Blatant Politics in California Environmental Law
(snip)"The court's first-of-its-kind ruling on physical decay has thrown up even higher environmental hurdles for California cities considering Wal-Mart supercenters. Cities that once considered effects on wildlife and air quality must now study a ripple of potential economic effects as well and determine if a new supercenter is worth vacant buildings elsewhere. The three appellate judges ruled that examples of urban decay from other cities and states are also valid considerations for a California city analyzing a supercenter project.
"It makes it tougher to go through the whole environmental review process" and get approval from cities, said Walnut Creek attorney Stephen Kostka, an environmental law specialist who called the ruling an "atomic bomb" for shopping center developers.
But it's also encouraged opponents of Wal-Mart supercenters in other states, said Stockton attorney Steve Herum, who challenged the two Bakersfield supercenters and eight others.
Beardsley and Wal-Mart say such lawsuits in California are being backed by the United Food and Commercial Workers union, which is fighting Wal-Mart's entry into the state's grocery market and fearing it will put downward pressure on wages and put stores where its members work out of business.(snip)"
IMHO this latest twisting of any rational intent originally in this environmental law proves that, if nothing else, one has to look behind every environmental law for a more sinister true agenda.
Re: Blatant Politics in California Environmental Law
Politics! Affecting environmental laws!:O
Say it isn't so.::)
Re: Blatant Politics in California Environmental Law
I agree some enviro laws (like some of any kind of politically generated arena) is absurd. HOWEVER
I don't agree that a community development law is "environmental" - it's actually cultural - does a community really want the kind of change a strip mall/box store will bring? It's a decision, and one that has had good and bad consequences nationwide.Personally, I've seen more bad than good.
Since many of these developments are tax-free, they're costing a municipality money without any hope of recovering those costs - so there's a reason to examine it right there
Many put local shop owners out of business, meaning less distribution of local wealth (the money formerly spent locally to support a local shopkeep now goes to Arkansas)
Part of the law should be to examine the wages and benefits offered, and how many of those employees will end up on public assistance
BEHIND EVERY LAW OR GOVT ACTION IS A POLITICAL INTEREST GROUP. Behind THE REFUGE there's big oil, and our "black gold" administration. Behind the war in Iraq were the combined desire to lead a country out of tyranny and profit from it. Behind this there's local community leaders and believers speaking their mind...and asking their community members to weigh in on an open forum (unlike the energy and other bills of late which were CLOSED negotiations, by invitation only.
Who's hiding their agenda?
Re: Blatant Politics in California Environmental Law
Quote:
Behind this there's local community leaders and believers speaking their mind...and asking their community members to weigh in on an open forum (unlike the energy and other bills of late which were CLOSED negotiations, by invitation only.
I'm not thrilled at the idea that the groups bringing the lawsuits are allowed to remain anonymous. I thought that Americans had a right to face their accuser in a court of law. By my logic that's even more shady than the closed negotiations you refer to (which by the way were closed to allow trade secret info to be discussed among those invited business and gov't leaders present at the hearings)
Also, if local leaders and community believers were speaking their true minds, and not hiding behind legally sanctioned anonymity and the pretense of environmental protection, they would be saying 'we don't want poor people coming into our community', or 'we don't want black/hispanic people coming into our community" or saying "we don't want illegal aliens coming into our community" instead of saying 'we don't want WalMart customers coming into our community'. They would also be saying 'we want to protect our political contributors in the local business community, allowing them to continue to charge high prices to finance next year's political contributions''
This is one instance where I actually hope that the ACLU, the NAACP etc. get involved. However, in the real world that's highly unlikely because the ACLU and NAACP understand that it is contributions from rich white liberals who keep them in business, and that Unions hold the swing vote in many political causes they advocate/support.
If you're looking for hidden agendas, there you go !
