Herman Cain: It's Your Fault if You're Unemployed

[Schneibster]

Why couldn't you take the meat to 170 or whatever after smoking it?

You could, but it wouldn't be biltong any longer, it would be some sort of smoked meat. Basically, the USDA decided that biltong was no longer legal in the U.S.

I'm not sure I would argue. There are plenty of things I would eat in a local restaurant run by someone I've been doing business with for years that I wouldn't buy on the Internet, simply because I would never be a real person to the dude on the other end of the wire.

If it was actually a food safety issue I wouldn't bitch,

But see, it is. The problem isn't you, it's the thirty five people other than you who screwed it up for everyone else. The problem isn't the government; it's not you. It's those thirty five other people. What I'm recommending is that you blame them for being greedy instead of blaming the government for preventing them from being greedy and fucking people over.

[Coito ergo sum]

Was there a rash of biltong safety issues?

[Jason]

That's why you need to get things in writing. If it's not in writing, the boss and you can always change the terms. The boss can add work to the job by saying "I need you to do this." You can say,"sorry boss, no my yob, mang." In which case he can say either, "o.k., fine," or "well, I don't need you anymore." Similarly, you can say after working there for 3 months, "boss, this is unreasonable work you have me doing, and I need to only do 80% of it..." and the boss can either say "o.k." or "no, keep doing all the work." You can then say "I quit."

Maybe in the Big Rock Candy Mountains, but in reality, the majority of employment contracts say 'other duties as assigned' or some such. This means that an employee can always be given more to do, and can like it or quit.

No business could run under those terms, but the proletariat are expected to.

That's because that's what they are getting paid for.

If the employment contracts of the majority of employers contains such a handy loophole (handy for the employer), what they're getting paid for is.. what again?

A day's work doing whatever the employer demands as quickly and efficiently as possible of course.

And you don't see a problem with that? If I'm hired as an electronics engineer for a firm and my boss tells me he really needs me to vacuum his office I'd tell him to sod off, and rightly so. What is the purpose of having a job description with such a clause as 'other duties assigned'? It's absurd, disrespectful, and outright abusive of the employed masses. I'm sure it serves the undeservedly rich quite well.

[Schneibster]

What did you do for us all that makes it worth our time to give you a tax credit? Or did you in fact receive some tax credits, and just never bothered to acknowledge them here (far more likely, IMO)?

Nothing, but I didn't claim to. I can't get a tax credit on foreign interest income like GE did, because I don't have a multi-billion dollar overseas operation. That's what the tax credit came from, not because they "did" something for the government.

Bush and the Republicans had their hands on the handles for six years, and the Republicans had their hands on the handles for six years while Clinton was in office, before that, too. '94 to '06, twelve years, and two years after that, as well, and since 2010. The tax rules that are being worked by GE were crafted then; why do you blame the Democrats? Because they didn't break the law and just rewrite the whole thing to fix the holes the GOP made?

C'mon, man.

Meanwhile, they're doing business overseas; in fact, that's something the government wants.

Oops. Missed that one, din't ya?

Yes, you do. First, you want money for nothing from my taxes. Second, you want to not have to deal with fussy regulations that keep you from going out of business due to being sued for making someone sick. Third, you want to be able to make a product that people get sick from and not have to ever know or worry about it.

Well, no, actually. I don't want any money from your taxes.

Sure you do. You just said so: you want the credits GE is getting. They're doing business overseas, something we want. Or anyway, something the GOP-run House and Senate wanted while Bush was President. You're not doing business overseas. Sounds like you want free money to me. Noticed you didn't mention the tax breaks you were getting as a small business, either.

I would certainly appreciate any money you spent on my products, but I don't think you should have to pay for anything other than that. As for fussy regulations, I tried to explain that in my previous post. My products didn't ever make anyone sick, because I was fanatically careful about sanitation. I realize not every company does that, particularly large corporations. Take Ford, for example. Easier to pay out for a few dead people than to fix the Pinto gas tank. I never looked at my customers like expendable wallets.

I will stipulate that you are not the problem, if you will stipulate that I never said you were. It was a hypothetical.

You wouldn't do it on purpose. But after they sued you, you'd sure bitch about how much they hated you and were fucking you over, and how evil the gummint was for making you pay their medical expenses, which you voted to make private and therefore your responsibility. And how the insurance companies were in a giant conspiracy to put you out of business, too. And never a fucking word about how they'd suffered due to your negligence.

I wouldn't bitch about it. If I hurt someone through my own negligence I'd do whatever I was able to do to rectify the situation. Not all business owners are selfish and greedy, though I've seen plenty that are. But that's why I carried product liability insurance, a 1/5 million policy, meaning 1 million to any single individual and a combined liability of 5 million for any specific incident.

My problem isn't with regulations per se, it's with unnecessary and ineffective regulation that do nothing to enhance public safety.

I would argue they do, and again, that you are not the problem but that the regulations must be made to ensure that those who are cannot screw up badly enough that they can't afford to pay for it.

[Coito ergo sum]

I agree with you PordFrefect. However, there is no need for government regulation of that. Electrical engineers are fully capable of saying no to office cleaning work.

If the employer wants to ask his engineers to do office cleaning, though, then he ought to be able to ask it. And, if he wants to hire engineers that double as office cleaners because the boss doesn't have enough engineering work for them, then why in the world would that be unlawful? Not every business ought to have to be the same, and just as laklak's business required people to multitask as he described, it's not a crime.

[Coito ergo sum]

What did you do for us all that makes it worth our time to give you a tax credit? Or did you in fact receive some tax credits, and just never bothered to acknowledge them here (far more likely, IMO)?

Nothing, but I didn't claim to. I can't get a tax credit on foreign interest income like GE did, because I don't have a multi-billion dollar overseas operation. That's what the tax credit came from, not because they "did" something for the government.

