Shot In The Dark: Things I Wish

January 17, 2006

Things I Wish

Among the wishes of the season, I wish I could get St. Paul City Councilweasels Jay Benanav, Kathy Lantry, Lee Helgen and Mao Tse Thune, as well as their well-heeled, impeccably be-clouted supporters and their pet mayor, Chris Coleman, in a room and make them read this piece.

Money quote:

Liberals see the market as an arena in which evil corporations inflict their greed on innocent victims. I wish you would see that motives matter less than consequences. I wish you could see that greed is at work when laws are passed that regulate markets, because regulations always produce winners and losers. I wish you could see that those winners and losers are often not who you think they are. I wish you could see that competitive behavior and free choice are forces that operate in the market as a check against greed. Finally, I wish you could see that greed is most difficult to restrain when it is exercised through the medium of government.

And I wish I could do it before they turn from trying to ban smoking and move onward to alcohol, fast food, and dissenting from the DFL.

Posted by Mitch at January 17, 2006 07:20 AM | TrackBack

Comments

Here's what I wish... I wish "libertarian/conservatives" would run down to the local Walmart and invest a few dollars on a mirror so they can take a look at themselves for a change.

From the poorly reasoned and laughably poorly argued article that Mitch cites,

"liberals are inclined to over-estimate some things and to under-estimate others."

Really? Liberals? Hmmmm...

Now.. About that whole Iraq thing...

Come on Mitch. Don't you actually read this sludge before citing it?

Posted by: Doug at January 17, 2006 08:16 AM

PB is the outstanding leader in blather.

Eva is the outstanding leader in self-promotion.

Now Doug is vying for the title of outstanding leader in completely missing the point, probably because it's unseen and therefore not easy to find. It's spelled B-A-S-T-I-A-T, my friend.

Posted by: nathan bissonette at January 17, 2006 08:35 AM

Doug suggests it was a "poorly reasoned and laughably poorly argued article" and yet of the five points presented in the Money Quote Doug offers nary a one refutation. He does manage to slip in a Wal*Mart reference, which is always good lib fodder. I guess the article is "sludge" because Doug says so. No further discussion required.

Posted by: Kermit at January 17, 2006 08:55 AM

Bunk.

The entire piece is written as a screed against government involvement or regulation in the operation of a "free" market.

Ironic isn't it that Walmart is one of the largest beneficiaries of local, state and federal subsidies and tax breaks.

Apparently, government involvement is fine if it benefits the shareholder but not if it benefits the employee.

If you follow the link, you'll read this rationalization for not increasing medical benefits: "Low-skilled workers cannot receive more in compensation than the value of their labor. If Wal-Mart is forced to increase the share of compensation that comes in the form of health benefits, then it will have to decrease take-home pay."

So now everybody who works at a Walmart is a "low-skilled worker"? Wow! Isn't that convienent for Walmart.

So Walmart gets tax breaks to go into a town, local retail closes because they can't compete with Walmarts predatory buying power, employees lose good paying jobs with good benefits, dislocated, and in many cases, experienced, skilled employees go to work for Walmart for less pay and less benefits and we, you and I get to pay more in subsidizing health care costs for walmart employees who need to turn to public assistance when they get sick and can't pay.

Brilliant.

If you follow along and believe this guys piece, you're not a libertarian and you are certainly not a conservative. You're an elitist snob who believes a Plutocracy should be the prevailing form of Government.

Posted by: Doug at January 17, 2006 10:09 AM

"So now everybody who works at a Walmart is a "low-skilled worker"?"

How much traing is required to collect shopping carts or run barcodes accross a scanner?
And as for employees losing good paying jobs with good benefits, are you serious? Have you ever worked in retail? I can tell you from experience, Mom and Pop don't pay diddly-squat. And they sure as hell don't pay for health insurance.
Wal*Mart is just a liberal straw man.

Posted by: Kermit at January 17, 2006 10:28 AM

The "Evil Empire", as we call it southeast of Cowtown, is NOT a "liberal strawman".

I've seen it pretty much gut the downtowns of two of our county seats here in southeast Ohio.

Doug is right.

I'm a died/wool libertarian. I BUY LOCAL ONLY. It just makes ****ing SENSE.

Posted by: jackscrow at January 17, 2006 10:40 AM

So Jack never shops at Sears or Target, either.

Posted by: Kermit at January 17, 2006 10:57 AM

Totally off topic, but I have to say, that Liquor Snob blog ad to the right is quite possibly the funniest thing I've seen all week. A martini and a beer, and you're getting laid.

In conjunction with the shirtless guy preparing to masturbate two ads down, Mitch's ads are about the most racy things going right now this side of Penthouse.com.

Posted by: Ryan at January 17, 2006 10:59 AM

No Froggy, I don't.

The closest I come to big box shopping is the occasional "drag me under protest" visit to Jacque Piene'.

I even stay away from Lowes and buy from my local hardware store.

I shop at a locally owned grocery.

I even try to "buy American", when i can, and given the choice, will always pick "made in Taiwan" over "made in China".

And yes, Froggy, it do make me superior.

Posted by: jackscrow at January 17, 2006 11:08 AM

From the TCS article: "However, if Wal-Mart workers want health insurance badly enough, eventually the market will find a way to provide it."

This is an empirically false proposition. The U.S. healthcare system, by any reasonable measure, is the LEAST efficient system of any advanced economy. Health care delivery is far more efficient (i.e. less rescources consumed, more product delvivered)in other publically dominated countries.

For facts start here: http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/health_of_nations/index.html

Citing the U.S. health care industry as evidence for the superiority of the free market makes as strong a case as citing Soviet agriculture as evidence for state planned economies.

Posted by: RickDFL at January 17, 2006 11:12 AM

Kermit,

I work retail. I used to work in the Technology area. I make less than a third of what I did. The difference between me and a lot of others who work retail is that I did it by choice to spend more time with my family while my kids are still young. I know plenty of others who work retail because they were laid-off and their unemployment was or had expired and couldn't find work in their field.

To my point about being an elitist snob, thanks for proving my point when you said,

"How much traing is required to collect shopping carts or run barcodes accross a scanner?"

Since I DO work in retail, I can assure you that there are plenty of other positions in a Walmart other than collecting shopping carts or running barcodes accross a scanner.

I have a 4 year degree with a bachelors of fine arts degree in media and communications and part of what I do in my position is collecting shopping carts when it is needed and backup cashiering when rude, demanding, inconsiderate, self-important pricks who think they are the freaking center of the known universe whine about having to wait 3 minutes in line when the store is busy.

Based on your freakishly arrogant generalization about retail employees, I'm guessing I've run into you more than a few times at my store.

By the way, you're welcome.

Posted by: Doug at January 17, 2006 11:12 AM

And yes, Froggy, it do make me superior.

Posted by jackscrow at January 17, 2006 11:08 AM

And obviously SO much more intelligent. You came up with that insult so quickly. Calling me names really validates your opinion.

Posted by: Kermit at January 17, 2006 11:15 AM

"I have a 4 year degree with a bachelors of fine arts degree in media and communications"

That explains so much. Thanks, Doug.