~
Re: Blatant Politics in California Environmental Law
1. specific meetings can be closed to exchange trade secrets (but isn't exchanging trade secrets kind of an oxymoron)...but the whole process of developing (for instance) our energy policy was done with the doors closed and non-industry groups uninvited. THAT's Shady, and it leaves Gov't leaders with only 1/2 (or less) of the real picture....so it's also bad government. But great politics
2. Legally sanctioned anonymity? I hadn't realized anyone was anonymous. No nonprofit group is allowed to hide its work. However
2b. Private enterprises use anonymity all the time. We have a very heated land deal here - Private company (with a bunch of secret, silent partners - formed for this purpose with triple blind corporations) purchases 10,000 acres of land from gov't (land that was eminent domained for utility use, but later not needed) for pennies per acre. Threatens to develop this pristine, most-valuable-in-the-state (biologically) land, community up in arms. State buys land for MILLIONS, but agrees not to release the details of the purchase to the public (we know the price and the company, but not who's behind it, or any details). Come to find out the former owners retained $30MM in timber rights (about 2x what the state paid them) with no environmental restriction to protect the land, and retained another few million in wind-energy rights (and no restriction on where the windmills go). So these secret investors made over $50MM on a land deal with the state and we're not allowed to know who they are or what the specifics on the deal are.
3. The issues with box stores (especially walmart, who has a business model of buy wetlands cheap, throw up a building, use it for a few years then (as happened in my area) build another one down the street and abandon the first...All the while selling products at below-cost to drive out local competitoion (easy to lose money on, say, prescriptions and make it on games and clothes while you're fighting to kill the local pharmacy). Pay people less than they can live on and let the town (to whom you're not paying taxes because of "economic development" incentives) deal with their real needs. And have you ever seen a Box Store in a downtown, allowing local residents to walk there or helping to protect against land sprawl? The problems continue (hiring illegals, closing stores rather than negotiating with workers, using cheap overseas labor and promoting "America First' lies), but you get the picture. If there are any racist issues, they are far buried (for most people) behind the real problems. People have a right to protest, to change their community laws and guidelines to control what kind of development there is.
Again, looking for facts - where do you get the information this is about black/hispanic/poor people? When I say poor, i mean the ones that aren't poor because of WM's crappy wage structure.
Why do you assume local entrepreneurs (shopkeepers, in this case) shouldn't fight and be given a fair chance at success if a huge, gov't subsidized (tax free buildings, public assistance to employees, no interest building loans) business wants in? You assume the locals who built the community are overcharging to protect next years' political campaign (have you looked at WM's political donations?) - not that they are what created the quality community which is so attractive to WM. I'd bet that WM outspends 1000:1 any local business in political contributions and graft...
America was built by people IN a community defining what they want FOR THEIR COMMUNITY. If they don't want outside corporations taking profits away and leaving crappy jobs, so be it.
And forget about the worker! He/she should be happy to have a job, and not whine about minimum wage - after all, minimum wage is part of what's ruining the economy.
Re: Blatant Politics in California Environmental Law
from the article regarding legally sanctioned anonymity ...
(snip)In many cases, the suits have been filed on behalf of obscure, often secretive community groups. Some have been backed by labor unions leading an anti-Wal-Mart fight in California, while others have few apparent sources of money. ... Beardsley also cited other grocery chains as suspects, primarily Modesto, Calif.-based Save Mart. A company spokeswoman had no immediate comment to questions about whether the company had any role in the lawsuits. ... Union spokeswoman Jill Cashen acknowledged the union backed "four or five lawsuits in California" (snip)"
Quote:
And have you ever seen a Box Store in a downtown, allowing local residents to walk there or helping to protect against land sprawl? The problems continue (hiring illegals, closing stores rather than negotiating with workers, using cheap overseas labor and promoting "America First' lies), but you get the picture
Yes I have been in a Box Store in a downtown, and the customer base usually consists of many many blacks and hispanics who are grateful for the opportunity to save money via paying lower prices than local stores are charging.
Quote:
America was built by people IN a community defining what they want FOR THEIR COMMUNITY. If they don't want outside corporations taking profits away and leaving crappy jobs, so be it. ... and forget about the worker! He/she should be happy to have a job, and not whine about minimum wage - after all, minimum wage is part of what's ruining the economy
Oh really. Then why can't I carry a gun in my community or smoke a cigarette in a restaurant in my community, where the overwhelming majority of local community members agree we should be free to do so ? In truth the whole California WalMart issue has extremely little to do with local control of property rights via zoning/environmenta laws. It is little more than a thinly veiled highly organized effort by competing businesses and labor Unions - that have a direct financial stake in the outcome - to twist environmental protection laws never intended for this purpose to their own financial benefit - at the expense of the 'poor', primarily minorities.
