It isnt even a question of deep pockets. Require walmart to pay each employee twice as much, and they will probably fire half of them, train the remainder better, and have customers bag their own groceries. Same total labor cost. This is generally considered better on the grounds that the people fired by walmart in this situation are not really worse of—any other employment they come by is as least as good because their current employment situation verily doth sucket hose—and the people still working there would then have actual jobs.
Require walmart to pay each employee twice as much, and they will probably fire half of them, train the remainder better, and have customers bag their own groceries. Same total labor cost.
I see no reason to believe this would happen. May I recommend a post on the subject?
the people fired by walmart in this situation are not really worse of
Oh really? Do you think Wal-Mart employees agree with you on that point? You’re basically saying that there is no reason for anyone to work at Wal-Mart. This is… empirically wrong.
This is what one tends to hear from Wal-Mart employees and former employees, yes.
Given that Wal-Mart is the biggest private employer in the world and employs over 2m people (source) I think you’re wrong as a matter of empiric reality.
Is that a very good argument though? To believe that there is a reason to do something simply because lots of people do so, sounds like a bias to me...
Well, Lumifer did just say “reason”, not “good reason”—but in the reply to Izeinwinter only the latter is relevant. I initially assumed he meant the latter, but had forgotten that when reading his reply to eli_sennesh. Retracting my upvote to the latter.
That doesn’t match my idea of what a free lunch is. I believe a better descriptive term would be the deep pockets theory.
It isnt even a question of deep pockets. Require walmart to pay each employee twice as much, and they will probably fire half of them, train the remainder better, and have customers bag their own groceries. Same total labor cost. This is generally considered better on the grounds that the people fired by walmart in this situation are not really worse of—any other employment they come by is as least as good because their current employment situation verily doth sucket hose—and the people still working there would then have actual jobs.
I see no reason to believe this would happen. May I recommend a post on the subject?
Oh really? Do you think Wal-Mart employees agree with you on that point? You’re basically saying that there is no reason for anyone to work at Wal-Mart. This is… empirically wrong.
What counts as one?
This is what one tends to hear from Wal-Mart employees and former employees, yes.
Given that Wal-Mart is the biggest private employer in the world and employs over 2m people (source) I think you’re wrong as a matter of empiric reality.
Is that a very good argument though? To believe that there is a reason to do something simply because lots of people do so, sounds like a bias to me...
Well, Lumifer did just say “reason”, not “good reason”—but in the reply to Izeinwinter only the latter is relevant. I initially assumed he meant the latter, but had forgotten that when reading his reply to eli_sennesh. Retracting my upvote to the latter.