The only thing he can do is offer better service for less money. Is it such a bad thing that now the poor of the township get to eat a little more for their little money? But he hasn't "created" any wealth, has he...? I think, that, we should ask the poor whose kids aren't starving now thanks to rich guy.
And of course the horsies and the grocers can now buy everything for less, too.

But of course the evil, evil rich guy shouldn't be rewarded for this achievement, no, he's just "funneling the money earned by a few people into his own pocket," after all.

And two more remarks: first, there's those things called "jobs" that happen to always be just about where there's buses and marts and stuff. You know, the ones the horsies and grocers are looking for elsewhere. Second, this would be a profoundly stupid rich guy if he ruined a place like that - where are the consumers going to come from if no one has a job? But of course, it woud be pretty much impossible to ruin the place to begin with - for the reasons above, among others.

Did you even read the post? It doesn't seem like you got the thrust.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Fabian_CH
Posts: 232
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2011 10:07:58 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/5/2011 10:00:26 AM, Fabian_CH wrote:
Second, this would be a profoundly stupid rich guy if he ruined a place like that - where are the consumers going to come from if no one has a job? But of course, it woud be pretty much impossible to ruin the place to begin with - for the reasons above, among others.

Oh, and course if he WAS stupid enough to do that, he would then no longer be a rich guy - so, no buses anymore, no marts... Which means the horsies and grocers get to come home :) (And the poor people get to starve again - yay)
"What are we doing? Do we want to feed a starved humanity in order to let it live? Or do we want to strangle its life in order to feed it?"
- Andrei Taganov, We The Living (Ayn Rand)
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2011 10:10:58 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/4/2011 11:46:10 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Also, 45 ex-buggy drivers can now become musicians, artists, doctors, and scientists... or you could go back to the stone age where everyone had a stupid less productive job driving a buggy or working a field.

don't hate walmart!

Are you suggesting that those 45 guys could've been musicians, artists, doctors and scientists, but instead chose to be buggy drivers? Due to some innate sense of social service?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2011 10:12:27 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/5/2011 12:13:54 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/4/2011 11:48:31 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/4/2011 11:46:10 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Also, 45 ex-buggy drivers can now become musicians, artists, doctors, and scientists... or you could go back to the stone age where everyone had a stupid less productive job driving a buggy or working a field.

don't hate walmart!

I hate walmart for their crappy customer service and uneducated personel, but then, when the people at walmart are paid less than the guy at Fred Meyers who goes and collects shopping carts from the parking lot, what can you expect?

You just don't like them because all the poor are huddled together for you to see. If you spread them out among a lot of smaller stores, will it make the experience more palatable for you?

That's not the reason I don't like them. I mentioned the reason that I don't like them. Fred Meyer pays their employees a better wage (as a company policy, everyone is paid above minimum wage), and so, has better service to go with it, and the prices are not significantly higher (not enough to turn me away at least). Though right now, I shop at a Lamb's Thriftway because of its convience (a 3 minute walk from where I live), though I don't know how much they pay their employees. I still go to Freds if I'm already in their area.

I think walmarts are great places for high school students, college students, retired people that need just a little extra income, but it is not a good place to make a living to pay your bills. And as said, I find that their customer service to be greatly lacking (of course, I can only speak for stores that I've been to).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Fabian_CH
Posts: 232
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2011 10:12:53 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/5/2011 10:06:13 AM, Indophile wrote:
Did you even read the post? It doesn't seem like you got the thrust.

Oh, now that's a nice one. Instead of defending your position, you simply accuse me of... something. "not getting the thrust."

No, I did not "get the thrust," perhaps you can explain it to me.
"What are we doing? Do we want to feed a starved humanity in order to let it live? Or do we want to strangle its life in order to feed it?"
- Andrei Taganov, We The Living (Ayn Rand)
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2011 10:26:58 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/5/2011 10:12:53 AM, Fabian_CH wrote:
At 4/5/2011 10:06:13 AM, Indophile wrote:
Did you even read the post? It doesn't seem like you got the thrust.

Oh, now that's a nice one. Instead of defending your position, you simply accuse me of... something. "not getting the thrust."

No, I did not "get the thrust," perhaps you can explain it to me.

Okay. In a consumerist society, the guys with the capital have the wherewithal to streamline an inefficient distribution service, which was the livelihood of x number of people, and provide a better service, at a lesser cost, employing a fraction of those x number of people. This is good.

But now, the onus is on those laid off people to either find a new market, create a new one or basically change their skillset (which is basically finding a new market).