Quote:
If there are any racist issues, they are far buried (for most people) behind the real problems. People have a right to protest, to change their community laws and guidelines to control what kind of development there is
They aren't buried very deeply for anybody who's willing to look below the surface -
IMHO the California WalMart 'environmental' lawsuit events are much more of an exercise in social engineering than in environmental engineering. I would also argue that local people do NOT have the right to indirectly exclude blacks and hispanics from their community via controlling available jobs and costs of living and property values, any more than they had a right in the past to directly exclude blacks and hispanics from their community via now unconstitutional local laws to that effect.
Re: Blatant Politics in California Environmental Law
from the article regarding legally sanctioned anonymity ...
(snip)In many cases, the suits have been filed on behalf of obscure, often secretive community groups. Some have been backed by labor unions leading an anti-Wal-Mart fight in California, while others have few apparent sources of money. ... Beardsley also cited other grocery chains as suspects, primarily Modesto, Calif.-based Save Mart. A company spokeswoman had no immediate comment to questions about whether the company had any role in the lawsuits. ... Union spokeswoman Jill Cashen acknowledged the union backed "four or five lawsuits in California" (snip)"
Quote:
And have you ever seen a Box Store in a downtown, allowing local residents to walk there or helping to protect against land sprawl? The problems continue (hiring illegals, closing stores rather than negotiating with workers, using cheap overseas labor and promoting "America First' lies), but you get the picture
Yes I have been in a Box Store in a downtown, and the customer base usually consists of many many blacks and hispanics who are grateful for the opportunity to save money via paying lower prices than local stores are charging.
Quote:
America was built by people IN a community defining what they want FOR THEIR COMMUNITY. If they don't want outside corporations taking profits away and leaving crappy jobs, so be it. ... and forget about the worker! He/she should be happy to have a job, and not whine about minimum wage - after all, minimum wage is part of what's ruining the economy
Oh really. Then why can't I carry a gun in my community or smoke a cigarette in a restaurant in my community, where the overwhelming majority of local community members agree we should be free to do so ? In truth the whole California WalMart issue has extremely little to do with local control of property rights via zoning/environmenta laws. It is little more than a thinly veiled highly organized effort by competing businesses and labor Unions - that have a direct financial stake in the outcome - to twist environmental protection laws never intended for this purpose to their own financial benefit - at the expense of the 'poor', primarily minorities - and with the tacit co-operation of local community leaders who also have a financial stake in the outcome.
Quote:
If there are any racist issues, they are far buried (for most people) behind the real problems. People have a right to protest, to change their community laws and guidelines to control what kind of development there is
They aren't buried very deeply for anybody who's willing to look below the surface -
IMHO the California WalMart 'environmental' lawsuit events are much more of an exercise in social engineering than in environmental engineering. I would also argue that local people do NOT have the right to indirectly exclude blacks and hispanics from their community via controlling available jobs and costs of living and property values, any more than they had a right in the past to directly exclude blacks and hispanics from their community via now unconstitutional local laws to that effect.
Quote:
All the while selling products at below-cost to drive out local competitoion (easy to lose money on, say, prescriptions and make it on games and clothes while you're fighting to kill the local pharmacy
Hmmm, weren't you the one that was arguing that US drug prices are too high, and that the US gov't should intervene as the Canadian gov't has done ?
Quote:
Pay people less than they can live on and let the town (to whom you're not paying taxes because of "economic development" incentives) deal with their real needs
the concept of 'less than they can live on' is at the heart of California's social engineering - i.e. attempting to set an arbitrary minimum in regard to what they feel the standard of living should be, and then subsidizing that standard. The only actual difference between WalMart/nonunion employees and Save Mart/union employees is the method by which the subsidy is collected and paid out.
Re: Blatant Politics in California Environmental Law
from the article regarding legally sanctioned anonymity ...