Posted by: Kermit at January 17, 2006 11:19 AM

I only buy products made in Axis of Evil countries. Just doing my part.

Posted by: angryclown at January 17, 2006 11:31 AM

Thanks, Froggy. It's a term of endearment. Just think of me as your "Ms. Piggy".

"So Jack never shops at Sears or Target, either."

And, even though I choose to not shop at the other big boxes, it takes just a little research to see that Wal-morts is a totally different animal. Or reptile.

On to "intelligence".... oops, didn't see your name on the board at Cato or on a by-line at City Journal. But I'll look again, Kermie.

Posted by: jackscrow at January 17, 2006 11:36 AM

"That explains so much. Thanks, Doug."

Kermit, I forgot to include condescending and arrogant to my list. Thanks for reminding me.

I'd be willing to bet you get a lot of people spitting in your Chili before serving it to you at Wendy's.

Posted by: Doug at January 17, 2006 11:43 AM

"I have a 4 year degree with a bachelors of fine arts degree in media and communications...."

Yeah, I couldn't let that go past either. Precisely why should anyone pay a premium for those skills? What value do they add to your labor for any company?

Retail work is broadly a low-skill proposition. I've worked my way from part-time sales clerk to store manager; I know this from experience.

When working for Mom and Pop, you probably won't get health insurance, you probably won't get a retirement plan, you'll be lucky to get as much as a week of vacation per year, your pay will be low, and you won't get raises. And that's when they are competent (as they usually aren't).

As to whether Wal-Mart destroys communities: In my experience, it tends rather to revitalize communities. I watched exactly that happen in Sterling, Colorado (my wife's home town). If you look at a map, you will see that Sterling is precisely the kind of town where a successful predator would have the most impact; it's more than 100 miles from the nearest big city, and at least 1/2 hour from any competition at all. The prices in that Wal-Mart are the same as in Denver (where there's plenty of retail competition), the area around the store in Sterling has seen a dramatic increase in specialty retail, and the prices paid by people in Sterling have dropped.

Other than that though, ....

Wait, there is no "Other than that".

Posted by: Doug Sundseth at January 17, 2006 11:44 AM

Anyone else get the sense Doug is a tad bitter aboust wasting all that time and money on a meaningless degree - only to end up having to work with the proletariat.

Cheer up Doug, not even Walmart will put up with employees who consider their customers to be "pricks". That attitude only leads to job security in socialist economies.

Posted by: Ted C. at January 17, 2006 11:47 AM

I wonder if any of the Wal-Mart critics here have considered that conservatives and libertarians are not fans of government subsidies of businesses, including Wal-Mart? Our attacking government attempts to force corporations to behave in a manner you lefties consider enlightened does not make us defenders of corporate welfare.

We don't believe two wrongs make a right. We prefer to leave that kind of cynicism to the lefties.

I don't think the article Mitch cited was poorly argued at all. I think lefties usually ignore the idea of unintended consequences and tend to get very defensive and often vulgar when someone inconveniences them by calling attention to those consequences.

Posted by: eightgun at January 17, 2006 11:49 AM

I'd be willing to bet you get a lot of people spitting in your Chili before serving it to you at Wendy's.

Posted by Doug at January 17, 2006 11:43 AM

Gee Doug, I thought you said you worked in retail. Can I get some fries with that?

Posted by: Kermit at January 17, 2006 11:54 AM

Mr. Sundseth, could you please put your last name on your little red and white badge.

Tell us, what retail establishment do you manage?

Too many Dougs.

"....dramatic increase in specialty retail, and the prices paid by people in Sterling have dropped."

Do you mind telling us whether any of those "specialty" stores are locally owned?

In my experience the only things that come with "The Evil Empire" are Micky-Dee's and Burger Kings. Maybe you think these are specialty stores?

I'm a small town boy. Sounds corny, but I just don't associate Wal-morts with real, small town life. I really don't think anybody does.

Posted by: jackscrow at January 17, 2006 11:59 AM

I only buy products made in Axis of Evil countries. Just doing my part.

Posted by angryclown at January 17, 2006 11:31 AM

Angryclown! Did you get the Frequent Shopper card I asked Zarqawi to mail to you? Sweet Mohammed if that little turd forgot again he will be featured in the next beheading video!

Posted by: Saddam at January 17, 2006 11:59 AM

I wish that those who decry regulation sometime, somewhere recognized that the corporations they back so willingly seek to enact regulations (nearly incessantly) to give themselves advantages (for example, the recent Bankruptcy regulation).

Certain industries (The airlines, telecommunications) have suffered from deregulation becuase the supposed goal (competition) lost out to monopoly seeking. They either cut their own throats (the airlines) or simply gobbled each other up (the telco's), and it is the consumer who lost in the end.

I find it ironic that folks like Mitch who piss and moan about regulation so often back precisely administrations which are really enablers of protections and guarantees for one industry or company, over another. You all may hate public rail, but imagine if public rail had all stations, all lines, most of thier maintenence and much of the staff at the stations paid for off-book by other organizations (including state and local governments). This is precisely what we do for the airlines, we buy their airports, the land they reside on, we maintain them, give them cherry deals on maintenence sites, employ much of the staff through public entities (and yes I know that Amtrak is public, but ITS staff is part of ITS budget), we throw BILLIONS at the airlines in bailouts and debt reductions. If the same were done for rail, it would be so far in the black we'd never have any complaints. The reality is though, despite it being a strategic resource, the airlines have lots of clout and have been working (and mostly succeeding) for decades to get rail services killed. The frieght carriers didn't see enough (though still present) profit and gave up on it, perhaps we should have let it go at that point (and thus had no alternatives to air and ground), but we thought it was worthwhile to preserve (at least some did). The airlines, and this administration, have taken huge steps to finally kill it off. Perhaps before agreeing, we should look at the effect of no competition and whether the airlines are really the ones we ought listen to.

But hey, what do I know, I mean after all, having only three viable national airlines has been SOOO good for folks who live outside of NY, Chicago and LA. The cry of "deregulation" so often seems to come from those who really mean, "regulation in my favor" like Eastern, TWA, NWA, Pan Am, etc..

Mikey

Posted by: Mikey at January 17, 2006 11:59 AM

Oh, and Nathan, if it's blather, it's far better blather than what you seem to post. Perhaps your issue is not so much that it is not understandable, as that you cannot understand. I know that seems harsh, but I so frequently seem to find repubs who have about a five second attention span. Maybe you're one too.

Just a thought.

PB (aka Mikey)

Posted by: Mikey at January 17, 2006 12:04 PM

BTW Mitch, given your love of dictatorships (err an executive branch unfettered by silly things like laws), I will have to assume you soon MAY be able to force them into a room, but...

I would suspect that they would follow your lead and willfully ignore any and all material that didn't jibe with thier opinion.

Smoking bans are unfair if not regionally enacted. I have a concern for the welfare of those bars negatively impacted and think the exemption for those who primarily do business as a bar should stick, however, I suspect Mitch has little regard for the health concern. So enlighten us Mitch, what limits on public health risk DO you favor? Here specifically, what rules to protect against second hand smoke do you think SHOULD exist?

