I Got Mine - A Conservative Worldview

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

by Alicia Morgan | March 20, 2008 - 5:17am

My kids are big fans of the 'Blue Collar Comedy Tour', and especially of Larry the Cable Guy, a comedian so conservative that he named his daughter Reagan (I kid you not.) They have Tivo'ed several of the shows and so I hear a lot of it from the living room. Most of the time I tune it out, but one bit of Larry the Cable Guy's caught my attention. He was extolling the virtues of Wal-Mart, and deriding liberals who don't like Wal-Mart because they pay their employees so little. His advice to those weenies who don't like how employees are treated at Wal-Mart is - "Don't work at Wal-Mart!"

Those four words (or five, depending on whether Wal-Mart is one word or two) sum up the basic precepts of conservative philosophy.

You'll hear conservatives say, "If you don't want to work at Wal-Mart, then get an education and work hard and you won't have to." Pull yourself up by your bootstraps; put your nose to the grindstone; have some self-discipline. The old 'personal responsibility' routine.

What that does not address is the question, "If I don't work there, then who else should be working there?"

In other words, a job that pays so little that a full-time worker is still below the poverty line and is eligible for welfare is fine and dandy - as long as it's not me working there?

That's the essence of the conservative worldview: as long as I've got mine, I don't care if you have yours. The idea of everyone pursuing his or her own self-interest, then by the invisible hand, the self-interest of all will be maximized, or in the parlance of the Eighties, "Greed is good!" - is the one-size-fits-all answer to poverty, to injustice, to inequality. But what it boils down to in real life is "I've got mine." The idea that every person that works full-time is due enough compensation to support themselves, let alone a family, doesn't even enter into the calculation. It's okay for other people to be underpaid, overworked, taken advantage of. All that matters is - it's not me.

This is why conservatism just plain doesn't work - at least for the kind of society we say we want as Americans. There has to be some kind of consideration for more than just 'me and mine'. The place we're at right now - teetering on the brink of an economic collapse that could easily become a depression, embroiled in a grotesque, bloody occupation with no end in sight, pretending to be 'liberators' with no concern as to whether the country we're occupying wants us there or not, with a Vice-President who doesn't care how many Americans object to the war (apparently the two-thirds of Americans who say it's not worth fighting are merely exhibiting 'fluctuations in opinion', like toddlers who don't like apple juice today, but loved it yesterday), with the largest divide between rich and poor since the robber barons of the Gilded Age - is a place that conservatism, with its selfish, childish and short-sighted "I got mine" has brought us to.

And eventually, my conservative friends, even you may find yourself holding the short end of the stick. You may end up being the one treading water while someone else roars away to safety in the speedboat, oblivious to your cries for help. The policy of "I got mine" only leads to fewer and fewer people who have "got theirs" and more and more people who get next to nothing. Sooner or later, you'll be one of the latter. It's just a matter of time.

If you don't object to the mistreatment of your brother or sister, what will happen when it's your turn? Maybe you'll end up competing with Larry the Cable Guy for that swell greeter job at Wal-Mart.

How uniquely American.

http://lastleftb4hooterville.blogspot.com/

[W*GS]

Nice big fat strawman you got there.

Given the hundreds of billions in direct transfers to the poor, how do you explain their continued poverty?

What's the left-wing worldview? "Gimme yours!"

[Taco John]

Originally Posted by Alicia Morgan

What that does not address is the question, "If I don't work there, then who else should be working there?"

Who ever wants to?

In other words, a job that pays so little that a full-time worker is still below the poverty line and is eligible for welfare is fine and dandy - as long as it's not me working there?

Then complain about the value of the dollar, and how far it no longer goes. Not the corporation who is providing cheap goods and jobs to poor people. I'm no fan of Walmart, but they're not the problem here. The Federal Reserve stewardship of the dollar is the problem.

[Dukes]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

"If I don't work there, then who else should be working there?"

If Liberals had conservative qualities Walmart would be out of business. Why? Because if everyone decided that Walmart was a sh**** place to work and found something better, the place wouldn't be open for business.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Taco John

I'm no fan of Walmart, but they're not the problem here. The Federal Reserve stewardship of the dollar is the problem.

They are both part of the same problem.

One hand washes the other.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Taco John

Who ever wants to?

That's not the point.

The question isn't whether you want to work at Wal-Mart or not - it's why you shouldn't be paid a living wage if you do.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by Dukes

If Liberals had conservative qualities Walmart would be out of business. Why? Because if everyone decided that Walmart was a sh**** place to work and found something better, the place wouldn't be open for business.

Is that suppose to be funny (considering the "conservative" South is how Walmart thrives)?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

Is that suppose to be funny (considering the "conservative" South is how Walmart thrives)?

I was chuckling at that one too.

Also, when he says "if liberals had conservative qualities," is he implying that most Wal-Mart employees are liberals?

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

The question isn't whether you want to work at Wal-Mart or not - it's why you shouldn't be paid a living wage if you do.

Why not just make the minimum wage $100,000/year?

What would be wrong with that?

[footstepsfrom#27]

WalMart pays minimum wage or better but their wages are not the real problem. The real problem is their stranglehold over the manufacturing sector of the retail economy is so dominant, and their ability to dictate to their supply chain so complete they literally control the entire retail industry now because they decide what gets produced and at what cost. The government broke up ATT for monopolistic market control but WalMart's not been touched. WalMart's typical customer can't afford to shop anywhere else, and generally they're oblivious to the fact that the very consumerism driving demand for ultra cheap goods is also the same force that is going to drive wages downward.

