3 ms·

so what? I'm not worse off because Bill Gates or the Waltons have billions in wealth. In fact, I'm better off. Microsoft, Walmart and the myriad of other corpor

by viggity 12y ago

so what? I'm not worse off because Bill Gates or the Waltons have billions in wealth. In fact, I'm better off. Microsoft, Walmart and the myriad of other corporate empires lowers the costs of goods which improves my standard of living.

andreasklinger 12y ago
what has the one to do w/ the other?
tonyedgecombe 12y ago
The only problem I have with the wealthy is when they buy off the government to favour their own interests.
- zaqokm 12y ago
  My point of view with this is that it is more of a problem with government rather than a problem with the wealthy. If a government is bought off by the rich, it isn't a government for the people in the beginning to start off with.
awjr 12y ago
At a 'society' level it very much depends on the rich. So Walmart appears to be paying the minimum they possibly can. This massively affects the spending power of this low wealth group. I believe this was something Ford recognised when building the first mass market cars. Without developing a relatively well off lower/middle class, there would not be enough people to buy his product, so he raised the wages of his factory workers.
- andreasklinger 12y ago
  agree. aren't the living costs of walmart employee's even subsidized by tax payers? i believe i saw articles about this. (edit): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/31/walmart-taxpayers-house-report_n_3365814.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/31/walmart-taxpayers-h...
AlisdairO 12y ago
Not every item scales. Land in contended areas edges in on a zero sum game. Political power correlates substantially with wealth, and so wealth distribution affects that too.
mikeash 12y ago
I don't think Wal-Mart improves my standard of living. I think they're predatory, pushing manufacturers into cutting corners beyond sustainability, pushing workers into cutting wages beyond sustainability, and papering over the cracks with government subsidies for food and health care for their workers. They can get away with it because they're gigantic. And that's the problem with wealth inequality; extreme wealth isn't a problem per se, but it involves a concentration of power that allows the extremely wealthy to switch over from enriching themselves by making everybody better off to enriching themselves by hurting others.
chrisbennet 12y ago
If you are in a field that isn't negatively effected by the Walton's downward pressure on salaries, then yes, they've raised your personal standard of living. When the Walton's employ people for less 40 hours a week just so they don't have to pay benefits, they are externalizing that cost to the other taxpayers (food stamps, housing assistance, health insurance). I'm not without blame here. I'm pretty sure whenever I eat at a Chinese restaurant that they are exploiting workers. The fact that the workers are better off than they would be in China isn't really a defense.
- viggity 12y ago
  have you ever been to a walmart? I would wager half of its employees are unemployable and would be on 100% assistance were it not for walmart. It isn't just my standard of living either. go to walmart at 11pm, or 2am and see the shoppers there. their money goes a lot farther at walmart than it does at costco. The massive scale of walmart's business coupled with the billions it spend on trans log drives prices down. If walmart weren't there, how much higher would target's prices be? or the prices at dollar general?

by viggity 12y ago

andreasklinger 12y ago

what has the one to do w/ the other?

tonyedgecombe 12y ago

The only problem I have with the wealthy is when they buy off the government to favour their own interests.

zaqokm 12y ago
My point of view with this is that it is more of a problem with government rather than a problem with the wealthy. If a government is bought off by the rich, it isn't a government for the people in the beginning to start off with.

awjr 12y ago

At a 'society' level it very much depends on the rich. So Walmart appears to be paying the minimum they possibly can. This massively affects the spending power of this low wealth group. I believe this was something Ford recognised when building the first mass market cars. Without developing a relatively well off lower/middle class, there would not be enough people to buy his product, so he raised the wages of his factory workers.

andreasklinger 12y ago
agree. aren't the living costs of walmart employee's even subsidized by tax payers? i believe i saw articles about this. (edit): http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/31/walmart-taxpayers-house-report_n_3365814.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/31/walmart-taxpayers-h...

AlisdairO 12y ago

Not every item scales. Land in contended areas edges in on a zero sum game. Political power correlates substantially with wealth, and so wealth distribution affects that too.

mikeash 12y ago

I don't think Wal-Mart improves my standard of living. I think they're predatory, pushing manufacturers into cutting corners beyond sustainability, pushing workers into cutting wages beyond sustainability, and papering over the cracks with government subsidies for food and health care for their workers. They can get away with it because they're gigantic. And that's the problem with wealth inequality; extreme wealth isn't a problem per se, but it involves a concentration of power that allows the extremely wealthy to switch over from enriching themselves by making everybody better off to enriching themselves by hurting others.

chrisbennet 12y ago

If you are in a field that isn't negatively effected by the Walton's downward pressure on salaries, then yes, they've raised your personal standard of living. When the Walton's employ people for less 40 hours a week just so they don't have to pay benefits, they are externalizing that cost to the other taxpayers (food stamps, housing assistance, health insurance). I'm not without blame here. I'm pretty sure whenever I eat at a Chinese restaurant that they are exploiting workers. The fact that the workers are better off than they would be in China isn't really a defense.

viggity 12y ago
have you ever been to a walmart? I would wager half of its employees are unemployable and would be on 100% assistance were it not for walmart. It isn't just my standard of living either. go to walmart at 11pm, or 2am and see the shoppers there. their money goes a lot farther at walmart than it does at costco. The massive scale of walmart's business coupled with the billions it spend on trans log drives prices down. If walmart weren't there, how much higher would target's prices be? or the prices at dollar general?