See the thing is, Mitch talks about being fair and even-handed, yet it is the moderates which try to consider both sides, and the extremes which must have it their way and ONLY their way. This is what makes Mitch exactly like the St.Paul Council, and why, Mitch, they would be perfectly right acting EXACTLY as you do by ignoring your posts, even when they aren't screed (rare, but still possible).

Mikey

Posted by: pb at January 17, 2006 12:23 PM

"Mr. Sundseth, could you please put your last name on your little red and white badge.

"Tell us, what retail establishment do you manage?"

I no longer work in retail, but when I did, I managed a "Mom and Pop" computer store in Laramie, WY, and I managed a Software, Etc. store in Aurora, CO (Denver metro). I started working for Software, Etc. in Fort Collins, CO. The corporate gig was far better, in just about every way.

"Do you mind telling us whether any of those 'specialty' stores are locally owned?"

Since there are several dozen, that would be a yes, even if you don't count the locally owned franchises. (Most franchises are locally owned.)

"In my experience the only things that come with 'The Evil Empire' are Micky-Dee's and Burger Kings."

I'd recommend that you broaden your experience.

"Maybe you think these are specialty stores?"

I'll leave the snark lying right there. If you wish to make an argument, it often works better if you do it with evidence rather than innuendo.

"I'm a small town boy. Sounds corny, but I just don't associate Wal-morts with real, small town life."

Wal-Mart doesn't generally go into small towns; not enough customer base. (A population of 10,000 is an order of magnitude larger than a small town.)

"I really don't think anybody does."

Yeah, nobody from a small town, medium-sized town, or large town will buy from Wal-Mart. That's why they're going out of business.

Posted by: Doug Sundseth at January 17, 2006 12:24 PM

Damn trains killed off the stagecoach industry. Environmentally sustainable, flexible routes, only a fortnight to the Californ-eye-ay gold fields - now there was a transportation infrastructure.

Posted by: Lileks at January 17, 2006 12:35 PM

"The entire piece is written as a screed against government involvement or regulation in the operation of a "free" market."
---------------
To the contrary, it is a reasoned argument objecting to government interference in free ENTERPRISE at the expense of taxpayers and low-skilled workers alike. There's a difference. The liberals in Maryland, not unlike in Minnesota, resent Wal-Mart earning business away from their tony little shops and coffee klatches, which is their cottage industry and the nexus of political interests between party contributions and business zoning laws. It's nothing more complicated than that.

Wal-Mart built a better business, not just for its customers but for its employees, and in doing so has revealed and embarrassed the liberal political elite, who are not only now losing money to Wal-Mart, but the low-skilled, low-cost workers they themselves have exploited for generations, and who are, according to the law of supply and demand, now becoming the customers, employees, and shareholders of the largest retail enterprise in the universe.

Where your argument works, Doug, is in the profit motive of the State, which, for instance, here in Minnesota, has resulted in a $1 billion surplus in government coffers which would otherwise belong to the people who build and frequent local businesses engaged in free enterprise, in which even Wal-Mart, like the local hardware store, has every right to compete -- just not in Maryland, where the liberal elite is simply protecting its political and financial turf, the market and the people be damned.

It is, in fact, the very arguments liberals make for higher taxes, increased government regulation, and expanding public assistance programs that give rise to the Wal-Mart phenomenon in the first place. Without the ancien regime of liberal, socialist government constantly seizing ever higher percentages of personal income, routinely restricting the expansion of free enterprise, and endlessly providing unearned financial assistance to those who either do not contribute or who are themselves amassing fortunes as State employees, there would be no niche for Wal-Mart to fill.

"Always Low Prices" is the motto upon which Sam Walton built his business -- because the market demanded it. And, just as the market demands today's dual-income households to comfortably raise a family, it has not been the rise of free enterprise which created that need, but the unmitigated expansion of government into the lives of both producers and consumers alike.

Caveat Emptor.

Posted by: Eracus at January 17, 2006 12:46 PM

"and who are, according to the law of supply and demand, now becoming the customers, employees, and shareholders of the largest retail enterprise in the universe."

Whoa! Wait a minute! I think the Zoid-Mart chain of the Muzkadepian Empire in the Orion Nebula has a legitimate claim to being the largest retail enterprise in the universe. And their Zork cakes are to die for.

Posted by: Ryan at January 17, 2006 12:54 PM

PB put forth this clunker: "Certain industries (The airlines, telecommunications) have suffered from deregulation becuase the supposed goal (competition) lost out to monopoly seeking. They either cut their own throats (the airlines) or simply gobbled each other up (the telco's), and it is the consumer who lost in the end."

Really? When was the last time you paid $3/min (in 1970 money) for long distance? Do you remember what it was like before deregulation with the government deciding who should pay for access, who should pay what "share" for which services, how much the profit magin should be (which drove up costs simply because you were always assured a return)? Things are consolidating in the telecom space, but when was the last time you saw a local government grant two cable licenses to a geographical area? How about the method the government chose of spinning off the infrastructure to specific companies rather than letting it be used by all since it was paid for by the taxpayer? There are a great many problems in the telecom area, but most of them return to government meddling.

You can make the argument that not all the benefits possible have been achieved, but to say that consumers lost in the end is deception of the first order. You're paying less in real dollars for the services of both of those industries than you would have had the policy of regulation been maintained. Heck, the legacy airlines are slowly being choked out by their lower cost (and mostly non-union) competitors.

And as to "Smoking bans are unfair if not regionally enacted." Did anyone not see that coming? Tell me, how regionally do you think it should be? City wide? Nope, it seems that wasn't enough. How about county wide? Nope, still not enough, they're still voting with their feet. Now it's gotta be state wide, eh? And if that fails, will your region expand to the nation?

Posted by: nerdbert at January 17, 2006 01:11 PM

Personally, I would be happy with a statewide smoking ban. As for the rest of the nation, it's moving that directon on its own (i.e. D.C., Chicago, Washington state, etc.).

Posted by: Bob from ALAMN at January 17, 2006 01:43 PM

Here is an article about how "The Evil Empire" does business. Wal-morts costs jobs.

http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/77/walmart.html

Posted by: jackscrow at January 17, 2006 01:46 PM

"Heck, the legacy airlines are slowly being choked out by their lower cost (and mostly non-union) competitors."

Nerdbert, SSSHHHHH! I fly Sun Country to Florida for about $200 roundtrip direct. We wouldn't want NWA buying them up with all that capital they have laying around.
Oh if only there were regulation so that ticket could go for $800 like in the good old days.

Posted by: Kermit at January 17, 2006 01:46 PM

As an elitist snob, I have to agree with PB. Flying was so much better in the days of regulation when tickets were too expensive for the common folk who now clog up the flights. I pine for the days when their kind knew their proper place. In steerage or on Greyhound.

Posted by: the elder at January 17, 2006 01:50 PM

"Wal-morts costs jobs."

Oh, my. A company is forcing its suppliers to lower their prices. How shall we ever cope?

