Wal Mart

Grakelin, I can appreciate the situation you describe, I really can, but in the end it comes down to 2 things:

1) People who have sex not being prepared for the inevitable consequences. I don't care if it's planned or not, sex leads to children. If you're engaging in that activity and don't have a backup plan or can't afford children I really don't know what to say to you. Sex begets children, and it's a well known fact that no method of birth control is 100% accurate except abstinence.

2) No matter what kind of economic stranglehold Walmart has, they are NOT the only jobs available in any area. Economies simply cannot sustain low-income markets solely through Walmart businesses.

I agree that Walmart's suing of unionizing employees is dirty, that their ethics and business standards are terrible, and that they ruin local economies in small towns wherever they go. I also understand that telling someone to "move" is an unrealistic expectation. All I'm saying is that my first point is very applicable in the situation you mentioned.

Beyond that, it's a rough situation if you're already in it, I agree with you, and if I had a solution for people such as that I'd be a Nobel Prize winner. Walmart is the devil, I think everyone in the thread here can at least agree on that.

 

No, but that is why I lean further towards government regulated economies than a fully capitalist economy. Basic economics indicates that the rational consumer will try to maximize their satisfaction. Satisfaction is maximized by going for the best possible combination of products. If you don't understand this basic economic theory, please research it. Or else stop pulling things like 'you're selfish if you're poor' or 'consumers who let their economy die by trying to save money are morons' out of your ass. We know they're morons. That's the crux of the system.

Philes:

1) Well, if that's what works for you, that's all well and good. The rest of us have to accept sexuality as a staple of our culture. I can't give it up any more than I can give up internet, or movies, or CharlesBHoff can give up hating Bush.

2) That's precisely the problem. There are other jobs, but Wal-Mart cuts down on them (the research I read indicated that Wal-Mart initially brings in a net of 100 new jobs, half of which disappear within five years when other businesses close down. So they bring in 50 more jobs, but conversely force a lot of people to work there to stay in the town). If Wal-Mart was able to sustain the economies of the towns it destroys, there would be substantially less of an issue.

Hell, if Wal-Mart was even good for the capitalist system, it wouldn't be so bad. As it is, the common fallback for large corporations (We need to do what we can to maximize shareholder profit!) is inaccessible, because the board of executives keeps raising their salaries even when the share can't afford it, which has caused the share's growth to drop. Wal-Mart shareholders don't even like Wal-Mart.


EDIT: If nothing I've said convinces you guys that the lawsuit is completely frivolous, allow me to introduce you the next target Wal-Mart would be able to go after if they win this case:



After all, it's almost exactly like their logo.

 

Look on the bright side: If the corporations begin to abuse the laws too much like Wal-Mart does now, it will eventually lead to a Communist or a Socialist Revolution. The "talk with the Unions" thing is actually there to ensure the working class lives content with the minimum possible wage.

So take that, bourgeoisie oppressors! =p

 

I don't understand. You can't spare any empathy for poor people? You support Wal-Mart because you're a psychopath? I guess that would make sense.

The Wal-Mart employees clearly are producing something people want. After all, if Wal-Mart had no employees, they would have no business.

Perhaps you can see a cycle wherein people who are being paid minimum wage have to spend as little as they possibly can to support themselves? I know you must appreciate how much money things actually cost, seeing as how in another thread you tried to tell me that Scandinavians are allowed to have trouble paying for university, even though it's free, because they have to pay for rent and food. Employees have to pay for rent and food, too. So when they get miniscule incomes and need to shop at Wal-Mart to afford to live, you can also understand why they're not just breaking the economy out of carelessness, right?

 

Most people in America are indeed accidents that were preventable. My friend's little sister is preggo because she was screwing around; her family's religious beliefs prevented her from getting on the pill and her teenage "I'm immune to everything" attitude didn't help. This baby could have fully been prevented if logical choices were made.

My parents told me the same thing about the pill and birth control, but they're often full of shit. Statistically, birth control pills are over 99% effective. Condoms are ~95% effective. There's not much improvement on the effectiveness of the pill alone by combining the two, so that's moot. The chances of a child being conceived while the mother was correctly using the pill are extremely low. Perhaps 20-30 years ago, the pill wasn't as reliable as it is today, but people are still having kids they can't afford and are going on welfare to milk the system. As a responsible adult, this practice simply pisses me off.

