eli_sennesh comments on On Walmart, And Who Bears Responsibility For the Poor - LessWrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (510)
This makes the unexamined assumption that all jobs in a free market must deliver a living wage. This is not true. A completely laissez-faire society would still have plenty of jobs not paying enough to support a single adult, because not everyone needs that sort of job: Teenagers getting some spending money during the summer, students supplementing a college grant, adults getting a second income in a household that can already support itself.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
What do you mean by living off the commons?
That doesn't resemble any reality I'm familiar with.