WalMart, the great saviour of small format filmmaking...

[monobath]

"I've found that in many of the posts on this board there is an odd and disturbing disconnect in discussions concerning the realities of disenfranchised communities."

WORD!

This should go into the hall of fame for clarity...I like this.

That was sarcasm, right? If not, I've been up too long.

[Evan Kubota]

"I wonder why the dirt-poor of Mexico don't grovel in their mud huts like helpless Americans, waiting for a Wal-Mart to bless their town with new job opportunities? Why do you suppose they come here? Is it to suck off the teat of the great welfare cow? I don't think so. I think it's because they haven't been raised on the milk of that cow, slothful and expecting handouts, so they are willing to come with nothing but the wet shirt on their backs to find work."

=D>

It's astonishing to me when I read these continuous complaints about how Wal-Mart is exploiting workers. Do you think the majority of people working at Wal-Mart could qualify for a higher-paying job? If they could, they wouldn't be working at Wal-Mart. No one is 'stuck' in the sense that someone locked in a Chinese prison for the next 25 years is stuck. Americans can move between states (for now) to find work. There are employment opportunities all over the place. The question becomes, then, what are you willing to accept? If you feel like your labor is worth more than Wal-Mart will pay you for it, perhaps there are other jobs more suitable. If you fall back on the Wal-Mart job out of necessity, well, it appears that your labor wasn't worth as much as you thought, or you weren't willing to move or make other sacrifices that come with the search for gainful employment.

[monobath]

Capitalism is an economic system, though, not a political one.

I understand the strict definition of capitalism as an economic system. I think my loose reference to your post as a discussion of political philosophy considers the fact that "capitalism" today functions primarily as a component element in a wider Western democratic nation-state "ideology."

Fair enough.

I think that your family member's story of determination and resilience is admirable. But success or failure for individuals in such circumstances depends on a number of key qualifiers that you failed to note. First, it seems that you maintain a strong familial support network that at least allows for the potential of basic resources if your family member needed it. Whether he chose to access it in this specific case is irrelevant. It is, however, a big factor in determining people's potential opportunities when they choose to move for employment purposes. A significant number of the homeless that I've worked with, who are not suffering some mental illness, are indigent working folk who failed to establish a stable living situation after migrating from elsewhere. Other determining factors include, of course, gender, age, class background, and perhaps most importantly, race. Basic opportunity, and the potential for success in negotiating drastic life changes, are intimately linked to race and ethnicity status.

Yes, we support each other, but we are also all quite independent. Is that really so uncommon? Not in my experience.

I've talked to a number of homeless people too, Tim. I have a friend who, disregarding his own safety and security, likes to take homeless people in and try to help them. I've heard that it happens, but I've yet to come across one homeless person of able body and sound mind, free from drug addictions or alcoholism, that remained homeless for long. I have met a number of homeless men and women who are crack addicts. Are they responsible, or is society, or capitalism, or Wal-Mart? Those homeless aren't the poor folk you were talking about before. People are responsible for their own success or failure, not Wal-Mart or society. Race or ethnicity doesn't categorically disadvantage a sufficiently motivated person.

People are a lot more resourceful than you and Norseman seem to want to give them credit for. The bleak picture you paint is the unrealistic one.

I have an unwavering faith in the potential resourcefulness and desire of people who to want to make their lives better. But your anecdotal experience seems a bit parochial and somewhat niave in its lack of consideration of the contemporary reality of poverty in America.

Parochial? Well, I am from Louisiana, but I suspect that's not what you meant. Thanks a lot.

The contemporary reality of poverty in America is that people who want to improve their situations mostly manage to do so in spite of the demeaning characterizations of their plight by self-righteous mother-hen socialists and progressives. Those poor who think society owes them a job, a living wage, health care, and a comfortable dotage often sit on their hands and demand that they be given their due. They mostly get their miserable due, despite the handouts.

That being said, I suppose its time to validate my credentials by answering some of your personal questions regarding my background.

Both of my parents were working-class poor, born and raised in urban centers. I personally grew up modest middle-class, in a working-class suburb of Los Angeles, certainly not a childhood of privelege.