I don't have any quibbles about shopping at Wal-Mart. Sure, they might destroy their competition but, for the most part, there's a shit-ton more variety at the wal-mart grocer than the local food-fair, etc. Larger corporate business = more suppliers = better for consumers. There's still niche grocer's around me that supply ethnic foods, organic shit, etc. and I'm in the middle of WV, one of the poorest states in America. That their workers can't unionize is also of no concern to me. I've a Master's in Chemistry and 90% of the positions out there for me forbid unionization. *shrug*

 

Idiotfool raises a good point, albeit in a side comment. The way to make Wal-Mart pay more than it does is to give everyone the kind of welfare package I've got. Since I make more by sitting on my ass posting inane comments on here than I would earning minimum wage working retail, you will never see me in a blue Wal-Mart vest.

Grakelin: when you say "part of pro-choice is about not judging parents who do choose to be parents," you're stretching the idiom beyond its existing use. Pro-choice, as a term, is about the non-restriction of abortion, not the right to have children, and if that makes the term nonindicative, it won't be the first time that's happened.

(Besides, it's a false dichotomy that politicians have been wrapping themselves in to pander for votes. Almost all pro-choicers want to work to reduce the number of abortions that happen, but that gets drowned out by the sound of the bible-thumping.)

Given that I'm pro-responsibility, I am unwilling to sympathize with people who are pro-life, anti-birth-control, and still having sex when they're not ready to have a child. Kids are a possible consequence of inserting a penis into a vagina, and if you're not willing to man up and take responsibility for that, you shouldn't expect to be bailed out for it.

 

If this is truly what you think (that following the course of your inclinations is inevitable and consequences be damned) then I guess we disagree at such a base level that further argument is simply unsustainable.

 

Actually, Grakelin has a point buried in that statement, albeit he draws the wrong conclusion from it. (And quite a few of his other points are simply insane troll logic, but that doesn't mean his useful ones shouldn't be examined.)

I can, abstractly, agree that human actions are a result of a mishmash of brain electrochemistry that includes data stored as "learning," as well as genetically-determined "hardware," rather than "free will." And I can understand, if not -necessarily- agree with, the concept that, thusly, decisions need to be made relative to the human condition instead of relative to a standard of "how the world would be if everyone were a rational IQ 200 individual."

Which means that we should attempt to discourage self-destructive behaviors and encourage positive ones, and one of the most effective ways to do that is to not help the poor when they breed beyond their means. Maybe the impoverished dolts will give their kids up for adoption (or have them taken away by Social Services) because they can't feed them.

Supporting individuals who breed beyond their means amounts to privatizing profit (sex, children, not having abortions) while socializing risk (the costs of having children). Isn't that the garbage we saw in the bailout?

 

Actually, if memory serves, condoms are actually closer to 80%, due to the fact that the 95% implies that they're used properly, and many aren't. Unless you're an individual like myself, whom can't get an erection with a condom on, then where's the downside to using them? It adds a layer of safety for yourself. When it comes to the creation of another life, I think a little too much safety is better than too little.

I think we just need to start offering free tube tying and vasectomy to any individual with more than one child and a net income of less than 40k. After three kids, it ought to be mandatory (unless you're income is at a point where you can support three kids)

 

I must say I'm impressed by the quality of debate, especially when one considers the sodomy of rhetoric that this thread might well have become. Bravo!

 

I agree with Davis, this thread has been quite good, though there is a definite division. For that reason, I'd like to ask that Ramidel not play up my statements as "insane troll logic". If I was trolling, I would just call everybody a bunch of right-wing mainiacs who don't understand what it is to be poor and storm off. As it is, I've backed up what I've said with sources, evidence, and points on basic economic theory. So unless you want to back your statements up with something other than "I'm qualified to say this shit because I'm on welfare and btw poor people need to go get a job":

SHUT THE FUCK UP AND GO GET A JOB

Also, since you felt the need to call me a troll, I'll be enough of one to ask you how often you're getting laid if you're telling me that people who engage in sex are being actively irresponsible.