(snip)In many cases, the suits have been filed on behalf of obscure, often secretive community groups. Some have been backed by labor unions leading an anti-Wal-Mart fight in California, while others have few apparent sources of money. ... Beardsley also cited other grocery chains as suspects, primarily Modesto, Calif.-based Save Mart. A company spokeswoman had no immediate comment to questions about whether the company had any role in the lawsuits. ... Union spokeswoman Jill Cashen acknowledged the union backed "four or five lawsuits in California" (snip)"
Quote:
And have you ever seen a Box Store in a downtown, allowing local residents to walk there or helping to protect against land sprawl? The problems continue (hiring illegals, closing stores rather than negotiating with workers, using cheap overseas labor and promoting "America First' lies), but you get the picture
Yes I have been in a Box Store in a downtown, and the customer base usually consists of many many blacks and hispanics who are grateful for the opportunity to save money via paying lower prices than local stores are charging.
Quote:
America was built by people IN a community defining what they want FOR THEIR COMMUNITY. If they don't want outside corporations taking profits away and leaving crappy jobs, so be it. ... and forget about the worker! He/she should be happy to have a job, and not whine about minimum wage - after all, minimum wage is part of what's ruining the economy
Oh really. Then why can't I carry a gun in my community or smoke a cigarette in a restaurant in my community, where the overwhelming majority of local community members agree we should be free to do so ? In truth the whole California WalMart issue has extremely little to do with local control of property rights via zoning/environmenta laws. It is little more than a thinly veiled highly organized effort by competing businesses and labor Unions - that have a direct financial stake in the outcome - to twist environmental protection laws never intended for this purpose to their own financial benefit - at the expense of the 'poor', primarily minorities.
Quote:
If there are any racist issues, they are far buried (for most people) behind the real problems. People have a right to protest, to change their community laws and guidelines to control what kind of development there is
They aren't buried very deeply for anybody who's willing to look below the surface -
... scroll down to 'Residential Apartheid and Discriminatory Zoning'
IMHO the California WalMart 'environmental' lawsuit events are much more of an exercise in social engineering than in environmental engineering. I would also argue that local people do NOT have the right to indirectly exclude blacks and hispanics from their community via controlling available jobs and costs of living and property values, any more than they had a right in the past to directly exclude blacks and hispanics from their community via now unconstitutional local laws to that effect.
Quote:
All the while selling products at below-cost to drive out local competitoion (easy to lose money on, say, prescriptions and make it on games and clothes while you're fighting to kill the local pharmacy
Hmmm, weren't you the one that was arguing that US drug prices are too high, and that the US gov't should intervene as the Canadian gov't has done ?
Quote:
Pay people less than they can live on and let the town (to whom you're not paying taxes because of "economic development" incentives) deal with their real needs
the concept of 'less than they can live on' is at the heart of California's social engineering - i.e. attempting to set an arbitrary minimum in regard to what they feel the standard of living should be, and then subsidizing that standard. The only actual difference between WalMart/nonunion employees and Save Mart/union employees is the method by which the subsidy is collected and paid out.
Re: Blatant Politics in California Environmental Law
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melonie
from the article regarding legally sanctioned anonymity ...
(snip)In many cases, the suits have been filed on behalf of obscure, often secretive community groups.
1/ none of the groups you listed are environmental -
2/ when full disclosure of who is "behind" each side of a discusion is required, then I'll have a problem. perhaps some of the community group supporters are being secretive because they don't want WM to discontinue working with their company, or encourage local political leaders to do so.
3/ Privacy and secrecy are 2 different things. When a lawsuit is filed, the plaintiff needs a name - a legal name. WHat's behind that name isn't always public - just as many corporations have unknown and anonymous backers who aren't named in lawsuits.
I'm not saying its perfect, or that disclosure doesn't seem better, but right to privacy is big in America
Quote:
in truth the whole California WalMart issue has extremely little to do with local control of property rights via zoning/environmenta laws. It is little more than a thinly veiled highly organized effort by competing businesses and labor Unions
so the regulations being argued are community development related, and the groups are (mostly) non-environmental. Why is this called an environmetnal issue?
Quote:
and the customer base usually consists of many many blacks and hispanics
Wow.. no whites? and why does race matter so much in this discussion?
Consumers enjoy the low prices, and are able to ignore the behind-the-scenes realities (exporting of jobs overseas , employees on public assistance, destruction of downtowns, closig of community-owned businesses) often because the families' income is restricted by only having low-wage, WM style jobs available to them.
Quote:
Oh really. Then why can't I carry a gun in my community or smoke a cigarette in a restaurant in my community, where the overwhelming majority of local community members agree we should be free to do so ?