Thanks. I appreciate the insight into your background. My background is similar as to the modest middle-class upbringing, except that both my parents hail from rural Louisiana farming communities, children of the Depression era, married during WWII.

What first-hand experience do you have of the plight of the poor that you describe?

As an adult, I have traveled, lived, and worked in depressed, poverty-stricken communities both rural and urban. I have worked with the working poor in union orgainzation as well as in basic infrastructure programs for extremely depressed rural communities. Admittedly, I don't have the unique cultural experiences and traits that come with a rural poor background, and small town life is certainly not my lifestyle of choice at the present time. Today, I am a creature of relative privelege with all of the comforts and benefits that come with that. But I'm also a creature of social conscious, determined by a life of critical and philosophical inquiry, as well as social activism.

OK, you've got me beat there. I concede that your first-hand experience of the living conditions of the poor trumps mine. I was one of the few in my family to obtain a college education, and I've essentially been on the higher side of successful middle class all of my adult life. I've mainly worked with computers, and not the underprivileged ones.

My insight into the depressed conditions of the poor comes mainly from my close association with my huge extended (Catholic, you know) family and their friends, many of whom are poor, and my partner's family, most of whom live in conditions of abject poverty. Regardless, most of them manage quite well. I really think it's a matter of attitude. They haven't been taught to regard their condition as hopeless and their lives and efforts as ineffective.

I've found that in many of the posts on this board there is an odd and disturbing disconnect in discussions concerning the realities of disenfranchised communities. I know that privelege tends to obscure and insulate against the harshness of the world outside. But I'm genuinely surprized sometimes at the apparent lack of consciousness and sensitivity expressed here regarding social issues. I don't know, and don't care, if I understand poor people "better" than you. But I do know a few important things about poor and disenfranchised folks and the communities they come from. Some things that you and others have never experienced, have forgotten, or choose to ignore.

You lost me here. I don't think the topic is discussed enough for you to find a disturbing disconnect. But no need to explain. I see my glass as half full, not half empty, and I think that most people who see it like I do don't feel disenfranchised (deprived of the rights of citizenship).

[MovieStuff]

It's astonishing to me when I read these continuous complaints about how Wal-Mart is exploiting workers. Do you think the majority of people working at Wal-Mart could qualify for a higher-paying job?

Bluntly put but I agree. The issue (if there really is one) gets clouded by activist types that feel Walmart is simply making too much money relative to the amount that they pay their workers; as if that was significant of something inherently unfair. I have yet to see a study that shows Walmart paying a checkout girl less than a checkout girl at, say, Target. The Walmart issue is always framed by how much Walmart makes relative to the pay of their employees.

The question becomes, then, what are you willing to accept? If you feel like your labor is worth more than Wal-Mart will pay you for it, perhaps there are other jobs more suitable. If you fall back on the Wal-Mart job out of necessity, well, it appears that your labor wasn't worth as much as you thought, or you weren't willing to move or make other sacrifices that come with the search for gainful employment.

Word.

As an employer, I pride myself on what I pay my staff. But the skills they have acquired are inherently unique and I would be hard pressed to replace individuals within my tiny group. Thus, they are paid accordingly. But, if I need to hire someone to simply sweep up or move stuff around, I would hire someone that had that skill level and they would also be paid according to that skill level required, not a superior skill level they might happen to possess. Thus, if someone came looking for that job equipt with a masters degree, I probably would not hire him in the first place because he would be overqualified and probably unhappy doing that type of work. I would prefer to hire someone that would be grateful for the pay and happy to do the job required. However, should the guy with the masters degree plead that he really, really needed the job, I might consider hiring him anyway.

