Wal-mart Defends Controversial Food Drive For Employees

[NotreDame]

Might want to verify the means of determining unemployment over those years.

 

Pretty sure they use this:

[southern california guy]

Comparing these two graphs, it actually appears that Reagan reversed a long-standing trend in rising unemployment, from 1945 to 1983. Remember that he served all the way until 1989? Yeah, there's an occasional spike after 1984, and then 9/11 ruined everything, but overall, the trend is pretty clear to me.

 

I admit that I don't really know what was going on.  Remember Reagan became President in 1981, and if you look at the graph you will see that unemployment had come down dramatically.  Then it went roaring back up under Reagan and came back down almost identical to the climb.  I don't understand it.

 

Reagan was interesting.  Here is a link to a CNN article that I think is pretty good:  Taxes: What people forget about Reagan

[southern california guy]

Here's something you can do on the internet.  I can easily link to graphs.  Check out this graph of the Federal Reserves "constant maturity".  "Constant maturity" is used to set mortgage interest rates.  The Federal Reserve plays a huge role in our economy.

 

Edited November 28, 2013 by southern california guy

[Gabriela]

I admit that I don't really know what was going on.  Remember Reagan became President in 1981, and if you look at the graph you will see that unemployment had come down dramatically.  Then it went roaring back up under Reagan and came back down almost identical to the climb.  I don't understand it.

 

Reagan was interesting.  Here is a link to a CNN article that I think is pretty good:  Taxes: What people forget about Reagan

 

Exactly: Reagan entered in 1981. That spike in unemployment begins in 1980. When analyzing the influence of presidents, a lot of people neglect to consider that NO president makes INSTANT changes. Economies don't turn on a dime, so any policy implemented takes time to show up on the charts. That's why it's clear to me that, for that first term of Reagan's, the rise is the residue from the previous administration. After about three years in office, you can start to see what's coming from Reagan himself. And then, since he got a second term, you can see it very clearly.

[Gabriela]

Also, if I'm not mistaken, you can see a brief spike there in the chart every 4 years. Businesses get really jittery every time a new president enters. They become exceedingly conservative until they know how he's going to handle the economy. With Reagan there was a good deal of confidence. But check out the spike just after Bush entered (even though he was known to be economically very conservative)—then things normalized again (i.e., continued to decline).

 

I could be reading that wrong. There could be other factors in there. But barring further explanation, that's how I'd interpret it.

 

And I dare say that, if I'm right, it means we Americans put way too much stock in who's the president.

Edited November 28, 2013 by curiousing

[southern california guy]

I think that the Federal Reserve plays a huge role in the economy. The CNN article seems to imply that Reagans "trickle down" theory was nonsense. After lowering the taxes on the rich he closed the loopholes and they ended up paying a little more in taxes. I think that the people who really benefited from the income tax cuts were the lower and middle class.

I don't think that the economy really gets any boost from cutting the taxes for the rich. But it was curious theory that some Reagan supporters seemed to believe in.

[NotreDame]

Let me try to answer some of the questions without taking any sides in what is always a debate.

 

The big spike in early 80's unemployment was the "great 80's recession":

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_1980s_recession

 

The 70's was plagued by what is referred to as "stagflation", meaning the economy suffered both frequent recessions and inflation at the same time.

 

Newly appointed fed chairman Volker (with Reagan's strong support) kept the fed funds rate high well into the recession to prevent further stagflation:

 

 

 

It was a highly criticized move at the time, given the severe and prolonged unemployment, but has since been viewed as brave move to take our bitter but necessary medicine that got our monetary policy back on track and set us up for decades of growth (<-- this isn't necessarily my opinion, but I think it's popular opinion, though some might take issue with it.)  Go to Wikipedia for more:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Volcker

 

 

[Gabriela]

Here's something you can do on the internet.  I can easily link to graphs.  Check out this graph of the Federal Reserves "constant maturity".  "Constant maturity" is used to set mortgage interest rates.  The Federal Reserve plays a huge role in our economy.

 

 

TANGENT: How come you're marked "Phishy", SCG?

 

Sorry for the diversion, everyone. I tried PMing SCG with this question, but apparently "phishy" people aren't allowed to use the PM system! Hopefully the tangent will be brief...