So, my question is, who would be the better equipped to create a new market? The guy with the capital, or the guys who have just lost their livelihood?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2011 10:37:36 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/5/2011 10:12:27 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/5/2011 12:13:54 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/4/2011 11:48:31 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/4/2011 11:46:10 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Also, 45 ex-buggy drivers can now become musicians, artists, doctors, and scientists... or you could go back to the stone age where everyone had a stupid less productive job driving a buggy or working a field.

don't hate walmart!

I hate walmart for their crappy customer service and uneducated personel, but then, when the people at walmart are paid less than the guy at Fred Meyers who goes and collects shopping carts from the parking lot, what can you expect?

You just don't like them because all the poor are huddled together for you to see. If you spread them out among a lot of smaller stores, will it make the experience more palatable for you?

That's not the reason I don't like them. I mentioned the reason that I don't like them. Fred Meyer pays their employees a better wage (as a company policy, everyone is paid above minimum wage), and so, has better service to go with it, and the prices are not significantly higher (not enough to turn me away at least). Though right now, I shop at a Lamb's Thriftway because of its convience (a 3 minute walk from where I live), though I don't know how much they pay their employees. I still go to Freds if I'm already in their area.

I think walmarts are great places for high school students, college students, retired people that need just a little extra income, but it is not a good place to make a living to pay your bills. And as said, I find that their customer service to be greatly lacking (of course, I can only speak for stores that I've been to).

I find it highly surprising that there is even any customer service to speak of! It's a highly unproductive job, mundane, having to deal with irate customers, no sense of ownership in what you are doing and is just a way to put money in your pocket (and that too not much).

And again, the existence of such stores as "walmart" creates a market for such jobs. And how do you think that is going to be productive for the humankind? If the service provided by "walmart" was actually provided by the "mom and pop stores" at least the people in those stores have a sense of self-worth, are displaying some entrepreneurship, possessing some skills that could be beneficial to human society.

I'm just saying.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Fabian_CH
Posts: 232
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2011 10:38:35 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/5/2011 10:26:58 AM, Indophile wrote:
But now, the onus is on those laid off people to either find a new market, create a new one or basically change their skillset (which is basically finding a new market).
As opposed to what?

So, my question is, who would be the better equipped to create a new market? The guy with the capital, or the guys who have just lost their livelihood?
What do you mean "better equipped"? And what do you propose?

What is "consumerism" anyway?
"What are we doing? Do we want to feed a starved humanity in order to let it live? Or do we want to strangle its life in order to feed it?"
- Andrei Taganov, We The Living (Ayn Rand)
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2011 10:42:16 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/5/2011 10:37:36 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 4/5/2011 10:12:27 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/5/2011 12:13:54 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/4/2011 11:48:31 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/4/2011 11:46:10 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Also, 45 ex-buggy drivers can now become musicians, artists, doctors, and scientists... or you could go back to the stone age where everyone had a stupid less productive job driving a buggy or working a field.

don't hate walmart!

I hate walmart for their crappy customer service and uneducated personel, but then, when the people at walmart are paid less than the guy at Fred Meyers who goes and collects shopping carts from the parking lot, what can you expect?

You just don't like them because all the poor are huddled together for you to see. If you spread them out among a lot of smaller stores, will it make the experience more palatable for you?

That's not the reason I don't like them. I mentioned the reason that I don't like them. Fred Meyer pays their employees a better wage (as a company policy, everyone is paid above minimum wage), and so, has better service to go with it, and the prices are not significantly higher (not enough to turn me away at least). Though right now, I shop at a Lamb's Thriftway because of its convience (a 3 minute walk from where I live), though I don't know how much they pay their employees. I still go to Freds if I'm already in their area.

I think walmarts are great places for high school students, college students, retired people that need just a little extra income, but it is not a good place to make a living to pay your bills. And as said, I find that their customer service to be greatly lacking (of course, I can only speak for stores that I've been to).

I find it highly surprising that there is even any customer service to speak of! It's a highly unproductive job, mundane, having to deal with irate customers, no sense of ownership in what you are doing and is just a way to put money in your pocket (and that too not much).

And again, the existence of such stores as "walmart" creates a market for such jobs. And how do you think that is going to be productive for the humankind? If the service provided by "walmart" was actually provided by the "mom and pop stores" at least the people in those stores have a sense of self-worth, are displaying some entrepreneurship, possessing some skills that could be beneficial to human society.

I'm just saying.