I trust that you never try to argue down the prices of the cars you buy, because that's exactly the same thing writ small.

Am I glad that the railroads (occasionally) lay off firemen? Of course; they are no longer producing value commensurate with their cost. Losing jobs is crucially important; it's the result of increasing efficiency.

The concept you need is "relative advantage", and our relative advantage isn't in easily transportable, low skill jobs. If you have one of those, you'd best find a more valuable skill.

Posted by: Doug Sundseth at January 17, 2006 02:00 PM

Wow, once again, Chad misses the entire point and focuses ONLY on HIS concern.

First, Chad, the issue is that deregulation led to FEWER not more national airlines and thus LESS not MORE competition.

Second, it lead to HIGHER not lower prices from more remote airports that is, if a flight can now be had at all.

But hey, pop off on things you apparently don't understand all you want. Tout the tremendous service which exists in our "discount" airlines, and then please go book a ticket from Butte to Montgomery, let me know how many hubs you'll go through and the price, as well as the VAST number of flights per day. The reality is airlines used big passenger lines (Chicago to LA) to fund access to remote areas. They no longer do so, because in part they have driven each other into the ground, and in part because the pure motive is profit, rather than service.

The upshot though of the first point is that because there are SO few national airlines now, there is essentially no competition. Sure, you can get an inexpensive flight to Phoenix, but since discount carriers have little interest in less profitable lines, getting one to Calgary is just not possible. The upshot is you have to deal with 1 or 2 (maybe) airlines who can get you there in something under 6 hours, you'll pay through the nose for it, and get lousey service.

So deregulation, unless you live in big cities, on profitable routes, or are able to get through a hub in only one jump, has been BAD for the consumer, not good, and certainly has been horrid for competition.

Posted by: pb at January 17, 2006 02:19 PM

I agree with Lileks... bring back the stagecoaches, and pony express, and maybe those Nickelodians, too.

Wal*Mart is evil?!?!?! Rubbish! You kids weren't around when those new Ben Franklin's opened up around town... they killed the local businesses back before you thought it was fashionable.

And those damn Fridgidare folks put the ice man out of business! And I LIKED walking down to town with to fetch a 30 pound block of ice on my back. Good for my rhumatism. Who's gonna take care of old Tommy the ice man... and who's gonna make me walk hunched over like Charles Laughton?

Posted by: badda-blogger at January 17, 2006 02:32 PM

BTW, Butte-Montgomery

2 airlines, Delta at $667 (with a 14 day advance) or Alaska Airlines at $1406.

Also, Chad, bear in mind that FOR YEARS major carriers relied upon high ticket prices charged to business class travellers to fund your "low cost" ticket. Since 9/11, most businesses have figured out that they don't really NEED to travel, which is, far more than fuel costs, the reason the airlines are in trouble, and Oh BTW, using the courts to allow them to lever Bankruptcy (with pro-business judges presiding) to destroy labor's power - whether or not they could remain solvent with a negotiated position.

So "business" subsidized through defacto agreements among airlines (despite deregulation) making coach class seating cheaper. That model is dead, and with it, the solvency of "cheap tickets" except on highly profitable, high volume routes. Good luck on your cheap tickets in the future after the current spate of Bankruptcy/take-over ends. As you can see from the Butte example, it costs more to go from Montana to Alabama, than it does from Mpls to Honnalulu.

Tell me Chad, where is the competition for rust belt cities, secondary cites, etc.. oh, yeah, it's all about the almight dollar, and screw everyone else. That's the point, sometimes we do things for the common interest... and your cheap seats were a fiction in the first place.

What I fully understand is that companies MUST make money, that's a big part of their reason, and the most important part of their reason, to exist. What seemingly none of you get is the idea that communities do certain things for the COMMON GOOD, including working with industries to provide services to otherwise unserviced areas (or building adequate flood walls). Private industries have no incentive to do so on their own, what they will do is seek profit, allowing the infrastructure to crumble and let others worry about "sustainability" or being good corporate citizens. Not ALL, but many, and certainly that has been the case in the airline industry. So again, while I recognize the counter need to achieve profits, you all seem oblivious to the impacts of unfettered monopolism (your economonic model).

Posted by: pb at January 17, 2006 02:35 PM

Doug S.,

"I trust that you never try to argue down the prices of the cars you buy, because that's exactly the same thing writ small."

Nope. Don't buy new cars. My old jeeps serve me well. Never will have a car payment, and I have a pretty good income to debt ratio, as the only thing I owe on is my land.

I'm not sure you read the whole article, but evidently the long-term effects of jobs moving offshore don't seem to bother you.

Ever been to Bethlehem, PA? It's making a little bit of a comeback, now. Nothing like the sight of a couple hundred acres of rusty steel buildings to brighten your day, I guess.

"Losing jobs is crucially important; it's the result of increasing efficiency."

Maybe someday you'll be the "fireman".

Hummm, if there is a layoff is in your future, a stint a Wendy's might do you good, and if you practice what you preach, you'll move up to that night manager job real quick.

I remember a song that said: "My job moved all the way to China, seems route 50 takes you there...."

If everything is eventually sales and service jobs with no manufacturing.... that $1.49 gallon of Wal-mort orange juice may be the extent of your consumption.

Posted by: jackscrow at January 17, 2006 02:49 PM

Anyone else agree that the seriousness of an argument is inversely proportional to the number of words typed in all caps?

Posted by: Thorley Winston at January 17, 2006 02:51 PM

Ah, yes, the coveted Butte-Montgomery route. Many is the day I shook my fists in fury that I couldn't afford the Butte-Montgomery route.

Then again, I shake my fists in fury at pretty much anything.

*shaking fists*

Posted by: Ryan at January 17, 2006 02:53 PM

Me: "I trust that you never try to argue down the prices of the cars you buy, because that's exactly the same thing writ small."

jackscrow: "Nope. Don't buy new cars. My old jeeps serve me well. Never will have a car payment, and I have a pretty good income to debt ratio, as the only thing I owe on is my land."

I said nothing about "new cars"; you can look here, in my original comment, or in your quote of my original comment. And the resale value of a vehicle (or whatever) affects the original value as well. Your response is, well, nonresponsive.

"I'm not sure you read the whole article, but evidently the long-term effects of jobs moving offshore don't seem to bother you."

"Encourage", yes; "bother", no, not so much.

"Ever been to Bethlehem, PA? It's making a little bit of a comeback, now. Nothing like the sight of a couple hundred acres of rusty steel buildings to brighten your day, I guess."

Strawman; no response necessary.

"Maybe someday you'll be the 'fireman'."

Maybe. I now work for a multi-nat; the issue has come up, and I expect it to come up again. Right now, my division is more expensive per hour and less expensive per unit of output, though. Relative advantage, don't you know.

"Hummm, if there is a layoff is in your future, a stint a Wendy's might do you good, and if you practice what you preach, you'll move up to that night manager job real quick."

I've worked fast-food before. Are you implying that working in fast-food is somehow morally suspect? You'd better keep that attitude well hidden; I'd hate for Doug to spit in your Chili. (Yes, this isn't an argument either, but it seemed appropriate to the tone of the discussion.)