If the overwhelming majority believe that, then why don't the votes support it? In your community, if a truly "overwhelming majority" agree with you then take it to the polls - do a refferendum on the topic and set the record straight...simultaneously voting out of office the asses that made the wrong choice.
Just don't "exercize your rights" to smoke or carry weapons in a way that infringes on my rights to breathe tobacco-free air and not face a gun in traffic because someone pissed you off. There's a big difference betwen saying what development a community wants and forcing kids to breathe second hand carcinogens.
Quote:
t the expense of the 'poor', primarily minorities.
Somehow keeping a WalMart out of a town (which gets government subsidies for providing below-living-wage jobs to people, including minorities) becomes a mandate against the poor? Simultaneously, balancing international environmental/safety laws and encouraging the US manufacturing sector (which could employ these same people at better wages) is also a mandate against them. I'm lost
Are political decisions motivated more by the rich (such as the Walton family) than the poor? Sure. It's wrong but that's life. However, the unions you mentioned are made up of working (not rich, middle class at best) families - but you discount their involvement. THe people working at the other chains which are supporting the "secretive" groups are also not wealthy...they're fighting for their survival. Seems like the "box store, big business side's" got a curved slope of what's OK and not. I prefer consistency.
Quote:
I would also argue that local people do NOT have the right to indirectly exclude blacks and hispanics from their community via controlling available jobs and costs of living and property values, any more than they had a right in the past to directly exclude blacks and hispanics from their community via now unconstitutional local laws to that effect.
SO a job at WalMart (paying minimum wage to $7 per hour) will be a faster route to living in overpriced CA suburbia than the opportunity to open your own storefront pharmacy, shoe store, clothing shop, or manufacturing business? Keep in mind that WalMart's large volume and less-than--ethical practices make much of those small businesses impossible - by their very business plan.
I think many things are being socially engineered, and revitalization of certain communities is definitely one of them. Saying that a WM in a community helps low-income people move there is absurd. Plenty of statistics support WM employees can't afford to live, let alone move up.
Re: Blatant Politics in California Environmental Law
Still looking for answer to my question
Quote:
Again, looking for facts - where do you get the information this is about black/hispanic/poor people? When I say poor, i mean the ones that aren't poor because of WM's crappy wage structure.
You gave a link by a (legitimate and respected) but racially motivated group discussing GENERAL GLOBAL ISSUES OF CONCERN. but what specifically relates it to this California debate?
Re: Blatant Politics in California Environmental Law
Quote:
so the regulations being argued are community development related, and the groups are (mostly) non-environmental. Why is this called an environmetnal issue?
Because the provisions of the California environmental law are being used to halt the building of WalMarts, although they were clearly not written with that intention.
Quote:
However, the unions you mentioned are made up of working (not rich, middle class at best) families - but you discount their involvement. THe people working at the other chains which are supporting the "secretive" groups are also not wealthy...they're fighting for their survival. Seems like the "box store, big business side's" got a curved slope of what's OK and not. I prefer consistency.
OK let's boil this down to two simple questions ...
#1 - how much is it really worth to stock supermarket shelves ? $12 per hour union wage ? Who gets to make that decision (since it's obviously not being set by free market forces)?
#2 - you've made the argument that WalMart shelf stockers are paid so little that they must avail themselves of gov't subsidized social services funded by taxes. Taxes are collected under progressive tax rates, meaning that the rich pay more than the poor. On the other hand Save Mart shelf stockers are paid enough to not need gov't subsidized social services, but they are in effect subsidized by Save Mart charging an extra dollar on every can of coffee to afford their union paycheck - which 'taxes' every customer rich or poor the same dollar. Are you advocating that this method of 'tax' collection does not affect the 'poor' more than the 'rich' ?
Re: Blatant Politics in California Environmental Law
Quote:
You gave a link by a (legitimate and respected) but racially motivated group discussing GENERAL GLOBAL ISSUES OF CONCERN. but what specifically relates it to this California debate?
At this point there is no longer any debate involved ... the environmental lawsuits have put an end to that.
regarding your other point (from the link)
"Racism in the United States -
(snip)Apartheid-type housing and development policies in the U.S. have resulted in limited mobility, reduced neighborhood options, decreased environmental choices, and diminished job opportunities for people of color. ...