Customer service can be very benefitial to a company. Apple has had the top rated customer service for smart phones for 5 years running now. That is one of the reasons for the iPhone's continued success. People tend not to like waiting on hold for 40 minutes, getting someone that doesn't speak english, and then, after everything, still not have a resolution to their problem. Often, people will take an inferior product simply for the better customer service.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Fabian_CH
Posts: 232
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2011 10:44:46 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/5/2011 10:37:36 AM, Indophile wrote:
And again, the existence of such stores as "walmart" creates a market for such jobs. And how do you think that is going to be productive for the humankind? If the service provided by "walmart" was actually provided by the "mom and pop stores" at least the people in those stores have a sense of self-worth, are displaying some entrepreneurship, possessing some skills that could be beneficial to human society.

I'm just saying.
And what are the people who can earn a living thanks to Walmart supposed to do when there isn't any Walmart ut just "mom and pop stores"? Where do they take their "self-worth" from? Where is the "entrepreneurship" in charging too much for food (and where is the morality in that, for that matter...)? Skills that perpetuate poverty (by keeping prices artificially high) are "beneficial to human society"?

no sense of ownership in what you are doing
That strikes me as extremely cynical, seeing how the alternative is basically starvation.
"What are we doing? Do we want to feed a starved humanity in order to let it live? Or do we want to strangle its life in order to feed it?"
- Andrei Taganov, We The Living (Ayn Rand)
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2011 10:44:53 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/5/2011 10:42:16 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/5/2011 10:37:36 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 4/5/2011 10:12:27 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/5/2011 12:13:54 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/4/2011 11:48:31 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/4/2011 11:46:10 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Also, 45 ex-buggy drivers can now become musicians, artists, doctors, and scientists... or you could go back to the stone age where everyone had a stupid less productive job driving a buggy or working a field.

don't hate walmart!

I hate walmart for their crappy customer service and uneducated personel, but then, when the people at walmart are paid less than the guy at Fred Meyers who goes and collects shopping carts from the parking lot, what can you expect?

You just don't like them because all the poor are huddled together for you to see. If you spread them out among a lot of smaller stores, will it make the experience more palatable for you?

That's not the reason I don't like them. I mentioned the reason that I don't like them. Fred Meyer pays their employees a better wage (as a company policy, everyone is paid above minimum wage), and so, has better service to go with it, and the prices are not significantly higher (not enough to turn me away at least). Though right now, I shop at a Lamb's Thriftway because of its convience (a 3 minute walk from where I live), though I don't know how much they pay their employees. I still go to Freds if I'm already in their area.

I think walmarts are great places for high school students, college students, retired people that need just a little extra income, but it is not a good place to make a living to pay your bills. And as said, I find that their customer service to be greatly lacking (of course, I can only speak for stores that I've been to).

I find it highly surprising that there is even any customer service to speak of! It's a highly unproductive job, mundane, having to deal with irate customers, no sense of ownership in what you are doing and is just a way to put money in your pocket (and that too not much).

And again, the existence of such stores as "walmart" creates a market for such jobs. And how do you think that is going to be productive for the humankind? If the service provided by "walmart" was actually provided by the "mom and pop stores" at least the people in those stores have a sense of self-worth, are displaying some entrepreneurship, possessing some skills that could be beneficial to human society.

I'm just saying.

Customer service can be very benefitial to a company. Apple has had the top rated customer service for smart phones for 5 years running now. That is one of the reasons for the iPhone's continued success. People tend not to like waiting on hold for 40 minutes, getting someone that doesn't speak english, and then, after everything, still not have a resolution to their problem. Often, people will take an inferior product simply for the better customer service.

Of course customer service is beneficial to a company. I was talking about the people who provide that customer service, however. How is it beneficial to them, other than putting money in their pocket? What kind of skills, job satisfaction, etc. do they have, develop?

Do you seriously think such skills enhance the human condition? Make for a better society?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2011 10:48:49 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/5/2011 10:38:35 AM, Fabian_CH wrote:
At 4/5/2011 10:26:58 AM, Indophile wrote:
But now, the onus is on those laid off people to either find a new market, create a new one or basically change their skillset (which is basically finding a new market).
As opposed to what?
As opposed to being jobless.

So, my question is, who would be the better equipped to create a new market? The guy with the capital, or the guys who have just lost their livelihood?
What do you mean "better equipped"? And what do you propose?
Better equipped in the sense having the resources and the knowhow. What I propose is, it would be beneficial for the rich guy, to just not stop at the "takeover" of this service, and create a new market for the guys that've been kicked out of this service. It should be beneficial to the rich guy, if he still keeps those people working for him, instead of for somebody else.

