home

Wal-Mart's "Buy American" Program Just a Memory

by Last Night in Little Rock

Get the creeps when you walk into a Wal-Mart store? I do. It feels un-American to buy there, and I'll tell you why.

Wal-Mart is the biggest corporation to have been created in the U.S., making it by sheer growth. Even with Exxon/Mobil's price gouging during Katrina, Wal-Mart still came out on top of the Fortune 500 list this year. Wal-Mart pays cash for everything it buys: Products, land, construction of buildings and stores. It is flush with cash. Far more than the normal American can even imagine.

Today, we see Wal-Mart apologize, noted here on TalkLeft, for some minor employee linking "Planet of the Apes" DVDs with "black oriented" movies. Just stupidity, or is it the air in Bentonville, Arkansas? Sam Walton should be spinning in his grave.

Frankly, Wal-Mart has gotten so big that it is the 600 pound gorilla of American business. No, it is really the $27,000,000,000 gorilla.

Wal-Mart was the vision of Sam Walton. He changed retailing in the entire world. Before he died, he was big on "Buy American," and it appeared in signs in the stores and on TV ads. Economy in saving store and distribution costs was his genius. (So was closing all mom and pop stores when Wal-Mart came to town. More about that later.)

But, Sam Walton's "Buy American" vision was lost long ago. It left when he died.

Now, in the hands of his $on$ and other corporate $hill$, "Buy American" is long gone. Instead, it is "Buy Chinese" to wring out every penny; hundreds of millions of pennies a day. According to China Business Weekly and American RadioWorks, in 2004 alone, Wal-Mart spent $18B in China. Wal-Mart probably is one of China's top ten trading partners, larger than all countries except the U.S. It may even be the biggest.

Companies that regularly do business with Wal-Mart have branch offices in Bentonville, just to be able to kiss Wal-Mart's big blue and gray a$$. It is necessary to play ball with the gorilla and do its bidding.

Wal-Mart is no longer the good corporate citizen it appeared to be. That's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

  • Wal-Mart extorts tax breaks from local governments that other local businesses do not get. Wal-Mart comes into town, drives out the local mom and pop stores, wire transfers its bank deposits to Bentonville daily so the money never stays in the local economy, and then, a few years later, it consolidates four stores into Supercenters, leaving the original empty store fronts along with their own. (Wal-Mart has its own real estate company.)
  • Wal-Mart is the subject of numerous class actions, one involving 1.6 million women employees and former employees complaining about the "glass ceiling" (class website here; MSNBC story here) that reportedly threatens many other employers, or so they say.
  • Two weeks ago, an Oakland, CA jury awarded a class of employees $172 million for being denied lunch breaks for years, in violation of state law.

With all this litigation, one would think that Wal-Mart's legal team is huge. One would be right: Wal-Mart's house counsel's legal team is by far the biggest law firm in Arkansas. The current house counsel, Thomas Mars, is doing his best to get Wal-Mart out of the trouble that a gorilla its size invariably gets itself into. Before him, Wal-Mart was the U.S. champion civil litigation discovery abuser in stonewalling discovery demands and hiding documents. At least he is doing the right thing. Managing the legal affairs of the gorilla is not easy.

It is also the subject of a PBS show about how its employees are getting by on minimum wage and welfare while its executives in Bentonville just get richer. Numbers 6 through 10 on the Richest Americans List are Walton heirs, and three live in Bentonville. One lives in Texas because there is no state income tax.

Is it the air in Bentonville, or just the culture? Bentonville exists because of Wal-Mart. It was Sam Walton's home, and he built the home office there, and it never left. Bentonville is the county seat of Benton County, Arkansas. Arkansas is a Red state. Benton County is the Reddest county in the state: Virtually all public officials there are Republicans, and some are neo-cons. The
Sheriff brags on his website that the jail rules included the Ten Commandments until an inmate sued because of the "no other gods but me" part that seemed to cross some line the sheriff couldn't understand. Byar v. Lee, 336 F.Supp.2d 896 (W.D.Ark. 2004). (They brag that the inmate got only $1 in damages, but they leave out that the attorney did quite well in the civil rights attorney's fee award paid by the county.)

Let's go back to what started this rant: the "Planet of the Apes" website posting. Consider the source. Benton County is "lilly white." Benton County's 2000 Census data from the University of Arkansas at Little Rock shows that African-Americans in 2000 were 00.45% of the Benton County population. (Hispanics outnumber African-Americans 21.4 to 1 in Benton County.)

Benton Co. population: 153,406
White, 139,399
African-American, 629
American Indian, 2,531
Asian, 1,673
Hawaiian, 130
Two or more races, 9,044
Hispanic Origin, 13,469

It is a little hard to be respectful of diversity when one seldom sees people of color in the community.

Sam Walton was a simple man who appreciated his poor roots and the people who worked for him. He had simple basic values of "Buy American." Even when it was first learned that Sam Walton was a billionaire, he still lived in the same house in Bentonville and drove the same old pickup truck to work.

I read somewhere years ago that a shirt could be made in the U.S. with union labor for just a few cents more than making it overseas. Would you pay just a little more to keep American workers working? As posited in Wal-Mart--The High Cost of Low Price, Wal-Mart workers could have health insurance for a few pennies more on the purchase price. Will the Walton $on$ and $hill$ allow it?

No. Making money is all today's Wal-Mart is concerned with. Squeeze every penny out of every purchase, no matter how. Today's Wal-Mart is not Sam Walton's Wal-Mart. (As an important aside, however, Sam's no saint. After all, his leadership took killing off small town America mom and pop stores to a whole new level. That seems un-American in itself.) Current leadership is into consolidation and making rural Americans drive 40 miles one way to buy something made in China.

I hope they save enough to pay for the gas to get there.

"Buy American" is just a memory of an old, discarded advertising slogan, tossed into the dust bin of forgotten and now useless values as we bow to the Almighty Dollar; a memory dying with Sam Walton. Wal-Mart will never return to it, and the rest of America may not, either, all thanks to Wal-Mart's economic influence.

Wal-Mart is not the only offender; just the biggest. When you go into Wal-Mart, think of the money going to China and not staying in the United States.

< Criminal Charge Dropped Over Afghan Beating Deaths | FBI Investigated Itself in Prosecutor's Death, Twice >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: Wal-Mart's "Buy American" Program Just a Memor (none / 0) (#1)
    by Andreas on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 11:08:03 PM EST
    Last Night in Little Rock wrote:
    When you go into Wal-Mart, think of the money going to China and not staying in the United States.
    This has nothing to do with legitimate concerns about Wal-Mart: it is pure nationalism. It should be rejected and opposed by readers of Talkleft.

    Re: Wal-Mart's "Buy American" Program Just a Memor (none / 0) (#2)
    by demohypocrates on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 11:09:22 PM EST
    Like it or not, Walmart has saved black and minority shoppers hundreds of billions of dollars of savings, along with everyone else that has shopped there. They have reinvented the entire distribution process. I live in Queens, NY. Unfortunately, the powers that be here are so disgusted by Walmart, they dont care about what there constituents pay for necessary goods. I have the luxury of a car. I drive to Nassau and get incredible bargains at Walmart on the things I need. But, many here in Queens dont have that luxury, they are forced to pay the ridiculous prices of local retailers. Libs want to keep them in that servitude. Fartsy liberals in NYC that hate Walmart so much, are so enamored with their little local businesses, they dont care about the average joe,.... all they care about their property values. Puhhhleaaaase. Talk to the couple w/ the 2 mil condo on Park - they HATE WALMART, talk to the aecurity guard at Shea Stadium - he WELCOMES it!!! The arrogance, the pompocity of those who dont recognize the workers should stay where they are, in the gutter...

    Re: Wal-Mart's "Buy American" Program Just a Memor (none / 0) (#3)
    by Johnny on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 11:21:32 PM EST
    Puhleaze Demo, get off your high horse. You do realize that every item you yourself buys at walmart contributes to dropping wages across the US? You do realize that every item you yourself purchase at walmart inches china a little closer to world economic domination, right? You do realize that the money "saved" by those poor blacks and minorities (how friggen condescending can you get? wow...) is easily surpassed by the dropping wages paid by walmart? In many, many areas, walmart employees shop at walmart because it is the only place they can afford to shop. You are no friend of the consumer nor the worker nor america. Methinks you may have a touch of walmart stock in your portfolio.

    Re: Wal-Mart's "Buy American" Program Just a Memor (none / 0) (#4)
    by demohypocrates on Sat Jan 07, 2006 at 11:37:04 PM EST
    Johnny, I dont see how those that defend illegals workin here for $3/hour illegally, critcize Walmart workers workin for $7-8 hour legally. And then you have the gall to say say that Walmart workers are undercutting US workers. People that shop at Walmart, myself included, do so because it is the cheapest place to shop. Stop denying the poorest of people in the inner cities from doing the same. What arrogance it is from the left to deny people the best prices. And then trying to contrive these silly racist non-issues to attack them.

    I have a few friends who say that they can't afford to not shop at Wal-Mart - primarily when buying diapers. I'm not going to try and tell them what they can and can't afford, but I know that I don't have to shop there, so I don't. The problem isn't that money is going to China - the problem is that good paying jobs are going there, leaving communities devastated as their factories close. And, those jobs aren't being replaced, except by service jobs, which pay far less with few or no benefits.

    Re: Wal-Mart's "Buy American" Program Just a Memor (none / 0) (#6)
    by Johnny on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 12:41:57 AM EST
    Demo, you miss the point. Companies like walmart are responsible for the reduced purchasing power of the dollar. You defend a company that actually employs illegals. Of course, if you were to find a post I made where I was explicitly defending ilegals, go for it. Otherwise, you are guilty of a Jimism-profound lack of reading comprehension. But go ahead-keep supporting the purge of the american economy. Walmart exists because it has played a key role in driving wages down. Resulting in consumers who literally cannot afford to shop anywhere else. Me? I would rather see the products walmart sells be those that are made here. You know, by those people you profess to love? Dump the righteous act-it doesn't suit you. BTW, you were the one who made the comment about race-or have you forgotten? Trying to introduce a condescending viewpoint of seeming to care where "blacks and minorities" shop to defend a company that has been hit in the past for deliberate vioaltions of workers rights (there we go again, you defend a company that both hires the workers you hate outright (illegals), and abuses the people you profess to love (blacks, minorities, poor people, american workers) Save it-the reason walmart exists is because walmart made it this way.