"I remember a song that said: 'My job moved all the way to China, seems route 50 takes you there....'"

Was that supposed to be an argument?

"If everything is eventually sales and service jobs with no manufacturing.... that $1.49 gallon of Wal-mort orange juice may be the extent of your consumption."

Strawman; no response necessary.

Posted by: Doug Sundseth at January 17, 2006 03:20 PM

We know two things, now: you've never been to Bethlehem, PA, and you know how to spell "strawman".

Posted by: jackscrow at January 17, 2006 03:33 PM

Kermit said,

"Gee Doug, I thought you said you worked in retail. Can I get some fries with that?"

I did say I worked in retail. I didn't say I worked at Wendy's. I also said people probably spit in your Chili when you eat at wendy's because, in my humble opinion, you certainly come across as a condescending arrogant prick.

Hope that clarifies it for you.

Posted by: Doug at January 17, 2006 03:39 PM

"you certainly come across as a condescending arrogant prick. "

Well, there's the pot calling the kettle a black prick.

Posted by: Del at January 17, 2006 03:52 PM

Oh, I don't know, Doug. Between yourself, Angryclown, jackscrow and, of course, the one and only (thank God) PB, you pretty much seem to have the market cornered on condescending, arrogant pricks. And, seeing as how you have such an unfair market share in that regard, I'm sure you think some form of government regulation is in order.

Posted by: Ryan at January 17, 2006 03:57 PM

PB: "Since 9/11, most businesses have figured out that they don't really NEED to travel..."

That has something to do with the cost of telecommunications decreasing so much, as well as computing power becoming so great. Technology is causing a disruptive change, but it often does.

"Oh BTW, using the courts to allow them to lever Bankruptcy (with pro-business judges presiding) to destroy labor's power - whether or not they could remain solvent with a negotiated position."

Let's take the examples of NWA and Southwest. NWA: unions, high pension liabilities. SWA: 401(k), nonunion. NWA: hostile takeover, high debt costs, poor labor relations. SWA: very low costs, profit sharing, good employee relations. NWA: old model, going down the tubes. SWA: new model, growing like mad, profitable for both owners and employees. Give me a choice and I'd be working for SWA over NWA.

Non-union airlines with more flexible work rules competing at a disadvantage are beating the legacy carriers and you're surprised. Those startups have a very hard time getting gates and whenever they do enter a market the legacy carriers use their other routes to subsidize competition. And yet the newcomers still win, forcing the legacy carriers into bankruptcy.

"...it costs more to go from Montana to Alabama, than it does from Mpls to Honnalulu."

I see, and this violates your sense of fairness and that's why it's wrong? You view the fact that the volume of business and the ability of competition to drive a lower price is a bad thing! If there were enough business to make that Butte flight worthwhile for two carriers they'd probably do it. But there's not, so someone gets to be a monopoly.

"What seemingly none of you get is the idea that communities do certain things for the COMMON GOOD..."

No, we just don't view it as necessarily a good thing to meddle in the market and create artificial winners and losers. When you have a command economy you get the commanders winning and everyone else losing.

Last I checked, the price of doing business in Butte was pretty low. Low land costs, low taxes, low wages, etc. A business thinking about locating there can balance that out with how much it'll cost them to fly in and out of town and think about whether to move there. Your proposal is that everybody who doesn't live in Butte should subsidize folks who want to travel there, correct?

Posted by: nerdbert at January 17, 2006 04:00 PM

Doug Sundseth said,

"Yeah, I couldn't let that go past either. Precisely why should anyone pay a premium for those skills? What value do they add to your labor for any company?"

Funny... I don't recall saying what my specific skills are. I only mentioned what I have a degree in.

Considering that I graduated from College nearly 25 years ago and have been at least successful enough to be able to walk away from an $80,000 a year job to spend time with my family, I would say, yeah, my education and my degree have served me pretty well.

Posted by: Doug at January 17, 2006 04:07 PM

ROTFLMAO!

Doug says: "you certainly come across as a condescending arrogant prick."

Followed by Doug crowing: "Considering that I graduated from College nearly 25 years ago and have been at least successful enough to be able to walk away from an $80,000 a year job to spend time with my family, I would say, yeah, my education and my degree have served me pretty well."

Dude, your Wendy's chili must simply be burbling to the brim with all manner of human discharges with the arrogance, condescension and chest puffing buffoonery you have on display here. Comedy-frickin'-GOLD!

Posted by: Ryan at January 17, 2006 04:17 PM

Ryan... Go back and read a few of the responses to me...

"Gee Doug, I thought you said you worked in retail. Can I get some fries with that?"

"Anyone else get the sense Doug is a tad bitter aboust wasting all that time and money on a meaningless degree"

"Precisely why should anyone pay a premium for those skills? What value do they add to your labor for any company?"

Now, the fact is, I was able to change careers and take a huge pay cut to do what I believe was the best thing for me and my family. I also don't believe as your comrades suggest that my degree and education was a waste.

If you believe that me defending setting the record straight about my decisions is arrogant, condescending and chest puffing buffoonery, then you need to invest in a dictionary.

Posted by: Doug at January 17, 2006 04:37 PM

jackscrow: "We know two things, now: you've never been to Bethlehem, PA, and you know how to spell 'strawman'."

Oh, we know more than that, surely. Among other things, we know that you can't make or respond to a non-fallacious argument.

And that you've never been to Pittsburgh (or are willing to ignore the obvious counter-example).

Posted by: Doug Sundseth at January 17, 2006 04:37 PM

"Funny... I don't recall saying what my specific skills are. I only mentioned what I have a degree in."

You adduced your degree as evidence of your competence. Now you wish us to consider it as irrelevant to your actual competence.

I think I'll let that stand on its own.

Posted by: Doug Sundseth at January 17, 2006 04:41 PM

Man, I always thought PB was a Cities local ... I might have to rethink my forthcoming move to Butte, MT, although it still is my favorite city ever. (Helps that all the Wolds there are family.)

And, for what it's worth, why should flying from Butte to Alabama be cheap? What is cheap, exactly? If a boatload of folks wanted to make that trip frequently I guarantee some airline would find a way to make it happen and at a much lower cost. Since that's not the case, it won't be like flying from Minneapolis to Chicago. Nor should it be.

Steve

Posted by: Steve3 at January 17, 2006 04:42 PM

I find it fascinating to see PB arguing that it is wrong for deregulation to harm the unions while jackscrow is presenting us with the pitiful sight that is Bethlehem, PA.

How 'bout them unions, eh?

The problem with monopolies is that they're hard to maintain. That's true for airlines, it's true for steel manufacturers, and it's true for unions, too.

Posted by: Doug Sundseth at January 17, 2006 04:46 PM

"If you believe that me defending setting the record straight about my decisions is arrogant, condescending and chest puffing buffoonery, then you need to invest in a dictionary."