Now, am I guilty of exploitation? There are bleeding heart activists that will say I am regardless of which person I hired. I am guilty of exploitation if I purposely hire someone of limited skills supposedly so I never have to pay them top dollar. I am guilty of exploitation if I hire someone of superior skills but don't pay them what they are truly worth. :roll:

What the bleeding heart activists never want to admit is that I don't have to hire anyone at all. I simply may choose to move stuff and sweep, myself, or have one of my staff take on those duties for an increase in pay. Doing so would certainly cost me less. And this really strikes at one of the fundamental flaws that such activists overlook. I would be more than willing to bet that a typical business of any kind, not just Walmart, could get by with about half the number of employees. So, does a business hire less people and pay them all more? That's what I did but my group works very hard for me. Somehow, I don't see that kind of dedication in the typical check out girl at Walmart, Target or Kmart.

I see my glass as half full, not half empty, and I think that most people who see it like I do don't feel disenfranchised (deprived of the rights of citizenship)

Agreed. Regarding the rights of citizenship, I prefer the view of George Carlin (paraphrased):

"Some people see the glass as half empty. Some see it as half full. I dunno, maybe it's just me but I simply see the glass as too big."

Roger

[ccortez]

Wow. A lot of interesting discussion back and forth... I haven't read nearly all of it since my last post and can't comment on any of it yet. Maybe I'll get a chance, hope so...

Given the skimming I've done, a question arises:

Should there be any such thing as "working poor" in this country?

That is to say, if a person works the equivalent of full time or more, should they be making ends meet? Or is it OK for that person to fall at or well below the established "poverty line"?

[chachi]

It's astonishing to me when I read these continuous complaints about how Wal-Mart is exploiting workers. Do you think the majority of people working at Wal-Mart could qualify for a higher-paying job?

Bluntly put but I agree. The issue (if there really is one) gets clouded by activist types that feel Walmart is simply making too much money relative to the amount that they pay their workers; as if that was significant of something inherently unfair. I have yet to see a study that shows Walmart paying a checkout girl less than a checkout girl at, say, Target. The Walmart issue is always framed by how much Walmart makes relative to the pay of their employees.

For me its not about Walmart or how they treat their employees, its more because of the other stores that they help to put out of business by OVER existing in the first place..

I guess its really about monopoly and convenience. I just find it sad that our market trends dictate that Wallmarts will grow and mom & pop stores will close..

In my home town Walmart was physically part (attached) to one of our Malls. They have since seperated and built a new Walmart 100yards away. The mall is now a sad state of affairs to say the least. Nothing else can be built in that spot as it's now mostly Wallmart parking lot. I believe the reason they broke off was so they could sell food items as there was already a grocery store in the mall and I believe its a zoning bylaw of some sort that you can't have 2..

so, I guess my complaints have more to do with community Impact although there are lots of old people hanging out in the local Wallmart Mcdonalds, so I guess thats a pretty social enviroment.. Perhaps this has impacted the use of community centers or perhaps the old have been brainwashed by the low everyday prices???

[MovieStuff]

For me its not about Walmart or how they treat their employees, its more because of the other stores that they help to put out of business by OVER existing in the first place

Yes, yes, yes. I agree totally. Walmart also has some serious internal issues regarding child labor violations, which is a pretty serious thing that I just read about this morning. I do not take that sort of thing lightly. But my most petty gripe is that they are simply everywhere and drive smaller, more intimate businesses out of the market. As I mentioned before, it changes the neighborhood. It's like have a swell family owened pizza parlor driven out of business by a Dominos Pizza down the block. Yuck.

Roger

[MovieStuff]

Should there be any such thing as "working poor" in this country? That is to say, if a person works the equivalent of full time or more, should they be making ends meet? Or is it OK for that person to fall at or well below the established "poverty line"?

Recognizing that the "poverty line" is sort of relative to the standard of living from country to country, I would say ideally, no, it isn't okay with me, personally.

But if we accept the idea that the "working poor" need to be elevated in pay, then we have to ask, "who is going to come up with the money to do it?" You? Me? Even if we take a stand and say, "No. Big Business will have to foot the bill", we still end up paying because Big Business will simply increase the cost of the goods we buy to finance the difference in pay. Then, suddenly, the newly elevated working poor find that their new paycheck won't buy any more than their old paycheck because the basic goods they need to survive now cost more then they used to. Therefore, the only way that the working poor will get more, without rocking the cost of living boat for all of us, is if people like you and me simply reach in our collective pockets and fork over X number of dollars to charity organizations, which is the way it is currently, anyway. I don't know what the answer is, really.

