I was recently having a conversation about insurance costs with a friend who is a senior at Rutgers University. Somehow the conversation digressed to the topic of Wal-Mart. The Rutgers student listed all the classic knocks on Wal-Mart: they treat their employees like a crap, pay them nothing, do nothing good for American manufacturing. This commentary sounded all too familiar. My freshman year at Syracuse University I had similar opinions of Wal-Mart after reading Nickel and Dimed.  My very first college paper was based on the book (man, if I could only find that assignment to post here). Nickel and Dimed is essentially a tale of how hard it can be to live off minimum wage and how companies exploit laborers … it’s modern day, The Jungle. After reading the author’s tale I had a classic case of rational ignorance. The story seemed to make a well researched “Wal-Mart is evil” argument, so was it really worth my time to find other sources on working life at Wal-Mart? The books thesis was in line with what seemed to academics a consensus view; at the time that good enough for me. About two years later I watched what I consider to be one of the best South Park episodes ever: Something Wal-Mart This Way Comes. Again…Wal-Mart… evil.

Fast forward 7 years to a time where I am more in tune with various economic schools of thought and viewpoints. I came a across a podcast on Econtalk with Russ Roberts in which he was interviewing a man who was retired editor. Roberts’ guest had decided to take up position at Wal-Mart and subsequently written various articles on his experiences (Life at Wal-Mart by Charles Platt). Here is a synopsis of the podcast:

Charles Platt, author and journalist, talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts what it was like to apply for a job at Wal-Mart, get one, and work there. He discusses the hiring process, the training process, and the degree of autonomy Wal-Mart employees have to change prices. The conversation concludes with a discussion of attitudes toward Wal-Mart.

What Platt had to say seemed to make sense.  His points were further supported by Robert’s commentary on the general economics of Wal-Mart. I started piecing my Wal-Mart experiences together in my head. All in all, I would have to say I enjoy Wal-Mart. One stop shop, low prices, and great service. So, is there enough evidence that Wal-Mart exploits it labor for me to shun Wal-Mart?

The stigma is that Wal-Mart workers are treated like crap and are unhappy. After hearing about Platt’s experience, I now pay attention to the demeanor of Wal-Mart employees when I shop there. From my experience going to Wal-Mart, their employees, so far, have seemed pretty happy in general. Now, after reading Nickel and Dimed there were a few years that shopping there gave me the heaby jeebies but I didn’t shop there any less. There has always seemed to be some a disconnect, for me, between the experience that I read about in Nickel and Dimed and my personal experiences at Wal-Mart.

I would guess that good portion of recent liberal arts graduates have read some version of a “Nickel and Dimed”. I think Nickel and Dimed misses the human aspects of why people work at Wal-Mart, in other words, what their living situation before the enter employment with the company.  Therefore, it tends to mislead readers into believing that most other Wal-Mart employees dislike their job as much as the author of the book did. Certainly there are people struggling to get by that work at Wal-Mart, but is it right to pin the blame for their struggles on Wal-Mart? I think not. The Platt article may change your mind on Wal-Mart and it may not, but either way it is worth getting another viewpoint on the “Evil Wal-Mart” story that seems to so prevalent in university lecture halls across the country.

Have you ever stopped to think about how much efficiently you could have learned something? Or what about when you realize everything you thought you knew was wrong? I am sure some very smart people were convinced the world was flat and were quite perturbed when learned the world was actually round. Well I would say I just realized everything that I had been taught/thought about the history of the U.S. was dead wrong.

At Syracuse University, as a history major, I was taught that it was Roosevelt’s quarterbacking in the 30′s that helped the U.S. recovery from the depression. I was essentially taught, like the rest of us, that fiat monetary system created by the Federal Reserve was necessary to provide the economy the “flexibility” to soften the blows that were supposedly considered a natural occurrence of the market (this is painful to think about). If you are reading the blog, you probably have had the experience that I had when I discovered the plethora of readings that come from what is known as the “Austrian” school of economic thought. My first reading was Economic Policy: Thoughts for today and Tomorrow. From there it all just snowballed for me. Hayek, Hazlitt, Rothbard. But honestly it really only took me about the first 25 pages of that first Von Mises book and I was hooked. Like I had discovered a new religion and that I was saved….and then I immediately felt as if I had been robbed.

I thought to myself, “How could I not have heard of this school thought…I was a double major.” One would think that if you majored in both political science and history that I would have come across this “Austrian” school of thought. This just did not make sense.

What I do realize is that history is written by the victors. America came out of the WWII the strongest nation which had seemingly won WWII (no one really won, everyone lost in my opinion). We had amassed an enormous amount of wealth throughout the 19th and early 20th century. Subsequently although Roosevelt was in charge during the majority of America’s most prolonged down turn he and his “brain trust” are viewed as saviors.

What’s my point? I honestly believe that Mr. Obama and Mr. Bernanke are two of America’s best and brightest, however their current “humanactions” are a mold/consequence  of their life experiences. Obama happened to attend a college that teaches its students to believe that they know better than the collective. They believe can smooth out market upheaval with their policies rather than recognizing its their policy  their school of thought that caused the problems.   What if Mr. Bernanke was scientist that could have cured cancer but he was instead taught that cancer can’t be cured but merely slowed down and then at very end of his life he realizes he could have cured cancer all along but he was taught it can only be slowed down.

This is my glass have full post. I will try not to succomb to the idea (at least not tonight) that this mess came about because politicians and other self interested individuals were/are trying retain their power through inflation and wealth redistribution.

]]> http://www.brothersaustrian.com/smart-people-wrong-lesson/feed/ 0 http://www.brothersaustrian.com/arne-duncan-spend-fast-schools/ http://www.brothersaustrian.com/arne-duncan-spend-fast-schools/#comments Tue, 10 Mar 2009 21:34:58 +0000 Teacherman http://www.brothersaustrian.com/?p=86 In case you missed this classic story in the news yesterday, Secretary of Education is encouraging local school districts to spends the stiumlus money fast (emphasis added).

The Department of Education’s ‘five-page guidance’ manual actually says, “Spend funds quickly to save and create jobs…”

I was thinking of some more appropriate endings to that statement, here’s my top 5:

1) Spend funds quickly to ensure there is nothing left when the dollar becomes worthless.

2) Spend funds quickly before Congress realizes cuts in education spending actually may improve school efficiency.

3) Spend funds quickly to let China know that we are putting its money to good use.

4) Spend funds quickly so we can hurry up and get some more!  This is way better than actual budget balancing!

5) Spend funds quickly before people realize that more money doesn’t actually mean better schools.