Oh, please, Doug. Serve it on toast. Whereas you could have gotten by just fine by saying: "My degree has, in fact, served me well enough in the past where I was at a point I could endure a pay cut to spend time with my family," you treat us to your storied 25 year career history, complete with $80,000 salary. It read like you were expecting the gallery to erupt into applause as you performed a flourishing bow. Chest puffing? Check. Arrogance? Check. Condescension? Checkeroo.

Not that I personally have a problem with arrogance, condescension and chest puffing in general (we've all dabbled in one or more at some point). It's just that seeing you paste those labels on others whilst the same labels practically waft off you like Polo cologne off an old dude, well, I find that just entirely too funny.

Posted by: Ryan at January 17, 2006 04:58 PM

Doug S. said,

"You adduced your degree as evidence of your competence."

I did nothing of the sort. I cited my education and experience in response to Kermits assertion that if you work in retail, you are a low-skilled worker and all that is required to work there is the ability to push carts and scan barcodes.

In addition, you questioned why anyone would pay a premium for my skills after I mentioned what my education was in.

Again, you don't know what my skills are. All you have to go by is what I was educated in 25 years ago.

And for the record Doug, they do pay a premium for my skills.

Posted by: Doug at January 17, 2006 05:05 PM

"Again, you don't know what my skills are. All you have to go by is what I was educated in 25 years ago. "

You a riddle wrapped in an enigma. Duly noted.

It's just you're the one who kicked off this rather long thread with an odd mention of Wal-Mart on the way to an argument best summed up as "I know you are but what am I?", apparently thinking that citing "Iraq" counted as support.

Posted by: mitch at January 17, 2006 05:19 PM

Ryan, did you fail reading comprehension?

I mentioned 25 years because Doug S. suggested that what I studied in College equalled what my current skills are. After 25 years, I've developed a few skills above and beyond what I had back then.

And storied career history? Please detail for the class how me mentioning that I graduated 25 years ago becomes a "storied career history"?

And I mentioned the $80,000 to illustrate the extreems I went to to do what was best for my family and to illustrate the difference between then and now.

If I were concerned with the money and were the type that needed to flaunt my income, I would have stayed where I was. That's the point putz.

Posted by: Doug at January 17, 2006 05:30 PM

Ryan requested: "Oh, please, Doug. Serve it on toast."

Haha! I bet that's one of your cute Minnesota expressions like "Darn tootin'!" and "You betcha!" Man, that "Fargo" was one of the best documentaries ever!

"Serve it on toast!"

Posted by: angryclown at January 17, 2006 07:07 PM

I wish someone could make movies this funny.

Steve3 made the most cogent point on this thread IMHO:
And, for what it's worth, why should flying from Butte to Alabama be cheap? What is cheap, exactly? If a boatload of folks wanted to make that trip frequently I guarantee some airline would find a way to make it happen and at a much lower cost. Since that's not the case, it won't be like flying from Minneapolis to Chicago. Nor should it be.
Exactly.
Next: Doug.

Posted by: Kermit at January 17, 2006 07:12 PM

Badda blogger apple-polished: "I agree with Lileks..."

"Can I carry your books for you, Mr. Lileks?"

Posted by: angryclown at January 17, 2006 07:12 PM

Now for Doug.
"I did say I worked in retail. I didn't say I worked at Wendy's. I also said people probably spit in your Chili when you eat at wendy's because, in my humble opinion, you certainly come across as a condescending arrogant prick."

I find your interest in food adulteration somewhat disturbing. Assuming you Don't work a Wendy's (or MacDonalds or the Polish Palace), I can probably assume that at when visiting the retail establishment that is dubiously honored with your good-natured self you would be the person standing in back trying desperately to ignore the inconvenient customer looking for service.

Ryan... Go back and read a few of the responses to me...

"Gee Doug, I thought you said you worked in retail. Can I get some fries with that?"

"Anyone else get the sense Doug is a tad bitter aboust wasting all that time and money on a meaningless degree"

"Precisely why should anyone pay a premium for those skills? What value do they add to your labor for any company?

If three people are telling you you have a tail, you should look over your shoulder at your ass.

Doug S. said,

"You adduced your degree as evidence of your competence."

Just keep telling yourself that. Eveytime you hear "Doug, gather carts in the parking lot" over the store's intercom.

"I mentioned 25 years because Doug S. suggested that what I studied in College equalled what my current skills are. After 25 years, I've developed a few skills above and beyond what I had back then."

Everyone is duely impressed. But then, we are all arrogant pricks.

Posted by: Kermit at January 17, 2006 07:30 PM

Hey Clown,
You really have to stop listening to A Prairie Home Companion. For one thing Lake Woebegone is NOT REAL. And Garrison Keillor is NOT FUNNY.
There are no Powdermilk Biscuits, either. I hope I didn't shatter any illusions...

Posted by: Kermit at January 17, 2006 07:34 PM

Good lord Mitch, any other hornets nests you can stick your finger into? (This must be a hoot for you! 58 responses.)

I must say, that all of you amuse me greatly. Every day I get up and go to work at 6am. I'm usually not done until 6 to 7 pm. Reading this blog has become a daily habit...a pleasant, addictive habit that has brought me to wonder if all of you really live your life like you present yourselves?

You banter with an emotive vocabulary which puts poor carpenters like me (*who still spell check*)to shame.

Thank's to all of you for providing literary fodder for my continue journalistic evolution.

Why do all of you respond to Mitch's blog? Before you all answer this, and set a new response record to Mitch's blog, let me tell you why I have started to read this blog. I went to high school with Mitch. He is one of the few people that has transcended the mediocre of one's life, to that of one grabbing onto excellence. (and no Mitch it's not due to your "right" leanings)....(well, maybe it is)

Excellence, or at least the pursuit of it, has a funny way of being noticed.

It caught my attention.

I hope that all of you are in the pursuit of excellence in your lives, if not get off you ass and get busy.

And oh by the way Mitch, keep it up.

Carpie Diem

Posted by: chris at January 17, 2006 07:45 PM

One correction is in order; Southwest Airlines is entirely unionized. The difference is that the union and the management at Southwest have enough sense to grasp that nothing good will come without consistent profitability, and thus have worked together to that end. The other major carriers have generally had incompetent management and unions, if one defines competency as achieving consistent profitability, and bankruptcy laws have allowed them to avoid liquidation and resdistribution of assets, which is the best cure for incompetent management and labor. Montgomery Wards no longer exists. Unfortunately, Northwest Airlines and it's unions still do.

Also, no, pb, you don't have the legitimate right to force people to subsidize your airfare from Butte to Montgomery, anymore than you have the right to force people to subsidize your desire to have new episodes of "The West Wing" produced for broadcast seven nights a week. Why should someone who lives in Chicago, and needs to fly to Houston, pay more in order to serve your needs?

If having cheap fares is a priority for you, move to a major city that isn't dominated by major carrier. If more airlines and their unions went Chapter 7, and the assets were re-distributed to management and labor which knew that chapter 7 awaited them in short order, without consistent profitability, the list of such cities would grow quite a bit.

Posted by: Will Allen at January 17, 2006 09:46 PM

Kermit said,

"I can probably assume that at when visiting the retail establishment that is dubiously honored with your good-natured self you would be the person standing in back trying desperately to ignore the inconvenient customer looking for service."