    Why can't Johny read? Perhaps it is because he is blinded by the "things he needs". Surely, dropping wages is good (in some universe), but who profits? What kind of boy are you Johny? Hint: drop "lefty" as a perjorative before you get smacked upside of your "righty" head. Oh, and I do not care how many "n's" belong in "Johny", You lost that consideration a long time ago -- perhaps when you decided cheap Chinese imitation crap is better than the real thing. Try splitting wood after buying a Chinese replica of a maul. Working mauls used to have sharp edges. Most of the crap forced offshore by Walmart is equally crude and useless. I can only hope you inherited no proper tools from your ancestors, otherwise you probably would have cut off something vital by now.

    Last night in Little Rock: Holy Howard Dean of Vermont, Batman!: When statements come home to roost-
    It is a little hard to be respectful of diversity when one seldom sees people of color in the community.
    Is that why the Dems picked him to be chair of their party? Last Night says Dems don't respect blacks! Arf makes his point by denegrating people. Super. I shop at walmart because they have the best price on Winchester ammo for the 9mm. 11.00 for the Winchester white 100 box. It is American made ammo. No chinese ammo for me! Just stirring the Sunday morning pot.

    Re: Wal-Mart's "Buy American" Program Just a Memor (none / 0) (#9)
    by Johnny on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 02:47:10 AM EST
    Arf? WTF? If that was meant be a spoof, it was horrible. If you meant it as a searing attack on me, well, judging by the content, I'd say you suffer from a worse case of reading incomprehension than almost anyone I have ever met. If you seriously believe that what I wrote is supportive of walmart and employee unfriendly practices... I mean, wow. If you really are attacking me, get bent. Seriously. Learn to read, and then get bent.

    demohypocrates's support of Walmart is based entirely on the only political principle he's got: Hatred of the left. For all of Walmart's considerable sins--screwing its employees in every possible way, exploiting illegals, having taxpayers pick up the slack for its inadequate wages, destroying local economies, selling cheap crap, etc, etc, etc--it consistantly finds two classes of supporters: People to whom it gives money; and the sort of liberal-hating idiots who we could probably get to eat dirt if they were convinced that opposition to soil ingestion was a major leftist cause.

    Demo, who are the "liberals" out there defending the payment of starvation wages to "illegals"? Can you say "strawman"?

    Re: Wal-Mart's "Buy American" Program Just a Memor (none / 0) (#12)
    by jen on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 06:58:03 AM EST
    Wile E. Coyote
    I shop at walmart because they have the best price on Winchester ammo for the 9mm. 11.00 for the Winchester white 100 box. It is American made ammo. No chinese ammo for me!
    So when your local gunshops are run out of business, and corporate hq decides to close the gun sections of all the walmarts..... This isn't theory, it happened to model shops. The model shops disapeared and shortly therafter the selection of model making stuff at walmart shrank to near nothing. (well, at least around here) Modelmakers have the internet (aka: the revenge of the mom&pops) Can ammo be shipped in the mail? I don't know, I'm not a firearms afficionado. (my modeling is limited to spaceships)

    Re: Wal-Mart's "Buy American" Program Just a Memor (none / 0) (#13)
    by soccerdad on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 07:30:32 AM EST
    Walmart is a microcosm of the current neoliberal econonomic philosophy, i.e all that matters is corporate profits. Thats it, nothing else, of course good corporate profits insure execs get theirs. How you treat your workers is irrelevant, what benefits you give them is irrelevant (actually fewer the better, what effects you have on the neighborhood, the environment, industry in America, etc are all irrelevant. The end result of this attitude is more people without healthcare, more people without retirement funds, and the slow erosion of the middle class. But thats ok because you'll be able to go down to the soup kitchen run by your local church funded by the federal governement.

    I'm certainly not defending Wal-mart here, but piled on top of their uncaring and greedy attitude is the corporate earnings reporting cycle. Public companies live quarter to quarter. You put that on top of executives personal greed (get their's while the getting is good), and no one is thinking about the long-term. So Demo, you drive a ways to save a few cents on each purchase you make at Wal-mart (add in the cost of your car...not just the gas, and I'll bet you really don't save that much). Each time you do, another American job is lost to China. Pretty soon, even the "poor minorities" you speak about don't have jobs at all...so they have zero money to spend at Wal-mart. What I haven't figured out is how long these corporate moguls think the scheme is sustainable. Move all the jobs overseas where the people don't get paid enough to shop at a Wal-mart themselves, then expect Americans to continue spending their money at Wal-mart. At some point, no one has a job left, and so there's no money left to buy anything...no matter how cheap. So, Demo, maybe a few "poor minority" people can stretch their meager pay checks a little further, but ask the textile manufacturers in my home town how much Wal-mart helps them now since they have NO paycheck?

    How does the author of the article figure Bentonville is so "lily-white" that "it is a little hard to be respectful of diversity when one seldom sees people of color in the community," when more than 10% of the population is non-white? True, there are very few African-Americans in town; but Hispanics, Native Americans, Asian-Americans and residents who identify themselves as belongng to "two or more races" (many of whom probably appear "black") certainly count. I point this out because obviously the author of the article thought this was important enough to mention.

    Ohhh heartstrings are playing again.... Walmart is evil because.....it took away T-shirt making jobs? Johnny, Walmart didn't drive down wages in reatil sales. Their salaries aren't different from KMart or Target, or Home Depot or the like. If Walmart didn't exist, there would be a different retailer selling the same things at higher prices and paying similar wages. soccerdad
    Walmart is a microcosm of the current neoliberal econonomic philosophy, i.e all that matters is corporate profits.
    Funny you should say that. Over the last couple of days I have heard many on the left argue that Walmart would risk offending a large segment of their customers because they are so inherently racist. I say, "I drive to Nassau and get incredible bargains at Walmart on the things I need." but Molly knows better, "demohypocrates's support of Walmart is based entirely on the only political principle he's got: Hatred of the left." Thanks Molly for setting me straight. Jen, maybe you should embrace a little entrepeneurship, open a model shop and stop blaming your woes on the free market. How many here shop at supermarkets? The arguments being made against Walmart are the same ones people used against them.

    Re: Wal-Mart's "Buy American" Program Just a Memor (none / 0) (#17)
    by soccerdad on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 09:03:57 AM EST
    Funny you should say that. Over the last couple of days I have heard many on the left argue that Walmart would risk offending a large segment of their customers because they are so inherently racist.
    I have no clue what your point is. Free market does not equal unfettered capitalism.

    You need to watch the new documentary. One of the things you'll learn is that Wal-Mart's "low prices", which several suggest are great for America's poor, is a fallacy. Sure, the price tags at Wal-Mart might have lower numbers than other stores, but Wal-Mart's workers have no health care. Who pays? Everybody. Wal-Mart workers have lower wages. Who pays? Everybody. Wal-Mart workers have practically no benefits at all. Our country's largest corporation is driving down wages, benefits, and the very picture of the lower-class job. The result is a new super-poor class that can't afford anything but the (falsely) low prices at Wal-Mart. Ironically, their purchasing at Wal-Mart perpetuates their situation. C'mon on people, there's no free lunch for anyone. A few people are getting super-rich here, and the rest are getting screwed. Even the middle-class and higher who shop at Wal-Mart are paying (through higher taxes, etc.) for those 'low' prices.

    Re: Wal-Mart's "Buy American" Program Just a Memor (none / 0) (#19)
    by roy on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 09:17:37 AM EST
    Trouble with responding to a long, rantlike article that if I try to hit every point I'll end up with an even longer, rantlike comment. Shotgun approach:
    Wal-Mart knowingly hired illegal aliens, and got its Bentonville offices searched by the FBI.
    The linked article doesn't quite support that. It looks like WM paid contractor companies to provide cleaners, and the contractors had all the responsibility for writing paychecks and checking worker eligibility. If you're going to mention the search, you should mention what they found. Nothing incriminating.
    One lives in Texas because there is no state income tax.
    Evidence for the "because"? And she still pays state taxes here: we have sales tax and a high property tax.
    It is a little hard to be respectful of diversity when one seldom sees people of color in the community.
    And it's a little hard to defend against charges of racism when one's accusers use figures over which one has no control as evidence.
    Would you pay just a little more to keep American workers working?
    The resources freed up by Wal-Mart's more efficient workings -- money in customers' pockets -- create opportunity for other businesses and thus new jobs. If those new business are efficient, they'll create wealth and the new jobs can actually be better than the old jobs. But subsidizing the inefficient jobs slows wealth creation and thus slows the creation of better jobs. Slows the improvement of overall living conditions, in other words. I've had a hard time phrasing this argument coherently; read the first chapter of any economics textbook to see it in good form.
    When you go into Wal-Mart, think of the money going to China and not staying in the United States.
    A) China gets money, the U.S. gets merchandise which we value more than the money. B) Wal-Mart creates wealth, affecting the value of money. C) Give WM credit for the foreign money it brings home by selling in other countries.

    Check otu the story of the man who said "no" to Wal-Mart, about how the CEO of Snapper Mowers say "thanks, but no thanks" when Wal-Mart pressured him to make a lower quality mower to sell at Wal-Mart for $99. It begs the question of how "affordable" shopping at Wal-Mart is for any family in the long term, if the good sold there are low quality goods that will wear out sooner and need to be replaced sooner.

