Logical Conclusions
November 23rd, 2007 | by Craig |I tumbled across this article about a woman who had an abortion, then had herself sterilized so that she would be “doing her part” to reduce her carbon footprint on Gaia.
Now other people have already given her a reaming for various reasons, but I would like to take a different tack.
Honestly, I do think that she deserves a hearty “Hail and Well Done” for sticking to her beliefs, and doing something about it. That goes a long way in my book.
Nevermind the selfish attitude about being able to take a trip once a year on their “carbon credits” for not having children.
No, the reason for my disappointment is that she, and her fellow travelers haven’t followed their thinking through to their logical conclusion.
If, after all, their stated goal is to reduce the human footprint on Gaia, and they’ve gone ahead and sterilized themselves to that end.
Really there is only one thing left to do to prove their total commitment to that goal.
Personally, I recommend a quick call to The Hemlock Society to show that their “commitment” to reducing human impact in the world is an actual commitment not just lip service to the cause du jour.
How about it, folks? Ready to take one for Gaia?
I thought not.
53 Responses to “Logical Conclusions”
By Mark Tokarski on Sep 3, 2007 | Reply
Ah, but what seems so painfully obvious so seldom plays out in real life. It’s the minimum wage argument again, where in the laboratory, raising it diminishes employment while in the real world nothing of the sort happens. It could be that in raising wages we accelerate the flow of money, and all benefit. It could be that profits remain constant, but are more equitably distributed between labor, ownership and management. There is more going on here than your philosophy allows.
By the way, there is more going on here than your textbook allows anyway. Prices at Albertson’s an Safeway spiked when WalMart came along. Unable or unwilling to compete on prices, the two chains resorted to gimmickry, raising all prices, and then selectively lowering some to where there were before, calling them special sales. Overall, their price levels went up - way up. Out Safeway here in Bozeman charges convenience store prices.
COmpetition drove prices up.
By McGehee on Sep 3, 2007 | Reply
Um, no. If your description is accurate, what happened was that those stores opted out of competing with the lower priced stores. There being therefore no competition, it couldn’t have driven the prices up.
What did drive the prices up was market segment differentiation, which is another way of saying that competition was diminished by the entry of new players. It’s one of those nuances (heh) of an economy growing in complexity because of its sheer size.
By Mark Tokarski on Sep 3, 2007 | Reply
I’m not sure, I’ll have to think about it, but I think you said what I said.
By Craig on Sep 3, 2007 | Reply
I know for a fact that one of the $NON_UNION_STORES here in Helena is already under some pretty heavy pressure to cut labor costs, and guess how they’re doing it: Laying people off and shorting hours.
By GeeGuy on Sep 3, 2007 | Reply
Mark, how does one determine when “profit” is “more equitably distributed between labor, ownership and management?”
By Mark Tokarski on Sep 3, 2007 | Reply
When they are all making a decent living. All of them.
By JP on Sep 3, 2007 | Reply
Please define ‘decent’, Mark. Quantify it for me. Is it parity between all employees? In other words, the floor sweeper gets the same as the store manager or parent company accountant? If not, then how does it break down into being equitable?.
By Mark Tokarski on Sep 3, 2007 | Reply
None are in poverty though all are not treated equal. People at the bottom are getting shafted. That’s all.
What I object to is people at the upper levels of a business prospering on the backs of those down below. And stop and think for a second what your life would be like without people flipping your burgers, plowing your streets, doing your garden. If they had the organizational ability to go on strike, they could being us all down. Yet you insist on paying them dirt.
By Mark Tokarski on Sep 3, 2007 | Reply
That is always going on - always. Stores are constantly trying to get more for less out of workers, and those with unions are trying to bust them. Life 101.
By moorcat on Sep 3, 2007 | Reply
Going back the original statement (Montana stores are being pushed to offer California wages), I simply don’t see how that will fly. We are not California and our cost of living is not what it is in LA (though there are places now in Montana that are striving very hard for that level…)
While I used to think that Unions had a place (and still do in some sectors of society), I think that the glory days of Unions is over. At this point, they are pushing to push (and because they can…) and they are just as guilty for the high cost of everything as the Management is.
