Nothing new or fancy from Tom Sowell, but his opinion on Wal-Mart is worth noting:
The New York Times says a book "by a group of scholars" is to be published this fall. It argues that Wal-Mart has an "obligation" to "treat its employees better."This can hardly be called news. Nothing is easier than to find a group of academics � "scholars" if you agree with them � to advocate virtually anything on any subject. Nor is this notion of an "obligation" new.
Decades of lofty talk has centered on the "social responsibility" of businesses or a "social contract" between the generations when it comes to Social Security. Do you remember signing any such contract? I don't.
This pious talk means that when third parties want somebody else to pay for something, they simply call it a "social responsibility," an "obligation" or a "social contract."
So long as we keep buying this stuff, they will keep selling it...
To make such demands look like more than just the arbitrary notions of busybodies � which they are � some of these busybodies refer to the official poverty level, as if it were something objective, rather than what it is, simply an arbitrary line based on the government bureaucrats' notions.
The New York Times says Wal-Mart's average employee earns an income that is above the poverty line for a family of three but below the poverty line for a family of four. What are we to conclude from this?
The fashionable notion of "a living wage" is a wage that will support a family of four. And, sure enough, The New York Times finds a Wal-Mart employee who complains that he is not making "a living wage."
How is he living, if he is not making a living wage?
Should people be paid according to what they "need" or what their work is worth? Should they decide how big a family they want and then put the cost of supporting it on somebody else?
[H/T: Ross Nordeen]
Posted by Kevin on May, 14 2005 at 07:28 AM
