I don't get the wait times argument from those who oppose a single payer system. They clearly never went to an emergency room in the US. I've never had a short wait time in a US ER/Stat Care/Ultra Care type facility. Even when they seem empty it seems like an hour wait before you finally see a doctor. Oh your 2 year old is having a hard time breathing, wait an hour and a half. Your one year old is running a high fever and vomiting, wait two hours. Heck, the wait times to find a doctor if you don't already have a family doctor can be weeks or months, forcing you to go to the ER for stuff you'd probably normally see a doctor for. That isn't an efficient medical system. They anti-single payer people then will say they don't trust the government to make decisions about their health insurance... but they trust the one of the most profitable, per dollar earned, business in the US? (I vaguely recall insurance being number 3 in per dollar earned profits, right behind banks and pharmaceuticals, with a rather large gap to get to number four.) They don't get those huge profits by making decisions in the best interest of the patients and consumers. Walmart could pay $3 more per hour to every employee, give them benefits, increase the work force, and still make profits without raising prices, meaning that while half the work force there needs food stamps now, none would if the company would do the right thing and pay a living wage, but instead we have people mad at the people who work there for not making enough rather than the people who run it... anyhow the point is people like that, who run the business, can't be trusted to make decisions about your health insurance as they only care about their bottom line and their paycheck. Getting you the proper health care costs them money and they will gladly sacrifice you and your family for a better paycheck for them.

It should not be directly audible. It should be on all roads, subliminal, for instruction on how best to serve our country.

You know every time I drive through here I wonder if we should replace the television with something better, Hey! there's a WalMart right there. If that isn't a serendipitous coincidence I don't know what is!

Walmart has a GREAT return policy...

#1 I clicked "ignore" after responding to his post. That is what I have no problem with doing.

#2 Bullshit. (sorry but it is) Hundreds if not thousands of people get arrested and prosecuted regularly for drug possession, drug selling, and even drug use. Tell me what's been decriminalized!

#3 The state is doing quite a bit in Oakland, actually, like preventing the private institutions that would solve these problems from arising in the fist place from setting up there (but instead hold failed monopolies over those industries). For example, there are no legalized drug dealers (See bullshit #2). Again, that kind of gang activity happens on a "public" street. It does not happen on private property. And even if it did, it'd be no one's business but the owners'.

#4 If this was even close to true, then it's even more proof of the superiority of private police over "public" law enforcement. Because, like I said, you don't see this kind of thing happening on private property, do you?

#5. Wrong. Businesses will take care of that if given an incentive to move there. Have you not heard of people complaining about (so-called) "gentrification?"

#6. Huh? Really? So, are there no business permits needed to set up a business in Oakland? Do the business owners and residents of Oakland not have to pay taxes? Is there no open carry for law-abiding citizens? (now there will be it seems). Is there no enforced rent control in Oakland? If you don't see any regulations being enforced, then you are willfully ignorant.

#7. There are no gangs at Disney because it is private property and its owners will not put up with something so bad for business as gangs. Disneyland and Google have gentrified the neighborhoods they are in -- they were not always low crime areas as they were before they moved in.

"Oakland is a high crime area with little money for security."

Yeah, those usually go together. The ultimate results of statist interventions are always poverty and crime.

#8 Much of the violent crime happens in the "public" spaces, like the streets. Sure, there are break-ins to private homes, etc. but as you say, the poverty does not let people hire private security, and the "public" police (that have monopolized that industry) are, like you point out, completely useless to the tax-paying residents who live there.


#9 I'd rather I wouldn't have to pay for taxes and pay for my own security than having to give the money to the state in exchange for getting nothing in return. In fact, I'm aware of several security services that are available to people living in the ghetto for as little as $35/month.


#10 So, only gangsters can afford guns now? Maybe it will be cheaper without the gun "permit" costs. Or the restrictions about buying them more cheaply online.

And I highly doubt the peoople in Oakland can't afford guns, given how many guns there are in Oakland. But, for the sake of argument, lets say it's true. If not for the illegality of the drug trade, then gangsters would also not be able to afford guns (the illegality of the drugs is what's driving up the price and, as a result, the profitability of gangsterism). And if it wasn't for the regulations, Walmart would make sure to provide more affordable armaments, just like they do in other states.