What is "consumerism" anyway?
Consumerism is the philosophy that it's better to provide services/goods to the consumers in a faster, cheaper manner, irrespective of the costs, as long as the costs are not monetary.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2011 10:49:09 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/5/2011 10:44:53 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 4/5/2011 10:42:16 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/5/2011 10:37:36 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 4/5/2011 10:12:27 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/5/2011 12:13:54 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/4/2011 11:48:31 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/4/2011 11:46:10 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Also, 45 ex-buggy drivers can now become musicians, artists, doctors, and scientists... or you could go back to the stone age where everyone had a stupid less productive job driving a buggy or working a field.

don't hate walmart!

I hate walmart for their crappy customer service and uneducated personel, but then, when the people at walmart are paid less than the guy at Fred Meyers who goes and collects shopping carts from the parking lot, what can you expect?

You just don't like them because all the poor are huddled together for you to see. If you spread them out among a lot of smaller stores, will it make the experience more palatable for you?

That's not the reason I don't like them. I mentioned the reason that I don't like them. Fred Meyer pays their employees a better wage (as a company policy, everyone is paid above minimum wage), and so, has better service to go with it, and the prices are not significantly higher (not enough to turn me away at least). Though right now, I shop at a Lamb's Thriftway because of its convience (a 3 minute walk from where I live), though I don't know how much they pay their employees. I still go to Freds if I'm already in their area.

I think walmarts are great places for high school students, college students, retired people that need just a little extra income, but it is not a good place to make a living to pay your bills. And as said, I find that their customer service to be greatly lacking (of course, I can only speak for stores that I've been to).

I find it highly surprising that there is even any customer service to speak of! It's a highly unproductive job, mundane, having to deal with irate customers, no sense of ownership in what you are doing and is just a way to put money in your pocket (and that too not much).

And again, the existence of such stores as "walmart" creates a market for such jobs. And how do you think that is going to be productive for the humankind? If the service provided by "walmart" was actually provided by the "mom and pop stores" at least the people in those stores have a sense of self-worth, are displaying some entrepreneurship, possessing some skills that could be beneficial to human society.

I'm just saying.

Customer service can be very benefitial to a company. Apple has had the top rated customer service for smart phones for 5 years running now. That is one of the reasons for the iPhone's continued success. People tend not to like waiting on hold for 40 minutes, getting someone that doesn't speak english, and then, after everything, still not have a resolution to their problem. Often, people will take an inferior product simply for the better customer service.

Of course customer service is beneficial to a company. I was talking about the people who provide that customer service, however. How is it beneficial to them, other than putting money in their pocket? What kind of skills, job satisfaction, etc. do they have, develop?

Do you seriously think such skills enhance the human condition? Make for a better society?

As someone that worked for 1 1/2 years in customer service for Apple iPhone and iPod touch. Yes, there are valuable skills learned, such as dealing with angry people. That is a very valuable skill. Not many people can get someone take someone that says "Why the F**K is my phone not working?! This is a piece of garbage!!" to "thank you so much for helping me."

I was once, actually told by a customer, that is was personally my fault that Apple stocks were falling so much (this was in Dec 2008 or Jan 2009, when the market was crashing).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2011 10:54:23 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/5/2011 10:44:46 AM, Fabian_CH wrote:
At 4/5/2011 10:37:36 AM, Indophile wrote:
And again, the existence of such stores as "walmart" creates a market for such jobs. And how do you think that is going to be productive for the humankind? If the service provided by "walmart" was actually provided by the "mom and pop stores" at least the people in those stores have a sense of self-worth, are displaying some entrepreneurship, possessing some skills that could be beneficial to human society.

I'm just saying.
And what are the people who can earn a living thanks to Walmart supposed to do when there isn't any Walmart ut just "mom and pop stores"? Where do they take their "self-worth" from? Where is the "entrepreneurship" in charging too much for food (and where is the morality in that, for that matter...)? Skills that perpetuate poverty (by keeping prices artificially high) are "beneficial to human society"?
And what are the people who can earn a living thanks to the "mom and pop store" supposed to do when there isn't any mom and pop store, just Walmart? And all of your questions?

Well, the skills that enable you to work in "walmart" may alleviate poverty, in the sense that, yes, you have "some" money in your pocket. But is paying the bills the end all and be all of the human experience? If you have your sights set on such a low bar, well, there's no arguing with you.

no sense of ownership in what you are doing
That strikes me as extremely cynical, seeing how the alternative is basically starvation.
It may strike you however you please, but just because I'm doing a job that enables me to avoid starvation, doesn't mean I have job satisfaction. Living is not just being able to eat three square meals a day. That's not what one should aspire to.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Fabian_CH
Posts: 232
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2011 10:55:01 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/5/2011 10:48:49 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 4/5/2011 10:38:35 AM, Fabian_CH wrote:
At 4/5/2011 10:26:58 AM, Indophile wrote:
But now, the onus is on those laid off people to either find a new market, create a new one or basically change their skillset (which is basically finding a new market).
As opposed to what?
As opposed to being jobless.
You must have misunderstood. The onus is on the laid off people - as opposed to....?