With or without zoning, deed restrictions or other devices, various groups are unequally able to protect their environmental interests. More often than not, people of color communities get shortchanged in the neighborhood protection game. Race still plays a significant part in distributing public "benefits" and public "burdens" associated with economic growth. The roots of racial discrimination are deep and have been difficult to eliminate.(snip)"
Re: Blatant Politics in California Environmental Law
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melonie
#1 - how much is it really worth to stock supermarket shelves ? $12 per hour union wage ? Who gets to make that decision (since it's obviously not being set by free market forces)?
Why not let market forces decide...with the understanding that the base is a wage at which employees do not NEED to be on public assistance? How much security, pride of work, or motivation to succeed is there if an employee that puts in a full day must still collect SSI or Welfare (or medicaid, etc) and be worried every time a politician tries to gain points by cutting one of those programs.
Quote:
#2 - you've made the argument that WalMart shelf stockers are paid so little that they must avail themselves of gov't subsidized social services funded by taxes. On the other hand Save Mart shelf stockers are paid enough to not need gov't subsidized social services, but they are in effect subsidized by Save Mart charging an extra dollar on every can of coffee to afford their union paycheck - which 'taxes' every customer rich or poor the same dollar. Are you advocating that this method of 'tax' collection does not affect the 'poor' more than the 'rich' ?
People should pay what it costs for products and services...not "externalize" the cost onto taxpayers. I don't shop at WM, or any box store with poor employee or environmental policies. I don't want to have to subsidize the workers there, or the profits being collected in Arkansas that are made in Pittston, PA. In another thread you said part of America's problem are these public programs (part of what's making us noncompetitive) yet now you say it's OK for a company to have 70% of its workforce on public assistance?
I'm an entrepreneur. no out-of-market corproation to steal my profits or pad my losses. None of my staff are on public assistance, I'd consider it an insult (and expect my government representatives to take my profits accordingly) if they were. I don't get tax-free land because I'm not large enough....I charge my customers a fair, market-driven price for the products and services, and everyone is happy. No subsidies needed. I don't make Millions, am not China's 8th largest trading partners, and don't have profits that put me in the Fortune 500. Why is it a company that meets these criteria isn't required to (at least) pay back the government for what its' employee base is costing the taxpayer?
Now, if a major out-of-market chain came in and opened a SuperCenter (as happened to my web business, we lost customers to Asian and Indian competitors that worked cheaper) - but the employees were on public assistance (paid from my tax dollars), the competitor had tax-free land and other "incentives for economic development" I'd be apesh*t and would make all the noise I could...of course knowing that money talks and I lose.
Quote:
Taxes are collected under progressive tax rates, meaning that the rich pay more than the poor.
of course you're
Ignoring tax free land, tax loopholes, deductions, etc which are available only to the wealthy (since they're the ones that can afford to research, budget for and implement them)? In fairness, the rich should pay more DOLLARS than the poor, since they make more dollars. In fact, since many people (certainly those that work at WM) can't even survive on tehir income, they should be(and are in some cases) exempt from taxes. The ultra-rich should pick up this burden as a cost of doing business, and as an incentive to make sure that the bottom-end are paid enough so they don't fall below the minimum.
The day should be coming when a fair, simple, somewhat curved tax will be implemented...but for now we have an imbalanced system that leaves me to pay for medical and other care on WM workers, while the Walton family collects Billions.
Re: Blatant Politics in California Environmental Law
Quote:
The day should be coming when a fair, simple, somewhat curved tax will be implemented...but for now we have an imbalanced system that leaves me to pay for medical and other care on WM workers, while the Walton family collects Billions.
I'm in total agreement on hoping for a fair, simple, somewhat curved tax system. I'm also in agreement that WM workers, or for that matter people who don't choose to work at all, are receiving medical benefits and other gov't subsidized measures i.e. HUD housing, subsidized utility bills etc. paid for by our tax money. But my proposal is to reduce those benefits, not to implement a different more obscure but just as costly method of subsidizing workers whose actual 'value added' contribution is out of touch with their union paycheck - in other words charging higher than necessary prices from every consumer regardless of that consumer's financial status to cover the costs of those unjustified union paychecks.