    Re: Wal-Mart's "Buy American" Program Just a Memor (none / 0) (#21)
    by soccerdad on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 09:34:02 AM EST
    The resources freed up by Wal-Mart's more efficient workings -- money in customers' pockets -- create opportunity for other businesses and thus new jobs.
    Not true, since most people who shop there have little money to start with. This is just undocumented supply side crapola, unless you have an analysis from a reputable economist.
    But subsidizing the inefficient jobs
    So its inefficient to have health care and pension plans or are you just confalting issue to try and confuse everyone.
    I've had a hard time phrasing this argument coherently; read the first chapter of any economics textbook to see it in good form.
    Thats for sure and you have confused the issues people are talking about. Efficiency is some measure of work/man hours. We are talking about working conditions and treatment of workers, but I know, supply side, neo-liberal text books dont have chapters on those topics.
    A) China gets money, the U.S. gets merchandise which we value more than the money. B) Wal-Mart creates wealth, affecting the value of money. C) Give WM credit for the foreign money it brings home by selling in other countries.
    B. makes no sense. C. is irrelevant becuase its a net negative. What China did was to support our current account deficits by buying American treasury instruments. As noted in the papers a couple of days ago they are going to switch away from dollar based assests. What this all means is that China has our economy by the nuts and they are going to start squeezing, and if we attack Iran look to china to dump dollars and take the financial hit. So not only have we shifted jobs outof the US, the recent economic expansion has ben financed by debt paid for by the Chineese. Lets hope Bush doesn't really piss them off by hitting Iran

    Re: Wal-Mart's "Buy American" Program Just a Memor (none / 0) (#22)
    by kdog on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 09:41:50 AM EST
    My only question is...if Walmart is the most profitable corp. in the country, why can't they pay their workers more and give them some benefits and be the 2nd, 3rd, or 10th most profitable? Why are they so f'in greedy? Every taxpayer is subsidizing these profits when a Walmart employee gets sick, or applies for food stamps. Where's our cut?

    Oh, Johnny, I was just experimenting. I decided I would try to be one of those people with "fixed delusions" and ignore anything that conflicts with my perception of things that make perfect sense, such as your previous posts. It is shockingly easy. I am sorry to have upset you.

    Re: Wal-Mart's "Buy American" Program Just a Memor (none / 0) (#24)
    by jen on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 02:22:51 PM EST
    demohypocrates Please do not respond to my posts unless you have read AND comprehended them.

    Jen: Other than that one type of ammo, Walmart is crap for everything else. I must ask you if you don'e eat at places like Mcdonalds, Outback, Starbucks, schlotskys etc. Go to Lowes, Ace Hardware, and Home depot. You may help put the mom and pops out of business. Yup, you can buy ammo on line.

    Re: Wal-Mart's "Buy American" Program Just a Memor (none / 0) (#26)
    by jen on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 04:13:01 PM EST
    I did not know one could buy ammo through the mail. And I cant get some art supplies through the mail. Go figure. Heh Outback is a great treat, mcdonnalds if I'm desperate. As far as Starbucks goes, they never have and may never sell coffee :p Don't really shop those other places.

    Re: Wal-Mart's "Buy American" Program Just a Memor (none / 0) (#27)
    by pigwiggle on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 04:46:55 PM EST
    Mexicans and Chinese (for example) are just as deserving of jobs as Americans; more so if they can do them cheaper. And since American’s are provided vastly more opportunity than the folks competing for the lowest paying jobs it’s difficult to sympathize.

    Re: Wal-Mart's "Buy American" Program Just a Memor (none / 0) (#28)
    by Dadler on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 05:07:22 PM EST
    Piggle, Of course every worker are deserving of fair and humane employment, in whatever country they reside. BUT...are you really denying the REASON these companies go overseas? As if they CARE about Chinese or Honduran or workers from wherever. They pay them as little as they have to, period. And it's hard to sympathize with American workers??? So you don't sympathize with working class Americans losing jobs to vastly exploitative foreign competition??? All because fellow Americans would like to work their honest forty hours and have enough to actually LIVE??? So they can be good fathers and mothers, good citizens, not worn down by earning less than enough to pay for basic necessities. These are the working poor. You think they'd RATHER NOT have a job that affords them financial respect? We're not talking making workers rich here, but we have to pay them enough to keep them productive members, not just of the workforce, but of SOCIETY.

    Re: Wal-Mart's "Buy American" Program Just a Memor (none / 0) (#29)
    by Johnny on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 05:11:05 PM EST
    Johnny, Walmart didn't drive down wages in reatil sales. Their salaries aren't different from KMart or Target, or Home Depot or the like. If Walmart didn't exist, there would be a different retailer selling the same things at higher prices and paying similar wages.
    LMAO Actually, funny you should mention Home Depot.. Ever check out their benefits package? Or Targets? Kmart is on the way out... Why? Check out their past business practices. Walmart indeed does drive down wages and destroys purchasing power of the american dollar. Walmart has shored up the chinese currency though. Enjoy your part in creating the next superpower. Arf: WTF? Try turning your "wit" on someone who will actually think it is funny.

    Re: Wal-Mart's "Buy American" Program Just a Memor (none / 0) (#30)
    by kdog on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 05:27:26 PM EST
    I have a friend who makes a living working at Home Depot, their wages and benefits are pretty sound. And they remain profitable...imagine that! Totally not fair to lump them in with dirty Walmart.

    Re: Wal-Mart's "Buy American" Program Just a Memor (none / 0) (#31)
    by jimcee on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 06:29:10 PM EST
    TChris's piece is nothing more than warmed over "Wobblies'" (WWSP) agitprop. His sources are all from union funded anti-Wal-Mart sources that specialize in demonizing WM. One of my favorite recent stories about the anti Wal-Mart union UFCW, is the one where they needed demonstrators to picket a Wal-Mart in Las Vegas. They hired non-union 'day workers' for the job. In 110 degree heat. With no refreshments. When they needed relief from the heat they went into the same Wal-Mart where they cooled off in the air-conditioned comfort of that purported sweat shop. The employees gave them water because they had become dehydrated. Oh, did I mention that they were bused there by the union and left with no water, shade or anything. And those poor abused Wal-Mart employees that these poor souls were hired to protest were paid more than the $6.00 an hour union day-workers were paid for thier protest. As I said earlier this is just cheap agitprop and TChris should be ashamed to parrot the likes of the UFCW. If you don't like Wal-Mart don't work or shop there. Other than that what does TChris and the other anti Wal-Mart folks want? That the gov't put them out of business? For the proles to storm the gates of the Bentonville 'Bastille'? Man, can people be that easily worked into a lather over a retailer? Yeah, I guess they can.

    Re: Wal-Mart's "Buy American" Program Just a Memor (none / 0) (#32)
    by soccerdad on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 06:31:42 PM EST
    Got a link for your story?

    Re: Wal-Mart's "Buy American" Program Just a Memor (none / 0) (#33)
    by jimcee on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 07:10:50 PM EST
    SD, Being a Luddite I'm not quite sure how to do a 'link' but I believe the story was linked by Instapundit. I'll see if I can find a site reference for you because the story was unbelievable but came complete with pictures and interviews of the day-workers. That same union, United Food and Commercial Workers #1 formerly based out of Utica NY also pulled a bone-headed stunt with a charity raffle for the Childrens Miracle Network, a local fund for sick kids. For $100 dollars you could by a ticket that would get you into a drawing to win a brand new house. This was a decade old raffle that had raised hundreds of thousands of dollars. The UFCW was trying to organise a local hospital's service staff and found some strange NYState labor law that said they must make the tickets available, for free, to the employees of the non-profit hospital whose programs it would benefit. Well, the raffle was cancelled, the house sold and the money, all of it, was donated to the CMN. Most of those who had bought tickets refused to except a refund and donated thier own money as well. The hospital is still non-union and the UFCW#1, the founding chapter by the way was 'consolidated' into the larger union, with local union jobs, (management) lost, by the way. Thier HQ are currently up for sale. I'll see if I can find a link to the earlier story for you.

    jimcee, if you want to put a link into a comment, what you do is (1)copy the address line of the page that you are linking to. Then, you (2)hi-lite a word or words in your comment and press the button that says "URL." That opens up a box with a blank line, and that's where you (3)paste the address that you copied.

    Re: Wal-Mart's "Buy American" Program Just a Memor (none / 0) (#35)
    by roy on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 07:22:29 PM EST
    I think jimcee refers to the event described here. I happened to remember because I thought it was funny as heck in the context of this other TL thread.

    Re: Wal-Mart's "Buy American" Program Just a Memor (none / 0) (#36)
    by jimcee on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 08:02:14 PM EST
    SD, read roy's link as it is the one I remembered and you have to admit it is rather eye opening about the same bunch (UFCW) who are behind the recent anti Wal-Mart bashing film that TChris refered to earlier. Roy, I'd like to thank you for the link you provided. I found it and returned here to post and found that someone who is much more competent than me had already been there and linked. Punisher, Thank you for the primer, as I said I'm kind of a bonehead when it comes to the internet thing. I'll give it a try next time because it is easier than writing a bunch and it will use less of TL's bandwidth. Please be kind when I screw it up the first few times. Thanks, Jim.

    Re: Wal-Mart's "Buy American" Program Just a Memor (none / 0) (#37)
    by jimcee on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 08:04:47 PM EST
    PS. I'm sorry I keep attributing the initial post to TChris when it obviously is Last Night In Little Rock.

    Re: Wal-Mart's "Buy American" Program Just a Memor (none / 0) (#38)
    by soccerdad on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 08:25:11 PM EST
    You guys are comparing apples and oranges. You are comparing a big corporation that has full time workers with a temp job. I also suspect that some of the verbage may be enhanced for your reading pleasure. The fact remains that Wal-mart treats their employees poorly have few benefits. As this spreads through other industries you will have more and more people without either health insurance and retirement funds. This exultation of corporate profits above all else and the rush to globalization without any sort of plan will lead to a tremendous decrease in the size of the middle class and the swelling of the lower class. Thus we will be back to the early part of the 20th century which was more of a 2 class system. But go ahead just keep drinking the neoliberal kool aid. Who needs a living wage.

    jimcee: Thank you for the primer... no problem at all. That was pretty much the extent of my internet ability.