Better equipped in the sense having the resources and the knowhow. What I propose is, it would be beneficial for the rich guy, to just not stop at the "takeover" of this service, and create a new market for the guys that've been kicked out of this service. It should be beneficial to the rich guy, if he still keeps those people working for him, instead of for somebody else.
And where's the problem with that? Of course that would be beneficial to the rich guy. Which is why he's probably going to do it - or not stay rich for too long, in which case there won't be any problem for long either.

What is "consumerism" anyway?
Consumerism is the philosophy that it's better to provide services/goods to the consumers in a faster, cheaper manner, irrespective of the costs, as long as the costs are not monetary.
What do you mean "irrespective of the costs"? What costs? And why would it ever be bad to provide goods and services at a lower cost? Again, what about the poor who can't afford higher costs? (just as an example)

Yo also never responded to my original answer. My points stand unrefuted. I like that :)
"What are we doing? Do we want to feed a starved humanity in order to let it live? Or do we want to strangle its life in order to feed it?"
- Andrei Taganov, We The Living (Ayn Rand)
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2011 10:57:26 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/5/2011 10:49:09 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/5/2011 10:44:53 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 4/5/2011 10:42:16 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/5/2011 10:37:36 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 4/5/2011 10:12:27 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/5/2011 12:13:54 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/4/2011 11:48:31 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/4/2011 11:46:10 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Also, 45 ex-buggy drivers can now become musicians, artists, doctors, and scientists... or you could go back to the stone age where everyone had a stupid less productive job driving a buggy or working a field.

don't hate walmart!

I hate walmart for their crappy customer service and uneducated personel, but then, when the people at walmart are paid less than the guy at Fred Meyers who goes and collects shopping carts from the parking lot, what can you expect?

You just don't like them because all the poor are huddled together for you to see. If you spread them out among a lot of smaller stores, will it make the experience more palatable for you?

That's not the reason I don't like them. I mentioned the reason that I don't like them. Fred Meyer pays their employees a better wage (as a company policy, everyone is paid above minimum wage), and so, has better service to go with it, and the prices are not significantly higher (not enough to turn me away at least). Though right now, I shop at a Lamb's Thriftway because of its convience (a 3 minute walk from where I live), though I don't know how much they pay their employees. I still go to Freds if I'm already in their area.

I think walmarts are great places for high school students, college students, retired people that need just a little extra income, but it is not a good place to make a living to pay your bills. And as said, I find that their customer service to be greatly lacking (of course, I can only speak for stores that I've been to).

I find it highly surprising that there is even any customer service to speak of! It's a highly unproductive job, mundane, having to deal with irate customers, no sense of ownership in what you are doing and is just a way to put money in your pocket (and that too not much).

And again, the existence of such stores as "walmart" creates a market for such jobs. And how do you think that is going to be productive for the humankind? If the service provided by "walmart" was actually provided by the "mom and pop stores" at least the people in those stores have a sense of self-worth, are displaying some entrepreneurship, possessing some skills that could be beneficial to human society.

I'm just saying.

Customer service can be very benefitial to a company. Apple has had the top rated customer service for smart phones for 5 years running now. That is one of the reasons for the iPhone's continued success. People tend not to like waiting on hold for 40 minutes, getting someone that doesn't speak english, and then, after everything, still not have a resolution to their problem. Often, people will take an inferior product simply for the better customer service.

Of course customer service is beneficial to a company. I was talking about the people who provide that customer service, however. How is it beneficial to them, other than putting money in their pocket? What kind of skills, job satisfaction, etc. do they have, develop?

Do you seriously think such skills enhance the human condition? Make for a better society?

As someone that worked for 1 1/2 years in customer service for Apple iPhone and iPod touch. Yes, there are valuable skills learned, such as dealing with angry people. That is a very valuable skill. Not many people can get someone take someone that says "Why the F**K is my phone not working?! This is a piece of garbage!!" to "thank you so much for helping me."
Hmm...Apple customer service == Walmart customer service? Same skillsets?

And, as an aside, is dealing with an angry person over the phone the same as dealing with one face to face? I'm not making any point with this, just curious.