[Pliny]

People are free to sell their labor to the highest bidder.

 

All the things we buy and sell are based on prices determined by market forces, namely supply and demand.

 

Wal-Mart has created a model which allows for them to sell goods at low prices and benefit many.  Nobody has to work at Wal-Mart, and those who do don't have to stay there for ever.  What Wal-Mart "should" pay is what the market will bear.  We do the same thing.  We look for the lowest price--not the highest price.

 

What the short-sighted fail to see is all the ways our money is confiscated and wasted, otherwise Wal-Mart workers and those working for low wages would have greater purchasing power.

 

So much of our resources are sucked out of our economy and shifted to those who don't work, or to those who are overpaid, i.e., union government workers, who then go on to living well on their pensions absorbing current tax revenues to do so.

 

We have minimum wage laws that prohibit the hiring of idle youths whose labor is not worth minimum wage, but who could all be earning something without these price controls, and who could ease their burden on society, giving us all greater wealth.

 

We cannot provide a "living wage" via decree.  Besides that, who is the arbiter of what that standard should be?

 

Imagine that we were all castaways on an island and could barely eek out a living collecting food and building crude shelters.  Could our standard of living be raised by forming a government that would make a law stating we must henceforth live according to our previous standards before we were shipwrecked?

 

What enables more goods and services to be distributed to all is the means to produce more, and that has happened in our age because of capitalism and machinery that can produce more than labor alone.

 

We seem to only be looking at the greedy rich as if they are the problem and as if they gave up what they have we would all be well off, but that's not the case.  There isn't that much that could be redistributed, even if that were a just thing to do (which it is not).  We fail to look at the greedy poor and the greedy government and the greedy workers who are all trying to get better deals via government decree at the expense of other workers.

Edited November 29, 2013 by Pliny

[southern california guy]

Walmart will put a Super Walmart into a small town and put the local clothing stores, hardware stores, and groceries out of business.

The people who worked for those business's go and get a job at Walmart -- where they receive half the pay that they did at their old job. Walmart did not improve their quality of life.

Perhaps the smartest thing that they could have done was have to put their house up for sale and moved -- when they saw the Walmart coming in.

What is somebodies time really worth? I make twice as much doing the same job in California as I did in Utah. And the cost of living is not much different.

[NotreDame]

SCGuy, we get it... you don't like Walmart very much... But I have to say, you aren't doing much for your credibility with this:

 

>>> I make twice as much doing the same job in California as I did in Utah. And the cost of living is not much different.

 

If this is the case for you, consider yourself very, very lucky.  It is not the case for 99% of Californians and if you really are a "So Cal Guy", then you know that already. 

[southern california guy]

SCGuy, we get it... you don't like Walmart very much... But I have to say, you aren't doing much for your credibility with this:

>>> I make twice as much doing the same job in California as I did in Utah. And the cost of living is not much different.

If this is the case for you, consider yourself very, very lucky. It is not the case for 99% of Californians and if you really are a "So Cal Guy", then you know that already.

You are right. I live in Escondido, in San Diego county. I bought a foreclosure, and my interest rate is low so we pay less per month than people pay for a one bedroom apartment. The higher cost of living here is housing. We have a subtropical climate here -- it doesn't get too hot or cold -- so our electric bill averages $25/month. And I work for "waste management". I am basically a garbage man.

Still you drive around town and you will see furniture stores out of business because of the Furniture Warehouse, that came into town, and other local businesses that were put out of business by Lowe's and Home Depot.

[southern california guy]

TANGENT: How come you're marked "Phishy", SCG?

Sorry for the diversion, everyone. I tried PMing SCG with this question, but apparently "phishy" people aren't allowed to use the PM system! Hopefully the tangent will be brief...

I don't know.. but I'm not sure that I really mind. Most of the PM's that I've gotten in the past were from people I was debating with and they just accused me of things and called me names.

[Winchester]

Standard Oil put people out of business, too. Lower prices will do that. 

[southern california guy]

If you really want to contact me you can contact me at: rprimbs@yahoo.com. That email address has been so hacked, and hijacked and spammed that I am going to be getting rid of it pretty soon anyway.