eli_sennesh comments on On Walmart, And Who Bears Responsibility For the Poor - Less Wrong

13 Post author: ChrisHallquist 27 November 2013 05:08AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (510)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: [deleted] 25 November 2013 07:51:22AM -1 points [-]

Yes, true. And in a completely laissez-faire society, the majority of current low-wage workers who do not fall into those categories would simply drop dead.

Hence why I'd think that over time, wages would rise to the level of subsistence. Even Wal-Mart doesn't like having to clear dead bodies out of the store or having to continually train new workers because their most devoted ones, the ones who choose to stay, keep dying.

Comment author: mwengler 25 November 2013 03:40:08PM *  2 points [-]

Yes, true. And in a completely laissez-faire society, the majority of current low-wage workers who do not fall into those categories would simply drop dead.

In such a laissez faire society, why would you "blame" the entity that employs them at some wage, instead of blaming the millions of entities that won't or don't employ them at any wage? You don't work at Walmart for minimum wage if someone else will pay you $10. How is Walmart the bad guy for being the private entity that is willing to give you a better deal than any other entity in society (including government which is also an employer)? How is it not the "fault" of the non-employers of the minimum wage earners that they make so little?

Comment author: TheOtherDave 25 November 2013 04:14:19PM 2 points [-]

Because the employers benefit.

I don't claim that's necessarily a reasonable reaction, but you certainly ought not be as surprised by it as you are signalling here. If I'm suffering, Sam is ignoring my suffering, and Pat is benefiting from my suffering, it's a pretty common reaction to judge Pat worse than Sam.

Comment author: [deleted] 25 November 2013 04:01:42PM -2 points [-]

In such a laissez faire society, why would you "blame" the entity that employs them at some wage, instead of blaming the millions of entities that won't or don't employ them at any wage?

Because the Third Option is being left out: independent living off the commons. This is what disappeared with the Enclosure Movement and thus signalled the rise of capitalism. Wal-Mart is the entity withdrawing this worker from subsistence on the commons, and also partially responsible for the elimination of the commons, therefore they are responsible for "beating" the Commons Offer.

Comment author: Moss_Piglet 25 November 2013 04:42:15PM *  5 points [-]

I have to concur with Ms Lebovitz here; what do you mean living off the commons?

Talking about enclosure strongly implies farming/herding on public land, but that seems like an unlikely argument for you to make. What common goods have been privatized by Walmart in this situation, and how were people living off of them before?

Comment author: RolfAndreassen 25 November 2013 06:57:07PM *  5 points [-]

Edit: Oops, replied to wrong comment. Was meant for the parent.

Ok, let's see. Firstly, the enclosures were a completely English, not even Anglo-American, phenomenon; nobody else even had any commons. Secondly, the commons were just about sufficient to support something like 10% of a population of around 10 million. Thirdly, wow, I would much rather have a Walmart wage than try to scrape together meals from the land that nobody cares about enough to claim for themselves. To suggest that this is a viable alternative all over the world and in industrial times is silly.

Comment author: NancyLebovitz 25 November 2013 04:17:52PM 2 points [-]

What do you mean by living off the commons?

Comment author: Lumifer 25 November 2013 04:06:57PM 2 points [-]

Wal-Mart is the entity withdrawing this worker from subsistence on the commons

That doesn't resemble any reality I'm familiar with.