I was once, actually told by a customer, that is was personally my fault that Apple stocks were falling so much (this was in Dec 2008 or Jan 2009, when the market was crashing).
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2011 11:03:12 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/5/2011 10:55:01 AM, Fabian_CH wrote:
At 4/5/2011 10:48:49 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 4/5/2011 10:38:35 AM, Fabian_CH wrote:
At 4/5/2011 10:26:58 AM, Indophile wrote:
But now, the onus is on those laid off people to either find a new market, create a new one or basically change their skillset (which is basically finding a new market).
As opposed to what?
As opposed to being jobless.
You must have misunderstood. The onus is on the laid off people - as opposed to....?
As opposed to the rich guy, who is probably better equipped to provide them a job. And earn some profit off of that too.

Better equipped in the sense having the resources and the knowhow. What I propose is, it would be beneficial for the rich guy, to just not stop at the "takeover" of this service, and create a new market for the guys that've been kicked out of this service. It should be beneficial to the rich guy, if he still keeps those people working for him, instead of for somebody else.
And where's the problem with that? Of course that would be beneficial to the rich guy. Which is why he's probably going to do it - or not stay rich for too long, in which case there won't be any problem for long either.
The problem with that is, if the rich guy doesn't do it. He just takes away those inefficient jobs, and leaves them out to dry.

What is "consumerism" anyway?
Consumerism is the philosophy that it's better to provide services/goods to the consumers in a faster, cheaper manner, irrespective of the costs, as long as the costs are not monetary.
What do you mean "irrespective of the costs"? What costs? And why would it ever be bad to provide goods and services at a lower cost? Again, what about the poor who can't afford higher costs? (just as an example)
Just as an example. Goods from China are cheap. For a reason. It isn't bad for the "consumers" when they get goods and services at a lower cost. It's the "cost" of how much it takes to actually make them cheaper.

Yo also never responded to my original answer. My points stand unrefuted. I like that :)
What original answer? I thought I responded to all of your points.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Fabian_CH
Posts: 232
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2011 11:07:37 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/5/2011 10:54:23 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 4/5/2011 10:44:46 AM, Fabian_CH wrote:
And what are the people who can earn a living thanks to Walmart supposed to do when there isn't any Walmart ut just "mom and pop stores"? Where do they take their "self-worth" from? Where is the "entrepreneurship" in charging too much for food (and where is the morality in that, for that matter...)? Skills that perpetuate poverty (by keeping prices artificially high) are "beneficial to human society"?
And what are the people who can earn a living thanks to the "mom and pop store" supposed to do when there isn't any mom and pop store, just Walmart? And all of your questions?
So basically your argument is that the mom and pop stores have the right of way and we don't need to be worrying about the rest? I'm sorry, but I find that very immoral.

Besides, there's nothing that says they can't get a job at Walmart, too. In fact, they're going to be the first employees Walmart wants, since they come in with years of experience. You get to buy stuff for less of your money, and you get a chance for a career, as opposed to sitting around in your mom and pop store till you die, with no perspective at all.

Well, the skills that enable you to work in "walmart" may alleviate poverty, in the sense that, yes, you have "some" money in your pocket. But is paying the bills the end all and be all of the human experience? If you have your sights set on such a low bar, well, there's no arguing with you.
Maybe it isn't to you. You look for satisfaction. So do I. We are extremey privileged in that way. But it's absoutely ignorant to claim that "paying bills is not the be all end all of the human experience" when there's many people who'd be glad if they could pay the bills in the first place.

But yes, if you have your sights set on a higher bar and whoever falls below it be damned, then yes, there is no arguing between us.

no sense of ownership in what you are doing
That strikes me as extremely cynical, seeing how the alternative is basically starvation.
It may strike you however you please, but just because I'm doing a job that enables me to avoid starvation, doesn't mean I have job satisfaction. Living is not just being able to eat three square meals a day. That's not what one should aspire to.
Of course that's not what one should aspire to. But if you haven't got three square meals a day, I'd like to see you aspiring to "satisfaction" rather than "food".
"What are we doing? Do we want to feed a starved humanity in order to let it live? Or do we want to strangle its life in order to feed it?"
- Andrei Taganov, We The Living (Ayn Rand)
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2011 11:11:19 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/5/2011 10:57:26 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 4/5/2011 10:49:09 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/5/2011 10:44:53 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 4/5/2011 10:42:16 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/5/2011 10:37:36 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 4/5/2011 10:12:27 AM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/5/2011 12:13:54 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 4/4/2011 11:48:31 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 4/4/2011 11:46:10 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
Also, 45 ex-buggy drivers can now become musicians, artists, doctors, and scientists... or you could go back to the stone age where everyone had a stupid less productive job driving a buggy or working a field.

don't hate walmart!