    Re: Wal-Mart's "Buy American" Program Just a Memor (none / 0) (#40)
    by jimcee on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 09:01:40 PM EST
    SD, I have worked for a large corporation as a union worker, 13 years and I was offered about the same benefit package that Wal-Mart employees are offered except there was no 401K option. It was the company plan, negotiated by the union (IAM/AFLCIO), paid fully by the company. Sounds good doesn't it? Well the pension plan is now held by the Federal gov'ts pension assurance fund which is bankrupt. My vested pension, which I can't touch until I'm 62 is worth about $500 a month. So much for the union. Luckly I have a TIAA-CREF pension that I still can contribute to and control. I got that through a non-union job at a museum that I had years ago. As for insurance I pay for my own as I am self employed. More to the point, No one owes you anything except to give you your paycheque, on time. If you want insurance, buy it yourself. If you want a pension I suggest a Roth IRA or whatever you can. Retail is not a career unless you own the business and guess what? If you do you'll be paying for your own insurance and saving for your own dotage. If you don't like Wal-Mart, don't shop or work there, it is as simple as that.

    There are no free lunches ... lower prices bring with them a lot of baggage, much of it troubling. In the long run, somewhat higher (but still reasonable) prices would bring a net gain. This is not an "all or nothing" thing either. Surely, Walton set up a situation that some like ... but they can have some of the goodies with less of the badies

    Re: Wal-Mart's "Buy American" Program Just a Memor (none / 0) (#42)
    by roy on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 09:33:40 PM EST
    jimcee,
    If you don't like Wal-Mart, don't shop or work there, it is as simple as that.
    I'll switch sides long enough to say it's only simple for workers if other businesses are hiring. It's only simple for customers if Wal-Mart has competition. Wal-Mart is a monopoly (maybe not in the legal sense) in some areas, which doesn't upset me, but I acknowledge that it really does limit the options of workers and customers in the area.

    Re: Wal-Mart's "Buy American" Program Just a Memor (none / 0) (#43)
    by jimcee on Sun Jan 08, 2006 at 10:03:17 PM EST
    Roy, I understand what you are saying. I live in Utica, Oneida County, New York state. There aren't a lot of good paying jobs for high school educated hard working folks. This is the epicenter of the rust belt and industries have left here in droves over the last 25 years. My father worked in the same mill for 45 years and now that mill is shuttered. The mill I worked in closed last year after struggling for 10 years. Wal-Mart opened a distribution center here that pays pretty well and offers 401K and health benefits as well. A friend of mine had a bout of substance abuse problems and they paid for his treatment and held his job for him when he was in treatment. My wife often has volunteers that are offered to her (she works for a non-profit) and most are excons (prisons have become a cottage industry here) or out of rehab. She's picky about who she excepts but two now work for Wal-Mart's distribution center and one is, get this, a correction officer. Wal-Mart didn't drive Mom and Pop out of business, the cost of doing business in NYS did. Competition just speeded up the process. There is also the other Wal-Mart effect and that is that there are small stores that sell things that don't fit WM marketing schemes, who are cropping up in our innercity areas. Wal-Mart may have hastened the decline of the last remnants of commerce downtown but now new entrepenuers are showing up because the cost of operating downtown are less expensive than before. The thing that bothers me the most about the anti Wal-Mart folks is that they have no idea how things work. They only know the nonsense that is tossed about at thier 'salons'. Where labor is cheap, business will come. Where property is cheap buyers will come. Unfornately in NY state the taxes and utility costs for businesses are too high to attract the type of business that pay the higher wages SD is talking about. Funny how that works in a 'Blue State'.

    Re: Wal-Mart's "Buy American" Program Just a Memor (none / 0) (#44)
    by Johnny on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 02:06:14 AM EST
    A study of only 244 of its stores (out of thousands) by the organization Good Jobs First found Wal-Mart raked in $1 billion in effective taxpayer subsidies. A congressional report found that Wal-Mart's low wages mean that the average retail employee at Wal-Mart relies on roughly $2,103 per year in public subsidies, money needed for housing, children's health insurance, school lunch programs, and Title I education.
    source
    A November 2004 New York Times article cites a study in Georgia that found 10,000 children of Wal-Mart employees were in the state's healthcare program at a cost to taxpayers of $10 million a year. The same article describes a hospital in North Carolina that found that 31 percent of its 1,900 patients were Wal-Mart employees on Medicaid, and an additional 16 percent were Wal-Mart employees with no insurance at all. And in California, a study released in August 2004 by researchers at the University of California at Berkeley determined that the healthcare expenses of uninsured Wal-Mart employees were costing the already economically-strapped state $32 million a year in taxpayer funds. Wal-Mart has disputed findings that the company encourages its employees to apply for public assistance and called the California study "biased," noting that the researchers at Berkeley did not contact the company for facts and statistics.
    Source
    Funny how that works in a 'Blue State'.
    Guess that explains the phenomenal economic growth throughout the deep south... As well as such red states like SD, ND, KS, OK, etc etc...

    Re: Wal-Mart's "Buy American" Program Just a Memor (none / 0) (#45)
    by soccerdad on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 03:27:18 AM EST
    No one owes you anything except to give you your paycheque, on time. If you want insurance, buy it yourself. If you want a pension I suggest a Roth IRA or whatever you can. Retail is not a career unless you own the business and guess what? If you do you'll be paying for your own insurance and saving for your own dotage.
    What crap. You're not a libertarian, you're a neoliberal flunky.

    Re: Wal-Mart's "Buy American" Program Just a Memor (none / 0) (#46)
    by soccerdad on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 03:57:46 AM EST
    My daughter worked for walmart. Got great reviews. When she asked to go full time they fired her. Walmart uses mostly part time workers so they dont have to pay benefits. Their wages are so low that anyone working there can't afford medical or retirement. Meanwhile the corporation is swimming profits. Thats ok in your everyman for themelves world. Well we'll be back to the time of the corporate robber barrons.

    Re: Wal-Mart's "Buy American" Program Just a Memor (none / 0) (#47)
    by roy on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 06:55:00 AM EST
    I'd've thought you'd all be happy that Wal-Mart employees use public assistance. This way they're subsidized by the rich, who pay the most taxes, rather than the lower- to middle-class Wal-Mart customers. (75% sarcastic)

    Roy: by the rich, who pay the most taxes,... Since you were being only 75% sarcastic, I'll follow you OT and recall this, from Krugman, 12/02:
    ...the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal. The page's editors, it seems, are upset that some low-income people pay little or nothing in income taxes. Not, mind you, because of the lost revenue, but because these "lucky duckies" — The Journal's term, not mine — might not be feeling a proper hatred for the government.
    The Journal considers a hypothetical ducky who earns only $12,000 a year — some guys have all the luck! — and therefore, according to the editorial, "pays a little less than 4% of income in taxes." Not surprisingly, that statement is a deliberate misrepresentation; the calculation refers only to income taxes. If you include payroll and sales taxes, a worker earning $12,000 probably pays well over 20 percent of income in taxes. But who's counting?


    Sorry, forgot the link. Here it is: Originally published in The New York Times, 12.3.02

    Re: Wal-Mart's "Buy American" Program Just a Memor (none / 0) (#50)
    by pigwiggle on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 09:01:47 AM EST
    Dadler-
    “BUT...are you really denying the REASON these companies go overseas?”
    No, just like when I shop around, they are looking for the best deal.
    “So you don't sympathize with working class Americans losing jobs to vastly exploitative foreign competition???”
    Like I said, with the amount of opportunity here in the US
 And exploiting foreign workers? As I see it the alternative is no job at all. Companies like WM make it on transparent profit margins. Any increase in labor costs is a direct increase in consumer price. If the consumer is the labor there is no net gain. Economic growth is born from competition. The displaced worker is forced to provide something of value; ingenuity, creativity, something we all want to pay for. Americans need perspective. Half of the folks that work in my field, my direct competition, are Indian and Chinese. They are better educated and are willing to work very long hours for very little. And why not, they have perspective. One of my Chinese colleagues (and a friend) grew up in a very poor Chinese farming village with literally no food. He was forced to kill tree rats and frogs from the rice fields to supplement his poor diet. The childhood malnutrition is obvious. He knows how good we have it and is willing to work for it. And I’m willing to compete because it’s the right thing. What’s the alternative? Ask the US taxpayer to subsidize my laziness and impractical expectations?

    Re: Wal-Mart's "Buy American" Program Just a Memor (none / 0) (#51)
    by Dadler on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 09:53:05 AM EST
    Pig, So because American workers didn't have to kill rats to survive they should NOT be allowed a livable wage and benefits? They should have to play a game in which they have the least leverage? These are American citizens, my friend. I'm talking about manual, laboring workers, the mass of the world population and ours. And providing these and every American worker with a livable wage and benefits is a BAD thing??? I don't get it. We consume, consume, consume, that's our economy, WE CREATE FAT LAZY CONSUMERS (we were told to consume in the aftermath of 9/11!), we ignore education for our neediest (go to a ghetto school and see for yourself), and you're blaming the least among your fellow citizens for being products of this, their own society??? Are you going to use China as the standard to judge American workers? Their acceptance of employer treatment and compensation? Or India's caste system? Is that really where we want to set the bar. I understand there are some very hardworking people in every corner of the earth, but I don't see how making them play a fiscal game, controlled by the wealthy and already powerful, in order to survive is a good thing in the long run, short run, whenever. The face value lack of morality in it is more than enough for me to reject it. If all we're doing is forcing workers to compete for jobs EVERYONE needs, then we're still just playing one worker off another for the profit of those who already have more than enough. Are you really surprised that people from totalitarian societies would accept less money and infinitely poorer treatment than Americans??? And do you expect Americans to start acting and behaving in the same manner as those raised in a miltary dictatorship??? The labor movement occurred in this nation for a reason, not really that long ago. Do we want to go backward in that respect??? I'm confused, baby. Hence the question mark abuse. I've lived with over 50 people in my life, from ever corner of the earth, including Vietnam war refugees, Ethiopian political refugees, Americans on welfare (inluding me and my mom) and the common denominator is we all want to be treated with respect. Using workers, pitting those in one country against those in another, when we are STILL TALKING ABOUT INADEQUATE WAGES AND BENEFITS to workers, then all we're doing is perpetuating a game designed NOT to provide for a better society, but to suck as much profit as we can for shareholders. A single-minded goal that is antithetical to my idea of sound labor and economic policy. To me, our first goal should be full and fair employement and compensation for everyone. That clearly provides for basic needs and a little more, so the 2/3 of the world living in abject poverty can be lifted, and so workers EVERYWHERE aren't trying to beat each other out for the right to make a living, which EVERYONE HAS TO DO to ensure a safe and stable and just society everywhere. In that stability, problems of extremism, religion, race, hatred, cannot help but be mitgated greatly. If the wealthy and powerful cannot utilize humane rules such as these in their already rigged game, then nothing will change, since all we are really talking about here is...pay your workers as MUCH as you can as OFTEN as you can, and NOT as LITTLE as you can as INFREQUENTLY as you have to. That's all it is, since money isn't a living thing, it's invested with value by us, it's given meaning by us. And when that value and meaning INCLUDES dignity and more than just survival for the mass of workers around the globe, then we'll be talking about a fair game, and not the rigged system we have now.

