Wal-Mart and more

[Warren Ockrassa]

On Feb 20, 2008, at 9:05 PM, Dan M wrote:

>> Okay ... so where's the middle class gone to, then?
>
> It's still there, but whether the middle class has noticeably  
> improved its
> standing over the last 30 years is a argument based on subtle
> interpretations of the inflation index.  The subtle nature of the  
> argument
> is based on a number of things:
>
> One discussion is at:
>
> http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3765/is_n3_v18/ai_18824582/pg_2

Huh, that's talking about food, and was written thirteen years ago.  
While a discussion of food price as one aspect of inflation is  
certainly relevant, I daresay things have changed considerably in the  
wake of hundred-buck-a-barrel oil and eight years of borrow-and-spend  
warfare.

> But, even taking that index at face value, every income group, from  
> the
> bottom quintile to the top quintile has improved.  The top has  
> improved a
> whole lot more, but the middle class has not gone away.  The distance
> between the top and the middle has increased, but that's separate  
> issue.

It is, in some ways, but it might not be in others. The middle, I  
think it's fair to say, has shrunk; and there are some services that  
we might consider humanely desirable that are available only to the  
monied, or at least the privileged.

For instance, while it's indubitable that even the poor in the US are  
doing considerably better than the poor were in, say, 1931, I'd be  
surprised to learn they live significantly longer or have better  
educations. The latter is easily addressable in any society with as  
much money to waste as we clearly have; the former is perhaps more  
problematic.

While the possibility for longer life has improved greatly, a lot of  
that longer life presupposes the conditions of relatively low stress,  
high-quality diet, decent (but not overtaxing) exercise and extensive  
healthcare that can accommodate -- quickly and properly -- both  
conventional and contingent conditions: Not just the regular diseases  
and such, but catastrophic events such as stroke or heart attack, for  
which prognosis is heavily dependent on speed of care; and cancer,  
which requires phenomenal amounts of money to treat.

These major events are essentially life-changers for the privileged;  
for the poor -- and for an increasing number of middle-class  
individuals with low or no insurance -- they are effectively fatal.  
This renders the ability to remain alive and in decent health  
something that is given only to those fortunate enough to be wealthy,  
which is absolutely contrary to the egalitarian ideals of the US.

I'm not trying to suggest that there's something necessarily wrong  
with the state of healthcare in the US today (I think there is, but  
that's not relevant to issues of costs). But in order to have the  
higher-quality diet, higher-quality care and high-tech advanced  
treatments that turn myocardial infarction into little more than a  
weekend inconvenience, money is irreplaceable. Especially with  
advancing age, life tends to become very expensive. Thus even someone  
who has lived comfortably most of his life might find himself facing  
destitution in his seventies because of the single syllable "Hmm" from  
his proctologist.

That's only one example, of course; what I'm suggesting is that  
"middle class" is (as you suggest) hard to define. I've seen ample  
examples of people making twice minimum wage who still cannot cover  
all their needs, and there are even more people making less than that.  
At my income level I'm probably arguably in the middle class bracket,  
and the sorry truth is that I'm in the minority in this community.

To dovetail with the Wal-Mart discussion, I see an employer that  
squeezes out competition in small communities, then employs only part- 
time workers (35 hrs/wk) so as to avoid having to pay any benefits.  
This does not in any way help the wage base in this community improve;  
it only guarantees a perpetuation of the poverty.

Lower prices on clothing and food (which aren't actually significantly  
lower; Wal-Mart has a few loss leaders but the overall prices of items  
in their stores aren't better than any other retail outlet's) at the  
expense of better employment, retirement and benefits packages is a  
classic example of the cliché about being penny wise and pound  
foolish. It's a short-term mindset that is not going to be of benefit  
to this community in another three or so decades, and I do not have  
any reason to think my community is unique in this regard.

That's the problem I have with pure-market solutions. They embody no  
foresight, and do not take into account the suffering of the  
individual humans whose lives are adversely affected by the  
fluctuations of business. This might be a useful way to run a  
business, but it is an absolutely unacceptable way to structure a  
society. And in a society that is increasingly privatizing, that's  
something of grave concern.

--
Warren Ockrassa
Blog  | http://indigestible.nightwares.com/
Books | http://books.nightwares.com/
Web   | http://www.nightwares.com/