I hate walmart for their crappy customer service and uneducated personel, but then, when the people at walmart are paid less than the guy at Fred Meyers who goes and collects shopping carts from the parking lot, what can you expect?

You just don't like them because all the poor are huddled together for you to see. If you spread them out among a lot of smaller stores, will it make the experience more palatable for you?

That's not the reason I don't like them. I mentioned the reason that I don't like them. Fred Meyer pays their employees a better wage (as a company policy, everyone is paid above minimum wage), and so, has better service to go with it, and the prices are not significantly higher (not enough to turn me away at least). Though right now, I shop at a Lamb's Thriftway because of its convience (a 3 minute walk from where I live), though I don't know how much they pay their employees. I still go to Freds if I'm already in their area.

I think walmarts are great places for high school students, college students, retired people that need just a little extra income, but it is not a good place to make a living to pay your bills. And as said, I find that their customer service to be greatly lacking (of course, I can only speak for stores that I've been to).

I find it highly surprising that there is even any customer service to speak of! It's a highly unproductive job, mundane, having to deal with irate customers, no sense of ownership in what you are doing and is just a way to put money in your pocket (and that too not much).

And again, the existence of such stores as "walmart" creates a market for such jobs. And how do you think that is going to be productive for the humankind? If the service provided by "walmart" was actually provided by the "mom and pop stores" at least the people in those stores have a sense of self-worth, are displaying some entrepreneurship, possessing some skills that could be beneficial to human society.

I'm just saying.

Customer service can be very benefitial to a company. Apple has had the top rated customer service for smart phones for 5 years running now. That is one of the reasons for the iPhone's continued success. People tend not to like waiting on hold for 40 minutes, getting someone that doesn't speak english, and then, after everything, still not have a resolution to their problem. Often, people will take an inferior product simply for the better customer service.

Of course customer service is beneficial to a company. I was talking about the people who provide that customer service, however. How is it beneficial to them, other than putting money in their pocket? What kind of skills, job satisfaction, etc. do they have, develop?

Do you seriously think such skills enhance the human condition? Make for a better society?

As someone that worked for 1 1/2 years in customer service for Apple iPhone and iPod touch. Yes, there are valuable skills learned, such as dealing with angry people. That is a very valuable skill. Not many people can get someone take someone that says "Why the F**K is my phone not working?! This is a piece of garbage!!" to "thank you so much for helping me."
Hmm...Apple customer service == Walmart customer service? Same skillsets?

I'd say it is a very similar skill set.


And, as an aside, is dealing with an angry person over the phone the same as dealing with one face to face? I'm not making any point with this, just curious.

No, I'd bet dealing in person is more difficult in that you can't simply put a customer on hold or mute, take a moment to get your composure, than come back. However, people are generally nicer in person than over the phone. When people are in the comfort of their own home, and not talking face to face, they have a tendency to be more aggressive (just like people are much less shy on the internet than in person).

So I'd say it balances out (though I'd prefer over the phone, since that is what I'm use to).


I was once, actually told by a customer, that is was personally my fault that Apple stocks were falling so much (this was in Dec 2008 or Jan 2009, when the market was crashing).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Fabian_CH
Posts: 232
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2011 11:12:49 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/5/2011 11:03:12 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 4/5/2011 10:55:01 AM, Fabian_CH wrote:
At 4/5/2011 10:48:49 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 4/5/2011 10:38:35 AM, Fabian_CH wrote:
At 4/5/2011 10:26:58 AM, Indophile wrote:
But now, the onus is on those laid off people to either find a new market, create a new one or basically change their skillset (which is basically finding a new market).
As opposed to what?
As opposed to being jobless.
You must have misunderstood. The onus is on the laid off people - as opposed to....?
As opposed to the rich guy, who is probably better equipped to provide them a job. And earn some profit off of that too.
And he wouldn't do that, because...?

Better equipped in the sense having the resources and the knowhow. What I propose is, it would be beneficial for the rich guy, to just not stop at the "takeover" of this service, and create a new market for the guys that've been kicked out of this service. It should be beneficial to the rich guy, if he still keeps those people working for him, instead of for somebody else.
And where's the problem with that? Of course that would be beneficial to the rich guy. Which is why he's probably going to do it - or not stay rich for too long, in which case there won't be any problem for long either.
The problem with that is, if the rich guy doesn't do it. He just takes away those inefficient jobs, and leaves them out to dry.
I believe I've already pointed out what happens if the rich guy doesn't do that.