---

^ ^ ^ This line separates the rest of the post from the response to Ramidel's statements.

Philes: I'm not saying that we're supposed to live without thinking about our actions, though I suppose I can't have been too clear if everybody on this thread misconstrued the statement. What I'm saying is that sexuality is an important part of our lifestyles. The basest part, in fact. Once you restrict sexuality to the rich, you're creating an incredibly oppressive society. I agree with getting vysectomies (tube tying is a bit harder to reverse, so the crux really is on the male).

As a side note, I showed this thread to my girlfriend, and she corrected me on what I said earlier: she and her brother were not actually accidents. Her father actually got good work on an army base in Germany (where she was born), until the closure of said base had him returned to the Maritimes where he received lower wages, meaning her mother had to work at Wal-Mart to supplement the family income. So yeah, this is something we never thought about: being rich doesn't mean being rich forever. It is true that there are people who have achieved Ph. D's (especially immigrants) who are forced to work at Wal-Mart when things go downhill. It's true (especially in a massive recession) that people can lose their good jobs and be shuffled into a poor quality of living. Let's look at places like Flint, Michigan, for example.

I also don't see why we're discussing the 'massive numbers of people with too many kids' who work at Wal-Mart. Technically, we should be paying people to have too many kids. I'm not sure how it is in the USA or European nations (maybe it's the opposite!), but in Canada we don't have enough population to care for an aging population. Women are having an average of 1.5 children each, short of the 2.1 children that we need. Children are good for our economy. They aren't just dead ends, you know - they're consumers, and we need to sell stuff to them!

Also, theoretically, since people buy things for their kids, they aren't exactly wastes of economic space until they're 18.

 

I know I definitely buy more crap for my kids than I buy for myself. I've been wearing the same pair of Chucks for 3 years, but my daughter gets at least 3 new pairs every 6 months. We went to dinner for my birthday; for my son's, we rented a bouncy house, had cake, snacks, a pinata, and presents out the wazoo. Kids are great for a capitalist economy.

 

I just realized that you can still be eligible for welfare in the United States if you have a minimum wage job. So your lack of one, Ramidel, is a personal failing.

 

I believe the eligibility extends to food stamps and not, necessarily, welfare itself. I could be wrong, though.

 

Depends on which "welfare" you mean. Disability payments are not TANF; my particular package does not allow for a full-time minimum-wage job. I have run the numbers.

Furthermore, I didn't say poor people needed to get a job. -You- said I said that, which was a bona fide lie. I said that poor people need to stop breeding more than they can afford to support. Don't resort to libel when you actually have more thinking ability than that; you don't have the excuse of being Charles BHoff and simply unable to use logic.

I didn't call you a troll, I said you used insane troll logic. I forget that not everything on TVTropes has made it into the general mainstream, so I'll clarify: your conclusions are often invalidly drawn from your logic, and you drop into logical fallacies and deliberate lies about your opponents' statements to defend your positions. For instance, you set up a straw man of my position and then hit that strawman with an ad hominem (that, or you were just spouting bile for the sake of bile, but I'm assuming a failure of logic and that you're not spewing bile for the sake of trolling).

For another example (not directly targeted at me and almost certainly not intentional trolling):

You contradicted yourself. Wal-Mart is, over said five years, still increasing the economic strength of the town, "sustaining the economy of the town it 'destroys.'" (Quote yours.) More jobs are made, even if Wal-Mart is commanding a greater share of the economy. You yourself said that that would be less of an issue. So, the argument is unsound.
---
To your last argument, I think we do agree to the ultimate point. Those who are unable to support more children should not be breeding more: they should be willing to use birth control, condoms, or if those fail, abortions. (Yes, at this point I reveal a "pro-choice" bias, damn the terminology; I don't consider embryos to have human rights that should be protected a priori.)

As for more children, in the case of the U.S., our childbirth rate is negative but immigration means that the net population growth is still positive. Don't know if that would work for Canada, since you guys aren't nearly as big of an immigrant magnet.

 

For the sake of my own sanity, I have decided not to dwell in this thread. This is a bit more personal than other "serious" topics on which I'd deign to post, and I'm just not up to it.

Carry on with your banter.

 

Except that your post was really unnecessary...

...and this one...

(recursive)