Wal-Mart and more

[David Hobby]

dsummersminet at comcast.net wrote:
...
> Historically, new jobs have always been created for the guys that lose
> their job.  There is dislocation, but in the end just about everyone
> benefits.

I'm not sure I buy that.  I see a grave shortage of jobs in the
US.  This goes way beyond the official unemployment rate.  For
instance, my youngest child will soon be 14 (the youngest age
one can legally work in New York State).  She'd like a job then,
something like 10 hours a week.  Will she get one?  Probably not.
Around here, almost all the teenagers with jobs got them because
they were related to their employers.  But since she won't be an
adult actively looking for a full time job, she won't be included
in the statistics.

...
>> For example, consider a change that puts half the population
>> out of work while giving the other half a bit more than twice what
>> they had originally.  The average income could go up, but I'd
>> argue that total utility would go down.  It's worse to lose one's
>> job than it is good to earn a bit more than twice as much.
> 
> But, historically, the extra money the first half has is spent on things
> that employ the second half.  That is _the_ process that created an
> American middle class out of dirt poor farmers who could barely feed their
> families.

Only some of it, now.  Unless, as you point out, we consider
the global economy.  The services they spend extra money on
would often be local.  But few of the goods would be locally
produced.

...
> But, it is still true that when we increase productivity, we increase total
> wealth.  My arguement is that we should consider this an inherently good
> thing (as long as we properly figure the costs).  We should not fight
> productivity, but we should find a way to ensure that those who are the
> inevitable losers from change (there will always be losers associated with
> every improvement) will be supported by the community that benefits as a
> whole from the change.
> 
> Dan M. 

Wait a minute, we agree completely.  Should we go back to
Wal-Mart in more detail, or what?  : )

					---David