He is going to...
not stay rich for too long, in which case there won't be any problem for long either.

What do you mean "irrespective of the costs"? What costs? And why would it ever be bad to provide goods and services at a lower cost? Again, what about the poor who can't afford higher costs? (just as an example)
Just as an example. Goods from China are cheap. For a reason. It isn't bad for the "consumers" when they get goods and services at a lower cost. It's the "cost" of how much it takes to actually make them cheaper.
And what is that cost?

Yo also never responded to my original answer. My points stand unrefuted. I like that :)
What original answer? I thought I responded to all of your points.

At 4/5/2011 10:00:26 AM, Fabian_CH wrote:
So what we should learn frm this is - buses should never have been invented, oh the poor horses? Oh, and, of course, railroads are evil, too. You see, before the railroad came in, the horse people could offer rides everywhere - now people just use the railroad and they only get to carry them the few miles to the station.

Couple other points:
If the people of the township really didn't like the rich guy, why would they buy stuff in his marts? It's not like he has some kind of magical ability to make them buy it. The only thing he can do is offer better service for less money. Is it such a bad thing that now the poor of the township get to eat a little more for their little money? But he hasn't "created" any wealth, has he...? I think, that, we should ask the poor whose kids aren't starving now thanks to rich guy.
And of course the horsies and the grocers can now buy everything for less, too.

But of course the evil, evil rich guy shouldn't be rewarded for this achievement, no, he's just "funneling the money earned by a few people into his own pocket," after all.

And two more remarks: first, there's those things called "jobs" that happen to always be just about where there's buses and marts and stuff. You know, the ones the horsies and grocers are looking for elsewhere. Second, this would be a profoundly stupid rich guy if he ruined a place like that - where are the consumers going to come from if no one has a job? But of course, it woud be pretty much impossible to ruin the place to begin with - for the reasons above, among others.
"What are we doing? Do we want to feed a starved humanity in order to let it live? Or do we want to strangle its life in order to feed it?"
- Andrei Taganov, We The Living (Ayn Rand)
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2011 11:14:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 4/5/2011 11:07:37 AM, Fabian_CH wrote:
At 4/5/2011 10:54:23 AM, Indophile wrote:
At 4/5/2011 10:44:46 AM, Fabian_CH wrote:
And what are the people who can earn a living thanks to Walmart supposed to do when there isn't any Walmart ut just "mom and pop stores"? Where do they take their "self-worth" from? Where is the "entrepreneurship" in charging too much for food (and where is the morality in that, for that matter...)? Skills that perpetuate poverty (by keeping prices artificially high) are "beneficial to human society"?
And what are the people who can earn a living thanks to the "mom and pop store" supposed to do when there isn't any mom and pop store, just Walmart? And all of your questions?
So basically your argument is that the mom and pop stores have the right of way and we don't need to be worrying about the rest? I'm sorry, but I find that very immoral.

Besides, there's nothing that says they can't get a job at Walmart, too. In fact, they're going to be the first employees Walmart wants, since they come in with years of experience. You get to buy stuff for less of your money, and you get a chance for a career, as opposed to sitting around in your mom and pop store till you die, with no perspective at all.

Well, the skills that enable you to work in "walmart" may alleviate poverty, in the sense that, yes, you have "some" money in your pocket. But is paying the bills the end all and be all of the human experience? If you have your sights set on such a low bar, well, there's no arguing with you.
Maybe it isn't to you. You look for satisfaction. So do I. We are extremey privileged in that way. But it's absoutely ignorant to claim that "paying bills is not the be all end all of the human experience" when there's many people who'd be glad if they could pay the bills in the first place.

But yes, if you have your sights set on a higher bar and whoever falls below it be damned, then yes, there is no arguing between us.

no sense of ownership in what you are doing
That strikes me as extremely cynical, seeing how the alternative is basically starvation.
It may strike you however you please, but just because I'm doing a job that enables me to avoid starvation, doesn't mean I have job satisfaction. Living is not just being able to eat three square meals a day. That's not what one should aspire to.
Of course that's not what one should aspire to. But if you haven't got three square meals a day, I'd like to see you aspiring to "satisfaction" rather than "food".

The thing is, once you have those three square meals, you ARE going to look for "satisfaction", which won't be gotten from such a job. And since leaving the job is starvation, it would lead to frustration, and not a good life.

It's not as if you get three square meals a day, and you are happy for the rest of your life. What about this are you not getting?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.