Re: Blatant Politics in California Environmental Law
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melonie
But my proposal is to reduce those benefits, not to implement a different more obscure but just as costly method of subsidizing workers whose actual 'value added' contribution is out of touch with their union paycheck
Again with the union assumption. I know lots of companies whose pay scale is good and there are no unions. If you recall, unions started (as they have in WalMarts...until the store fights back) with workers being paid poorly in unsafe factories.
Also interesting you're grouping those who work in retail and underpaid jobs with those on welfare - so not having any job is the same as finding the best one you can? What about starting somewhere and working up? What about the value of someone finding a job in this economy?
But to your point...lat's walk that line a bit - simplified math, though:
Let's say for argument it's the medical and housing costs which are subsidized for WM and other workers. They can feed and clothe themselves (call these Y and X)
Let's assume that feed and clothe PLUS medical and housing make up the total income
Let's assume both together are under the IRS guidelines for taxable income. Also, let's say that 2/3 of this amount is where it becomes impossible to survive. It's probably higherin most communities
Let's call
Right now, we have Subsidies of Y and pay of X= Total Income Z
X remains constant, as there is no pressure on WalMart to increase pay...no change in minimum wage laws
Y however is going down...because you're phasing out programs.
Eventually, as Y approaches zero, we will hit X=1/2 Z - below the 2/3 point of survival. This means that
A) some people are dying, and WM needs more employees, which won't take the jobs unless the're dying also
B) people are fighting back..some in the courts, some with retraining, some with bombs and violence, some with nonviolent crime
How is that promoting a sustainable society? And what exactly are you saying to these WORKING PEOPLE who can no longer survive on what the company pays
What responsibility does this VERY PROFITABLE busines have to make sure this doesn't happen? Pay what it costs for your production!
- in other words charging higher than necessary prices from every consumer regardless of that consumer's financial status to cover the costs of those unjustified union paychecks.
Re: Blatant Politics in California Environmental Law
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melonie
But my proposal is to reduce those benefits, not to implement a different more obscure but just as costly method of subsidizing workers whose actual 'value added' contribution is out of touch with their union paycheck
Again with the union assumption. I know lots of companies whose pay scale is good and there are no unions. If you recall, unions started (as they have in WalMarts...until the store fights back) with workers being paid poorly in unsafe factories.
Also interesting you're grouping those who work in retail and underpaid jobs with those on welfare - so not having any job is the same as finding the best one you can? What about starting somewhere and working up? What about the value of someone finding a job in this economy?
But to your point...lat's walk that line a bit - simplified math, though:
Let's say for argument it's the medical and housing costs which are subsidized for WM and other workers. They can feed and clothe themselves (call these Y and X)
Let's assume that feed and clothe PLUS medical and housing make up the total income
Let's assume both together are under the IRS guidelines for taxable income. Also, let's say that 2/3 of this amount is where it becomes impossible to survive. It's probably higherin most communities
Let's call
Right now, we have Subsidies of Y and pay of X= Total Income Z
X remains constant, as there is no pressure on WalMart to increase pay...no change in minimum wage laws
Y however is going down...because you're phasing out programs.
Eventually, as Y approaches zero, we will hit X=1/2 Z - below the 2/3 point of survival. This means that
A) some people are dying, and WM needs more employees, which won't take the jobs unless the're dying also
B) people are fighting back..some in the courts, some with retraining, some with bombs and violence, some with nonviolent crime
How is that promoting a sustainable society? And what exactly are you saying to these WORKING PEOPLE who can no longer survive on what the company pays
What responsibility does this VERY PROFITABLE busines have to make sure this doesn't happen? Pay what it costs for your production!
Quote:
those unjustified union paychecks.
I argue that paying people a survivable wage is ALWAYS justified - if it avoids the scenarios outlined above.
As for unions being over-reaching. I agree SOME are, and the companies can simply choose not to deal with them *as many companies in my industry have done for years* and reach out to recruit/train/pay workers who are not unionized and are still motivated by a good package to work for the company.
Re: Blatant Politics in California Environmental Law
Quote:
Again with the union assumption. I know lots of companies whose pay scale is good and there are no unions. If you recall, unions started (as they have in WalMarts...until the store fights back) with workers being paid poorly in unsafe factories.