Roger

[steve hyde]

WalMart isn't the problem, capitalism is.

....perhaps one of the problems is that nobody stops to define explicitly what they are talking about. Nobody says, for example that they are using a definition of capitalism that is characterized by a division of labor among the capital owning class and the laboring classes. I see people painting capitalism with a broad brush e.g, if you work under capitalism that makes you a capitalist. That certainly isn't the definition I use.

When I reference capitalism I'm talking specifically about a political economy founded on inequality. Inequality is what makes capitalism.
Capitalism is about surplus value going to the capitalists instead of labor.
Therefore capitalsim is a political economy that was created by the rich elite to insure that the rich elite remain the rich elite.

Ideally, capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and are operated for profit. It is driven by a free market that determines production, prices, profits, income, and investments. It is fueled and regulated by supply and demand. Demand for a product influences production, while competition among producers and supply of products and raw materials and productive labor regulate the price. That's the ideal.

Yes, this is true, but you have conveniently left out my central point: that capitalism is based on inequality. Capitalism requires inequality. Capitalism produces and reproduces inequality. Surplus value has to exceed labor value for capitalists to accumulate capital. The greater the inequality among capital owning and laboring classes the greater the profit for the capitalist......Do you see a problem here? Is this a pathway to social justice?

That's a fairly pure basic description of capitalism. Ideal capitalism isn't compatible with a command economy. It is not a political system, but an economic one. Of course, pure capitalism doesn't exist anywhere in the world, and neither does a free market. And political influence can't really be avoided because governments can't resist monkeying with the market and with business and trade in the form of tariffs, labor controls, taxes and duties, import/export quotas, subsidies and similar protectionism, legalizing products, outlawing products, banking and money supply controls, etc ad nauseum.

I strongly disagree with the central idea behind your argument here. Capitalism is not a political system? This is totally absurd. Captialism has its origins in colonialism and slave driven economics.

Consider this question: when did colonialism end? Can we even say that it has? Do you think colonialism was a political project? Of course it was and is. Colonialism has taken on a new formation. The geography of colonialism may have changed, but that is because territories need not be occupied when Capital owns the means of production there anyway.
Capitalism is an economic system of political design!! That makes it a political system.

I suspect most people on this board who own or operate businesses do so with the expectation of realizing profit and improving their lives to the greatest extent possible, and would be both unwilling and unable to continue their business for long as charity. If one can't gain greater rewards by bringing greater energy and talent and investment to bear, what incentive would one have to excel? Why bother building and bringing a better product to market if you don't stand a chance to reap greater rewards? Why bother trying to compete with similar businesses if your sales and profit are determined by the state?

Now you are trying to compare capitalism to socialism. This is how the conversations always go. Instead of making a focused critique of capitalism we end up talking about communism. Don't you think human beings are capable of comming up with a political economy that isn't communism or capitalism?

While there are flavors and variations, the basic economic systems are fuedalism, capitalism, communism, and socialism. The first one and the latter two are inevitably also political systems because they are command economies in which the state entirely controls the means of production. Capitalism, as it is actually practiced, also has political implications because the governments of the ostensibly free countries of the world can't resist meddling in the economic system. As I said, there are no pure economic systems in existence.

Again, what about post-capitalism? I'm still baffled by your belief that free-market ideology is somehow politics-free. I'm not sure "pure economic systems" is a meanigful term. Are you talking about purely political, purely economic or purely based on the philosophy of some dead political economy professor like Marx or Adams. Economic philosophies are always open to interpretation and therefore a "pure" understanding of one is an ontological impossibility.

Those of you who oppose capitalism, please tell me which of the other three basic systems, feudalism, socialism, or communism you think superior to capitalism, and why.

I don't think any of these economic systems are superior. Let's dream-up some new rules to the games we play.

I'm also curious which of those economic system those of you who own businesses prefer, and why.