What we are seeing today - in my opinion - is what happens to a society when Capitalism goes too far. 30 years ago, you worked for one company until you retired and your company took care of you - great benefits, retirement etc. The management/owners were getting rich but not by sacrificing thier work force. Now it is the chase for the almight buck and management/owners don’t give a tinker’s damn about those they employ. In short Greed has overcome work ethic.
I agree with Craig that if this does become a reality, chain stores like Safeway and Albertsons will raise prices to California norms (been to a store in California recently?). This will drive more people to shop at the stores that offer better prices and you will see more people shop at Walmart/Cosco. You will also see stores “buck the system” and try to keep prices level by NOT going with the flow.
I agree that a minimum wage increase was necessary but this is far beyond a minimum wage issue….
By GeeGuy on Sep 3, 2007 | Reply
What’s poverty then, Mark? Are you suggesting that we should pay high school students a wage that would allow them to lead a nice comfortable middle class life at age 17 with no experience? Because, *News Flash* that’s who’s bagging our groceries.
I have nothing but respect for people who flip my burgers, and I treat them accordingly. I say “please,” and “thank you,” and I let them walk through doors in front of me. I am a good tipper. In other words, I treat them like human beings which, I believe, is all I owe them.
Why are they *owed* anything else? Just because they show up? I’m not sure I understand your standard. Do *you* decide what each person is entitled to? Or is it someone else who decides?
By McGehee on Sep 3, 2007 | Reply
No, because what you said was competition is to blame for the prices going up. What I said was that the data do not support that claim.
So yeah, think about it.
By Dave Budge on Sep 3, 2007 | Reply
Mark, I respectfully think “you’re full of shit.” You have only your attitude and a guess about what happened to pricing on an apples to apples basis. Unless you can show me a direct goods for goods price comparison I think you’re going to have to retract that statement.
By Shane C. Mason on Sep 4, 2007 | Reply
Uhm Craig, I find it interesting that you make the claim that the way to keep prices low at these stores is to keep wages low. That is the assertion that you are making: the only way for them to keep prices low is to keep wages low.
Yet you throw the name Costco around more than once as an alternative. The problem is that Costco has the best wages and benefits plan going. How do they do it, when they have the [best pay and benefits packages going](http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/166680_costco29.html)? How do they do it? I mean, they have plenty of union shops?
Could it be that this?
Safeway CEO salary:
Costco CEO Salary: $350,000
Safeway CEO Salary: $10,400,000
Safeway has spent the last 5 years trying to nickel and dime their employees, pay huge salaries to upper management and have lost 54% of their value, while Costco has grown. Hmm. You tell me.
You know, Henry Ford had an idea. It was to pay his employees enough so that they could afford to purchase the product they were making. Novel idea. Too bad ‘capitalist’ these days come to the logical conclusion that the way to win is through low wages and short term gains.
By moorcat on Sep 4, 2007 | Reply
Comparing Cosco to Safeway is comparing Apples to Oranges. Cosco is (for all intents and purposes) owned by the employees. Safeway is your basic Corporation. They are two completely different types of entities. WinCo on the West Coast is similar to Cosco and they, too, offer groceries at a greatly reduced cost because they control thier overhead - by not having as much overhead.
If you want a more accurate comparison, compare Safeway to Walmart (but that wouldn’t support your argument, would it…). They are both traditional corporations. Walmart pays thier employees crap wages and food is cheap. Safeway pays better and thier food is more expensive. Does anyone believe these two facts are unrelated?
Moorcat
By UFCW on Sep 4, 2007 | Reply
We aren’t trying to get California wages in Montana. The comparison we made is to the total package, affordable healthcare with licing wages. We have never maintained we should get CA. wages in MT. and know that would be a fools errand.
By noodly appendage on Sep 4, 2007 | Reply
Interesting, if badly split discussion. Can we agree that entry level work deserves entry level wages, that apprentices make less than journeymen, that bookkeepers make less than CPAs?
Can we agree that local and market conditions also should be allowed to affect wages and salaries?
And can we agree that people should get paid what they are worth to an organization or employer, according to their level of commitment and contribution?
By GeeGuy on Sep 4, 2007 | Reply
I think Moorcat’s been spending too much time on the right-wing blogs!