    Re: Wal-Mart's "Buy American" Program Just a Memor (none / 0) (#52)
    by pigwiggle on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 10:29:52 AM EST
    “So because American workers didn't have to kill rats to survive they should NOT be allowed a livable wage and benefits?”
    We aren’t talking about allowing anyone anything. This is simply the world in all its ugliness. There are poor people willing to do more for less, it’s very simple; competition.
    “And providing these and every American worker with a livable wage and benefits is a BAD thing???”
    That would be great. But you simply can’t mandate affluence. If a product costs more to manufacture fewer folks can afford it, starting with the poorest. It doesn’t do any good to pay them more if the products they need raise in price accordingly. There are only three places to squeeze; consumer cost, manufacturing cost, and profit. Like I said, profits are razor thin; increase the cost of labor and the product cost necessarily increases.
    “WE CREATE FAT LAZY CONSUMERS 
 and you're blaming the least among your fellow citizens for being products of this, their own society???”
    Nail on the head. Our poor, who incidentally were considered middleclass in my grandfather’s generation, are fat and lazy. Where else in the world can you be obese, have a home with cable television, and be considered poor. It is a well-perpetuated myth that America’s poor are getting poorer. In constant US dollars all incomes have moved a full quintile in the last 50 years. Like I said, the 1950’s middle class would be considered lower middle class or poor from today’s perspective. And it is due to competition.
    “Are you going to use China as the standard to judge American workers?”
    If that’s our competition we had better. The more desirable alternative is to move on from manufacturing and out-compete where we can.
    “I understand there are some very hardworking people in every corner of the earth, but I don't see how making them play a fiscal game,”
    You mean provided them with gainful employment? The alternative is no job!
    “Are you really surprised that people from totalitarian societies would accept less money and infinitely poorer treatment than Americans???”
    We are talking about poor countries. Mexico, India, et al., they are poor but not totalitarian. Qatar, Libya, et al. are totalitarian but not competing for US jobs.
    “The labor movement occurred in this nation for a reason 
 Do we want to go backward in that respect???”
    Certainly not, but the labor movement is out dated and increasingly out of touch; i.e. NY transit dispute over (among the more absurd) 50yr retirement with full pension.
    “ 
NOT to provide for a better society, but to suck as much profit as we can for shareholders. A single-minded goal that is antithetical to my idea of sound labor and economic policy.”
    Society is composed of shareholders. Shareholders provide capital for industry to make things to ease our burden and improve the quality of life. This is how things improve; raw greed and ego. For every disease, problem, burden, that has been solved through well-wishers and charity I’ll show you a thousand that have been produced by someone who wants to get paid. You want to kill the golden goose. I’m baffled at the endless derision ‘progressives’ show for the wealthy. They provide the means of industry and pay all the taxes progressives would spend. And it still isn’t enough. If you want and example of the end result of your vision look to the bloated welfare states of Europe; double digit unemployment, floundering economies, and benefit cut after benefit cut. It’s a house of cards.

    Great thread. punisher, thanks for the linking tutorial, I'd been typing out links long-form. Doh! Anyway, in general, in the mass market, a business that provides a product at a lower price than its competition will survive in the long run. Those that don't, won't. If WM didn't provide the lowest price (partly by utilizing lower priced off-shore workers), another company would and WM would fail. Would you rather WM win, or the Chinese/Indian version of WM?

    Re: Wal-Mart's "Buy American" Program Just a Memor (none / 0) (#54)
    by soccerdad on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 11:21:31 AM EST
    Society is composed of shareholders.
    A complete fallacy from which the rest of the argument flows. Most people are not shareholders in any measurable way. Then an arbitrary strawman is established comparing shareholders and charity.
    I’m baffled at the endless derision ‘progressives’ show for the wealthy.
    A faalse statement allowing the ensuing strawman. What progressives dislike is the absolute disregard for the average working person the corporations and this government has.
    They provide the means of industry and pay all the taxes progressives would spend. And it still isn’t enough.
    Well they (corporations) are swimming in what are amounting to obscene profits, sheltering their money in offshore accounts and not paying their fair of taxes. In the last 5 years we've had a measureable shift in the tax burden from the rich to the middle class. The income tax is becoming a payroll tax, because taxes on other forms of income are being slashed. The argument made here is the classic neoliberal argument that the captains of industry do all the good and we should all be happy at the crumbs they throw us.
    your vision look to the bloated welfare states of Europe; double digit unemployment, floundering economies, and benefit cut after benefit cut. It’s a house of cards
    . Its not only an incorrect statement but is also an artifical dichotomy which assumes no other alternatives. And its where we're headed anyway not because of progressive policies. The bottom line is this, unrestricted and unplanned globalization, will put very intense downward pressure on wages, the amount determined essentially by the size of the global workforce and the lowest wages available in that pool. Since corporations are only bound by maximizing profits in this paradigm there is no motivation to generate new jobs here. Some will always be generated now by individuals , but the overall effect will be to lower the median living style of the US to very close to that of the developing countries supplying the labor. There is no evidence to indicate that there will be an equal number of jobs created in the US to replace the outsourced jobs, although thats what were told. These outsourced jobs now include jobs that were performed in the past by doctors, lawyers, engineers. Thus those upper middle class jobs will become harder to get. And this follows the continuing decline in middle class jobs like manufacturing etc. So if left unchecked and allowed to reach its normal equilibrium point which is determined soley by the pool of global workers and the lowest wages paid the only result that can emerge for the US is a 2 class society, the captains of industry and the handful of people at the top of corporations and everyne else who if they are lucky will be making McDonald like wages. An this analysis doesn't even include the strains on the economy which will caused by big increases in energy prices and within 10 years the full blown effects of peak oil.

    Re: Wal-Mart's "Buy American" Program Just a Memor (none / 0) (#55)
    by soccerdad on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 11:22:56 AM EST
    Would you rather WM win, or the Chinese/Indian version of WM?
    more artifical dichotomies.

    Re: Wal-Mart's "Buy American" Program Just a Memor (none / 0) (#56)
    by roy on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 11:41:32 AM EST
    soccerdad,
    Well they (corporations) are swimming in what are amounting to obscene profits, sheltering their money in offshore accounts and not paying their fair of taxes.
    You've brought this up before, and I'm still fuzzy on something: what is the fair share of taxes a corp should pay? WM paid $5.6 billion in income tax on its profits last year. Not counting taxes on individuals' salaries, re-tax on dividends paid to shareholders, and so on. How much should it have paid? I ask because I have an unsubstantiated hunch that people who say that "corporations" or "the rich" don't pay enough haven't actually looked into how much they pay and how much they should pay. I think you just have your own unsubstantiated hunch that somebody -- not you -- needs to pay more. But I always enjoy being proven wrong.

    more artifical dichotomies.
    More refusal to accept reality.

    Re: Wal-Mart's "Buy American" Program Just a Memor (none / 0) (#58)
    by pigwiggle on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 12:19:37 PM EST
    SD-
    “A complete fallacy from which the rest of the argument flows. Most people are not shareholders in any measurable way.”
    Certainly society is not exclusively composed of shareholders, but almost anyone with a pension or some other retirement scheme is. This is most folks, but my point certainly isn’t contingent on it.
    “Well they (corporations) are swimming in what are amounting to obscene profits, sheltering their money in offshore accounts and not paying their fair of taxes.”
    What is an obscene profit? The companies deemed to be profitable enough for the S&P 500 are averaging ~15% (if I remember correctly). In the process of making $15 one of these companies spends $85 on wages, raw materials (from companies that also pay wages), taxes, all kinds of things that benefit society. It’s a fallacy that working corporations hide profits in offshore accounts. The type of accounts I’m sure you are talking about are tax shelters for individuals and trusts. For example, Senator Kennedy and family hold their fortune in an offshore oil corporation to avoid inheritance taxes and the like. That’s fine; they still pay far more than their share. An individual’s share should be (1/US population)*(US expenditures). Corporations that do business in the US cannot avoid taxation.
    “The argument made here is the classic neoliberal argument that the captains of industry do all the good and we should all be happy at the crumbs they throw us.”
    Well, I hate to nit pick, but it’s a liberal argument. It’s you folks that boosted the name ‘liberal’. Anyway, if your labor is really worth what you think it is someone will pay you as much. And like it or not, those that succeed in industry do so because folks like you and me are would rather have their stuff than our money. If it weren’t a mutually beneficial transaction you wouldn’t be participating. Get over yourself, it’s not ‘crumbs’ and you're not worth what you think.
    “The bottom line is this, unrestricted and unplanned globalization, will put very intense downward pressure on wages,”
    Zero sum gain BS. We have already seen offshored IT jobs come back from India as their standard of living is increasing beyond the benefit of outsourcing. The folks in India are now not only a source of productivity but a developing market. But even if it was zero sum gain; the jobs that are retained in the US by forcing the use of US labor at inflated costs will result in price inflation. Its an interesting choice; screw the worlds poorest in favor of US workers and at the expense of US consumers.

