Thursday, August 24, 2006

Wally World Wars

This one from a thread on Blonde Sagacity.

Libs like causes, especially ones that can be cast as the little guy against the big guy. They like to align themselves with the percieved little guy so that on the theatric stage of life in their head they can cast themselves as "Hero".

They're not so much concerned with what actually helps people, they're more concerned that other people get the perception that they're trying to help people. So it's all about presenting a convincing argument that this is the case. Since most people don't think too much about these things, any weak argument that at least seems like it has a logical flow is better than one they have. So it's easy for libs to recruit new believers and ego-strokers. And criticism just stokes their self-righteousness gland. Bring it on!

If the actual motive was to promote what helps the most people (while preserving liberty, don't forget why we have that statue) they'd look at real studies that discuss the issues using actual facts. If they were interested, they'd go find that study and see what IT says, judge it on its merits, and assimilate any pertainent information garnered from it into their mental model of the world.

The argument that Walmart contributes to poverty because it won't pay a wage above poverty level is misleading. Retail stores generally don't pay their stock boys and sales clerks a living wage. Mom & Pop shops don't typically have insurance benefits, either. These kinds of jobs are not meant to be the sole support of a family. These kinds of jobs are generally for supplementary income. Kids, students, second jobs, retirees ...

Here's a few questions for you. If Wal-Mart's so terrible to work for, why do people work there? Are they all starving? Who, excacty DOES work there? Is that job the single source of income for that family? Lacking the job Wal-Mart provides, would the people working there be able to afford the higher prices they would pay at a local merchant's store?

The not unionizing thing is probably a part of the problem - but I think the over all problem is that they're big, and they're successful, so they make the perfect Goliath for them to play their David off of.

From a comment in the same thread on Blonde Sagacity:
In Tennessee Wal-Mart employees make up the single largest group of participants in TennCare, the state health care policy for poor people.

Could it possibly be because before they came and "ran all the Mom and Pop and other local retailers out of business" that Mom & Pop and other local retailers combined into one group used to account for the largest "single group" of participants in TennCare? They used to work in various places, now most of them work in one place.

What's the difference? Thanks to Walmart, they don't have to pay as much for stuff as they did when they all worked other places before Walmart came to town. The difference is -- Walmart is now a big target at which people can aim blame.

The fact that A can be associated with B doesn't mean A causes B, or that B causes A.

No comments: