Wal-Mart Warms to the State
The CEO of Wal-Mart surprised many by calling for an increase in the minimum wage. And what accolades were heaped on him! The company was even cast in a new role, from the exploiter of workers to the responsible advocate of pro-worker policies! Just one problem: it is a cartelization tactic that uses regulatory violence as a means of competition. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (147)
Can't say I'm too surprised by his urging an increase in the minimum wage. I've had a feeling Mr. Scott would make this kind of rhetorical/ business move eventually. For all its evil implications, it is very clever.
Published: October 28, 2005 7:07 AM
Reading “Wal-Mart Warms to the State� is like watching Star Wars Episode III and learning how Anakin Skywalker became Darth Vader.
Excellent article Lew! Thank you!
Published: October 28, 2005 7:19 AM
A very clever move by Walmart indeed, and a well written article to flush out the implications of such a move. Thanks, Lew.
Published: October 28, 2005 7:33 AM
There are so many people in the labor market and the competition for jobs would be so fierce that businesses would not have to pay $1.25 per hour if we didn't have the min wage. You think that would be less evil then Scott supporting a higher min wage? Can you imagine how many Mexicans they would be allowing into the country then?
In the old South certain individuals were forced to work so that other individuals could make a profit at their business. Does anyone still think that one person should be made into a slave in order that another person can own their own business?
If business owners cannot pay fair wages then they do not get to have their business. Thats allowing the market to work. Wages is a part of doing business just the same as paying rent, insurance, having competitive prices and a product that people want. Either you can make your business work or you can't. You certainly are not entitled to slaves in order to do so.
Having a livable wage forces Walmart to at least do one thing more fairly. What is being said here is that Walmart finally got into a position where it could do the right thing and absorb the cost of doing the right thing while small business may be at a disadvantage.
Taxing Walmart for buying products made by foreign workers would be another way to force it to do right.
Without the min wage business would have all the advantage and workers none. Walmart causes factory workers to lose their better paying jobs by buying from China and in that way forces people to take jobs at Walmart. It has all the advantages.
Just once I would like to see the market truly be allowed to work and see just what would happen. What kind of country would we live in if people were making $1.25 per hour. Who could afford to shop at Walmart?
Published: October 28, 2005 7:40 AM
Minimum wages by fiat are economically harmful, but it's different with getting them via the Pigovian approach developed by Professor Kim Swales of the University of Strathclyde. Google for him, or follow the links on my home page (only somewhat rotted, I think). Personally I would prefer to use this approach as the first step of a longer transition towards self ownership of enough resources that everyone could price themselves into adequate top up work if need be. However my publications page only discusses the first stage.
Published: October 28, 2005 7:57 AM
"What kind of country would we live in if people were making $1.25 per hour."
Hopefully one where taxes would be greatly reduced.
I am not sure how a coercive group with guns dictating what a business must pay for voluntary labor, is "allowing the market to work".
Published: October 28, 2005 8:18 AM
Retrieved an older marketing textbook yesterday, a work by Berkowitz, Kerin, Hartley and Rudelius entitled, "Marketing". Original.
There's a section in the book about satisfying customers' needs (and after all, is that not what Wal-Mart is doing?) - and in this section there a listing of what are called the 'Uncontollable, Environmental Factors'.
These 'factors' are likened to impediments we naturally encounter, for example, when we drive. Such as: a boundried street upon which we have to keep our car. Traffic lights and traffic signs that have to be obeyed. And, there's always the laws of physics involving mass and acceleration that apply to a moving vehicle. These 'factors' will always be there for us when we drive a vehicle.
The same 'factors' apply to business marketing. The 'factors' can be placed into five groups: Social, Technological, Economic, Competitive, and, Regulatory Forces. Notice how the 'factors' have become 'forces'.
Lew's article draws closest to the 'Regulatory Force'; that is, the regulatory force called the Minimum Wage. My book goes on to say, "These five forces may serve as accelerators or brakes on marketing, sometimes expanding an organization's marketing opportunities and other times restricting them." May I be so bold as to add, "... and other times restricting the marketing opportunities of the competition."
Wal-Mart has made a shrewd move. What a nifty way of putting the loss-of-profit-screws to the K-Mart/Sears consortium... to Target... and, believe it or not, to the likes of Dollar General, Family Dollar and the Almighty Dollar chains.
Wal-Mart comfortably says, 'Hey! You want to play the retail game with us, then you have to pay the going dues to join the party. And, thanks to the U.S. Government, we can get those dues raised high enough to put you out of business.' Cool.
Lew's correct in his call for the elimination of the minimum wage. Time to let the bulls of competition fight it out in the ring.
Published: October 28, 2005 8:20 AM
Scarlett needs to take an economics class. "If business owners cannot pay fair wages then they do not get to have their business." So what is "fair" and who gets to decide? You? and I suppose you'll also be the one deciding who gets to keep their business and who doesn't? All hail Scarlett the Great!
"What kind of country would we live in if people were making $1.25 per hour?" Um, exactly what scientific methods were used to arrive at the number of $1.25? If your point is correct then why don't all businesses right now pay everyone mininum wage? Walmart has no reason to pay more than that because beyond that they "have all the advantage and workers none." What strange benevolence is it that causes any company anywhere to pay more than 5.15 per hour?
If you look at the history of the average wage in the U.S., the minimum wage has always lagged behind it. It does not drive the average. It's just a political game and a way to harm smaller firms. It also causes unemployment for those who can't produce $5.15 worth of work in an hour. Sure it sucks to make less than that, but isn't that better than being perpetually unemployed?
"Wages is a part of doing business...You certainly are not entitled to slaves in order to do so." Not being able to decide your own wage does not make you a slave. If the market is really "working" as you put it, no one is entitled to anything, and that includes employees. They do not get to decide their own wage anymore than businesses get to arbitrarily decide how much to charge for their products. Everyone has the freedom to buy or not buy at any given price. That includes the purchase of labor by employers. There is no more reason to allow government to set labor prices than there is to allow them to set any market price. All that causes is shortages and distortions.
Published: October 28, 2005 8:41 AM
Scarlett,
Real increases in wages are only made possible by increasing productivity fostered under free-market-capitalism. There are several reasons why minimum wages are created and raised: (1) For large companies to make it difficult/impossible for small companies to compete; (2) To prevent competition with unions workers by poor teenagers; (3) So that States, seeing that most wages are generally above a certain level, can pass a "minimum wage law" and then declare that they are the reason for higher wages and wealth.
None of this is moral or legal by natural law. Nor does it make economic sense.
I am also curious for you to please explain to me how it is justified that the State forces a situation where 1 person is payed approximately $5 dollars, instead of 5 being paid $1 dollars, if that is what the market would produce? The reality, however, is that rising productivity in the US and other relatively free-market countries has allowed wages to rise, as the discounted marginal value productivity has increased.
And what of the working poor? Is it businessmen who cause them problems? No. It is businessmen who provide job-opportunities. The greatest enemy of the poor is the State; see Reiland, Ralph. Why the Working Poor Suffer.
Published: October 28, 2005 8:45 AM
Wow. Just mention the damage that the forced "minimum" wage causes, and the fallacies come out of the woodwork! I'm impressed. I especially like Mr. Lammert posting all that calculation on an Austrian site. Ooops! Spambot?
Published: October 28, 2005 9:41 AM
Now, if we just get Mr. Scott to come out in favour of H1B visas and/or Mr. Bush's most magnanimous immigration policies, we can finally finish off those little remnants of merchants, producers, and indigenous populations in most small towns.
Published: October 28, 2005 11:01 AM
Now, if we just get Mr. Scott to come out in favour of H1B visas and/or Mr. Bush's most magnanimous immigration policies, we can finally finish off those little remnants of merchants, producers, and indigenous populations in most small towns.
Published: October 28, 2005 11:01 AM
Why is it right for the local governments to have to build infrastructure and access roads and to give tax cuts to Walmart everytime they build a new store? Why is it right that the government has to take care of the health care Walmart workers because Walmart won't provide a livable wage so its workers can buy health care insurance themselves? How come businesses never have any social responsibility?
You are arguing against Walmart and on behalf of small business. Doesn't every small business want to become a Walmart? Wasn't Walmart once a small business? If Walmart overcame the min wage obstacle then why is it evil for them to expect their comptition to do the same? Isn't that the survival of the fittest and allowing the market to work?
No one addressed the fact that the labor pool is endless and therefore gives business the advantage. $1.25 is simply my guess at what wages could become but they would probably be lower. What effect are illegal Mexicans having on wages? Why is the government now allowing illegals to come here when we could obviously close our borders if we chose to? What about products imported from China?
Labor is subject to world competitive forces but American businesses have the advantage of the United States government and military and the World Bank to fix their profits and shut out competition. Our government has overthrown legally elected foreign governments on behalf of American businesses and our economy. We are no longer the economic engine of the world but our military says we are. Saddam was toppled because the leaders of France and Germany convinced him to sell his oil in Euros. The circulation of the petro dollar is the foundation of the American economy. All American business is based upon situations that are fixed by the United States military. Your big talk about markets is so much bs if I may say so and not be too impolite.
Where is the pay from business for our military actions? How shall we figure a fair compenstation to citizens for that? Or do businesses just get it for free? You seem mighty meticulous when it comes to what should be paid in wages but you ignore other realities regarding what is done for business.
The taxpayers are at this moment making the investment in the middle east and private corporations are taking the profits. Perhaps the government wishes to guaratee a min wage in order that citizens can pay taxes in order to pave the way for more profits through military actions. After all this entire discussion is based upon the potential profits of business without any regard for the individual worker. Since you are so concerned about profits perhaps you should step back and take a closer look at what the govermnent and the taxpayers do in the long run. It seems to me the last thing you should want is an open and free market with no government involvement.
Should the government allow market forces to determine the wages of soldiers? Who would be willing to fight and die for the profits of business?
Published: October 28, 2005 11:15 AM
PS The market is about competition. Why fault Walmart for being competitive and seeking to get rid of its competition? Thats what its supposed to do isn't it?
From the point of view of workers we should want to get rid of small business because it is to our advantage to work for companies that have absorbed labor costs in their profits and as workers we should do all we can to get our government to raise min wages to $15 per hour.
Workers have as much right to compete and be involved in the market as businesses do because we have a vested interest just the same as buiness in how the markets work.
Published: October 28, 2005 11:22 AM
I must say that I am not horribly surprised. Merchants and businesses of all sizes are in favor of profits; they are in business to earn money. When freedom tends not to harm the "bottom line," then they are for it. When some regulatory measure is what helps, then they are for that instead. Wal-Mart is not entirely wrongly the target of leftist attacks. I think it's certainly true that they take advantage of the poverty forced upon many people by the State and its economic regulations to offer jobs with few real opportunities, but I also think that people who attack and defend Wal-Mart are, in some sense, chopping at the branches when the could attack the roots of the tree, to use Thoreau's phrase. Those who dislike Wal-Mart are absolutely right that poverty is a problem and that Wal-Mart gets a number of advantages from the state. However, their proposed solutions are usually wrong-headed. Those who defend Wal-Mart are right when they say that their opponents propose bad remedies, but they are wrong in assuming that this somehow means that Wal-Mart is a valiant upholder of freedom and does not take advantage of the poverty induced in our country by the state, and of the artificially low labor costs in China and other countries which are a result of slave labor.
And on this issue of whether immigrants have jobs at Wal-Mart or native-born Americans, all I can really say is a position which opposes a person from Mexico or another country replacing an American at a job mightily resembles economic nationalism.
Published: October 28, 2005 12:15 PM
Wal-Mart. What a corrupt, twisted, monstrosity.
The Libertarian philosophy, genuine free markets, and Austrian economics are the best thing that could come along as far as getting America, and the rest of the world for that matter, straightened out, but this thing about Wal-Mart really has me confused to say the least. Wal-Mart is the very antithesis of genuine free markets and Austrian economics, from what I’ve been able to gather thus far, as well as the antithesis of Libertarian philosophy of do no harm and that “Pareto optimal� thing about one not being able to be better off without another being made worse off. Unbelievable!
Wal-Mart could not exist in a genuine free market. Someone mentions “free market capitalism� in a post; ludicrous. There is no “free market capitalism� in America and Wal-Mart does nothing but the opposite of genuine free market concepts in ALL of its actions. Wal-Mart used its family wealth, gathered by milking the taxpayers, to hire the most expensive lobbyists by milking the taxpayers, to gain favorable legislation at Federal, State, County, and City levels while milking the taxpayers, to buy large amounts of real estate by milking the taxpayer at favorable terms to itself over the smaller businesses also interested, to build enormous warehouses by milking the taxpayer, and hiring people who once made decent wages and then not providing either enough income to pay for insurance or refusing to pay insurance that is picked up by taxpayers, used pricing structures to drive out competitors while milking the taxpayers for the losses it claimed from selling below costs, while demanding all those in its stakeholder chain to follow all the same methods and further milk the taxpayer . . . I could go on for a very long time with the list of this NON-CAPITALISTIC/GOVERNMENT CODDLED/ANTI-FREE MARKET/TAXPAYER-MILKING/ANTI-FREEDOM mega-corporation.
And “the economically ignorant left� comment is another ludicrous statement. Sorry, Mr. Rockwell, though I truly respect your opinions and enjoy your writing, this is just silly. Guess what; among the hundreds of millions of taxpayers being bilked by Wal-Mart are a whole bunch of “lefties� who understand perfectly what is happening.
The left wouldn’t be so “ignorant� if the meaning of free market wasn’t the version promoted by Wal-Mart and its big brother the Neoconservative movement led by the current regime. If Wal-Mart is what will be held up as the flagship of free-market capitalism, good luck with convincing anyone who is anti-neocon.
I want to see people and companies networking and creating new opportunities to bring down Wal-Mart. The problem is that, if the neocons get another 7 years to blast away at freedoms at every level, in 2012 Wal-Mart and many other mega-corporation/government entities will be too powerful to counter and incomes will be generally too low for people to pool resources to have any affect.
NONE of the pro-Wal-Mart arguments in this thread of discussion are valid. There is no free market or any market other than the strictly controlled markets to which corporations can apply accounting practices that favor bigness. Only those companies that have enough size and monetary resources to buy legislation and use the tax system to write off “losses� and various other maneuvers will attain the highest successes.
If enough people and companies got together very soon and began taking action to compete with Wal-Mart, there is a chance of taking back market share. But the neocons have managed to siphon enough in $TRILLIONS to the very small group of nobles who’ve sworn fealty that it is highly unlikely that much progress can be made. The rich and the big can write off and get taxpayers to foot the bill so that prices can be set at whatever level it takes to keep market share. THE SAVINGS ACCOUNTS FOR THESE ENTITIES ARE THE TAXPAYERS’!
The ONLY way to battle successfully with Wal-Mart is in a GENUINE free market. A genuine free market is a fair market and a genuine fair market is a free market. Wal-Mart operates in neither and my confidence is high that, if a genuine free market had been in existence for the last 50 years, Wal-Mart would not be the MONSTROSITY it is today.
Published: October 28, 2005 12:18 PM
Scarlett, I take it you have not read anything else on this site.
You seem to think that what we have now is free market capitalism - we don't. You want to push it even further in the wrong direction - we don't.
"The market is about competition. Why fault Walmart for being competitive and seeking to get rid of its competition? Thats what its supposed to do isn't it?"
We prefer real competition by improving quality or reducing price of products & services, not yanking the government.
PS, practically all of you sentences are riddled with economic fallacies and leftist propaganda.
Published: October 28, 2005 12:28 PM
Mr. Kilpatrick says: "And on this issue of whether immigrants have jobs at Wal-Mart or native-born Americans, all I can really say is a position which opposes a person from Mexico or another country replacing an American at a job mightily resembles economic nationalism."
¶As long as it's not your job, right? I get a kick out of all the folks who suddenly throw out the quip, "______ nationalism" - fill in the requisite term - to the immigration question. India and China are training huge amounts of scientists, and I'm sure, in years to come, huge amounts of economists (and other financially related fields) to navigate their newly found wealth. It will be poetic justice when the same folks who are advocating open borders (a pure violation of private property) and "guest" worker programmes, are replaced by these new bean counters.
¶There are tens of thousands of foreigners who can probably do your job - whatever it is - for less wages and probably more efficiently. Why not?
Published: October 28, 2005 12:40 PM
Scarlett,
First of all, no one is arguing against Wal-Mart itself or for small business. What we are arguing against is ANY company trying to use government force to harm its competitors rather than competing in the market alone. No one is arguing that the government SHOULD build infrastructure or give subsidies to Wal-Mart or anyone else for that matter.
The labor pool is not endless. It is limited to the human beings who are willing and able to work. The rest of your comment is so jumbled and incoherent that it is difficult to think of how one could possibly respond to it.
The main problem in your reasoning is your refusal to seperate government force and action from voluntary market transactions. The examples and questions you raise are all government-caused problems. The market does not produce war, force, disorder or poverty. Government does. The actions of the US military have nothing to do with whether there should be a minimum wage and what its effects are on workers and corporations.
It is not up to workers or bureaucrats to determine the optimal size of a firm in the market. That is the consequence of market forces. It is not necessarily to anyone's advantage to have large or small firms. That will depend on the circumstances. If government raised minimum wages to $15 you would have mass, permanent unemployment.
I think you've been reading a little too much Karl Marx. The socialist utopia you dream of where government can create wealth and raise living standards just by commanding it to be so is just that, an impossible dream. Government does not produce wealth. It is not magic and it cannot make things better by trying to force the world to conform to its ideals. The laws of economics are irrefutable and you cannot get rid of them by ignoring them or wishing they didn't exist.
"Should the government allow market forces to determine the wages of soldiers? Who would be willing to fight and die for the profits of business?" ~ Not many people would want to kill and die for businesses and that is exactly the point.
Published: October 28, 2005 12:41 PM
"Can you imagine how many Mexicans they would be allowing into the country then?"
There goes the neighborhood...
Published: October 28, 2005 12:54 PM
Hi Aaron,
I have to take exception to a couple of your statements to Scarlett:
“The labor pool is not endless. It is limited to the human beings who are willing and able to work.�
This is not true in today’s environment. If not enough jobs are available then the labor pool is limited—period. Those who are willing and able to work won’t matter as only those who can get those jobs, whatever they are, will be forced to take them. ALL of the government’s economic policies, especially tax issues, are targeted to permit the selected corporations and industries favored by said government to create a labor pool that exists for “dipping� into as is necessary without any roadblocks. The available human resource pool that these entities want is one that has limited choices and can be forced (by lack of choice to do otherwise) to work wherever, whenever, and at whatever income level the entities so choose.
What you suggest is that this is part of the economic “shakeout� that would take place in a free market. But we don’t have a free market and there will not be a shakeout. There will only be what government and their corporate contributors decide there will be.
“It is not up to workers or bureaucrats to determine the optimal size of a firm in the market. That is the consequence of market forces.�
You mean in a free market, which we do not have. The optimal size of any corporation can be determined by how much influence it can exert in legislation and how much revenue it can siphon from the tax system, said system being manipulated to the benefit of said corporation.
Too many in this thread are discussing the merits of business in the wrong environment. The arguments that are pro-free market are arguments to describe Wal-Mart, and maybe other businesses as well, that are diametric to freedom.
Published: October 28, 2005 1:13 PM
Sorry to be a little off topic, but I couldn't resist.
"Can you imagine how many Mexicans they would be allowing into the country then?"
There goes the neighborhood...
Yep, and here's one of the top facilitators (link via Mr. Rockwell's blog): http://www.orlandosentinel.com/orl-sexarrest2705oct27,0,3475499.story?coll=orl-shoppinghg-headlinesforthe&track=mostemailedlink
Published: October 28, 2005 1:27 PM
Bob,
This is a free market web-site. When discussing market principles, naturally one will assume a market setting. Then once it is understood how a market works, we can examine the effects of outside, forceful intervention and distortions on that market. Jumping right into to the world as it exists today without understanding the latter produces nothing but confusion.
The labor pool is not limited by the number of jobs available. That's like saying that only the wood or oil we have the ability to harvest exists in the "wood pool" or the "oil pool" and the rest doesn't exist. No, the labor pool is the pool of people willing and able to work. The number of jobs available will determine the amount of that pool that actually gets hired to work, not the size of the pool itself.
Obviously the other comments I made, such as the optimal size of firms and the wage level, assumed ideal, free-market conditions. I was speaking of how things ought to be, not how they are now. Obviously the government inteferes on the sides of both labor and business.
Published: October 28, 2005 1:49 PM
Good article, Lew.
It seems when corporations reach a certain size and can be influential politcially they appeal to government to eliminate the rest of their competition. Just as Rockefeller called competition the greatest sin, so now Mr. Scott follows on his heels to eliminate it.
Bob A. makes some good points. I don't think Lew is so much supporting Wal-mart in this article as he is condemning its call for government regulation.
Wal-mart has been held up as a flagship of the "free market" but once it has eliminated as much competition as it can it must then appeal to regulatory forces to retain market position and further eliminate its competitors. A higher minimum wage will not affect Wal-mart whatsoever since they pay above the minimum. It will do damage to profit margins of its competitors who do pay minimum wage.
All in all, Lew points out the devious practices that can be employed when government regulation skews the market. A free market wouldn't tolerate for long any devious practices. I don't say they wouldn't be attempted just short-lived.
Published: October 28, 2005 2:02 PM
Mr(?) Baker,
The Indians can have whatever job I will have in the future. I am not currently employed because I am concentrating on my studies. While losing my job would certainly be unfortunate, I am not going to use force to prevent such a thing from happening. There is, currently, no private property in roads, and, as such, they are open to reappropriation or use by anyone with equal legitimacy. I can make a pretty good case that the US has essentially stolen massive amounts of wealth from the rest of the world over the years and that they thus have an even better claim to legitimacy in using these things. Further, for a public entity to attempt to manage resources as a private entity would, even if it is only a half-way measure to private management, is little more than "market socialism," minus the market, of course. Gloating that I will lose my job because of the policies I advocate is just silly.
Mr. Singleton,
The optimal size of a firm can be affected. For example, if all firms over 15 employees and a certain amount of productive capacity had all revenues taxed at 100%, then that size would be the highest possible optimum size, it seems. On the opposite end, massive infusions of credit and regulations have probably made the optimal size of a firm much larger than what it would other wise be, but the key point is that there is no independently-existing optimal size "out there," the optimal size is determined by the business and regulatory climate in which a firm operates, as well as the epistemic limits of humans. Further, it seems very important that we always make it obvious whether we are discussing things as they are, or things as they should be, because it can be easy to get confused and wonder off into a semi-corporatist lala-land, as Ayn Rand did when she called the idea of a "military-industrial complex" "a myth, or worse."
Ben Kilpatrick
Published: October 28, 2005 2:32 PM
Sam Walton all but admitted in his autobiography that without the interstate highway system and its tributaries, the Wal-Mart we've come to know would not exist. As it is, however, the unintended consequences of this massive government road-building project were to essentially pay everyone who could afford a car to leave the city. Of course, if you COULDN'T afford a car, you got left behind. Factor in the welfare socialism already in place via the New Deal (the "need" for which was a direct result of previous government intervention, i.e., the Fed-induced crash of 1929 that brought on the Great Depression), and who, then, can be surprised at the human detritus stumbling out of New Orleans for all the world to see?
And then of course there's the toll on the natural environment due to suburban sprawl. Sure, Americans prefer to live in these spacious locales (as long as gas is cheap; uh-oh), but the notion that this lifestyle is the result of American's "love affair with the automobile" rather than government subsidization of car culture is absurd.
But wait, there's more! For while the depredations of the American state and the West in general are minimal compared to those of more the world's more repressive states (emphasis on "compared"), the resulting gargantuan income divide has made itself manifest now that the latter's three billion souls have been dumped onto the world labor market following the collapse of the communist bloc and the opening of the Indian subcontinent.
The resulting "globalization" has turned free trade into a free fall so far as the West is concerned, as its corporations are forced to scavenge the global labor market in order to compete. In the US, this process is rapidly turning a save-and-produce economy into a borrow-and-spend economy that is incurring debt to foreign sources at a rate of over $2 billion a day.
So while Wal-Mart et al. are making a fortune selling us inexpensive goods made in China and the like, China and the like are lending us the money to do so, even as hispanics illegally pour across out borders to take the jobs that Americans "don't want," our sold-out-to-business politicians failing to add that Americans don't want these jobs for the simple reason that they don't pay squat. Why? Because the hispanics illegally pouring across our borders...
Let's face it. This is a prescription for disaster that is gaining momentum with every passing day, all the more so as the welfare-warfare apparatus starts to collapse under its own weight (or rather, the weightlessness of its monopoly money). And whoever thinks that the Fed's new "Helicopter Ben" is going to inflate our way out of this debacle or that our politicians are going to muster the courage to meet it head-on must also believe that we're winning the war in Iraq and that the country's new constitution is worth more than the paper it's printed on.
So nothing against your article, Lew, which is on the money as far as it goes, the fact is that so disruptive has state action been over the course of the past century that we are literally in a world of hurt, the pain of which is going to be all the worse the longer it is delayed.
But enough of that doom and gloom. "Attention Wal-Mart shoppers..."
Published: October 28, 2005 3:46 PM
Ben,
I'd be interested in the case that the US has stolen massive amounts from the rest of the world...
While there certainly seems to be alot of this -- e.g., the wars, the malaria-promoting ban on DDT, various protectionist policies, etc -- there's also much of it going on the other way around too. The State steals alot of wealth from US taxpayers (who deserve, earned, and created it), and then redistributes it to various third-world countries (which don't deserve it, haven't earned it, and haven't created it).
In any event, injustices don't cancel out on a nation-wide scale (only an individual scale; e.g., 2 eyes for an eye).
I guess what I'm curious about is your apparent claim that someone from Gonwanaland has as much claim to homestead a street in the US as local taxpayers do. Do you really think that more of the funding for that came from people from foreigners, than from local US taxpayers?
Also, absent anarcho-capitalism, I feel that the next-best thing that can be accomplished is for "public" resources to be managed as if they were private; that is, bums (who pay no taxes) shouldn't be allowed in the streets begging for money, nor should they be allowed to be in public libraries, behaving in uncivilized manners. You can call this market-socialism -- "just act as if you were private property owners -- and you'd be right, and it has all of the same problems that it did in the USSR; but it's still better than the alternative, imo, given that we're not in a anarcho-capitalist / libertarian / propertarian society yet.
Published: October 28, 2005 3:47 PM
David J. Heinrich,
". . . but it's still better than the alternative . . ."
That term is one of the more destructive and is overused to say the least. The attitude that it seems to generate creates apathy and stagnation. The difference between our government/corporate economy and that of China’s is that we don’t throw people in jail for starting an organization to monitor pollution of water supplies, streams, and rivers because the corporations run to the government to complain—at least not yet.
Published: October 28, 2005 4:14 PM
Bob A, Scarlett, and David White are apparently not interested in a principled approach to the issue Lew brought to this space, which is that Wal-Mart is cynically tying to manipulate a federal regulation to its own economic advantage. Period. The effect of this manipulation will increase the many "wrongs" the left charge Wal-Mart with. This is irony.
NONE of this constitutes an endoresment AT ALL of the demonstrably non-Austrian things Wal-Mart does (steal property through eminent domain, manipulate zoning boards through bribery, etc). But neither does this give ANY legitimacy to you three arguing that Wal-Mart is somehow any more guilty of, for instance, "screwing" workers out of some arbitrary "living" wage, taking advantage of "free" interstate highways, or dodging through tax "loopholes" than any other national company.
In the long run, Wages=Marginal Revenue Product of Labor. An employer who tries to underpay this MRP will have no employees, the employer who pays this wage will have full staff and maximize profits, all other things being equal.
An employer who overpays, however, will go bankrupt, sooner or later, or else will lay off marginal workers. The Minimum Wage then, if set above the marginal revenue product of the least productive workers, simply serves to put marginally productive workers out of work and into the poorhouse.
I can hear those laid-off workers saying "Thank You, Scarlett! Thank you for helping us lose our jobs!"
The Austrian approach would simply be to eliminate any and all subsidy or regulation of commerce at the Federal level, then proceed down through state and municipal levels in the same fashion. Free all economic actors to participate fully in the economy, with the proviso that they must pay all their own expenses (or contract with others to do so), be liable for all their errors, and seek no government intervention on their behalf.
But short of that, is it Austrian to simply oppose these abominable programs piecemeal, as they arise? I say yes.
Published: October 28, 2005 4:54 PM
Bob A.:
Your general stance in this thread seems to be to throw the baby out with the bath water: Wal-Mart exists in the manner it does because of the interventions of the State, so it's entirely bad and only serves to reveal what an utter sham our system is.
There's no telling how things would play out in a system fully based on private property and natural rights. Presumably you and I would never have been born. Certainly the Ludwig von Mises Institute wouldn't exist, not in any recognizable form.
The point is that people exercise their freedom to the extent that the forces of coercive violence allow. We can't know how successful Wal-Mart would've been without its successful applications to the State for coercively enforced privileges. We do know that much if not most of Wal-Mart's actions have occurred in the context of voluntary exchanges.
For all its failings, our culture is as prosperous as it is because of a large current of freedom for markets and property rights. The State and those seeking coercively derived privileges from it are merely parasitizing off that prosperity.
Of course, that couldn't occur if the system was a complete sham. Wal-Mart couldn't have grown big enough to buy off the State had it not satisfied countless customers and employees. It would quickly collapse if it failed to continue doing so.
That it uses its now-immense power to privilege itself with the State is the challenge.
Published: October 28, 2005 4:57 PM
David White:
I am studying your comment "So while Wal-Mart et al. are making a fortune selling us inexpensive goods made in China and the like, China and the like are lending us the money to do so, ..." and I am trying to understand from where you are coming and to where you might go with this if asked to elaborate a bit. Would you mind elaborating?
I ask because it sounds as if you may have more against Wal-Mart, than simply its new pro-minimum wage stance.
I personally have nothing against someone or some corporation who happens to benefit from public roads or works, or a foreign country's monetary policy, as long as he's not actively promoting public works for his own gain at other's expense. And as Lew points out, minimum wage advocacy is a case in point of that.
Published: October 28, 2005 5:12 PM
R.P. McCosker,
"Of course, that couldn't occur if the system was a complete sham. Wal-Mart couldn't have grown big enough to buy off the State had it not satisfied countless customers and employees. It would quickly collapse if it failed to continue doing so."
Eliminating choices so that consumers and employees are directed to perform in accordance with the puppet masters' instructions is far from satisfying anything other than government-abetted theft of market share.
I will never be convinced that Wal-Mart would have been much of an economic force had it not been able to use the tax system and its government cronies. No, I can't prove it, but I don't believe it would be difficult to model.
As far as your statement that "[i]t would quickly collapse if it failed to continue doing so," that simply is not the case when so many manipulations can be performed to keep businesses in business when they have no business being in business. Wal-Mart is now in the position of existing in perpetuity whether or not it makes sensible decisions in accordance with Austrian economics.
Published: October 28, 2005 6:33 PM
Aaron,
“The labor pool is not limited by the number of jobs available.�
In your context this may be true. My context is that of a labor pool with limited choices, a scenario that will only get worse until genuine free markets are established.
Published: October 28, 2005 7:14 PM
Vince Daliessio,
Part of the subject article discusses Wal-Mart and the minimum wage. There is some strange mathematics used when claiming that raising the average wage has no affect on the company. If we give the company the benefit of the doubt and say that 500,000 of its employees will get an average raise of $1.00/hour (it’s probably more likely that a million of its workers fall into this category if less-than-full-time workers are included), then that’s $500,000—PER HOUR! That’s over $1BILLION per year! Of course, because wages are deductible expenses and because of the many other manipulations with inventories and write-offs, the cost to Wal-Mart will be probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 25% of that total; the taxpayers of America will pick up the tab for the balance.
Another part of the article praises Wal-Mart:
“Wal-Mart's opponents have whipped themselves into a frenzy about the company's success, claiming that it always comes at a huge social cost.
Now, most of this rhetoric is overblown and ignorant. Wal-Mart would not have made any profits or grown as it has without having convinced the consuming public to purchase from the store. Consumers could put the company out of business tomorrow, just by failing to show up to buy.�
There’s that word “ignorant� again. Wal-Mart didn’t convince people to buy from the store; it eliminated any other choices, and it did it systematically by using the taxpayer to foot the bill for low prices and subsequent write-offs by Wal-Mart to compensate. Consumers cannot put a business out of business if there are no other businesses to deal with. And let’s not forget that it isn’t really necessary for a mega-corporation to actually make profits on a regular basis in our economic system.
The social costs are enormous and too lengthy to discuss here, but in a genuine free market the taxpayer would not have to foot the bill for the fallout from Wal-Mart’s “nuclear� attack on the NON-free market. But it has to be dealt with because the present market is what it is. Find solutions, don’t praise Wal-Mart.
This whole thing about the minimum wage and its effects on Wal-Mart, or anyone else for that matter, is not being discussed in the right context anyway. Wal-Mart has an image problem and the magical spending season is right around the corner. Wal-Mart kills two birds with one stone. There is more money for the lower-wage consumer to spend instead of save, and even lefties might be convinced to spend more money. Wal-Mart gains no matter what, and any REAL working capital it had to spend will be easily picked up in increased revenue and additional milking of the tax system after January’s big discount sales.
And here’s one of the worst back-handed praises:
“Free-market advocates who have long defended Wal-Mart can only be disgusted at this shift in the company's methods from competing on market grounds to calling for the state to crush its competition. Even more disgusting is how the company can count on the economic ignorance of its critics to help do it.�
It’s unbelievable to me that any free-market advocates could possibly defend the worst ANTI-free market American corporation in the world.
I don’t advocate minimum wage LAWS, but until genuine free markets are established and meaningful corrections can occur, the increase in wages to such levels isn’t about to hurt any businesses competing with Wal-Mart. So, don’t worry Wal-Mart lovers; your favorite mega-corporate/government entity will continue blasting competition to smithereens with or without the minimum wage.
Published: October 28, 2005 8:10 PM
Some points.
1/. Political borders are not the same thing as private property boundaries. Crossing a political border is not an act of theft or trespass.
2/. If I want to offer my services to an employer at a lower price than someone else or even for free or even if I am prepared to pay for work (negative wages), that's my business. Whether or not my offer is accepted should be completely up to the employer, not govt. I resent not being free to set my own terms and conditions to negotiate for work.
3/. Where the above transaction occurs, here, in the USA, Africa, China or whatever should be immaterial except to the direct parties to the transaction (it is an element they would use in their evaluation).
4/. It should never be "illegal" to work. The very notion of an "illegal worker" is an enslavement, it's an assault. If Mexicans want to come to California or elsewhere in the USA to work they should never be hindered. It's their business where and how they work.
Does any man have the right to deny another man the right to Liberty soley on the basis of where his mother's waters broke and whwew he spilled out into the World? Some seem to think so. The notion is uncivilised primitivism.
Sione
Published: October 28, 2005 9:07 PM
Sione Vatu,
Can I come to Australia to work? Or do I have to prove that I have something to offer? Are Australians concerned that I might be taking work from them? How soon can I come to Australia and begin working? What do I need to do in order to get permission to come to Australia and live?
Published: October 28, 2005 9:34 PM
Sione, I was wondering why no one had challenged the strange idea that immigrating constitutes "a pure violation of private property."
Published: October 28, 2005 9:43 PM
Roy W. Wright,
If someone comes onto my property uninvited, that person may or may not be welcome; but it is up to me to decide. If I have chosen to join an intentional community and the community has agreed that certain matters will be decided by 8 of 10 votes, and the community has decided it does not want to have beings from planets other than earth living in the community, I will then have choices; I can shrug my shoulders and live with it comfortably, I can try to change the minds of the other 80% if I disagree, I can be a noisy protester whenever I get the opportunity, or I can move out. But the community’s owners of individual properties and assets have decided. The same applies to the property within the borders of the United States of America. The citizens of the US should decide what should take place on that property within its borders. Unfortunately, somehow we got hooked into a system that requires only 51 out 100 to make decisions, but it should be up to the citizens and NOT politicians or corporate interests to decide what happens to the property within the borders of the US and to force its citizens to do otherwise.
There is one reason and one reason only for corporate/government oligarchy to want open borders: To create the largest possible pool of humanity that needs work in order to live, so that it’s possible to find people who will work for $0.25/hour (for example) out of desperation. The more people who pour into America, the better chance there will be of creating desperation. And anyone who uses Austrian economic principles to claim that this is ethical and in accordance with best business practices IN THIS NON-FREE MARKET SYSTEM is promoting the mutated capitalism of neoconservatism or neoliberalism or some-other-twisted-economic-ism.
America does not make decisions regarding Australia because America doesn’t own it. And America is not owned by Australia, or Germany, or Mexico, or Canada, or England, or any other country (although it’s likely that China will become our pawn broker, but that’s another matter). So, yes, I believe that Mexicans or Guatemalans or Australians or anyone else who enters our borders to help corporations and government take decisions away from me is violating my “private� property as an American citizen.
Whatever happens in America is my concern, and I don’t want people taking away my ability to participate in decisions that will affect my life and the life of my loved ones.
Published: October 28, 2005 10:26 PM
Oh I see. I was assuming you were a libertarian of some sort. Now I can see that you were just using a libertarian concept like property rights to make your collectivist ideas easier for us to relate to. Sorry about that.
Published: October 28, 2005 10:46 PM
Lew's basic thesis is correct: minimum wage legislation is an economic burden.
But it is a serious error to compare a legal minimum wage and a corporate average wage to try to deduce the effect of changing a minimum wage. To do so, one must examine the wage distribution, calculate mandated incremental raises, and then estimate the increases required for those performing above minimum levels.
Published: October 28, 2005 11:30 PM
Roy W. Wright,
“Oh I see. I was assuming you were a libertarian of some sort. Now I can see that you were just using a libertarian concept like property rights to make your collectivist ideas easier for us to relate to. Sorry about that.�
No, what’s happening is that certain bloggers are espousing Libertarian claims and boasting of adherence to Austrian economic principles while at the same time promoting neocon ideals that promote manipulation of the very government and economic monstrosity they claim they are against. Are you one of them?
There are many examples popping up in discussion threads that demonstrate an easy willingness to promote freedom for only some and not others. To these people it seems to me that Austrian economics and genuine free markets are good sometimes and not others. The government and its corporate owners are bad most of the time but good sometimes. “Do no harm� applies when it’s convenient. Finding the decision that benefits the most only applies to that person or group that is deemed worthy. Government/corporate plutocratic oligarchy is bad and distorts markets dramatically—except when some people admire the outcomes and can use Libertarian or Austrian economic principles to reinforce a perceived positive outcome.
There seem to be many varying standards applied by some bloggers subjectively depending on how the situation fits their personal opinions. Maybe you’re an expert at this type of selective promotion of ideals.
Published: October 28, 2005 11:52 PM
http://web.bryant.edu/~history/h364proj/summ_99/armoush/page3.html
Published: October 29, 2005 12:56 AM
Thanks for the link JD.
It mentions the benefit, (not previously thought of in this thread), that higher minimum wages reduce the incentives of workers to become unionized.
Published: October 29, 2005 1:27 AM
One additional point. Capitalism is about competition, not competitors. Competitors come and go. Competition is everything you can do economically with money, including nothing at all.
Higher minimum wages simply cause people to lose jobs, not get hired for jobs, or both. Minimum wages were introduced to suppress the participation of women, blacks, and children from gainful employment for money. Union goons loved it. Big business owners came to like it since you could suppress competitors (you can never suppress competition).
Published: October 29, 2005 2:07 AM
The references in this thread to Australia are quite timely - the top headline on the Sydney Morning Herald website currently reads: "God help set wages, says Harper". (Harper is the head of a proposed new body to set minimum wages in Australia).
The article goes on to say that he will be using his faith to guide him in his decision-making regarding the minimum wage. (The full article is at http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/god-to-help-set-wages-says-harper/2005/10/29/1130400395756.html - requires free registration).
Currently the federally-legislated minimum wage in Australia is A$12.30 per hour - about US$9.20. The unions are pushing for it to be increased to A$13.00 per hour. And it isn't easy to immigrate to Australia...
Published: October 29, 2005 2:39 AM
The article was very well written, but you are missing the main point:
Wal-Mart is only doing this to defend against the labor unions (the UFCW in particular) from gaining control of its labor force. The labor unions have all those forced dues they collect (from other workers who are forced to pay those dues) to spend on the public relations messages pounding at Wal-Mart in their efforts to sway the acceptance of unionizing Wal-Mart.
The labor unions want to get voted in to Wal-Mart so that it will have all those FORCED labor dues to collect from the unwary Wal-Mart workers, those who don't understand what is really going on.
Wal-Mart is merely fighting back from the leftist (read: Union's) argument, by using their argument, all to "help the little guy."
My hope is that the next article written looks into the "union" angle.
There is much more there than meets the eye.
Published: October 29, 2005 4:58 AM
I think a lot of the criticism historically placed upon big business for trying to manipulate the political process to eliminate its competition (which they have certainly done) is misplaced. That has certainly happened since the beginning of time and will continue until the end of time.
The real culprits here are the politicians and their constituents who believe that the government exists solely to enact policies that favor themselves over others.
Businesses are in business for one reason: to maximize shareholder value, i.e., make a profit. That's their job and to hold "them" accountable for larger "social" goals is unreasonable and unworkable. This is traditionally a fallacy of the left, but unfortunately the Rothbardians have fallen into this trap all too often. They are essentially asking the same thing that the leftists are: They want businesses to purposely make less profit in order to conform to their idealogical view of the world. It's an unworkable proposition when the left does it, and its just as unworkable when the Rothbardians do it.
The real problem here is not that Wal-mart does or doesn't advocate a minimum wage or one higher than it is today. The problem is that the government has the power and the inclination to forceably interfere in a contract between 2 private entities.
In any case of corruption the party at fault is the politican who accepts the bribe, and the system that creates the most valuable commodity on the planet: Forceable coercion. So far throughout history no human being has been vituous enough to be entrusted with such a weapon and been able to resist the temptation to sell it and make a profit (monetary or otherwise).
Blaming Wal-mart misses the point entirely.
Published: October 29, 2005 8:53 AM
DS: I agree, the real fault lies with the democratic system itself. Wal Mart is just exploiting the system to its advantage.
Published: October 29, 2005 9:01 AM
Vince Deliessio,
It's not that I'm not interested "in a principled approach to the issue Lew brought to this space," and if I went beyond the topic, it was only because I believe that's where the answer to the problem ultimately lies -- i.e., with the depredations of the state that Lew's article obviously addresses, though not in the wider context that I presented. And while it is not my place to put words in Lew's mouth, neither do I believe that he would dispute my vantage point. He was being "micro," and I was being "macro," the overall point being that the state is a losing proposition for society no matter how you look at it.
Paul Edwards,
While you have nothing against "public roads or works," I do, just as I have something against every other "public" work, the notion thereof being a fiction. For as Rothbard said:
“[G]overnment ownership is often referred to as ‘public’ ownership… The implication is that when government owns anything, every member of the public owns equal shares of that property. But…the important feature of ownership is not legal formality but actual rule, and under government ownership, it is the government officialdom that controls and directs, and therefore ‘owns,’ the property. Any member of the ‘public’ who thinks he owns the property may test this theory by trying to appropriate for his own individual use his aliquot part of the government property.�
To put it another way, it is often said that the private sector could never have put a man on the moon. But of course the private sector DID put a man on the moon (several of them, in fact) via the money that the government confiscated from it, the difference being that the private sector would never have engaged in such an undertaking, given the infinitesimal returns it would have received on its investment -- not in hindsight, mind you, but based on the simple question, Do we stand to get more money out of this than we put in, and if so, how much?
As Mises would have been the first to say, such a calculation is impossible for the state to make for the simple reason that (aside from its operatives) it doesn't operate on the profit motive. Instead, it operates by confiscating the profits of the private sector and then allocates them in such ad hoc fashion that it gets $240 million "bridges to nowhere" that are but the tip of the iceberg of its relentless assault on society.
And that's leaving out the biggest iceberg of all: war.
As for Wal-Mart, then, I have no more against it than I do any other business enterprise that has prospered as a result of state intervention, other than to say that vastly MORE business enterprises would have arisen WITHOUT state intervention, and to the far greater benefit of mankind. Who knows what the American landscape would look like today -- geographically, demographically, politically, and economically -- if the federal government had not intervened as far back as the Union-Pacific Railroad. We'll never know, of course, but I can well imagine that we'd have a vibrant, privately owned and operated rail network, around which "transit-oriented development" would have long been the precedent, its pedestrian nature precluding the need not for cars per se, but for cars to engage in such mundane tasks as buying a quart of milk, much less getting to and from school and work. In the process, the natural environment would not have been impacted nearly as dramatically as it has been, as suburban sprawl would not exist, given that private road-builders, unable to raise money at gunpoint, would have had to compete with very efficient railroad companies.
So from where am I coming? I am coming from the standpoint of being so anti-state that we must work for its eradication the same way an oncologist works for the eradication of a cancer, as the state is inherently inimical to society and can no more be controlled over time than a woman can be a little bit pregnant. While it's actions always benefit someone (usually those in control, of course), their unintended consequences, unlike those of the free market, are almost always bad. This is because the state is based on regimented order, while the free market is based on spontaneous order, the latter being the "invisible hand" that Adam Smith wrote so famously about. The state, on the other hand, is an all too visible fist that punches its way through society -- not only building bridges to nowhere but roads to everywhere; schools, healthcare, retirement for everyone; money for nothin', you name it -- doing so only because it can, long-term consequences be damned.
Simone Vitu,
To understand immigration from a truly libertarian -- i.e., private property -- perspective, I can do no better than recommend Hans-Hermann Hoppe's terrific "Democracy: The God That Failed -- http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe4.html.
Charles Quarles,
Capitalism (though I prefer not to use a term that Karl Marx coined as a pejorative and that is now more commonly identified with the crony capitalism of the corporate state than with the free market) is first and foremost about cooperation, competition being nearly inevitable but never sufficient in and of itself. This is because the free market is but a subset (albeit the largest one) of the voluntary cooperation that is the essence of the social enterprise. That is, it begins with a willing buyer and a willing seller, each engaging in the transaction because they believe it is to their benefit, else why engage in it. If some other potential buyer or seller wishes to participate -- offering to pay more for the product or sell a similar one for less, respectively -- then and only then does competition enter the picture.
Published: October 29, 2005 9:47 AM
Bob A:
There is some strange mathematics used when claiming that raising the average wage has no affect on the company.
I agree about this. The fact that the national average is higher than the minimum wage doesn't mean that there couldn't be an awful lot of people working for Wal Mart (e.g. cleaners) who get paid the minimum wage.
However, I don't follow your argument according to which this would result in higher taxes.
Also, being pro-free market and libertarian doesn't necessarily mean being in favour of unfettered immigration. See Hoppe's "The Case for Free Trade and Restricted Immigration" (JLS, 13, 2).
Published: October 29, 2005 10:01 AM
Marco,
Thanks for the recommendation of Hoppe’s piece; I will try to find it right away.
So that I’m not misunderstood here, I’m against having a tax system in business enterprise. However, such a system exists and, unless and until we get rid of it, corporations, especially mega-corporations, can and do manipulate it to their benefit and when the benefits aren’t sufficient they buy more and better legislation to gain additional benefits.
It takes X amount of tax to accomplish what operates from the tax system and it has to come from somewhere. ALL of the tax strategy promoted by the current administration is aimed at siphoning revenue from the bottom 99% of the population into the hands of the remaining 1% (estimates only, but the premise is correct). So, when Wal-Mart and its ilk use the tax system to reduce their taxes, it becomes necessary for the government to find other ways to get X amount of revenue and it always comes from that bottom group which represents the vast majority of wage earners.
It’s bad enough to have a tax system directing economic traffic to begin with, it’s much worse to arrange the system so that a tiny fraction of people and businesses derive the most benefit. Wal-Mart and its minimum wage serves no purpose other than to further increase its coffers at the expense of the taxpayers, most of whom don’t realize what’s going on as they shop and spend at the monstrous stores.
Published: October 29, 2005 10:47 AM
Several years ago I read a study by a liberal
economist that asserted any increase in the
minimum wage would cost the minimum wage workers
more than they would gain from the increase. Is
anyone else aware of this? I can't remember
the source.
Published: October 29, 2005 11:55 AM
I think a distinction can be made between companies which passively benefit from government intervention versus those who actively call for additional government intervention.
Let's face it. We all, no matter how noble our intentions, benefit from some of the largess of government, stolen from the taxpayers. We all use roads, cross bridges, visit parks, mail letters, etc. For any of us working for a medium or large business, it is likely that government at some level is buying our product or service. Can you fault the pencil manufacturer if government agencies (in addition to free-market customers) buy his pencils? To completely isolate oneself from government would require one to become a hermit.
However, a corporation that actively lobbies for state expansion has crossed the line from being an innocent bystander to a participant in the crime.
I don't know what side of the line Wal-Mart was on before this episode. I have seen many accusations in this string of posts, but I don't think I've seen any specific examples. Either way, it seems Wal-Mart is now clearly on the wrong side of the line, which is a shame.
Published: October 29, 2005 9:36 PM
"Walmart causes factory workers to lose their better paying jobs by buying from China and in that way forces people to take jobs at Walmart."
Walmart cannot force anyone to do anything. But it can offer lower prices, therebuy allowing consumers to put their money in all sorts of investments--thereby increasing the specialization of labor.
Scarlett has it all backwards. Time to read up on some David Ricardo.
Published: October 29, 2005 10:10 PM
Bob A;
You allude to various economic crimes that WalMart is allegedly responsible for, but do not list them (for the record, I named 2). Is Wal-Mart somehow unique here? I rather think not.
Lew's point was that raising the national Minimum Wage will disadvantage competitors of Wal-Mart, an easy premise to accept, since on reflection Wal-Mart has obviously run the numbers and knows it stands to benefit. They demonstrably do nothing otherwise. You counter that this is false, but without providing any evidence. I must conclude you are arguing from your own opinion and your own hatred of the eeevil Wal-Mart.
Published: October 29, 2005 11:21 PM
Bob A., it's quite simple. No one legitimately owns the United States. Speaking of "America" as a thinking, rational being with purposes and rights, as you do, is collectivist and nonsensical. You have yet to explain whose property rights are violated by unfettered immigration.
Published: October 30, 2005 12:30 AM
I wasn't trying to win, but to understand how you could possibly hold such a view. I've located Hoppe's essay and will be reading it shortly, in the hope that he provides better reasoning.
Published: October 30, 2005 12:36 AM
Vince Daliesso,
If you wish to get into a discussion of the ill-gotten gains of Wal-Mart, I'm more than willing. The subject of the article is Wal-Mart's minimum wage ploy, which is nothing more than a gimmick just prior to the magical spending season, a ploy that the company will find a way to absorb. Additionally, the minimum wage is highly unlikely to put any of Wal-Marts competitors out of business or have any dramatic affect on them at all, in my humble opinion, because of the season.
The article also suggests Wal-Mart's excellence in a NON-free market, something I can hardly believe is mentioned.
This thread isn't about all the negative aspects of Wal-Mart so I've not gotten into it, but I can hardly wait for the opportunity to do so.
Published: October 30, 2005 12:37 AM
Roy W. Wright,
I own America along with 264,000,000+ of my close friends. We only hold title to certain portions and assets, but it is my right to be involved in the decisions regarding who else is invited to my land.
Someone a whole lot smarter than me can explain it to you exactly in accordance with my beliefs. Marco, in a previous post, recommended "The Case for Free Trade and Restricted Immigration" by Hans-Hermann Hoppe. I found this essay today and read it and am totally awed by it. I will highly recommend it at every opportunity.
Roy, I'll argue about almost anything and be stimulated by the intellectual banter, but this is not an argument you can win with me. Maybe we should move on.
Published: October 30, 2005 12:49 AM
Hmm, the daylight savings time shift seems to have caused my comment (12:36AM above) to be placed out-of-order. I actually typed it around an hour after Bob's last comment.
Published: October 30, 2005 12:54 AM
Absolutely right, Sione Vatu.
Bob A. and his "260 million friends" presume themselves elected by God to rule the rest of the world by force.
Published: October 30, 2005 9:02 AM
Wolf DeVoon,
And you and others who think like you, intend to force your ways upon me without my consent, and you are the ones who are in the right?
I detect that old multiple standard popping up its ugly head.
When you've dipped into the human resource pool and invited immigrants from everywhere and anywhere to do your bidding at $0.25/hour, and you then discard them when increased desperation brings you others who will do your bidding for $0.20/hour, will you take responsibility for the used-up $0.25/hour humans you've tossed back into the pool?
Yeah, I didn't think so. You'll instead use force against them by having removed their choices. If you are Libertarian, please reconcile this type of behavior with its principles.
Published: October 30, 2005 10:20 AM
Roy W. Wright:
See also this article by Hoppe:
http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/16_1/16_1_5.pdf
Published: October 30, 2005 12:04 PM
And you and others who think like you, intend to force your ways upon me without my consent...
Our "ways" are to let people move freely from one unowned region to another in order to seek honest employment. Cut the "force" doublespeak. Your desires would be unenforceable without the help of the state, and it is therefore you who wish to initiate force. If you were to join a voluntary society which legitimately owns a territory and makes consentual decisions, one of which is to exclude others, I would support you fully. But an involuntary society like the United States (aside from having no right to exists), certainly has no right to exclude outsiders. If your wish to exclude them makes exclusion legitimate, why doesn't my wish to welcome them make their inclusion legitimate?
Your understanding of economics is perverse, to put it kindly. I don't support government aid to corporations any more than I support your desire to restrict people to their native squalor because they're willing to work for less than your coconspirators. Your damnable desire to wield the state in defense of an artificially-inflated standard of living will eventually hurt everyone.
Marco: thanks. Hopefully I'll have a good chunk of free time today or tomorrow to read these. I trust that Hoppe demonstrates more sound reasoning than Bob.
Published: October 30, 2005 2:27 PM
Roy W. Wright,
“Cut the ‘force’ doublespeak.�
It is you who’s speaks doubly. I want to be included, as I’ve mentioned twice now, in decisions made as to who invades my country and you want to prevent my being able to do so. If this is not force, please clarify.
“If you were to join a voluntary society which legitimately owns a territory and makes consentual decisions, one of which is to exclude others, I would support you fully.�
Show me this voluntary society as it is what I’m striving to find. I haven’t found it and am doing my small part to convince others that it’s the right thing to do.
“Your understanding of economics is perverse, to put it kindly.�
I don’t know, Roy, but I’m fairly certain you don’t have the knowledge to make such an assumption. I think maybe this type of comment doesn’t promote civil discussion.
“I don't support government aid to corporations any more than I support your desire to restrict people to their native squalor because they're willing to work for less than your coconspirators.�
The type of support you should be concerned with is the support of programs that prevent countries with squalor to do something about their own countries. You’re better off doing what you can to promote an economic system that encourages GENUINE free trade, (NOT neocon “free� trade) country-to-country than making misstatements about my support of any state entities or working with coconspirators. You see, it is I who believe that YOU are working with coconspirators IF you use the hypocritical claim that your desire is to improve the lives of the natives of any country by inviting them onto EVERYONE’S property without their agreement.
America isn’t living in squalor to a large extent (yet), but nonetheless, should I move to Australia or Canada or Sweden because I don’t like where the American regime is leading my native country? Moreover, will they let me in? Am I right in running away? Or is it the better thing to stay and fight to throw off tyranny and finally achieve the goals of a free society with its accompanying free enterprise?
“Your damnable desire to wield the state in defense of an artificially-inflated standard of living will eventually hurt everyone.�
Now, this is perverse, Roy. You’re not going to find any comments by me that could lead you to believe this, so you made a leap over a chasm that makes the Grand Canyon seem as a sidewalk crack to land at such a conclusion.
I really think you should read the two Hoppe pieces that Marco recommended. Hoppe is able to define the problems with a high degree of clarity that is astounding, to describe in detail the elements entailed, and, best of all in my humble opinion, he addresses the potential problems encountered when introducing certain systems and ideals at the wrong time in a set of circumstances that very likely would alter the intended outcomes.
I definitely intend to read more Hoppe as it may be that he has ideas that can be used to finally begin to achieve certain goals in the real world. It’s time, way past time actually, that Libertarianism and Austrian economics makes the decision, as the world’s most famous bard said, “To be or not to be.�
In conclusion to you, Roy, you’re on the wrong track, in my humble opinion, not only about me but about immigration.
Published: October 30, 2005 3:30 PM
David White:
I know that a discussion has turned sideways when i get corrected for a view i don't hold. All i will say in my defense is that i won't accuse you of being a hypocrite if you make use of and benefit from anything like public roads or buses or parks. We all do, anarchists and Marxists alike. It's the life we are presented with. It's not practical to say "that road was paid for by taxes, therefore i will not use it".
Likewise, since you and i have both made use of public roads (correct me if i am wrong), i guess we won't be making any hypocritical and negative references towards wal-mart for doing the same thing either. I guess that's all i was trying to say. And i can see you agree. So that is great.
Published: October 30, 2005 4:01 PM
David White,
You paint a very clear picture of “what the American landscape would look like today -- geographically, demographically, politically, and economically� in a truly free society. I’ve envisioned a similar landscape for many years, but it was not until I was introduced to Libertarianism, and subsequently to Austrian economics, that I began to have hope that such a scenario could become reality.
I used to raise draft horses, and may once again, and I’ve envisioned a community in an America in which the rail system had been expanded significantly and improved upon. In this environment, draft horses could once again be used for transport from loaded cars to various nearby locales at very low rates because of the very low input costs.
In a genuine free market, creativity will abound and ideas such as a minimum wage simply will not be an issue. I’m extremely disappointed that corporations that outsourced were not willing to spend the creative time to find ways to competitively export American products using American inputs. I’m even more disappointed that America’s workers weren’t creative enough to contract with corporations to produce cost effectively those American inputs. Both of these disappointments are caused by government intervention using its weapon of mass economic destruction, The Tax System. Even so, I cannot help but believe there could have been solutions found that bucked the system. But, I guess it was just too much work and not enough people thought the battle worth the effort.
Using Wal-Mart as an example, though this enemy of mine is only one of a very great and growing number of government/corporate cronies, imagine this scenario in TODAY’S system:
A stockroom/warehouse worker goes to management with a plan. The worker claims to be able to increase the amount of product movement by 20% per day but wants to be paid 10% more than other workers for his/her higher-than-average motivation to develop higher productivity and her/his extra physical inputs. Management’s likely answer to this, in my opinion, will be: “No, we have specific wage levels for employee categories. We certainly cannot have you making more money than your coworkers for your job description.� (Now THERE’S a union, and the employees don’t even recognize they belong to one!) Next step: management meets and discusses the individual employee’s ideas, then meets with all stockroom/warehouse workers and demands that product movement be increased by 20% per day, and “Oh, by the way; you’ll do it or you’ll be out looking for another job, and good luck with THAT!�
Now in a landscape as you’ve described with “vastly more business enterprises� operating in a genuinely free market, consider this scenario:
The entire group of stockroom/warehouse workers at a facility such as a Wal-Mart comes up with a plan to increase product movement by 50% per day. It requires “X� dollars of investment by the company and it is relatively minimal. The plan also includes increased labor output and rearranged movement actions. The workers propose that the investment be amortized in “Y� manner. They have calculated and provided written confirmation of the increase in revenue and estimated profit increase from the investment and the physical action modifications. The workers ask for an incentive bonus to be paid quarterly of “Z� that is based as a percentage of profits. (I’m making the assumption that collective bargaining is another free choice available to citizens in a voluntary society and that no laws will be created to force either workers or businesses to make choices.)
In a landscape as you’ve described and with which I completely agree is likely, management will gain as will the workers in such a scenario as described above. A rate of increase in profits that exceeds the corresponding rate of increase in inputs is the goal of free enterprise, after all, and this type of creativity is what should be encouraged. What need would there be for anyone to discuss minimum wages; especially if the landscape includes more choices for the workers should the business for whom they work decline to contract with them?
People lobby for the minimum wage from the government because the government created corrupt corporations. As you’ve mentioned, Capitalism has a new meaning and it does not conjure positive images. And it’s government’s fault for starting it all and lack of citizen effort for not stopping it.
As I’ve said, I’m against the minimum wage, but I’m waiting to see suggestions that will stimulate action and creativity among workers and businesses that will stop the need to import labor or to make laws about who should make what amount of money IN THIS PRESENT SYSTEM WE ARE SADDLED WITH. The free society and free markets that are the goal must have priority are far as implementing actions to get them started. But there is also the present that has to be dealt with. Defeating the minimum wage and then NOT defeating corrupted business actions gains us what? (And I’m asking this generally, not suggesting anything regarding your beliefs, David.)
Published: October 30, 2005 5:36 PM
Paul,
I was making the theoretical argument against public ownership and don't consider that the fact that I use public infrastructure any more hypocritical than the fact that I'm opposed to taxes but pay them. It is indeed "the life we are presented with," and one must cope with it as best one can.
But to manipulate the state the way Wal-Mart is obviously trying to do is what is objectionable, as Lew rightly point out, though I would add that such manipulation is the modus operandi of the state -- i.e., it is manipulated so that it can in turn manipulate, always to society's overall detriment.
That said, I've read enough of your Mises posts to know that we are generally in agreement on matters. I just got the impression that you were accepting of public works in principle, and if that is a view that you do not in fact hold, then I apologize.
Published: October 30, 2005 5:37 PM
"No one addressed the fact that the labor pool is endless"
Personally, I stopped reading here.
Published: October 30, 2005 9:17 PM
Mr. Kilpatrick et al.,
Sorry for the belated post.
Repeat after me, 'Su casa es mi casa!' Oh, and, 'Estudie difÃcilmente porque deseo una casa grande!'
Wesley D. Baker
Published: October 30, 2005 10:38 PM
Lew, (nor anyone else I could find on this blog) you didn't question why Walmart is paying some 50% more than the minimum wage presently (about $9.00/hr. vs. $5.15/hr.). After all, here is a goliath that "Always" bludgeons its suppliers with a club to provide the lowest possible prices. Why then does it seem to take a kinder, gentler approach to its other huge cost of doing business (wages) by paying its employees a higher wage than that paid by many of its competitors? Does it have to pay a whopping 50% more than, say, Kroger, in order to attract what is essentially a fairly low-skilled retail worker? Could it not pay far less than it is paying now - yet still more than its competitors - and still attract the same quality of employee? Of course, it could. Thus, the "higher" wage about which it boasts looks like a highly suspicious set-up - a head-fake so that it can later spring this minimum wage ruse. Is there any other way to explain its present "generosity" to its employees?
Published: October 30, 2005 11:09 PM
John B.,
A minor detail that is left out of Wal-Mart's propaganda is that the bulk of employees average 29 hours per week and earn about $12,000/year. So paying $8.23/hour to a checker, for example, would look much better in the company's propaganda if they were paid the same $12,000/year and only worked them 16 hours per week because the company could then claim it paid $15.00/hour average--to a checker!
A better picture of the company's practices would be revealed by the average number of hours Wal-Mart employees get per week to support their families compared to other big chain stores.
Something else to consider is this: Based on average sales of socks at Wal-Mart, the price per pair could be raied by $0.01 and pay for a $1.00/hour raise for every employee giving all of them an annual increase of almost $1800.00 per year based on the average 29 hour work week. So much for the increase in minimum wage "dramatically" affecting the company's bottom line. Again, the minimum wage ploy is a gimmick to improve PR and sales in the magical spending season and nothing more.
I'm against the minimum wage being a law, but I'm also against praising the world's worst abuser of taxpayers next to government itself.
Published: October 31, 2005 12:46 AM
As a small business owner living in Australia I can verify that minimum wages make it more difficult for small business to compete. Likewise the impact of compulsory withholding, retirement benefits as well as compulsory holidays, vacation, sick days, maternity leave, and other regulations which drive up the direct and indirect costs of small business.
Published: October 31, 2005 2:55 AM
Addressed to me: you and others who think like you, intend to force your ways upon me without my consent
Liberty is the freedom to travel, to move from one place to another. It implies open borders and public roads to get from Point A to Point B unimpeded. It does not mean trespassing or squatting property held by others or homesteading unimproved land.
Liberty implies a free market, the legal right to buy, sell, trade, give, or refuse a bargain.
Published: October 31, 2005 3:15 AM
Wolf: what do you think would happen if say, the United States, decided to open its borders to anyone who wanted to come in?
Published: October 31, 2005 4:33 AM
Marco,
Historically, that's what did happen. Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses and all that. The American Experiment consisted of freeing slaves and welcoming the unwashed.
Today, of course, the political situation is vastly different. Freedom-loving Americans are fleeing to places like Costa Rica.
Published: October 31, 2005 7:34 AM
Marco, what happened while the borders were substantially open to anyone who could get themselves across it?
Unlike what the "closed border" pundents tout, the standard of living skyrocketed. Live spans and free time increased, efficiencies of transportation and manufacture meant that average Americans lived better than kings just 100 years earlier.
And Wolf is right, those of us who desire Liberty are considering alternatives, as the United States follows in the footsteps of prior democracies, from liberty to plenty, from plenty to complacency, complacency to dependency, and now dependency back into bondage.
China is looking good, they haven't figured out how to run an income tax yet.
Published: October 31, 2005 7:47 AM
Immigration to the US was only free for roughly 100 years after the declaration of independence (see http://www.rapidimmigration.com/usa/1_eng_immigration_history.html).
During that time the only people who could afford to emigrate to the US were Europeans. Mexico was not a problem since the north of that country was sparsely populated and there was little incentive for Mexicans to cross the border anyway. The Wikipedia entry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_States
includes census data according to which in 1880 there were less than 70,000 Mexicans living in the US.
On the other hand if you opened the borders today, the country would be flooded with immigrants and refugees coming from Haiti, Cuba, Mexico, and then from all over the world. All they have to do is save or steal enough money to pay their air fares. They haven't got anything to lose, after all it's much better to be homeless in the US than stay where they are.
The result is that American streets (which up to now have been built and maintained at the cost of the US taxpayer) would become packed full of refugess from all over the world. Crime rates would soar, and health and law-enforcement costs would skyrocket.
Published: October 31, 2005 8:30 AM
"Liberty is the freedom to travel, to move from one place to another. It implies open borders and public roads to get from Point A to Point B unimpeded."
Where did you get such a crazy idea?
Published: October 31, 2005 8:40 AM
Why trade with a company which relies upon the state so much? How many states' Medicaid and welfare roles are filled with Wal-Mart workers?
Find a proper grocer, such as http://www.wholefoods.com/. The level of service and advice is light-years ahead of anything Wal-Mart ever dreamt of and, of course, they carry infinitely better foods and goods, etc. You'll pay a little more, but it is definitely worth it.
Look at how Whole Foods pays/engages its employees, etc. It's night-and-day different than Wal-Mart.
On the immigration topic: Brazil might be a good choice for those looking for unfettered immigration. I'm not sure about Brazil's immigration laws, but it should satisfy the need for a "melting pot"! China's too far away, and the language is so not Romantically based. Plus, China is the antithesis of a melting pot. They'll subsume any other race/heritage within a few generations.
Published: October 31, 2005 9:41 AM
Curt Howland,
"China is looking good, they haven't figured out how to run an income tax yet."
Who needs an income tax when everything is owned by the state? But then, I suppose you're safer going there now since the government evicted 300,000 people from their homes and bulldozed them to begin construction on the Olympics complex. Maybe the people who complained loudly and publicly about losing their homes who were then jailed are out on "bail" by now.
Published: October 31, 2005 10:15 AM
Wolf DeVoon,
"Liberty is the freedom to travel, to move from one place to another. It implies open borders and public roads to get from Point A to Point B unimpeded. It does not mean trespassing or squatting property held by others or homesteading unimproved land."
Have you read the two Hans-Hermann Hoppe pieces that Marco recommended? I have never read anything regarding genuine free markets and immigration that so concisely addresses the problems and depicts verbally so accurately what can happen in our present circumstances if we have open borders. Our situation now is vastly different than the days when Ellis Island's famous words were first spoken.
If you have read these two pieces and do not agree with Hoppe, I would be interested in your arguments against his reasoning (in civil discussion of course).
Published: October 31, 2005 10:47 AM
Curt Howland,
“And Wolf is right, those of us who desire Liberty are considering alternatives, as the United States follows in the footsteps of prior democracies, from liberty to plenty, from plenty to complacency, complacency to dependency, and now dependency back into bondage.�
My wife and I immediately began looking to emigrate after the last election and that’s when I discovered how difficult it has become.
While I don’t agree with your position on open borders, you’ve made an exceptionally descriptive and succinct statement of our plight with your “from liberty to plenty, from plenty to complacency, complacency to dependency, and now dependency back into bondage.� Well said!
Complacency is our bane. Jefferson and Paine and many others emphatically warned of the need to be vigilant and active to prevent what we now refer to as power mongers usurping the powers owned by the people.
As it turns out, I’m glad immigration policies in the countries we were interested in prevented our bailing out; I haven’t lost hope that we can get back what was lost by complacency, as you’ve pointed out. In fact, I have much more hope now than ever before because I’ve discovered a very large and growing group of concerned citizens who know what the problems are and how to solve them.
Published: October 31, 2005 11:17 AM
"A minor detail that is left out of Wal-Mart's propaganda is that the bulk of employees average 29 hours per week and earn about $12,000/year."
Compare Wal-Mart's numbers to the rest of the retail market. Walmart has about 30% more full-time employees.
Also, consider that retail is seasonal, teenagers tend to work during the summer and turnover is high.
Let's put retail in its proper perspective.
Also, let's see advocates of a higher wage or a "living wage" start their own retail businesses (competing directly with Walmart) with labor rates higher than average. Let's see how the marketplace treats their foolish schemes. Of course, it is much easier for the state to plunder other businesses, instead.
Concerning the CEO's recent push for a higher minimum wage, this seems like a broader theme relating to the more recent fad for "corporate responsibility". Hurricane relief, higher wages, scholarship funds and political action committees--these are all do gooder initiatives that are found in many modern corporations other than just Walmart.
As Milton Friedman correctly pointed out, corporate responsibility merely erodes the real aim of the corporation--namely, to make a profit for the shareholders. This false philanthropy campaign to raise the minimum wage is not cost-free. Walmart's resources could be better used to service customers rather than kow-towing to the left!
Published: October 31, 2005 12:47 PM
Ben Parkinson,
"Walmart's resources could be better used to service customers rather than kow-towing to the left!"
By all means, let's all encourage Wal-Mart to rip off taxpayers to a much greater degree and at a more rapid pace. Let's get in line with all the others who will buy into their PR game and spend more money with the company.
And, after the season is over and they've ripped off taxpayers next February with their accounting schemes, why not help them lobby government for more and better legislation to protect the company from all those nasty consumers, especially those uppity ones who still remain in the middle class. Yes, Ben, let's help out that bastion of "free" marketing that is being held back by "THE LEFT."
Here's another idea: Why not start a campaign to get Wal-Mart to stop selling its products to anyone who is a "lefty"! Have all customers fill out applications that divulge not only their income levels but also their political leanings. In fact, why not get Wal-Mart to pay overtime to its internal "detectives" who follow employees and customers around to find out if they're speaking bad things about the company to follow home these customers who filled out applications and investigate them as well.
I'm fairly confident that I'm as much against government interference as you, but I am truly interested in how you can reconcile this:
If you think it's perfectly acceptable for Wal-Mart (and lots of other companies of course) to use the government to help it do whatever it wants to citizens and businesses without Wal-Mart being held accountable for damages caused by its government/corporate relationship, then why do you NOT think it's acceptable for citizens and businesses to use the SAME government to mitigate Wal-Mart's damages?
I'm asking this not only of you but of anyone who uses the double standard for corporations and citizens when both use the government (the only tool available presently).
Published: October 31, 2005 1:47 PM
"By all means, let's all encourage Wal-Mart to rip off taxpayers to a much greater degree and at a more rapid pace. Let's get in line with all the others who will buy into their PR game and spend more money with the company."
This common fallacy in reasoning is called setting up a strawman. I have no further comment.
Published: October 31, 2005 2:19 PM
". . . kow-towing to the left!"
But this is sound reasoning? This is why Wal-Mart involves itself in the minimum wage? This is not a "strawman" argument? It does not invite a "strawman" representation in return?
Published: October 31, 2005 2:33 PM
Bob A., your company sells wool blankets http://marshallee.com/ making you a direct competitor with Walmart. Why don't you ask your company to pay employees $20 an hour? What do you consider to be a fair wage? And by what standard?
Published: October 31, 2005 2:39 PM
Bob A asked: "Can I come to Australia to work? Or do I have to prove that I have something to offer? Are Australians concerned that I might be taking work from them? How soon can I come to Australia and begin working? What do I need to do in order to get permission to come to Australia and live?"
Bob A, you can come to Australia to work if you are able to secure a permission from the govt. If the govt. does not grant that permission you are an "illegal" and should they catch you gainfully working they'll put you in a concentration camp until they decide what to do about you. To gain permission you need to do whatever it is the govt. demands at the time (proof of qualifications, certain skills, age, health status, political affiliations in some cases, wealth, nationality, family etc.). I, among others, certainly do not support such a regime.
We can have some fun with this. Here goes:
Sydney is in the state of New South Wales. Jobs in New South Wales need to be protected. Work conditions must be "maintained" against "unfair" competition and low prices. We need to do this as there are many people who might choose to immigrate into this state from Victoria, South Australia, Queensland, ACT, Western Australia, Tasmania or even the Northern Territory. Should they so do they would steal the jobs from the New South Welshmen. We just can't have those "aliens" competing here!
OK. First step is to institute state border controls to control inter-state immigration. We can expect that the premiers of the other states would likely respond in kind (tit for tat). No trouble. This would actually help in our quest to control movement of labour (and ultimately in the control and enslavement of people). This policy will limit people's opportunity to either opt out of an intolerable situation or seek better conditions in which to live. Who does that aid?
Now let's further apply the policy. It's logic continues to work within the state boundaries.
Why should Sydney-siders be forced to watch their jobs get stolen by people from lower cost regional towns and conurbations such as Bathurst, Newcastle, Mudgee, Wollongong and so on? Let's put an immigration and trade control border around Sydney to stop this unfairness at once. But hang on, there's trouble here as many of the people who work in City-Central commute from cheaper suburbs like Blacktown and Campbeltown and Liverpool and Parramatta and Penrith. We'll need to sort out these cheap guest workers so that the Sydney Central folk don't have to see their jobs stolen by those "cheap bastards from the suburbs" (especially the ockers from out west). Next we need to make certain that the people in Darlinghurst and Surrey Hills can't get across to the City as that would be unfair. They'd steal jobs, as they are already known to do. And as for those unmentionable persons from the southern side of Hyde Park or even from the far side of Ultimo, we'll eventually need to control their movements as well. The govt. has got to do something!
Notice that nowhere in any of this does the principle of Right to Private Property get applied or even considered.
Another example may be useful. If a family move from, say, Tonga to California where a property owner rents them a house, where an employer provides work for members of the family and where they find all manner of people who will associate and trade with them, it is no business of yours (unless you happen to be one of the people who elects to associate or trade with the Tongans). Your only proper choice regards whether or not YOU associate and trade with them. You only control YOUR OWN property, not any other person's property. They are entitled to work for whatever remuneration they negotiate, live as they live (so long as they do not initiate force or fraud or coercion activities), associate and/or trade with willing collaborators and colleagues. That's their business, not yours. It certainly should not be the business of any govt.
Now you may say you have a right to keep these people off your property. And you do. But you certainly do not have the right to keep them off OTHER people's property. You do not own the USA, let alone America. All you properly may do is attempt to convince others that they should not associate, collaborate, employ or trade with the Tongan family (shame on you!). Now there will be those who'll agree with you and there will be those who disagree. You would need to convince everyone in California not to associate with them or allow them onto any private property throughout the USA. I'm betting that wouldn't work.
Unfortunately the question of movement of people is one of those things that is distorted by govt. interventions of one kind or another. Immigration is severely affected by govt. actions above and beyond mere border enforcement. There is the matter of foreign policy, where you have to realise that many of the people who want to immigrate are doing so to escape intolerable conditions in their home countries created or encouraged by govt. foreign policy actions (the US has a lot to answer for in this). There is the matter of welfare, which can encourage immigration from abroad while causing locals to oppose it bitterly. Regulations of every kind such as in labour, wages, dispute resolution, tax, environment, occupational health and safety, anti-discrimination legislation and so on all provide significant effects. There is the cronism repleat with special subsidies and special back-door deals for some businesses, organisations, institutions and individuals. That has a major result when it comes to immigration. And on the list goes. The whole immigr