By Craig on Sep 4, 2007 | Reply
I find it interesting that I said no such thing.
By moorcat on Sep 4, 2007 | Reply
No, GeeGuy, you have simply assumed too much. I have always stated that I am more conservative than people think I am. They (and you) have assumed that I am a “Democrat in Denial” because I supported both Tester and Monica Lindeen. They never considered WHY I supported those two candidates (Burns was a crook and Lindeen is quite probably the most honest and up front candidate I have EVER met - Democrat or Republican).
You see, this might be a difficult concept to wrap your mind around, but partisan politics disgusts me. I prefer to actually look at the issue from a standpoint of logic, pragmatism, and law. While my leanings tend to be a little conservative, many things coming out of the neocon right make no sense (take Sinrud’s latest stance on wild fires). If I argue against some Right Wing talking point, it isn’t that I am not conservative, it is what is being said makes NO SENSE…
You might find that if you stop trying to pidgeon hole me into your personal round hole of Conservative, you will find that I am not quite the square peg you thought I was… It doesn’t help that you think my brother is the poster child for Democrat in Montana (he is also a lot more conservative than people think).
Moorcat
By Shane C. Mason on Sep 4, 2007 | Reply
Moorcat, I am sorry but Costco is NOT an employee owned collective. You might want to recheck those facts.
By Shane C. Mason on Sep 4, 2007 | Reply
I’m sorry. I thought that when you pointed out three scenarios where raising wages resulted in a lose-lose situation, that you WERE indeed saying that. Thanks for the engaging debate, I’ll just shut the hell up now.
By Shane C. Mason on Sep 4, 2007 | Reply
Quiet frankly Moorcat, I am not really offended that you think I would only bring something up if it supported my point, but you did get a good round of applause for it. Bravo.
Now, please go back and check those facts though. Costco is not employee owned. It is a corporation, it is traded on the stock exchange and has a board of directors.
By Gee Guy on Sep 4, 2007 | Reply
Sheesh, Moorcat, it was a *joke*.
And I don’t think Wulfgar is “the poster child for Democrat in Montana.” While I agree he is more conservative than most people think, I also think he is more liberal than he lets on. That being said, though, he is almost always very thoughtful and even more often interesting and/or entertaining.
So, sorry to offend. In the future, though, if you see the little smiley face, you can safely assume I am offering a bit of what I think is good-natured ribbing to a fellow blogger.
By Craig on Sep 4, 2007 | Reply
I don’t know how speculating on what will _likely_ happen is the same as saying what _should_ happen.
There can’t really be much of a debate if you misrepresent my position.
By DMerriman on Sep 4, 2007 | Reply
“What I object to is people at the upper levels of a business prospering on the backs of those down below. And stop and think for a second what your life would be like without people flipping your burgers, plowing your streets, doing your garden.”
And how about that all these people on the ‘bottom’ of the business benefiting from the applied skull sweat of those above them? And that they even HAVE a job because of those at the top of the employment pyramid?
A sweeper of floors deserves a wage _in proportion to_ the benefit he brings to the company - *just as the CEO does*. The last time I checked, flippers of burgers outnumbered people with engineering degrees by a good, wide margin. Ditto plowing streets, and doing gardens.
By Shane C. Mason on Sep 4, 2007 | Reply
I think that you are misrepresenting my representation. I said that you made the claim, not that you endorsed the claim. You said:
“Now, if you go ahead and increase wages and benefits, guess what will happen. Here are three scenarios that I would guess would be highly likely.”
Then you made your three logical conclusions. I told you why I didn’t think that they were the only logical conclusion and gave Safeway/Costco (two stores you mention) as an example.
Now, want to address exactly why those three conclusions are the only logical ones, when I gave you the counter example?
By moorcat on Sep 4, 2007 | Reply
You can have an employee owned company that sells stocks. That doesn’t prove that Cosco is an employee owned company.
It may very well be that Cosco has changed since I worked there but I kind of doubt it. The Employees made the major business decisions and that is why the upper level of management don’t get what other large store chains get. I freely admit that my contact (read my job) with Cosco is dated but the numbers being given for salaries leads me to believe that it has only been masked by a “Corporate Package”
And Shane, sorry if that came across as combative. I was tired when I wrote it. I know that you will usually present both sides of an issue. My statement still stands, though. It would be a much better comparison to try to compare Walmart to Safeway rather than Cosco. Even if the employees no longer “own” the corporation, they are two different kinds of stores - Cosco is a “box” store with limited overhead and Safeway is a standard retail grocery store.