    Re: Wal-Mart's "Buy American" Program Just a Memor (none / 0) (#59)
    by pigwiggle on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 12:54:29 PM EST
    “In the last 5 years we've had a measureable shift in the tax burden from the rich to the middle class.”
    If this were true one could attribute it to the larger share of total income the median 1/5 (middleclass) have gained since 2000; the middleclass’ share of total income rose from 13.5% in 2000 to 14.4% in 2003 (the last year the CBO has published data). But it isn't true. The middleclass’ tax liability hasn’t changed in any meaningful way since 2000. In 2000 it was 9.8% in 2003 it was 9.9% What is certainly true is that the wealthiest bear the bulk of the tax burden; the top 5% pays 57% of income tax liability, the top 1% pays 35%; the lowest two quintiles actually make money on their income tax returns. Oh, and not to leave out the corporations who are in fact only individuals. The top 20% bear 86% of the corporate income tax liability. Screw the rich. Here’s the CBO numbers, have fun.

    Re: Wal-Mart's "Buy American" Program Just a Memor (none / 0) (#60)
    by soccerdad on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 01:55:45 PM EST
    pig's fun with numbers. statements like this are complete BS and made to confuse the issue
    5% pays 57% of income tax liability,
    Well the top 5% have most of the wealth. So they are paying more because they have all the money and wealth Duh. Here's the real question what is their rate, i.e what is (actual tax paid)/(total income). There have major tax cuts for the rich on non payroll income. Here's a illustrative example for the mathematically challange. A makes 20k and pays 2k in taxes 10% B makes 200k and pays 15k in taxes (7.5%). Now B payed (15/17=88% of the taxes). But on a rate basis he did better than the guy in poverty.Note; this is an illustrative example to point out the incorrect conclusions drawn by pig. This is done on purpose to make it sound like the rich are getting screwed, but they aren't.
    median 1/5
    no, compare it to the bottom 4/5 as a whole.
    The top 20% bear 86% of the corporate income tax liability.
    same misleading nonsense

    Re: Wal-Mart's "Buy American" Program Just a Memor (none / 0) (#61)
    by pigwiggle on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 02:23:49 PM EST
    “statements like this are complete BS and made to confuse the issue”
    No, they are actual numbers from the congressional budget office, links included. What is BS is your fabricated claim that the tax burden for the middleclass has increased.
    “Here's the real question what is their rate, i.e what is (actual tax paid)/(total income).”
    The median 1/5, i.e. the middleclass, saw a rate reduction from 16.6% in 2000 to 13.6% in 2003.
    “no, compare it to the bottom 4/5 as a whole.”
    OK, the average decrease in the total effective federal tax rate was 2.7% for the bottom 4/5; the top 1/5 saw a reduction of 3%.
    “There have major tax cuts for the rich on non payroll income.”
    No, these are total effective federal tax rates which include pretax cash income, wages, dividends, corporate tax payments, non-taxable interests, realized capital gains, and on; the whole ball of wax, everything.
    “same misleading nonsense”
    Nonsense? Like your bold but unsubstantiated (and seemingly wholly fabricated) claims. You need to get your rhetoric straight. When progressives talk of the huge giveaway to the rich they necessarily do it in terms of absolute cash value. This rate business is a non-starter.

    Re: Wal-Mart's "Buy American" Program Just a Memor (none / 0) (#62)
    by pigwiggle on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 02:38:21 PM EST
    “This is done on purpose to make it sound like the rich are getting screwed, but they aren't.”
    I probably could have avoided my last post. This is really the issue. In terms of rate and absolute dollars the burden is disproportionately carried. You think it isn’t disproportionate enough. So SD, how much of their money and property are you willing to let the better off keep?

    Re: Wal-Mart's "Buy American" Program Just a Memor (none / 0) (#63)
    by Dadler on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 03:11:47 PM EST
    Pig, Many progressives ARE wealthy in this country. Your beef with them is that they practice self-criticism. Some rich people actually think they DO have an unfair advantage. They are called honest. And don't forget, the majority of truly rich people in this nation inherited that wealth. Some earned it, more than some didn't. That's just reality. They are no more or less deserving than any random sampling of any other group. I am very comfortable at this point in my life, wealthy by the standards of most people in the world, and I think we can do better, myself included. Also, the poor are simply a reflection of society as a whole. They are CONSUMERS, as they are taught to be, they are taught that is what being an American IS. Did you see HOOP DREAMS, by the way? Is living in a dark house, eating hot dogs, in a violent neglected neighborhood somehow not poor and needy enough for you? Just to give you an example you can see. And those were relatively FUNCTIONAL families all things considered in the underclass. It's always easy to entirely blame the least among us for their plight. We don't do anything to help them, when we know they need help. And if it's not your job to help those in your society who need it, then don't complain when that society comes apart at the seams. If we can't decide that ALL Americans, all PEOPLE, have a right to full-time employment that pays a DECENT LIVING wage, then it IS just a game, and social stability and security really aren't part of it. As for taxes, ask yourself this: for whom is it an actual SACRIFICE to pay taxes, the wealthier or the poorer? A person paying 2k on 20k a year is actually having his ability to meet basic needs negatively impacted. The person making 100k a year or 200 or 500 or millions, does not have this genuine physical/material burden in their payment, though it is a greater amount or even a greater percentage. THAT is punishing people for earning less. It is putting a greater physical/material burden on the poorer in society. It's just not good. And without all those poor little wage slaves, remember, there is no great wealth to be had. None.

    Re: Wal-Mart's "Buy American" Program Just a Memor (none / 0) (#64)
    by Dadler on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 03:28:46 PM EST
    Add Pig, Also on taxes, if corporations were made to pay their fair share then I doubt we'd have this debate. They reap the biggest benefits of our capitalist system and are asked to pay at a rate in no way reflecting that. That seems a better answer to the one-sided question you just posed to Soccerdad: "...How much of their money and property are you willing to let the better off keep?" Still, I sense in the question itself an assumption that they wealthy are SOOO burdened as it is. They aren't, they're just irritated at having to contribute commensurate with their advantage. And since they never really will, I don't see their complaining as any more than that.

    Re: Wal-Mart's "Buy American" Program Just a Memor (none / 0) (#65)
    by Dadler on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 03:50:55 PM EST
    Last Add Pig, As for the 1950's and middle class this and that, and how the poor today would be middle class then...with the 50's you're talking post-war union bliss. Wages were enough to get you a house, food, education, and without 2 income earners. On the down side, white society was the beneficiary of discrimination in housing, jobs, education, you name it. Restrictive convenents were the norm. So I don't see the 50' as any clear example of anything except wages being somewhat related to living costs -- as opposed to the stagnation of wages we've had for more than a generation. Just look at the gap between wages and housing costs and tell it everything's fine.

    Re: Wal-Mart's "Buy American" Program Just a Memor (none / 0) (#66)
    by jimcee on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 06:17:59 PM EST
    Pigwiggle, I'd say that you have effectively stated the obvious (economics 101) and you have done so very well. SD, Dadler et al, are just stuck in thier fantasy worlds of 'It is the rich folks job to care for the poor/ the poor are the rich folks fault...'. Beyond giving anyone the chance to earn a living by doing something useful that creates income, capital has done its job. SD's ideas are the tried and true nonsense that people have used to try to spread the wealth to people that haven't earned it. They used to call it Socialism but they are afraid to use that term nowadays. Me? I'm 'Classical Liberal' but as PW said you guys have corrupted that term. Living in a 'transitional' neighborhood I see many fat children wearing the lastest fashions. No they are not fat because the are malnourished as you might see in say the Sudan, no quite the contrary. They obviously can afford the latest fashions but yet they live in Section 8 gov't subsidised housing. So obviously what passes for poor in the US is much different than your envious diatribe against the rich would admit. If you have a full belly and a warm home then you are doing better than 80% of the rest of the world. If you want more than that I suggest you get an education, work hard, save your money and live within your means. Your diatribes are nothing more than warmed over early 20th century Marxist BS and you know it. It is tired, tried and failed.

    Re: Wal-Mart's "Buy American" Program Just a Memor (none / 0) (#67)
    by Dadler on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 06:38:55 PM EST
    Jimcee, Sure, I'm in a fantasy world. Thanks for making no attempt to address the actual points I made. Next time you want to contribute something, I'll make sure to paraphrase it in a completely inaccurate and biased manner.

    Re: Wal-Mart's "Buy American" Program Just a Memor (none / 0) (#68)
    by pigwiggle on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 06:57:49 PM EST
    Dadler-
    “Many progressives ARE wealthy in this country.”
    Having money doesn’t give someone standing to spend anothers.
    “And if it's not your job to help those in your society who need it, then don't complain when that society comes apart at the seams.”
    It’s not my job, although I feel compelled to, and do help. I’m sure you do as well, although how you go from this compulsion to using thug rule, i.e. democracy, to extort other folks property and infringe on their volition is inexplicable.
    “If we can't decide that ALL Americans, all PEOPLE, have a right to full-time employment that pays a DECENT LIVING wage, then it IS just a game, and social stability and security really aren't part of it.”
    It sounds good, but like I said, you can’t just mandate affluence.
    “for whom is it an actual SACRIFICE to pay taxes”
    It doesn’t matter. Our fundamental rights aren’t contingent on who uses or needs them more. Should we ‘prorate’ freedom of speech contingent on how someone might use it, or our impression of the value of their ideas?
    “Also on taxes, if corporations were made to pay their fair share then I doubt we'd have this debate.”
    The CBO has an interesting publication relating corporate tax rates with corporate location. Make them ‘pay their fair share’ and they will relocate. Ireland recently reduced their corporate tax rate and enjoyed a huge influx of jobs and capital; an economic boom.
    “
 and how the poor today would be middle class then...with the 50's you're talking post-war union bliss. Wages were enough to get you a house, food, education, and without 2 income earners.”
    No, that is in purchasing parity. In the 50s folks made do with less; wages were enough to buy a small house (in 1950 the average home size was 983sq ft, in 2002 it was 2230), homemade food (no convenience food or dinning out), and far fewer people paid for private education and college. Women stayed home through necessity, not choice. Things are better than they were, and they are getting better by the day.