I recommend spending just a few minutes inside the Oakland traffic court and you'll see how many "hardworking upstanding people" there are who somehow manage to pay for hundreds of dollars in fines and/or do community service for an equivalent minimum wage to pay for these. You could easily get a gun at Walmart for much less.


"Before someone claims I have no idea of what I speak, my brother lived in East Oakland..."

Well, if you think Oakland is a libertarian "dream," then you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Having a brother who lived in Oakland for a year does not make you an expert on (or even vaguely familiar with) what a libertarian "dream" place looks like (or even -- as you apparently reveal -- what actually goes on in Oakland).


Just the fact that, as you say, Oakland is rather poor makes it a non-libertarian city at all. A free market society/economy (cronyism is not a free market, so don't even go there) has much less poverty than a 'regulated' one.

Sure, if you go from a state-dependent "economy" to a free market overnight, without having had time to rebuild the private institutions that the state demolished and/or took over and/or monopolized, then, sure you may have a chaotic transition period. That's why a controlled dismantlement is far more preferable to an anarchy that comes about by sudden collapse. But, you have to take what you can get.

(As we may find out first hand) the problem with a government going bankrupt is that, at first, it may seem like a good thing, but it can also bring about a worse repression from the state. Praxeology cannot answer the unknown. It falls more within the realm of thymological prediction/analysis.

Do enlighten me: How do you think "dominant corporation(s) or collusion thereof [will] strongarm retailers?" That simply won't happen. Rather, there will be fewer barriers to entry for other widget manufacturers to enter the market, either independently or working for competing "dominant" corporations when they discover that it's more profitable to not be "paid off" but to compete in the market instead.

A dominant corporation cannot buy every possible competitor. That's absurd. And there will always multiple "dominant" corporations, and not just one, or one and a number of "start-ups." Where there is Coke, there will be Pepsi. Where there is Apple, there will be Samsung. In a free market, monopolies and cartels cannot exist except in the very short term and at an eventual loss (unless they have the primary monopoly of the government to back them up).

If there are patents, there's no free market. A free market, by definition, must exclude all patent, trademark, copyright, and other such IP law. So, you may have picked the worst example.

Free markets without patents is not a problem at all. Not for the market and not for consumers. Companies may just be more careful about spies. They certainly wouldn't be incentivized (like they are now) to spend $millions just to hold patents on products that are never produced, only to corner the market and "strongarm" competitors (like they do now).

Companies like Bed, Bath & Beyond have been trying to price upstarts out of the market for years, decades even! And they're still not able to get rid of competitors! Same can be said about Walmart. Many stores other than Walmart sell TVs, even at higher prices, and remain competitive. Other stores sell linens besides BB&B. So, you have a distorted view of how markets actually work. No one corporation can monopolize the sale of any goods or services. That's just incorrect (unless the government helps them to do so). It just doesn't happen.

There's no such thing as a "natural monopoly." Name one. In Texas, for example, there are competing utility providers, and people can choose which energy service to use. This is in contrast to CA, where most of us are forced to "choose" PG&E over zero other alternatives.

"Restriction of information/prevention of rational, informed consumers"

I'm sorry, but anyone who has been involved in business knows this is complete horseshit. If you have a better product/service (the only way to outdo the competition), you will let the customers/market know right away.

And there's no scale at which markets collapse. The same forces of the market apply to big, small, and medium businesses. There is no arbitrary size for which these forces do not apply. And keep in mind that without government granted privileges, corporations would be much smaller than they are now, because competition would make it easier for competitors to participate, thereby forcing a re-allocation of resources to accommodate the market's demands.

So, yes you most certainly "overstated" your case. All markets can be free, regardless of size. Whether it's a small farmer's market or Whole Foods. The same market forces apply. They all have to court voluntary customers through service, price, quality, etc. Again, anyone who has had to work with marketing will know this.

BTW, things like "price dumping" are circumvented all the time. Does Rolls Royce care that Hyundai sells cheaper cars? Does Mercedes care that a Prius is less expensive?

Target makes money because Walmart is cheaper, not in spite of it!
And everything Walmart sells, you'll find many other stores selling it, even though Walmart might sell it cheaper.
The local natural food store in my neighborhood sells, more or less, the same things as Whole Foods. None of your objections pose any real problems in the real world.

I don't see Walmart buying every other TV seller, or even trying to do this. Microsoft tried but, so what? They failed, because they could not buy every single competitor in the software world, could they?

