a reply to: Staroth
It IS possible to prevent prices of things going up, in response to wages increasing. What you do, is you make it known to companies that the cost of
those wage increases, is to be carried by the company, not the consumer. That's right, it comes out of the bottom line, not out of the consumers
pocket, and that is something that companies are going to have to just deal with, which should be an absolute cake walk in a nation where companies
like Walmart barely pay anything for their stock in the first place.
Look at milk, for example. I very much doubt that Walmart pays a proper fee per pint, to those who farm the cows, and milk them. They certainly do
not in Britain, under the name ASDA. Now, if the law treated the transaction between Walmart and its suppliers of milk, as Walmart basically paying a
wage, the wage per pint would have to be REALISTIC, but because it is a wage increase, Walmart could be FORCED to prevent any hint of that cost,
changing on the shelf. Of course, if people have a problem with solving the issues presented by corporate bodies being so powerful, that they can
screw their own employees and those who supply them as well, then I can see why there might be a difficulty getting something like this passed. But
people have to accept that any resistance to an idea such as I have just laid out, is tantamount to accepting that companies must have the right to
earn an unreasonably large bottom line, at the expense of the societies they operate within.
Society is more important than profit, more important than the government which serves it, more important than the concerns of wealthy individuals
who are fearing having their next yacht purchase endangered. The only thing that has ever mattered, or indicated that a society is healthy, is how
well the people who are least well off, are treated by the society itself. If those individuals who stack the shelves are in desperate poverty, which
many of them are, requiring government handouts of various sorts to get by, then you have a problem, a big one. In a capitalist economy, there can be
no excuse. Every person who has employment, should be able to live off the proceeds of their work, and the only people who should be paying that tab,
are companies who are in a position to loose a few digits on their bottom lines. Not consumers, not workers, but large scale employers.
That would make things a little more realistic, and promote more competition. Stores like Walmart rely on growth to sustain themselves, but they are
so huge and powerful, that they skew the markets in their favour, playing both ends at the cost of the middle. Frankly, I believe that any measure
which balances both the wages paid so that it matches cost of living, and locks the amount that can be charged by a company like Walmart or others,
for what amounts to essential things like milk, bread, cheese, vegetables and meat, will have a positive effect. However, being precious about
controlling the behaviour of such companies over some misguided fear of what political school such thinking issues from, will avail folk of no benefit
what so ever.
There are those who would disagree on principle. However, it must be clearly understood that disagreeing on principle does not change facts. The fact
is that without such changes as I have suggested, it will soon come to pass that working for a living, will change its name to working for no reason
other than to work, because no one will be making a living doing it, no matter how much of it they do, or how well they complete their daily toils.