    Re: Wal-Mart's "Buy American" Program Just a Memor (none / 0) (#69)
    by glanton on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 07:20:30 PM EST
    I'll bet patrick can't live without his fox all-stars. brain-dead fred, me-too mort, klueless krauthammer and horsebrit hume.
    Charlie, that's a homerun. As TBS likes to say, "Very Funny."

    Re: Wal-Mart's "Buy American" Program Just a Memor (none / 0) (#70)
    by Dadler on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 07:24:17 PM EST
    Pig, My point about many progressives BEING wealthy was clear: not all the wealthy resent being taxed, resent paying their "fair" share, and actually practice the kind of self criticism that you expect only the poor to practice. If an American corporation relocates to avoid paying American workers a living wage here in America, then they are CHOOSING to abandon their own country. And very few, if any, do so for any other reason than making as much money as they can at the EXPENSE of workers, American and foreign. That means at the EXPENSE of our entire nation. That's the truth, the truth hurts. But don't try to paint it as some inevitable result, as if the Gods were controlling it. The powerful and affluent make those choices, the poor and workers don't. Your take on the 50's doesn't hold water. You avoid all the difficult issues, such as the gap between wages and cost of living having gone haywife in the meantime, government sanctioned discrimination, union jobs at their highest. Purchasing power is how much yoru dollar buys you, chief, and that was my point. In the fifties, EVERYTHING was cheaper and closer in relative affordability to wages. And they made do with less? Homemade food? Frozen dinners and convenience food EXPLODED in the 50's. Of course they had less stuff, there was less stuff inundating their lives. Do you like consumer, commerical culture in America as it has developed? You seem to, praising the wealth and opportunity. But you don't want to accept the cost, that it creates people with very wasteful ways. That's how it thrives. So do you want us to consume, consume, consume, or not? Consume less, the economy falters, and you don't want that, right? Also, in the 50's pollution was terrible, you couldn't even SEE down a city street for all the pollution. All those people didn't live with less of that, they polluted and fouled their enviornment blindly for years. It was a time of waste, in a different way than today, but still the product of American consumer history that gets us where we are now. We made a clear choice in this nation to screw the average worker. To put the hording of wealth and the dream of getting filthy rich above the needs of the average laborer. Putting them in a game with every other worker around the world is not a solution, it's another part of the problem. We need to redefine money.

    Re: Wal-Mart's "Buy American" Program Just a Memor (none / 0) (#71)
    by jimcee on Mon Jan 09, 2006 at 07:44:36 PM EST
    Dadler, I answered your points with the same type of rhetoric with which they were proposed. I grew up in a family of five in a 1000 square foot house. Both of my parents worked to pay our way. We rarely ate out unless you consider a bag o'burgers from Daddy's (a NE McDonald's knock off) fine dining. I now live in a 2000sqft home and its just my wife and myself. I still don't eat out much but we like to cook. It seems like an improvement to me. Unlike you I don't obsess about the mythical 'monopoly man' in the pin stripe pants and top hat. I'll never live on Park Place but you know, I still live OK. Will I be able to retire like my blue collar dad did? No, not at all but I'm not my Dad. In the end your rhetoric is the same as has been always used by those who think they have the answer to alleviating the struggles of the lower economic stratus. It is cheap agitprop, the same used at the head of this whole thread that somehow you're doing poorly because someone is holding you back. The truth is that your belief in your own rhetoric is holding you back. As long as you can jealously blame others for your own percieved failures then you will never get ahead. Stop pleading for the underclass and take care of you and yours. When you have the time volunteer to help others. I find the time to help at the Abraham House which takes care of destitute people who are in the last phases of terminal illnesses. These people are truly in need and working with them makes me feel as if I've helped someone who is real not some abstraction conjured up for the sake of arguement. If you want to see how bad life can be tear yourself away from your keyboard and empty the bedpan of an AIDS patient or hold the hand of a dying 40 yr old woman as she takes her last breath. Serve a dinner to a homeless person at the local Rescue Mission. You'll understand how good life can be. And how bad it can be. Either way Wal-Mart is nothing more than a way for certain folks to feel good about themselves as they parrot thier working man's ballads. They are nothing more than coffee house poets. And the only thing they truly help is their own egos and maybe they might tip thier servers if thier latte is just right.

    Re: Wal-Mart's "Buy American" Program Just a Memor (none / 0) (#72)
    by pigwiggle on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 08:56:09 AM EST
    Dadler- Please, just take a look at this “purchasing parity” calculator and some census data. For example, the top end of the median income in 1967 was $8,306 (in 1967 $s), in 2003 $s that would have the purchasing power of $45,810. The top of the median income in 2003 was $54,453; almost $9K more. The purchasing power of the middle class increased by $9,000 (2003 $s) from 1967 to 2003. Pretty good, and certainly not bad.
    “any other reason than making as much money as they can at the EXPENSE of workers,”
    Any employee employer trade is necessarily consensual and mutually beneficial; otherwise there would be no transaction. If the trade seems forced from the employee’s perspective it is only because it is so beneficial; an offer you can’t refuse.
    “Your take on the 50's doesn't hold water. You avoid all the difficult issues, such as the gap between wages and cost of living having gone haywife in the meantime, government sanctioned discrimination, union jobs at their highest.”
    No, I’m not avoiding the difficult issues; rather I’m showing you they (wage gap, cost of living) don’t exist as they have been portrayed. I’ve shown you, with real historic data, that by all measures these things have only gotten better. It’s flat out leftist rhetorical garbage to say they haven’t. Please, look at the CBO report I linked to.
    “Purchasing power is how much yoru dollar buys you, chief, and that was my point. In the fifties, EVERYTHING was cheaper and closer in relative affordability to wages.”
    You are flat wrong. You misunderstood; the numbers I quoted were in constant dollars, dollars adjusted for purchasing parity, adjusted for inflation. All income groups have greater purchasing power than they did 50 years ago. Today’s median income group can buy more than twice the home the median income group of the 1950s could. They can afford more leisure, more and more convenient food, and more autos, more everything. You are just plain wrong here.

    Re: Wal-Mart's "Buy American" Program Just a Memor (none / 0) (#73)
    by pigwiggle on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 09:31:35 AM EST
    “You can manipulate stats 'til the cows come home.”
    OK, I’ve given you the links to the raw data. Manipulate away, show me that they support your assertions. I won’t hold my breath; you are more into cheerleading than forming and posing coherent, supported arguments.

    Re: Wal-Mart's "Buy American" Program Just a Memor (none / 0) (#74)
    by pigwiggle on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 10:11:18 AM EST
    Charliecantargue10- Here, I’ll hold your hand, show you how it works.
    “The middle class has been shrinkin' for at least 25 years now.”
    The middle class can’t shrink; they are, by definition, the median 1/5 of income earners. If the middle class actually does shrink then the entire pool of income earners shrinks, and necessarily the number of poor as well as rich shrink.
    “The rich get richer. The poor get poorer.”
    Well, you are half right; the rich have become richer, but the bottom 1/5 of wage earners have as well. Look at the census data yourself; in constant dollars (a real measure, including inflation) the bottom 1/5 were making 28% more in 2003 than in 1967.
    “Whatever income tax breaks the poor and the middle class have gotten have more than been offset by payroll taxes and State and Local taxes as they struggle to pick up”
    The average increase in state tax as a portion of income has increased 0.8% for the middleclass from 1989-2002. The federal effective individual income tax rate for this group decreased by 3.3%, while the total effective federal tax rate declined by 4.3%. So no, the states haven’t made up the difference, as you claim.
    “And that's before ya factor in childcare 'cause it takes both spouses working to make it 
”
    Actually, childcare is a modern luxury. In the economy of the 1950s a couple couldn’t afford to hire someone to mind their children while the woman worked. Single worker families were a necessity. Average yearly care for a single infant costs $13,500 (current dollars), $1767 in 1950s dollars. In 1950 the median income was $3031, and women made far less. It would be impossible for a woman in 1950 to replace childcare with her wage, let alone make anything above that.

    Re: Wal-Mart's "Buy American" Program Just a Memor (none / 0) (#75)
    by Dadler on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 11:41:13 AM EST
    Pig, A mother in married couple didn't HAVE to work in the 1950's, and society looked down on her if she did. One income was enough to pay housing, food, medical. Wages and costs did not have the gulf between them they do now. CEO's weren't paid 100 times the average worker, union contracts paid workers more than livable wages. If you worked your honest 40 back then, you'd would not worry about paying for basic necessities the way too many hardworkers are stressing about now. The irony is, yes, we do consume too much. But, I'll say it again, that is what we TEACH our citizens to be, from the time they are born. We're too afraid to criticize free American capitalism (so how free is it?), too afraid the economy will collapse and we'll be powerless to stop it, too afraid of many things to really take a long, hard look at consumer society, financial wealth above social health, hell, all those things Eisenhower warned us about in his farewell speech -- industrial capitalism's ability to trump decomcracy and, hence, a healthy society. Buy, buy, buy, consume, consume, consume is certainly not the ethos we inherited from our puritan, deist, quaker founders. It's the dollar, speaking louder than we do.