Even in Somalia, to use @enoch's example, in the telecommunications industry (to pick one that saw growth), no one even remotely managed to do any of the things you say could happen. In 20 years, no corporation did any of these things. Why not?

Because they couldn't.

And did "dominant" corporations take over all small retailers and sellers? No way, not even close! They couldn't. Only regulations can really kill all small retailers (and they do it all the time). Your outrage is gravely misplaced. Do the countless bazaars and sellers of Turkey, India, or Thailand get taken over by "dominant" corporations?

Hint: No.

Only when government meddles, do the big corporations wipe out the little ones, and sometimes each other.

In any case, Coke will not eliminate Pepsi (or Sprite, or Dr. Pepper, or A&W), government or no government.

People work at McDonalds and Walmart because they like Minimum wage.

If they didn't they would find a better paying job.

<< Well thank (G)god and quantum theory and the high-priestesses of non-linearity (Hail Eris) for assisting the few brave and hapless souls in the quest watcher-man, I'd imagined in the most heated of moments to be dealing with creatures that looked like humans who were in fact, mindless automaton designed to make my experience on Earth a living hell of sorts...That said, if everyone shopped at Walmart the few times a year I go in there and spend less than $20 bucks atta time, every one of their locations would be a black hole of unused square footage slated for demolition and re-acquisition. They'd make for some great multi-lane bowling alleys, skating rinks, or homeless shelters-

I don't get the Right's logic on stuff like this... More and more wealth is moving to the top few percent, and more and more of the earnable wages are moving to the top few percent. Walmart for example could easily afford to pay every employee something like $2-3 more an hour, give benefits and hire more people so their stores are properly staffed and still make a profit. And they get upset at the people working there needing help... "oh it's the government's fault for giving them aid letting the company do that"... What?! The company made a choice, and they blame the government actions for it... it's like when they blame moving jobs overseas on the government instead of the rich guy who decided that it is in his own greedy personal self interest to send the jobs there rather than pay Americans. Or its like that cartoon where a rich man, a middle class man and a working class person are all at a table with 100 cookies and the rich guy takes 99 of them, the middle class guy gets 1 and the working class guy has crumbs, then the rich guy warns the middle class guy "better watch out, he wants your cookie" and they fall for it, they get mad at that guy rather than the guy who took 99 cookies for himself...

They get upset at wanting to keep minimum wage in pace with inflation, something that happens in most countries. They get upset at the idea of the cost to business to do so, but somehow businesses do it all around the world... heck, when we were thinking of moving to New Zealand and a few other places we discovered that most countries force employers to give paid vacation time, not just a bonus that some/most employers offer after 1 or 2 years of service if they want. Almost every country forces employers to offer paid maternity leave, and paid holidays... American businesses have it easy compared to most countries, one could possibly argue they have an unfair advantage compared to the rest of the world. And it's not like those businesses outside the US don't make a killing, as in those countries the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, so that isn't a unique US trait.

They claim that only like 4% of the workforce get paid minimum, but ignore the fact that figure doesn't account for the fact that if minimum kept pace with inflation, that is the actual cost of living, then it would be over $10 something right now, which means everyone making less than that is below minimum... that guy working at Walmart, Target, McDonalds or whatever for $9, yes, they may be "above minimum" but if you account for the actual cost of living they are below it...which means that person making $12, while they are well above minimum isn't that far above it. Stretching it further, if minimum kept pace with worker productivity, and nobody is suggesting it should, it would be over $17, so the companies are getting great value out of their workers, and still would be even if minimum wage kept pace with inflation. That doesn't even account for where it would be if it kept pace with CEO/Executive pay of over $22...

And yes, Walmart is near the bottom of the rung in jobs, no matter what the right may say about them having a choice... Nobody grows up wanting to work at Walmart, McDonalds and the like. Most people working at those sort of jobs work them because that was the best job they can get, and after a while, you gain "job security" as well as you can call it that, which makes it harder for them to move on, up and out, taking a risk that some rich guy might ship their jobs overseas so he can take more for himself while screwing over his workers and the American public. So they get stuck, because it's the best option that they have, especially in a country that is so far lopsided in favor of the business over the workers... in one of the few countries that doesn't guarantee health insurance for everyone, that took a Republican created plan that makes people buy health insurance from for profit insurance companies (which if I recall correctly was one of the top 3 most profitable businesses in the US per dollar earned, with banks at number one, and pharmasutcal companies), and made it the law of the land, while those same Republicans, many who co-sponsored the legislation when Republicans tried to pass it at the federal level, now oppose their own creation... because apparently the changes that the left made to the bill (not being able to deny people for pre-existing conditions and not being able to charge them extra, and moving to comprehensive coverage rather than just catastrophic coverage, so two things that mean insurance companies have to pay out more for) are bad.