...I don't own a business

For my part, I favor capitalism. It's the economic system that gives me the best chance for creating my own rewards, based on my own efforts rather than the beneficence of government (LOL) or the unearned labor of others, and shifting the unequal distribution of wealth a bit more my way.

.....here I can see that you are assuming a level playing field rather than acknowledging the fact that politics infuses capitalism. Take the politics of racism as an example. Our political history (worldwide) is characterized by injustices based on racial differences. Racism is still one of the most divisive issues in the United States. How is it even remotely possible to have a level economic playing field when we still have racism???? It think it is clear that we cannot. My point is that not everyone affords equal life-chances here in the United States. The problems of inequlity are entangled in a sociological web of hegemonic cultural traditions. Capitalism is just the mode of production that insures that those inequalities are held intact.

Look, I think Karl Marx's teleological communist manefesto is full of holes and frankly I think it is one of the least interesting works that he produced. On the other hand, Marx's volumous Das Kapital, which he spent 30 years working on, is still the most interesting and salient critiques of capitalism ever written. What validates Marx's theories of the social problems of capitalist development is a simple survey of the history of economic development over teh past 150 years. Just look at the growing gap between the richest 10% in the United States and the poorest 10% as a sample. That gap is growing out of control. Who bennefits from that? Not the people that have been kicked down over the course of the past few centuries.

[MovieStuff]

you have conveniently left out my central point: that capitalism is based on inequality. Capitalism requires inequality. Capitalism produces and reproduces inequality. Surplus value has to exceed labor value for capitalists to accumulate capital. The greater the inequality among capital owning and laboring classes the greater the profit for the capitalist......Do you see a problem here?

I totally disagree. Capitalism doesn't HAVE to be based on inequality at all. I won't disagree that it has achieved that status in many ways but it isn't required. You are simply looking a man that is currently fat and falsely assuming that all men are born fat and will always be fat. This simply isn't true. There are always those that gorge themselves and abuse the system. However, capitalism isn't represented by the worst it has produced but, rather, the best it has to offer. It's all about social responsibility, not something inherently evil within the system.

Roger

[Nigel]

So how about them Astronauts?? They sure are doing their job. Bringing water, cutting bits of cloth, floating around...

We should shoot some film.

Good Luck
PS--I love Capitalism.

[steve hyde]

you have conveniently left out my central point: that capitalism is based on inequality. Capitalism requires inequality. Capitalism produces and reproduces inequality. Surplus value has to exceed labor value for capitalists to accumulate capital. The greater the inequality among capital owning and laboring classes the greater the profit for the capitalist......Do you see a problem here?

I totally disagree. Capitalism doesn't HAVE to be based on inequality at all. I won't disagree that it has achieved that status in many ways but it isn't required. You are simply looking a man that is currently fat and falsely assuming that all men are born fat and will always be fat. This simply isn't true. There are always those that gorge themselves and abuse the system. However, capitalism isn't represented by the worst it has produced but, rather, the best it has to offer. It's all about social responsibility, not something inherently evil within the system.

Roger

Roger,

Where does surplus value come from? It come from labor right?
nature + labor = value. Value minus the cost of nature and labor equals surplus value. What happens if the surplus value goes to labor? The capitalist doesn't accumulate any capital. What is the capitalist driven to do? Keep the cost of labor down. The capitalist is motivated to find the cheapest labor. Sometimes that comes in the form of forced unpaid or grossly underpaid labor.

If there is an equal relationship between the capitalist and the laborer, where does surplus value come from?

[steve hyde]

So how about them Astronauts?? They sure are doing their job. Bringing water, cutting bits of cloth, floating around...

We should shoot some film.

Good Luck
PS--I love Capitalism.

....I know - we should make that flight to the moon. I hear some Yankees left a full Hassleblad large format kit there in 1969. Something about saving weight for the ride home. I guess that makes it free for the taking.

Die Capitalism Die!!!

STeve

[Nigel]

I am all for going to the Moon as long as no Government funding is used.

Good Luck
PS--I will let you borrow the Hassie when I go and get it.

[steve hyde]

....Talk to Paul Allen. (the capitalist) Maybe he will hook you up.

Steve