Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (44197)	5/13/2004 5:25:55 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793917

Dan Drezner on WM (Again) By Kevin on Supercenters - Always Low Prices Blog Dan Drezner points to Steve Chapman's Op-Ed in the Chicago Tribune. Does the company resist unions? Sure. But that doesn't exactly make it unusual, since 92 percent of private-sector workers in the United States lack a union. Does it hurt small businesses? Only by offering consumers goods they want at lower prices than established retailers.... An interesting comments thread is forming at Dan's post. But I have some comments I'd like to share here. Let me make this clear: WM is the cutting edge of creative destruction, and in the here-and-now creative destruction makes winners out of some and losers out of others. But in the long run has made all of us far wealthier than we would have been if we tried to stop it or slow it down. WM--and the people who are willing to work for it-- are threatening the wages of unionized grocers everywhere. WMs entry into food sales is likely to drive some unionized competitors out of business. In the long run, WM is likely to convert many unionized grocery jobs into cheaper, non-union, positions. Shoppers will benefit through lower prices--raising their real wages. WM gives the same goods to the end users for less, meaning more is left to be spent on other goods and services. Keeping grocers unionized not only has the effect of keeping real wages lower for consumers, but prevents consumers from spending those higher incomes on other goods. What will happen to labor when WM enters the grocery business in cities? Most current unionized grocery employees will see their artificially high real wages stay the same or rise, but at far smaller rates. New unionized grocery employees will see noticeably lower starting salaries and benefits than their more experienced colleages earned starting out. WM will convert many full-time unionized grocery jobs into entry-level, senior-citizen or part-time positions. It will likely make those considering becoming union grocers turn to other occupations that pay more--for instance, nursing. The full-time, middle-class jobs will appear elsewhere in the economy--not in retail. Right now, we see the middle class unionized jobs in grocers; we don't see the middle class healthcare and professional service jobs that will not be created if grocers stay unionized. On net, how many more "middle-class" jobs are sustained by grocer unionization? I can't answer that completely, but I suspect that unionization lowers the total number of middle-class jobs. Others will, respectfully or otherwise, disagree. WM competing with grocers is neither a completely bad or good thing, but it is how the economy grows and channels labor into its most profitable uses. Why should all jobs provide incomes to support a family of four? Is it not OK for there to be jobs for those just starting out? Is there to be no premium in pay and benefits for those more skilled and experienced?