Well, you would most definately be wrong unless you were the customer in which case I would be standing back trying desperately not to laugh out loud at your mullet and handlebar moustache.

"If three people are telling you you have a tail, you should look over your shoulder at your ass."

Golly... three people on a conservative blog site commenting on something they know nothing about... yup, there's a real persuasive argument there Kermit.

"Just keep telling yourself that. Eveytime you hear "Doug, gather carts in the parking lot" over the store's intercom."

My job description doesn't include gathering carts. I do it because it needs to be done and I, unlike yourself don't judge the value of a person based on the job they have.

BTW, trying to insult me with comments about the type of work I've chosen to do really isn't going to bother me. You're just confirming my earlier accusation that you are an elitist snob.

"Everyone is duely impressed. But then, we are all arrogant pricks."

Where did you get the "we"? No, no, no... Perhaps you didn't understand. I said YOU.

I can see why you were confused though.

You see... you said "everyone is duely impressed."

Again, you've included yourself in a plurality that doesn't seem to exist. Maybe YOU were impressed but no one else seems to share your zeal for my accomplishments. That's not real surprising since I wasn't attempting to impress, merely relay the fact that over the past 25 years, I've acquired some specific skills.

So what's that about Kermit? Why the desperate need to convince others that you're really part of a group? Are you that insecure that you have to make up friends?

Sad. Very sad.

Posted by: Doug at January 17, 2006 11:08 PM

Doug said, well, not much, actually. I did like the mullet and handlebar moustache line though. It shows that Doug is Definately not an elitist snob.
But I can enjoy some satisfation in the knowledge that when I go to work I don't have to wear a nametag.
Now go straighten and face some merchandise, you lowly clerk.

Posted by: Kermit at January 18, 2006 08:03 AM

This debate about Doug's degree is, um, fascinating.

It's much easier, I suppose, than discussing the article (which was dead-on in all respects), and its implications in the Twin Cities.

Which was what the original post (remember that?) was about.

(And yes, Doug, you do come across as an elitist. The inevitable "Pot, meet kettle" is acknowledged and rejected in advance.)

Posted by: mitch at January 18, 2006 08:11 AM

Kermit boasted: "But I can enjoy some satisfation in the knowledge that when I go to work I don't have to wear a nametag."

Cause it's sewn into your shirt, silly! Now check the pressure in my tires, would ya Kerm?

Posted by: angryclown at January 18, 2006 08:12 AM

Both of them?

Posted by: Kermit at January 18, 2006 08:36 AM

Should I adjust the chain and tighten the peddles too?

Posted by: Kermit at January 18, 2006 08:37 AM

Kerm, your initial response was brilliantly concise. I'll assume the follow-up is a recognition that not everyone here would get the joke.

A+ downgraded to A- for making the same joke twice. But a nice effort, Kermit.

Posted by: angryclown at January 18, 2006 08:53 AM

I was gonna throw in something about a new bell, but you're right. Less is more.

Posted by: Kermit at January 18, 2006 08:59 AM

Is there such a thing as "better blather?" Is that even possible?

Posted by: nathan bissonette at January 18, 2006 09:04 AM

I'm without Internet at home, so I'm late in responding, but I have to throw something back in Angryclown's face. Re: "Serve it on toast."

"Haha! I bet that's one of your cute Minnesota expressions like "Darn tootin'!" and "You betcha!" Man, that "Fargo" was one of the best documentaries ever!"

For those with a familiarity with the television show "Cheers," you'll know that the phrase "serve it on toast" was a line said by Lilith to Fraser in the episode where Fraser encountered his ex-wife, who was a children's singer. So, Angryclown, no, it's not a cute Minnesota expression. It's an expression borne from a television series based in. . . BOSTON.

All of which is way beyond the original point of Mitch's post, but I always like to point out Angryclown's misguided and uninformed prejudices about the Midwest and red states in general.

Posted by: Ryan at January 18, 2006 09:06 AM

AC: "Cause it's sewn into your shirt, silly! Now check the pressure in my tires, would ya Kerm?"

Kerm: "Both of them?"

Kermit, given him one fewer tire than is appropriate given his behavior: I'd suggest a tricycle is more appropriate.

Posted by: nerdbert at January 18, 2006 09:54 AM

Subtle hint, phrased in the form of a question: "Q: How can you tell when Angryclown is ribbing people, and then laughing like a hyena at the consternation it causes?" "A: His fingers are moving over a keyboard".

Just saying.

Posted by: mitch at January 18, 2006 10:24 AM

My take: the gist of the argument made in the article was that Liberals tend to advocate feel-good solutions to problems without fully considering the long-term effects of those solutions. Quotes from the article supporting my interpretation of it:

“Although the motivation of the liberals was to raise the well-being of Wal-Mart workers, it is far from clear that this will be the consequence.”

“I wish you would see that motives matter less than consequences.”

“I think that they would have less smug satisfaction if they considered how this actually is likely to play out.”

In the above comments, we got hung up debating the merits of Wal-Mart itself instead of the new legislation, but the Wal-Mart example was just that – an example of a short-sighted, feel-good law passed from emotion to address an immediate concern without considering the long-term consequences.

Another example would be the Luxury Tax fiasco. Some of us may recall when Congress taxed expensive cars, boats and airplanes. Liberals like Ted Kennedy gloated about soaking the rich and spending the extra tax money to help the little guy. Except it didn’t work. Rich people are rich; they’re not stupid. Why pay an extra $100,000 tax on your million-dollar yacht? Why not buy it in Italy and sail it home, tax-free? Yacht builders in Massachusetts laid off thousands of “little guys.” Repeal of the luxury tax was spearheaded by – you guessed it, Ted Kennedy – to help the little guy, again.

Kling (the writer of the linked-to article that started this discussion) isn’t the first person to notice that feel-good solutions don’t always work out in the long run. A dead white guy named Fred wrote about it 150 years ago:

“In the economic sphere an act, a habit, an institution, a law produces not only one effect, but a series of effects. Of these effects, the first alone is immediate; it appears simultaneously with its cause; it is seen. The other effects emerge only subsequently; they are not seen; we are fortunate if we foresee them.

There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: the bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen.

Yet this difference is tremendous; for it almost always happens that when the immediate consequence is favorable, the later consequences are disastrous, and vice versa. Whence it follows that the bad economist pursues a small present good that will be followed by a great evil to come, while the good economist pursues a great good to come, at the risk of a small present evil.”

It seems to me that Mitch probably linked to Kling’s article as a comment on the St. Paul City Council’s ideas on banning smoking. I speculate that Mitch was hinting that the smoking ban was another Liberal feel-good solution, an idea that sounds as if it will be good in the short run but will cause harm in the long run, much like the Wal-Mart health insurance law, or the luxury tax.

It was my impression that the very first commenter - Doug - missed the point of the linked-to article, and also missed the subtle argument connecting the point of the linked-to article with the St. Paul City Council’s smoking ban, in favor of a quip about Iraq. Nothing in the subsequent comments changed that impression.

