What can happen when the government leaves the free market alone...

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Here's another point. $34 grand is more than what Walmart workers would be earning had the market been denied the opportunity to exploit the natural resource. Nothing is perfect, Spence. This is a case where the free market will result in Walmart workers earning far more than they would have otherwise earned. I view that as a good thing. You can't, because of politics.

No, it's called basic household economics. They're paying 17 bucks an hour because any less and you wouldn't even be able to pay your share of a 6 person apartment. The Wal-Mart employees aren't necessarily netting any more money than those in Topeka.

Oh, and here's one study ranking cost of living by state, ND is lower than many states (including CT, RI, and MA, where Walmart workers earn nowhere near $17/hr). So stop inventing stuff in a desperate attempt to refute the irrefutable. It's pathetic, and it is glaringly obvious.

Do all Wal-Marts in ND pay 17 bucks an hour? Again, you're equating a localized anomaly with an average across a state that has a low population and not a lot of high paying industry.

For a guy who works with numbers you should know this.

Everytihng that makes conservatives look right is an anomoly. Everything that makes liberals look bad is a mis-statement of what really happened, yeah yeah, I get it.

Susan Rice didn't really MEAN that he served with honor and distinction. What she MEANT was that it was honorable to enlist. Michelle Obama didn't really MEAN that she wasn't proud of her country until Barack got the nomination. Hilary didn't MEAN that she got shot at by a sniper (when she stated with great ambiguity, "I got shot at by a sniper", that is subject to many different interpretations, right?).

We get it Spence, we get it.

I'm going to give you credit for stopping short of abortion. I didn't know you had it in ya

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

No, it's called basic household economics. They're paying 17 bucks an hour because any less and you wouldn't even be able to pay your share of a 6 person apartment. The Wal-Mart employees aren't necessarily netting any more money than those in Topeka.




-spence

The reason rents can be so high is because there is more demand for apartments than can be supplied. Basic supply and demand. The reason Wal-mart pays more for its employees there than elsewhere is also supply and demand. There is not enough population there to fill its demand for labor. Employees must be enticed from elsewhere to work and it must be worthwhile for workers to supply that demand. The reason Wal-mart is there or expanding is because the influx of the thousands of jobs created by the oil company and by the infrastructure needed to support it and its employees, including all manner of retail and service businesses. Again, supply and demand.

You claim the Wal-mart workers are not netting more there than elsewhere because the cost of living is higher. Actually, they are. They have a job there which they would not have elsewhere.

Jobs which didn't exist have been created by the oil company and the myriad of supporting service and retail companies. Renters are making money they couldn't without the boom. Taxes are being paid which would not exist without the boom. Thousands of jobs have been created which wouldn't exist without the boom.

That is creating and "spreading the wealth" by market forces rather than redistribution of existing wealth by government. That is market production and growth of the marketplace rather than government confiscation, restriction, and shrinkage of the marketplace to be replaced by government employment and redistribution.

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by detbuch

That is creating and "spreading the wealth" by market forces rather than redistribution of existing wealth by government. That is market production and growth of the marketplace rather than government confiscation, restriction, and shrinkage of the marketplace to be replaced by government employment and redistribution.

Yes, redistribution leads to stagnation, free markets lead to innovation, competition and growth.