@bobknight33 it seems your viewpoint rests on the fact that minimum wage should be an "entry level wage where one can better oneself [..] to ask for a higher wage."

At least in my country, a lot of the time the vast majority of jobs vacancies are in places that deal with minimum wage - fast food, supermarkets, that kind of thing - because they usually deal with the "basics" that people can't do without. Hence basic, menial and minimum wage for minimum stress at work.

The people who are in better jobs over here have seen a lot of similarly positioned people get sacked so they know they've got to keep hold of their job. Everyone's been cutting back, there's less jobs, and those jobs are tightly held by people with better experience. And then, when better jobs become available, you have lots and lots of low experienced workers applying alongside a select few who used to work - who's more likely to get the job?

Finer points aside, i'd love everyone in the thread to agree that there are a whole bunch of people spending a whole lot of money at walmart - and every other scary-large company. If that money is not cycling around between people then it's stagnating somewhere and doing nobody any good.

Take soccer here in england for example. Soccer players are paid something like £20 000 per week at every top team. A lot of them are actually between £40 000 and £120 000 per week but let's talk approximate. Now look, we should all be able to see that a person couldn't possibly hope to spend that much money. If you want to go to a match, let's call it £40, 60 000 people are giving £40 to go and watch, so that's £2 400 000 and let's say it all goes on wages. Well what's happening is this entire wad of cash is ending up sitting in a bank account somewhere, because this guy can't physically go out and redistribute this cash, spending his money in the normal way and keeping the economy moving and the money spreading.

It's not just footballers and i'm sure we can agree to some extent that this can be seen in a lot of places - a select few are in positions allowing them to amass huge fortunes they can't possibly use.

"Trickle-down" has not worked, it isn't trickling anywhere, they've got the cracks sealed up. Maybe we should be thinking about "trickle up" - if cost us less to watch a soccer match, metaphorically speaking (as in cheaper bills, higher wages, less stagnation at the top), maybe people might feel less stressed, less scared, more generous, more free, the world might be a better place so that services would be better, people would be more dedicated at their job to improve because they stand to earn more, less stress less violence, more money less crime, etc. Is there something to that perhaps?

The problem is it's hard to interject whilst it's all ongoing and say "you're taking this cut, you're taking this cut, all this money is going here, just trust us the world will be a better place." It's not fair to suddenly tell people what they do is only worth half of what it was yesterday. But between the top and the bottom what you have is a rich billionaire smoking a cigar whilst some child in the poorest neighbourhood is sat in 5th-hand-me-downs on a filthy carpet listening to his mother selling her body? That's a guess, i don't know how to best represent poverty, but take any example you like. If the rich person was stood directly next to the baby he'd probably feel outraged and help, but there's a lot of smoke and mirrors that stand between him helping every baby that is every born in the future, because warlmart suddenly can afford to double their lowest wages by halving some of their highest.

To conclude - i don't think minimum wage is as you suggest.

If there was no welfare of any sort, people would still have to apply at Walmart. People with stomachs to be filled far outnumber jobs that generate an income. And while the population is increasing, the number of jobs -- in the long run -- is actually decreasing.

It was always clear that automation would greatly reduce the number of jobs in manufacturing and agriculture, first and foremost. Given that the latest burst in technology is represented by Google, Apple, FB and Amazon, I'd say the hope of generating jobs through new areas of technology fell flat on its arse -- those four giants are worth a combined $1T, yet employ only 150k, or half as many as GE.

tl;dr

#people >> #jobs, exacerbated by robots/automation and politically suppressed aggregate demand

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

As for minimum wage being entry level wage: that's the idea, but given the age structure of fast food workers and the number of them who worked the job for years and years, it is merely theoretical in nature. Many people are stuck in it, others are floating in and out of employment at minimum wage level. Asking for a higher wage becomes a futile exercise as long as there's an army of willing replacements on the market. Some corporations try to minimize turn-over by paying above-average wages (Costco, Aldi), but the vast majority engage in a race to the bottom.