[Taco John]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

That's not the point.

The question isn't whether you want to work at Wal-Mart or not - it's why you shouldn't be paid a living wage if you do.

I think it's because there is not much skill involved in working for Walmart, and so there is a larger job pool of people out there who are willing to work for the bottom buck just to have some income. The dedicated ones generally move up and make more money. The washouts, wash out...

I don't understand what the problem here is.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by footstepsfrom#27

The real problem is their stranglehold over the manufacturing sector of the retail economy is so dominant, and their ability to dictate to their supply chain so complete they literally control the entire retail industry now because they decide what gets produced and at what cost.

Bull****. "[L]iterally control the entire retail industry"?

That's crap.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

Originally Posted by footstepsfrom#27

WalMart pays minimum wage or better but their wages are not the real problem. The real problem is their stranglehold over the manufacturing sector of the retail economy is so dominant, and their ability to dictate to their supply chain so complete they literally control the entire retail industry now because they decide what gets produced and at what cost. The government broke up ATT for monopolistic market control but WalMart's not been touched. WalMart's typical customer can't afford to shop anywhere else, and generally they're oblivious to the fact that the very consumerism driving demand for ultra cheap goods is also the same force that is going to drive wages downward.

Walmart is the largest Chinese outlet store in the world. Their goods cost them less than everyone else because of the labor they use to produce them. They pay low wages and usually no benefits because they can as this country moves farther and farther into a service based economy instead of goods produced country.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Taco John

I think it's because there is not much skill involved in working for Walmart, and so there is a larger job pool of people out there who are willing to work for the bottom buck just to have some income. The dedicated ones generally move up and make more money. The washouts, wash out...

I don't understand what the problem here is.

This is sort of a defeatist acceptance of the status quo (and still doesn't answer the question, i.e., why Wal-Mart can't or won't pay its employees a living wage.)

[Florida_Bronco]

I don't get it.

If you work hard, get an education and get a good job, should you feel guilty because those other people did not do the same?

[W*GS]

What are Wal-Mart's wages, LABF, and what should they be?

If some Wal-Mart customers can't afford to shop anywhere else, where would they shop once Wal-Mart passes along the higher wages you demand on to customers?

Can you see beyond the end of your nose?

[BroncoBuff]

That was an excellent column ... and I think it underscores the truth that unless legislation and/or the unions FORCE proper corporate treatment of workers, then corporations will usually not treat them well. The stock price is all that matters anymore in corporate America ... and while I sympathize with our need to compete in a 21st century global marketplace, I also believe that a healthy middle class is critical to our nation's health.

Left to theior own devices, the rich never share.

Can't blame Wal-Mart per se ... but you gotta wonder why the unions can't get a foothold there.

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by Florida_Bronco

I don't get it.

If you work hard, get an education and get a good job, should you feel guilty because those other people did not do the same?

Yep. The only thing that will absolve your guilt is for the State to take more of your earnings via higher taxes, take its cut, and then give your money to those poorer than you. That will fix everything!

[Florida_Bronco]

Originally Posted by Taco John

I think it's because there is not much skill involved in working for Walmart, and so there is a larger job pool of people out there who are willing to work for the bottom buck just to have some income. The dedicated ones generally move up and make more money. The washouts, wash out...

I don't understand what the problem here is.

I agree. At our local Wal-Marts, most of the workers I see there fall into 3 categories.

- High school/college kids
- Senior citzens
- Those who look like they came straight out of a trailer park.

That seems about right, seeing as the job responsibilities you have as a WM employee.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Florida_Bronco

I don't get it.

If you work hard, get an education and get a good job, should you feel guilty because those other people did not do the same?

You are deflecting from the real question, viz., why can't Wal-Mart pay its employees a living wage?

[W*GS]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

You are deflecting from the real question, viz., why can't Wal-Mart pay its employees a living wage?

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpos...7&postcount=16

[footstepsfrom#27]

Originally Posted by Bronco_Beerslug

Walmart is the largest Chinese outlet store in the world. Their goods cost them less than everyone else because of the labor they use to produce them. They pay low wages and usually no benefits because they can as this country moves farther and farther into a service based economy instead of goods produced country.

I should clarify...WalMart pays minimum wage or better HERE. They're use of extremely low wages in other parts of the world obviously is huge in their ability to lower prices below the level where their competitors can match them. You're right...WalMart is China's outlet store.

[BroncoBuff]

Originally Posted by W*GS

What are Wal-Mart's wages, LABF, and what should they be?

They must comply with the law ... and while they do comply with minimum wage laws (barely), they often break the law by busting unions at every chance ... problem is, the feds don't wanna do anything about it. Bushco is shamefully in the pocket of anything called "business," and the Clintons were from Arkansas, and as such, they were in Sam's pocket too. Hillary was a board member at Wal-Mart.

I will be very VERY interested in what the Obama Justice and Labor Departments do about Wal-Mart's union-busting tactics. Things could get VERY interesting here .....



W*GS - lete me ask you: How much money is enough money? The Walton heirs' share-totals still collectively control the corporation. Who TF are these Walton heirs, and why can't they get together and realize that their policies of intense greed, cost-cutting and worker repression are bad for America?

[footstepsfrom#27]

Originally Posted by W*GS

Bull****. "[L]iterally control the entire retail industry"?

That's crap.

Not surprisingly, you're clueless on this. Watch the in depth PBS Frontline special on how WalMart has driven retail competitors out of business with ruthless business practices and intimidation on this so you won't remain ignorant any longer.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/walmart/

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Why can't Wal-Mart pay its employees a living wage?

Any takers?