But I concede it’s possible that I have a short attention span and don’t understand things, which may explain why the quality of my blather isn’t better. Sorry about that.
.

Posted by: nathan bissonette at January 18, 2006 10:33 AM

Nerdbreath: The three-wheel refinement to Kerm's joke is very good. I'm guessing you took your ritalin today.

Ryan: To Angryclown, Boston, like Minnesota, is just another place where the people talk funny.

Posted by: angryclown at January 18, 2006 10:42 AM

I'd suggest a tricycle is more appropriate.

Posted by nerdbert at January 18, 2006 09:54 AM

I must bow to my superior. The image of an Angryclown on a tricycle is far superior to mine.
Keep the bell, however.

Posted by: Kermit at January 18, 2006 10:43 AM

“It seems to me that Mitch probably linked to Kling’s article as a comment on the St. Paul City Council’s ideas on banning smoking. I speculate that Mitch was hinting that the smoking ban was another Liberal feel-good solution, an idea that sounds as if it will be good in the short run but will cause harm in the long run, much like the Wal-Mart health insurance law, or the luxury tax.”

Good point, although I would suggest that proponents of the smoking ban (at least the intellectually honest ones) would argue that even if there is harm caused to bars and restaurants because of a drop in business (although that point’s debatable), it’s outweighed by the savings in health care expenses attributed to smoking in a relatively confined area.

However I think these claims are complicated by at least two factors.

First, because we know from studies challenging the “multiplier effect” of taxpayer-funded sports stadiums, that consumers substitute spending on one form of entertainment for another, it’s very likely that even though some bars and restaurants are seeing a drop in receipts because of smoking bans (although some proponents of the ban have claimed that in California, these tend to pick up in the long run as more non-smokers begin to go to places they previously avoided because they allowed smoking) that these dollars are being spent on other forms of entertainment. In other words, smokers who quit going to bars and restaurants may be spending more of their entertainment dollars on things like video rentals or food delivery.

Second, it’s difficult to determine which health care costs attributed to smokers who smoke in bars and restaurants are caused by smoking as opposed to other lifestyle choices that might be common among those who frequent these places such as lack of exercise, improper diets, drinking alcohol, etc.

Finally, it goes without saying that while there are certainly health care costs that can be directly linked to an individual’s decision to smoke (e.g. pulmonary and respiratory illness), those costs are at least somewhat mitigated by other factors such as shorter life spans (lower expenditures on pensions, Social Security, shorter stays in nursing homes, and illnesses related to old age) and higher insurance premiums paid by smokers.

So I guess it all boils down to whether you think that weighing the costs and benefits of these choices should be the decision of the individual (free market) or government.

Posted by: Thorley Winston at January 18, 2006 11:34 AM

"So I guess it all boils down to whether you think that weighing the costs and benefits of these choices should be the decision of the individual (free market) or government."

A good capsule description of the DFL. Free market bad. Government good.

Posted by: nathan bissonette at January 18, 2006 03:38 PM

A copuple of points through all this fun, first Fargo while set it Minnesota, uses Fargo NORTH DAKOTA accents ours here in the more southern part of the state are different from the Northwest which in turn are different from the Northeastern part of the state. Brainard where the movie is primarily focused does have regional accent but it is different from a fargo accent.

Secondly Doug in his claims of moral superioirty about leaving a high paying job to work for 1/3 of what he used to make. Doug if your skills are so profound surely you can do better than that and still work reasonable, flexible hours to provide for your family. And how's the health care and retirement at those wages. I would hope you are not depending on the company provided pension.

Dave

Posted by: Dave at January 18, 2006 04:31 PM

Dave, I would recommend Doug contact Andy Willoughby about the Three Step Plan. He could work from home, spend all his time with his family, and never have to deal with elitist snobs sporting mullets and handlebar moustaches ever again.
Gloriosky! Wouldn't that be just Swell.

Posted by: Kermit at January 18, 2006 06:22 PM

Dave said,

"Secondly Doug in his claims of moral superioirty about leaving a high paying job to work for 1/3 of what he used to make."

I didn't claim moral superiority. I said I changed jobs to spend time with my family and took a 2/3 wage decrease to do it. If you feel morally inferior to me, that's your baggage - not mine.

Posted by: Douglas at January 18, 2006 09:43 PM

and just out of curiousity, is this just about the longest thread in SITD?

Just curious.

Posted by: Doug at January 18, 2006 09:55 PM

Excellent question, Doug.

Dave: Point well taken. There in Minneapolis, youse all sound like Hubert Humphrey.

Posted by: angryclown at January 19, 2006 07:37 AM

Doug: Not quite. The record is 142, for the post I wrote when I figured out who "Plain Layne" was. That number doesn't count about 25 comments that I deleted; the post kicked off a lot of detective work by a lot of very obsessed people, so I had to whack some personal information and a few threats.

http://www.shotinthedark.info/archives/003401.html

AC: People often say I sound like I'm from New York. Less so lately, but still.

Posted by: mitch at January 19, 2006 07:45 AM

I would be interested in assessing that claim in person one day, Mitch - I regret that I was out of town at the time of your last visit. On that subject, if you find yourself in NYC the last weekend in January, you'll be able to attend a gathering of people we both know.

Posted by: angryclown at January 19, 2006 08:19 AM

On a less serious note, I am struck by something I think is pretty interesting.

If a woman decides to change careers to spend time with her family, her decisions are applauded and recognized as a great thing but if a man, me, does the same thing - for the same reasons - he get's slammed.

I realize this is way off topic but why the double standard?

Posted by: Doug at January 19, 2006 08:48 AM

Cause you're posting to a blog frequented by rabid wingnuts who'll seize on any left-of-Darth-Vader post as an excuse to eat your face?

I'm just guessing here.

Posted by: angryclown at January 19, 2006 08:54 AM

Oh yeah... I forgot. Thanks AC.

Posted by: Doug at January 19, 2006 11:17 AM

AC,

I was actually on the ragged brink of being in Jersey the preceding week - an hour away - but it fell through. Give my regards.

Doug,

Your last question is actually an interesting one. Might have to use it.

Posted by: Meeyotch at January 19, 2006 11:36 AM

prosolution penis enlargement pill

Posted by: prosolution penis enlargement pill at January 27, 2006 09:08 AM

ROBOT play65 [url=http://www.bkgm.org/online-backgammon]play65[/url] No George put a little emotion into it A little hostility a little backgammon [url=http://www.bkgm.org/online-backgammon]backgammon[/url] where the grizzled gas attendant was waiting online backgammon [url=http://www.bkgm.org/online-backgammon]online backgammon[/url] As Marty got out of the car he noticed more flying cars busses even .

Posted by: play65 at May 3, 2006 06:03 AM

Posted by: Clark Boggart at May 3, 2006 05:32 PM

casinos note that he had given Suzy on the floor He leaned over and scooped it http://www.casinophiles.com casinos Mom how else are we gonna see the sunrise [URL=http://www.casinophiles.com] casinos[/URL] felt something brush against his foot and looked down to see the folded .

Posted by: casinos at October 23, 2006 11:53 AM