If you ask me, all of us deserve food in our stomachs, a roof over our heads. And health insure, while we're at it. The establishment over here used to call it the "revolution tax", because it allows people to retain some level of dignity and prevents them from chopping everyone's heads off with a guillotine. I prefer a considerably more expansive definition of human dignity, but I'm just one of those dirty socialists, so...

The point of view that Sanders is taking is that corporations are paying so little that the workers have no choice but to take welfare.

I say that if there was no welfare ( well not as much as there is today) then corporations like Walmart would have to pay more. Otherwise people would not even apply.

For every dollar the government hands out in welfare, the corporations have to give a dollar more to make working for them worthwhile.

Minimum wage is not to be a living wage but an entry level wage where one can better oneself and then one would have standing to ask for a higher wage.

As far as big ass tax breaks for the big corporations I say F to that.

I agree that corps have corrupted government to favor them. Capitalism without morality is we are today.


Capitalism is the best system. We all practice capitalism every day with our purchasing dollars. We look for the best value for the good and services we desire.

@chingalera
ill take a crack at that deconstruction.
@Sagemind was basically prefacing the fact that the few remaining jobs are low paying crap jobs,like walmart for instance.

but you are correct that it is NOT a job of last resort.
you dont HAVE to apply at walmart.
nobody is FORCING you to work for slave wages.

you could always suck a dick.
handjobs in the local gas station bathroom for a quick buck.
sell plasma,blood,semen.
sell a kidney.
sell drugs..but not weed..might as well work at walmart.

you could always sell your integrity.
i hear wall street is a good place for that,but they require your soul as well.
how about insurance fraud?
reverse mortgages? fuck those old people..they gonna die anyways.

ya gotta eat,so ya do what ya gotta do.

who am i kidding?
while i would never work at walmart nor any corporation,some people have to do what they have to do.
and sometimes its a short list and working at walmart is the trade off for them.

guess they dont like dick.

so im with @Sagemind or is my skewed line of non-reasoning still a retarded polemic?

because at the end of the day who are we to judge anybody for their choices?

Who'ses reality would be my first question, out of touch with 'WHO's' reality? Everyone has a 'choice' sir, and working at Walmart is FAR from any last resort-Don't know how or why anyone would desire to to deconstruct your skewed line of non-reasoning and retarded polemic...Suffice it to say that you have many other folks who are as developmentally-disabled as yourself with such horseshit thinking that at least you won't be lonely or have to enjoy your mind fucking itself in solitude.

Cheap prices they are able to "give?" Fuck that sorry noise. Walmart giveth unto itself and the machine that created it. So you understand the degree to which you are being ass-fucked and you are satisfied with that? No wonder the United States and the world is in such a de-evolving state...

AND.... This is why I don't shop at Walmart. Even on Consumer holidays like black friday. The choice doesn't exist with the workers looking for jobs. The choice exists for us as consumers where we decide to spend our money. Change will happen in the wage distribution when we decide to not shop at supercenters like Walmart or Target. I am willing to admit that the decision that I have made to not shop there hasn't been easy and has cost me some extra money (5% more overall) over the last decade, but I have the confidence that I am doing a miniscule part to change how things are.

Wow, so many of these people are so far out of touch with reality.
It's not a choice to work at Wall Mart - It's a last resort. If people had other options, they wouldn't be there. Few people chose to live in poverty

And Who cares about the cheap prices that Wal Mart is able to give. It's self serving. The largest employer keeps it's employees poor so they have no choice but to shop at their own store, which in turn just gives their wages back to employers. Sure other people reap the benefits of some cheap stuff, but let's stay real. It's cheap because the quality is often lowered to meet the competitive contracts targeted for manufacturers to be able to be Walmart's choice product. Nothing bought at WalMart lasts more than a year or two, you always end up re-buying it. So where is the cheap affordability now?

And while Wall Mart works hard to choke out the competition so they can raise their prices on certain products, their merchandising does the same thing. They only target certain manufacturers and give then the lion's share of the merchandising space on their shelves. Selection at Wal Mart is Slim. They are great at choosing your brands for you. The companies that play ball with WalMart. I have better selection on items at non department stores. Case in point Groceries. They have great prices on certain grocery items, but I don't have any choice on the brands I'm buying. And sooner or later, I'll still need to go to the grocery store, because WalMart just can't give me what I need to stock my kitchen with the basics. My Wall Mart doesn't even sell large bags of sugar.