Moorcat
By moorcat on Sep 4, 2007 | Reply
You just caught the brunt of something that has been bothering me for while now (timing is everything…). After dealing with Ayn and some of the other Neo-Con wannabes, I was ready to jump into the next person that made a comment misrepresenting my political views. Yes, there are some “liberal” ideas I support, but in general my political veiws tend to lie much more on the “logical, conservative, and pragmatic” line. I voted Republican for close to 16 years and I am disappointed that my party has changed so much. It is probably the single largest reason I despise blind partisanship.
Moorcat
By Shane C. Mason on Sep 4, 2007 | Reply
Moorcat, I am sorry, but from the very early days Costco was owned and managed by an executive board. Especially after it merged with Price Club. It has never been an ‘employee owned’ sort of thing. It may have seemed that way when you worked there because they do see to value their employee inputs.
The only reason why comparing Safeway and Wal Mart seems more fair is because the companies are more similar in the way they choose to do business with their employees. Not anything about their business model. You see, what Costco has shown here is that you can turn a big profit and pay the folks at the bottom well.
By Craig on Sep 4, 2007 | Reply
Shane, the only reason I mentioned Costco is because they are in direct competition with the other stores and have caused those stores to lose sales. You know, the stores we’re actually talking about? Safeway and Albertsons?
Do you honestly expect that they’ll drop everything and adopt Costco’s business model?
In the long term, they may have to in order to stay competitive, but in the short term, there’s as much chance of those stores changing the way they do business as there is Ron Paul getting elected president.
Hence, the conclusions I’ve outlined above.
By Mark Tokarski on Sep 4, 2007 | Reply
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
By Mark Tokarski on Sep 4, 2007 | Reply
That’s a nice anecdote. Please stop by again when you two anecdotes to bolster your case. Make sure the second one does not describe something that goes on all the time anyway.
By Mark Tokarski on Sep 4, 2007 | Reply
Whaddda guy. Most people making minimum wage are adults. High school students are beneficiaries too, but there’s no way around that, and anyway, why should parents ahve to subsidize Wendy’s? I’ve argued these points extensively, and won’t again, save to state my conclusion - that minimum wage laws prevent sweatshops. Other than that, you’re on your own to find you why your points here are narrow, provincial, short sighted, and wrong.
By Mark Tokarski on Sep 4, 2007 | Reply
A job that does not provide a living wage should not exist. A company that cannot squeeze out a living wage should not exist. Your attitude about how wealth is produced is too narrow for me - I see value in creativity and even some in management skills, but most value comes from the labor of employees, sweepers less than machine operators, to be sure, but all worthy of a living wage. The very idea that you woudl pay someone to live in a cardboard box, which is the logical extension of your argument, is repulsive to me.
By Mark Tokarski on Sep 4, 2007 | Reply
Respectfully, eh? I retract nothing.
By Mark Tokarski on Sep 4, 2007 | Reply
This argument boils down to this: Are we about “me”, or we. What I hear is “ME ME ME!!!” A reminder to all of you - there is not that much difference in people at the bottom and people at the top other than expectations, luck, education, and for some (not as many as you might think), natural ability. Any of you could just as easily be bagging groceries, and in your place but for fortune might sit someone else. Don’t begrudge people the bare minimum for survival.
By Craig on Sep 4, 2007 | Reply
Just so I’m clear: You want me to provide more examples of something that you are willing to stipulate?
Yeah, I’ll get right on that.
By Gee Guy on Sep 4, 2007 | Reply
I see. So I get to have the argument with myself? Ok, I win then.
By moorcat on Sep 4, 2007 | Reply
I stand corrected. I could have sworn it was employee owned (at least in some fashion) because we got to vote about business matters.
I still think the model is different, though. Cosco is a “box store” (one that severly limits the amount of overhead) and as such is a different retail model. Further, it is “membership” store, requiring membership just to shop there. Their profit margin is only higher because thier overhead is lower.