    Re: Wal-Mart's "Buy American" Program Just a Memor (none / 0) (#76)
    by Dadler on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 12:10:59 PM EST
    Add Pig, To put it simply: I just don't dig the numbers game you're trying to use as proof of something. The logic of these stats doesn't cut it for me. For example, you wrote: Look at the census data yourself; in constant dollars (a real measure, including inflation) the bottom 1/5 were making 28% more in 2003 than in 1967. I'll be nice: quintile stats are bullsh*t. They are used exclusively to rosy up a picture. Census data or no. Using 20% blocks, they are ALWAYS tilted to the top of each quintile. Think about it, my friend, the top 20% is a group that includes people from Bill Gates to me. Um, that's not a group that will reflect my economic reality at all when viewed as a monolith. It's useless. In the same way, the bottom quintile runs from people actually making a living somehow to the effectively homeless. Again, a few at the top will see a gain, and that gain -- when seen in 20% lumps -- reflects nothing but a little increase and a lot of stat hooey. Housing costs, just as the most blatant example, have risen far Far FAR faster than wages (which have essentially been stagnant for the average worker). Thankfully, I don't need to trust a statistic about this, I have concrete life experience. I remember how my mom and first stepdad (who were schoolteachers at the time, certainly not rich) could buy a house in a decent neighborhood in SoCal BECAUSE THE PRICE OF THAT HOUSE WASN'T EVEN DOUBLE THEIR YEARLY INCOME -- $32,000 house. That house would now sell for $400,000-plus. And ain't no wage increase near that in the meantime. Not even close. So where do "workers" go to live? Further and further from their jobs, which increases commutes, which increases costs in fuel and family. Now, I understand it's a large country, and the local situations everywhere are different. I live in SoCal, with a wife and child in 1500 square feet, which was less than 900 a few years ago before we moved. And we moved to a rental. We sold our house to get our child out of a bad neighborhood, but we couldn't afford to buy something bigger. So we rent this house for half what a house payment on it would be if we could even afford it.

    Re: Wal-Mart's "Buy American" Program Just a Memor (none / 0) (#77)
    by pigwiggle on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 01:30:00 PM EST
    Dadler-
    “Housing costs, just as the most blatant example, have risen far Far FAR faster than wages”
    Sorry, they haven’t. The average home in 1950 cost $59,575 (in 2002 $s) while the average home cost $138,601 in 2002. Since the average home size in the same period increased from 982 sq ft to 2230 sq ft, the cost increase was from $60.6sq/ft to $62.2sq/ft; a real increase of 2.6%. The price of housing has actually grown more slowly than the increase in purchasing power. It’s your expectation that has outstripped wages.
    “One income was enough to pay housing, food, medical. Wages and costs did not have the gulf between them they do now.”
    You still don’t get it. I have shown you time and again that purchasing power has increased, single earner or not, for the entire income distribution. Look, don’t keep repeating this old canard without some evidence. Show me the numbers, just like I have shown you.
    “I'll be nice: quintile stats are bullsh*t. They are used exclusively to rosy up a picture.”
    No, quintiles are used to find a median income (the middle quintile or middle class). It cuts the income distribution right in the middle. It is done to make the analysis tractable, more meaningful. It can’t ‘rosy up’ a picture. All incomes are still represented, tercile, quintile, quartile, decile, whatever.
    “Using 20% blocks, they are ALWAYS tilted to the top of each quintile.”
    This makes no sense. You can’t define equal division of a smooth distribution to tilt the distribution. The median income will be the same irrespective of the number of divisions. But if you want to look at the numbers for the median of each quintile I linked those also.
    “To put it simply: I just don't dig the numbers game you're trying to use as proof of something. The logic of these stats doesn't cut it for me.”
    Anyway, I guess this says it all. I can provide concrete numbers; income trends, housing size trends, purchasing power, tax rates, ad infinitum. In the end it all comes down to prejudice and anecdote. Well, I’m a scientist; all I have are numbers and statistical analysis. I’m not accustomed to folks taking my gut feeling and anecdote as proof of anything. If someone asks me if the middle class is doing better today I could no more answer them, “no, I’m poor; or yes, I feel well off” than answer, “It feels strong” if they had asked me the acceleration due to gravity. I’ll call it quits here. I think we’ve burned enough of TL’s bandwidth on this one. Thanks for the argument, I enjoyed it.

    Re: Wal-Mart's "Buy American" Program Just a Memor (none / 0) (#78)
    by soccerdad on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 01:42:22 PM EST
    Sorry, they haven’t. The average home in 1950
    BS - normalizing by sq ft is nonsense for this. we are not talking value we are talking cost to consumer. Nice try What pig doesn't understand is that the trem "middle class" as used in common discussion does not refer to the middle 20%. His is a valid statistical definition but has a different context. In qualitative language and in historical terms "middle class" refers to those people who occupied "the middle" between what had been a 2 class system robber barons and the workers. This is a 1950's phenomenon. Given your penchant for normalizing data to get the answer you want you have failed to prove anything. I'll try and make time tonight after work to get some analysis that Ive read posted.

    Re: Wal-Mart's "Buy American" Program Just a Memor (none / 0) (#79)
    by soccerdad on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 01:50:54 PM EST
    something to chew on
    Since 2001, President Bush's tax cuts have shifted federal tax payments from the richest Americans to a wide swath of middle-class families, the Congressional Budget Office has found, a conclusion likely to roil the presidential election campaign. The CBO study, due to be released today, found that the wealthiest 20 percent, whose incomes averaged $182,700 in 2001, saw their share of federal taxes drop from 64.4 percent of total tax payments in 2001 to 63.5 percent this year. The top 1 percent, earning $1.1 million, saw their share fall to 20.1 percent of the total, from 22.2 percent.
    Link

    Re: Wal-Mart's "Buy American" Program Just a Memor (none / 0) (#80)
    by soccerdad on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 01:53:44 PM EST
    you can also chew on this

    Re: Wal-Mart's "Buy American" Program Just a Memor (none / 0) (#81)
    by soccerdad on Tue Jan 10, 2006 at 01:57:55 PM EST
    and one more then its back to work

    The trouble with analyzing fed tax receipts by income quintiles, as I see it, is that the populations, and population changes over time, of each quintile is ignored. I haven't been able to google any recent analysis of fed tax receipts that relates to population & population changes in each quintile. For a (completely made-up but illustrative of my point) example, lets assume no change in tax rates, but a population increase over the course of a few years of, say, 2% of the 4th quintile. If the population of the 4th quintile expands from, say, 23% to 25% of total population, obviously the total fed tax receipts from that 4th quintile will expand as well. Because, at the same time, the populations, tax rates and total tax receipts from each of the other quartiles remain the same, the 4th quartile will, by definition, end up paying a higher percentage of total fed tax receipts than it did before, and each of the other quintiles will be paying a lower percentage. And, in this (again, completely made-up but illustrative of my point) example, one could make the erroneous conclusion that the burden of fed taxes has shifted to the 4th quartile/middle-class, from, depending on how you want to spin the data, the wealthiest or the poorest of Americans.

    Re: Wal-Mart's "Buy American" Program Just a Memor (none / 0) (#83)
    by pigwiggle on Wed Jan 11, 2006 at 09:00:06 AM EST
    SD- All right, but really this has got to be it; we are pushing 100 (long) posts and I have a manuscript due Friday on top of it. So, “Middle Class Turmoil”; setting aside my reservations about the author’s motivations (as a paid research fellow for the AFL-CIO), and what I consider to be a selective presentation of data; i.e. full cycles for unemployment rates but only the most recent cycle for risk index, or his failure to note corresponding wage increases with benefit reductions. The conclusion is that this contraction/expansion cycle is fundamentally different than past cycles, and the middle class are getting squeezed. I could easily be convinced of this if Dr. Weller would simply link real wage trends to his economic indicators, his risk index for example. It’s that simple. Show me these trends have been an indicator of wage increases or decreases. “The Boom that Wasn’t”; same thesis, but Mr. Price tries to link a slow recovery to tax cuts. I don’t even know where to start with this one. Mr. Price compares the current cycle recovery with the recover of the previous five business cycles. By all his measures this cycle is recovering at the same rate, albeit the recovery started later. Mr. Price then goes on to show that the tax increases of the 90-94 cycle correspond to a quick ‘recovery’ while the recent tax breaks correspond to the slowed 01-05 ‘recovery’. Well, I can’t find any evidence of a 90-94 cycle. The NBER hasn’t recorded a peak in 94, (Dr. Weller uses the NBER). To make matters worse, this tax/’recovery’ comparison gauges the recovery by equipment and software investment. I guess it makes sense to cut your business cycle peak in 1994 if you want to gauge it with software investment. What a joke. I would have been willing to buy that this recovery started more slowly, but with Mr. Price’s carefully chosen (read cherry-picked) cycles I’m unconvinced. Anyway, even at face value neither of these two papers has contradicted anything I have said in this thread. Their conjecture is that current economic policies will have an impact on real wages, and they provide some economic indicators to motivate this. I am more than receptive to the idea that current economic policies will have an impact on real wages and tax rates. But for their indicators to be (convincingly) predictive they need to show their impact on historic real wages. Both these folks worked for the EPI. They have a huge amount of aggregated data, much of which covers the things I’ve posted here. It’s certainly a left wing pro-union anti-globalization site with a penchant for sensationalism and scare tactics, but the data section is valuable and saves time in running around the census and CBO sites. Everything I have posted here can be verified there.

    Re: Wal-Mart's "Buy American" Program Just a Memor (none / 0) (#84)
    by Dadler on Wed Jan 11, 2006 at 09:56:36 AM EST
    Pig, Thanks to you too. Shoulda clarified about quintiles, in that the top and the bottome quintil are ALWAYS outta whack, and cannot be used to find any median to me. And like I acknowledged, regional differences in economic requirements are a big part of the story in a nation as f'ing huge and varied as this. And lastly, I can only say that in the places MOST PEOPLE HAVE TO LIVE (for jobs and jobs and jobs) prices have risen horribly. We're an urban society almost entirely now, where we weren't nearly in the 1950's, and in the 50's we were still a society where discrimination was the norm and helped middle class whites thrive at a rate far beyond any other group, even the wealthy. Guess this paragraph coulda been my entire argument. Live and learn. Peace.