Agreed that I was trying to point out 'any' US jobs whose paychecks are no longer commesurate with the 'value added' service the employee is providing. The point would apply equally to say a US IT business, and is not strictly limited to unions (although union pay scale is the classic example)
Quote:
How is that promoting a sustainable society? And what exactly are you saying to these WORKING PEOPLE who can no longer survive on what the company pays
Two issues. Your calculations leave out the effects of the 'extra dollar' charged equally to 'poor' WalMart employees as to millionaires when they attempt to buy a car or other product or service from a local merchant, i.e. the indirect method of 'cost shifting'.
Second and much more importantly is the incorrect assumption that these people "can no longer survive". Millions of mexicans survive on far less both in Mexico and right here in the USA . What you're really referring to is people falling below some arbitrary line you have drawn which represents what you think should be the minimum standard of living in America, and which you apparently think it's OK to continue to implement through inflated paycheck 'cost shifting' but not via taxes and gov't benefit 'cost shifting'.
The original theme of this thread involved stopping Mexicans from coming to America illegally. You keep tapdancing around the point that as long as a disparity continues to exist between the actual 'added value' of a US job and the size of the paycheck which goes along with doing that job, Mexicans will continue to have a motivation to cross our border and happily take jobs without a value added vs. paycheck disparity which US workers won't touch with a 10 ft pole.
Re: Blatant Politics in California Environmental Law
Quote:
Originally Posted by Melonie
The original theme of this thread involved stopping Mexicans from coming to America illegally.
Actually, the theme involved blatant politics in Californial law...development and WalMart issues, etc. Lawsuits involving "secretive US organizations, possibly backed by unions..."
Or did I misread your earlier posts and the article?
Quote:
You keep tapdancing around the point that as long as a disparity continues to exist between the actual 'added value' of a US job and the size of the paycheck which goes along with doing that job, Mexicans will continue to have a motivation to cross our border and happily take jobs without a value added vs. paycheck disparity which US workers won't touch with a 10 ft pole.
1. you have avoided telling me what determines if a job's 'added value' is worth a reasonable paycheck. I simply say that anyone working should do so at a rate which they can survive reasonably in society.
I don't define "reasonable" as a job that requires taxpayers to fund social services like food, housing and healthcare for the employees engaged in service to private industry
Or one that requires people live in slums, not have reasonable safety in the workplace, etc.
Or that makes one class so far from the position of another class that "crossing over" is nearly impossible - in fact the lower class is looked at as being untouchable. and provides no opportunity for moving out of that economic strata.
2. you have avoided telling me why I, as a taxpayer that doesn't go to WalMart (as example) , I should be burdened with providing services to its employees simpl because they decided certain jobs are not worth reasonable pay
Quote:
Agreed that I was trying to point out 'any' US jobs whose paychecks are no longer commesurate with the 'value added' service the employee is providing.
See Point 2. Who decides what is commensurate? If you work in the US, you should make reasonable US wages. Live in Mexico, make reasonable wages for there.
Quote:
. Your calculations leave out the effects of the 'extra dollar' charged equally to 'poor' WalMart employees as to millionaires when they attempt to buy a car or other product or service from a local merchant, i.e. the indirect method of 'cost shifting'.
it's called free enterprise. They want the product or service, they (not me, the taxpayer that works with a business who pays all workers a fair rate) should pay the FULL, FAIR COST of that product or service, and not be allowed to shift the cost to me.
Can you make a good case why shifting the cost away from the consumer/user is OK in this instance, but high efficiency vehicles should not be allowed the same advantage?
Quote:
Second and much more importantly is the incorrect assumption that these people "can no longer survive". Millions of mexicans survive on far less both in Mexico and right here in the USA .
Slaves lived on less also, but we decided that "less" was unacceptable. If in America, where "all men are created equal" shouldn't all workers be allowed equal opportunity to "pursue life liberty and the pursuit of happiness"?
Quote:
What you're really referring to is people falling below some arbitrary line you have drawn which represents what you think should be the minimum standard of living in America, and which you apparently think it's OK to continue to implement through inflated paycheck 'cost shifting' but not via taxes and gov't benefit 'cost shifting'.
we must break the circle of this argument, and see the reasons behind the issues you've avoided, or the thread has diminishing value.