I still see no way that you could increase wages (especially in the amounts that we are talking about) without it impacting the retail prices the consumer will pay. You certainly don’t expect the multi-million dollar salaries being given at the top to decrease, do you?
By Mark Tokarski on Sep 4, 2007 | Reply
Obviously you know the impact anecdotes have when there is no other evidence to support you.
By Craig on Sep 4, 2007 | Reply
>That is always going on - always. Stores are constantly trying to get more for less out of workers, and those with unions are trying to bust them. Life 101.
Where did I get that quote? I wonder.
From the same person:
>Make sure the second one does not describe something that goes on all the time anyway.
So, yeah, stipulate the point, or don’t. But spare me the pseudo-intellectual sophistry.
By Craig on Sep 4, 2007 | Reply
I suppose I might be bagging groceries were it not for the “dumb luck” of getting good enough grades in high school that, in turn, enabled my “dumb luck” in getting a rather generous scholarship from UM. That, in turn, gave me the “good fortune” to parlay my skills and education into a career where I’ve steadily advanced, no thanks to learning necessary skills to increase my earning power in my line of work.
Yeah, there but for the grace of God.
Quotha: “I’ve seen it in my own family [ . . . ] many were raised with low expectations and were ready to settle for working class jobs, while others of us got hold of student loans or scholarships and made a jump up.”
There’s that “luck” for ya, huh? Taking initiative and working hard is luck?
By GeeGuy on Sep 4, 2007 | Reply
You won life’s lottery, it seems.
By Gman on Sep 5, 2007 | Reply
Free market economics is rather simple, but it’s the dismal science so, alas, we don’t like swallowing its bitter pill. Problem is, we should swallow it because it’s the best alternative.
For those that don’t like the free market system, what are your alternatives? As you proffer them, be honest about the associated “externalities” — those unintended consequences that shatter the value of such an alternative. Also, consider first principles. Do we want freedom or security? Equality of opportunity or equality of condition?
Only one microeconomic comment: if Albertsons doesn’t pay their employees a prevailing wage, then they are likely to lose their employees. Since labor is a major cost to run a business, turnover is an enemy of a soundly managed business. The flip side of this is that if a worker believes they can earn more elsewhere based on their skills, they have the freedom to secure other employment.
Liberals need to get over the fixation on the “haves” and “have nots.” The number of Americans who didn’t actually earn their wealth constitutes a tiny fraction of the population.
By Mike on Nov 23, 2007 | Reply
Kind of makes the entire “the Prius is for Wussies” meme all the more appropriate, eyh? At least when we bought ours, it was because Rachel thought it was “cute,” not because it was a hybrid.
And it’s probably better for the Britons that this woman definitely NOT reproduce!
By Steve on Nov 23, 2007 | Reply
I bet they hate when their sanctimony is shown for it’s shallowness.
Good Job.
By Dave Budge on Nov 23, 2007 | Reply
Well, I say we promote this idea for “progressives.” In a generation or two they will have such diminished numbers that we will no longer have to worry about the pernicious creep of collectivism. And if more people on the right would act like Craig and me - the genetically prolific - we will have won the battle simply by embracing our reproductive rights.
By TMM on Nov 24, 2007 | Reply
Ah, but Dave, this assumes those who embrace such delusion will seek to enforce such a lifestyle only on themselves.
By Dave Budge on Nov 24, 2007 | Reply
True enough, Doug. True enough.
By Teresa on Nov 24, 2007 | Reply
I totally agree with you on the hemlock society. I saw this elsewhere and that was my first thought. LOL.
By Dani on Nov 26, 2007 | Reply
These poor delusional creatures do realize that its not the meek, but the prolific, who will inherit the earth, don’t they?
I love to tease my lefty friends (no, that’s not an oxymoron) that abortion swung the 2001 presidential election due to the difference in abortion rates between Democrats and Republicans in Florida. It wasn’t the best study in the world, but it does make one think.
By ECTOPHENSIS on Nov 27, 2007 | Reply
I’m going to apologize to Craig upfront for this.
Sorry, Craig.
I was listening to Wall of Voodoo’s “Mexican Radio” on the way home from school this evening and I started rearranging the words in my head. Because, well, I do that. Shopping at IKEA