Wal-Mart & The Economic Multiplier Effect.
- Thread starter SouthAmerica
- Start date
Your post has too many flaws. First and biggest of all, you need to re-check your assumption about the poor today being better off than 40 years ago. Date a Latin girl from the projects, you'll see how 2 families get packed into one apartment. Or just check out some illegal Mexican & Chinese housing (Chinatown sweatshop housing)
Sweden 40% below the US poverty line? Too funny. Their food quality alone is enough to put them above most of USA.
This is the crapest post i ever read, buy an economy book.
yes, of course!
let's take a mum who is caring about her baby. and then you take a industry female workers.
GDP = industry female worker salary = 3000$ per month
Then the industrial worker is becoming nany and the mum is going to work to the factory.
GDP = mum salary + nany salary = 6000$ per month
No real value has been created at all but GDP per capital has been multiplied by two and with no inflation. productivity which is output (gdp) has also been multiplied by two. And even GDP is PPP has been multiplied by two, this is the amazing thing!
GDP figures are easily manipulated and should not be trusted.
what matters is can you afford your health treatments, can you send your kids to university, can you buy a car, how is your accomodation ... politicians will always manipulated figures to achieve their aims.
Total productivity increase but not productivity per hours worked. And if you look at productivity per hours worked, US does not have any hedge over european countries or japan.
I wish ppl would quit thinking that globalization will be some "utopia" BS and realize that the day we have a single currency and a single country is around the same time that the end of the world happens according to Revelation. Why push towards something that spells doom? Who cares if you don't believe it or not, why? Because prophecies can self-fulfill themselves as well... means you don't have to believe for something to come to pass. Other ppl can believe it and end up making it happen. It's not *because* other ppl made it happen, but because things end up as they were foretold over & over again.
A single mother with limited income goes in to a store and now has to pay $35 for children's shoes (as opposed to $7 at WalMart), because somebody in a heavily-unionized state has run to a politician to protect his job from competition.
Paying *more* for necessities is helpful to this single mother in exactly what way?
Paying *more* for necessities is helpful to this single mother in exactly what way?
Her income would be significantly less "limited" to begin with if she did not have to compete for work with 3 billion people in India,China, Eastern Europe and S. America willing to work for $1 an hour.
She would likely have a decent ($15 hour) paying job with a shoe manufacturing company instead of having a $5.15 hour Walmart/McDonalds job.
And the difference in shoe prices would not be $7 vs $35. The price is not determined by cost of production as much as it's determined by supply and demand. Cost of production is a small component of the final price and if a chinese company could profitably sell shoes for $7, an american company can just as profitably sell them for $9-$10.
Imagine the single mother's salary doubles as she's now able to get a decent manufacturing job and the price of cheapest shoes goes up from $7 to $10. Don't you think she'd benefit?
Excellent commentary...
Wilburbear wrote:
A single mother with limited income goes in to a store and now has to pay $35 for children's shoes (as opposed to $7 at WalMart), because somebody in a heavily-unionized state has run to a politician to protect his job from competition.
Paying *more* for necessities is helpful to this single mother in exactly what way?
................................................................................................
You are right...this is a very tough call....
However here is the decision....
Is the person there at Wmart because of work compromises created by Wmart....???
Who is more important...the person´s family that loses their ability to buy good shoes because of Wmart....or is it the single parent that can only buy shoes because of Wmart....???
........................................................................
This is a horrible decision to have to make...but it is going to be made....
Wilburbear wrote:
A single mother with limited income goes in to a store and now has to pay $35 for children's shoes (as opposed to $7 at WalMart), because somebody in a heavily-unionized state has run to a politician to protect his job from competition.
Paying *more* for necessities is helpful to this single mother in exactly what way?
................................................................................................
You are right...this is a very tough call....
However here is the decision....
Is the person there at Wmart because of work compromises created by Wmart....???
Who is more important...the person´s family that loses their ability to buy good shoes because of Wmart....or is it the single parent that can only buy shoes because of Wmart....???
........................................................................
This is a horrible decision to have to make...but it is going to be made....