1) we are inexorably moving toward a globalized economy;

2) in a globalized economy, the countries with artificially inflated costs (relative to other countries) will lose in the long run;

3) wages set purely as the result of collective bargaining have at least some element of an artificially inflated cost;

4) countries whose wages are the result of collective bargaining will eventually be driven into the ground economically.

I agree that everyone should have the chance to earn a decent wage. Union-supported wages may have worked in the old semi-isolationist economy of the past, but it's been proven time and again, that in today's economy it's not the answer -- especially as long as the playing field is not level, such as in the case of China and other governments who manipulate their currency values etc., and who have little to no environmental protection laws.

The problem is that our competitors will gladly work for pennies to the dollar, and will gladly pour toxic waste into the air and into the ground to lower their costs just so they can get the business. Our old way of thinking simply can't compete with that mentality.

quote:

---

We need a renewed commitment to the New Deal principles that made us the greatest country the world had ever seen between 1932 and 1980.

---

Edward, I'm interested in what you mean. Can you be more specific?

By the way, I disagree with your assessment that European countries are the richest in the world. Yes, maybe Norway and some others are doing well (from a trickle down affect), but that's strictly because exploitation of their oil reserves. If you look at all of the richest countries in the world, you will find that they are rich only because of their oil. Take away their oil and they are far from the richest.

We have oil reserves too, but we can't drill them because we are prevented from doing so by our own environmental protection laws. Like I say, we need a new way of thinking.

[This message was edited by Tom Olson on 27 December 2006 at 11:16 AM.]

quote:

---

Take away their oil and they are far from the richest.

---

Take the oil away from Norway and we'd collapse totally. We've neglected all our traditional industries plus agriculture and fishing, ever since we got 'high' from discovering oil almost 35 years ago...

But that has nothing to do with WalMart, so I'll just wish you all a Happy New Year instead.

Steinar

------------------
"Play to express, not to impress"
www.gregertsen.com
Southern Moon Northern Lights

[This message was edited by Steinar Gregertsen on 27 December 2006 at 11:32 AM.]

I'll try to bring it back toward the topic. I have worked in the past for a couple of the largest wholesale nursery companies in the horticulture industry, and we sold plants to the Wal-Mart garden centers.

First of all, a lot of the Wal-Mart buyers don't literally wear "suits." It's usually khakis and sport shirts. The ones that have been around the home office in Bentonville, Arkansas for a number of years may come off like they are simple country folks, but they are pretty damned sharp.

They would negotiate a deal to get a certain price on a plant, that may be considerably cheaper than the mom and pop retail nursery pays under the guise that they are justified in being a fair business practice because they are buying at a high volume level. A flowering shrub in a 5 gallon can may be sold to Wal-Mart for $9, and the family run nursery down the road pays $12.50 from the same supplier. Sometimes Wal-Mart will run that shrub out the door at $9.88 to attract the customer. I have read that the CD's that they sell for $9.72 are below cost-they might be paying about $9.90-$10.00 wholesale for them. They might also be paying $9.90 for the CD's that they sell at the everyday price of $14.88. So if you think you are always getting the hottest deal possible-you're not-they're making a decent markup on the regular priced CD. The independent record store might have to pay about $11 or more wholesale for the same CD.

For every 100 copies of the latest Chesney they sell, they may sell one or two of Mark Chesnutt. They're not really "supporting" traditional country as much as the buyer recognizes that a few Chesnutts will sell here and there and it rounds out the selection, just like when we would sell certain shrubs just to give their garden centers a not-so-generic look. But at the end of the year, they take a hard look at each item-if a shrub, or a certain CD isn't pulling its weight, it's outta there! It will become "de-listed" for the following year.

You can shop wherever you want-but I'll tell you about the worst kind of shopper, in my industry anyway-the person that goes to the family-run garden center and bleeds the knowledgeable staff on how to improve their backyard-and then they go to Wal-Mart and buy most of the stuff there, once thay have a handle on what they need.

quote:

---

Social security, unemployment insurance, widow's pensions, general relief, FDIC, fair labor practice laws, infrastructure projects, minimum wage, college tuition supports etc,etc, etc.

---

We have all or most of that stuff already, so I'm not sure what you're suggesting we actually do.

quote:

---

Since 1980 very much of the two Roosevelt's agenda has been underfunded, unenforced, repealed or undermined by politicians who need to continue getting campaign donations from special interests. Ergo, we are losing ground.

---

If you look at a simple pie chart of federal spending you will see that spending on social programs is greater than every other type of spending combined.

How much more taxes do we need to spend on social programs, and will it really help us?

quote:

---

Chart 2-6 is a pie chart representing Federal Government spending for 2000. The chart is made up of nine items, each representing a percentage of total Government spending.

Item 1. Social Security 22%.
Item 2. Net Interest 11%.
Item 3. Medicare 11%.
Item 4. Medicaid 6%.
Item 5. Other Mandatory 6%.
Item 6. Other Means-tested entitlements 6% (Footnote: Means-tested entitlements are those for which eligibility is based on income. The Medicaid program is also a means-tested entitlement.)
Item 7. Reserve pending Social Security reform 6%.
Item 8. Non-defense discretionary 17%.
Item 9. National defense 15%.

---

You might notice that Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, other "entitlements", and reserve pending SS reform add up to 51% of the total government budget. I'm not sure what "other mandatory" spending is, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's also some sort of "entitlement."

The link for the webpage is HERE

The question still remains, what action do you propose?

---EDIT---

I found a pie chart representing the federal budget from 2005. To see it, click on the link below and scroll to the bottom of the page. Social spending is depicted in red. As you will see, social spending has apparently grown since FY2000.

Link to Pie Chart

[This message was edited by Tom Olson on 27 December 2006 at 05:30 PM.]

It's a pitty you guys will labor for an ideal that in the grand scheme of things will not stand.

How about shutting this thing down, moderator.

------------------
-johnson

--EDIT--
Sorry, I can't let this one go:

quote:

---

The war in Iraq is, as you may know, off budget.

---

No, all money that the federal gov't spends comes out of the federal budget -- including all money spent by the Dept. of Defense. It's called "Defense Spending" and it makes up about 15% of the total budget.

[This message was edited by Tom Olson on 27 December 2006 at 06:09 PM.]

Well, that may not be technically true. It's impossible to precisely predict in the proposed budget exactly what will be needed in the coming year. But, after everything is spent in a given year, it's reported in the total gov't expenditures for that year.

[This message was edited by Tom Olson on 27 December 2006 at 06:25 PM.]

Sounds like someone's getting on a Democratic soapbox. Remember no politics!
Time this was locked, huh?

[This message was edited by Thom Beeman on 27 December 2006 at 10:18 PM.]

------------------
-johnson