Bush and the Republicans had their hands on the handles for six years, and the Republicans had their hands on the handles for six years while Clinton was in office, before that, too. '94 to '06, twelve years, and two years after that, as well, and since 2010. The tax rules that are being worked by GE were crafted then; why do you blame the Democrats? Because they didn't break the law and just rewrite the whole thing to fix the holes the GOP made?

C'mon, man.

What deserves a "c'mon man" is that you totally absolve democrats as having any role in any of this. We have a Democrat President and Democrat controlled Senate today, and you place the blame squarely on the Republicans, who have a slim majority in the House. You ignore the time when Obama presided over a solidly Democrat House AND Senate. You blame the Republicans for 12 years of Reagan and Bush, but blame the Republicans for almost 11 years of Clinton/Obama. You blame Reagan in the 1980s, despite the Democrats' control of Congress during those years, and you give no recognition to the fact that the Democrats have controlled Congress for the majority of time since 1930, and controlled the Presidency for more than half of that time. I don't blame the Democrats exclusively, but if we listen to many liberals these days it's as if the Democrats were just innocent bystanders. I mean...c'mon, man!

Meanwhile, they're doing business overseas; in fact, that's something the government wants.

Oops. Missed that one, din't ya?

And, the Democrats have solved that how? By giving hundreds of millions of dollars to a Finnish company to manufacture automobiles in Finland?

My problem isn't with regulations per se, it's with unnecessary and ineffective regulation that do nothing to enhance public safety.

I would argue they do, and again, that you are not the problem but that the regulations must be made to ensure that those who are cannot screw up badly enough that they can't afford to pay for it.

Doesn't it depend on what the "they" is? Regulations are not universally wise. So, isn't the issue - is a particular regulation wise or effective? The mere fact that the political system resulted in a certain regulation is no indication of its wisdom or efficacy. At most it is an indication of its political expediency.

[MrJonno]

If an employer specifically choose one electrical engineer to do the cleaning he would also face a constructive dismissal case for bullying (UK at least)

In most cases putting in a contract that an employee must do anything an employer asks is usually interpreted legally as anything reasonable the employer asked. Asking the electrical engineer to unjam a printer rather than wait for someone in IT to do it when its known that the engineer knows how to do this is reasonable (small printer only someone of them are monsters where you can injure yourself on) is reasonable asking him to clean the toilets isnt.

Generally employers at least in Europe can't hide behind a contract and be complete cunts unless they want to be sued, asking someone to be flexible however is quite different

[laklak]

Was there a rash of biltong safety issues?

There were some issues with improperly dried jerky, if I remember correctly, but I can't find anything online about it.

The tax rules that are being worked by GE were crafted then; why do you blame the Democrats? Because they didn't break the law and just rewrite the whole thing to fix the holes the GOP made? ...

Meanwhile, they're doing business overseas; in fact, that's something the government wants.

Oops. Missed that one, din't ya?

True, they do contribute to the balance of trade, but that is no reason to exclude interest income from taxes. GE is going to do business overseas whether or not they pay taxes on that money. I don't want their tax credits, I want them (and all the other big corporations) to pay their fair share of taxes, which would then reduce the burden on the small businessman. I don't just blame Democrats, I don't have a lot of time for Republicans either. I have held my nose and voted Republican in the past, but I've also held my nose and voted Democratic.

I will stipulate that you are not the problem, if you will stipulate that I never said you were. It was a hypothetical.

No problem, so stipulated.

I would argue they do, and again, that you are not the problem but that the regulations must be made to ensure that those who are cannot screw up badly enough that they can't afford to pay for it.

Your point in a previous post about the 35 people screwing things up is valid, and it's the reason for much of the current crop of regulations. For instance, I had to use an approved water source for the potable water tanks on the concession trailer because there were people who were literally filling their tanks from lakes and rivers. I understand that, and on other threads have argued for those sorts of regulations. The problem, as I see it, is that one-size-fits-all regulations, imposed from a Federal level, are both ineffective and anti-competitive. Regulations designed to insure a 1000 employee meat packing plant is sanitary and safe are overkill for a small operation. To see if my operation was safe took an inspector 5 minutes, literally. He could see the whole plant from the door. That's an entirely different situation to poking around under massive sausage stuffing equipment looking for rat shit.

If it were up to me, I'd devolve much more control to a state level, particularly for small scale producers that do not sell across state lines. Florida has pretty tough regs, they have to because of the tourist trade and the number of old Q-tips living here. Can't have tourists and retirees dropping dead, it's bad for Disney. Florida requires a minimum of 1/2 million product liability insurance for food producers, I would raise that minimum to 1/5 million, at least for anyone selling on a wholesale level. It's probably enough for the average restaurant or concessionaire.

I'd also stop trying to insure that everyone is absolutely safe at all times. I eat raw oysters on a regular basis, despite the risks. I also eat raw fish, raw beef, runny eggs, fermented squid intestines (well, can't find that around here, but I have enjoyed it in Japan) and biltong. I'm willing to take the risk, it's my choice. People should have that choice, and if they get sick because of a compromised immune system the onus should be on them. However, that does not, under any circumstances, indemnify producers that do not follow proper sanitary and safety procedures.

We can only insure that everything is absolutely as safe as possible by draining all the juice from life, something I don't want to do.

[Schneibster]

The tax rules that are being worked by GE were crafted then; why do you blame the Democrats? Because they didn't break the law and just rewrite the whole thing to fix the holes the GOP made? ...

Meanwhile, they're doing business overseas; in fact, that's something the government wants.

Oops. Missed that one, din't ya?

True, they do contribute to the balance of trade, but that is no reason to exclude interest income from taxes. GE is going to do business overseas whether or not they pay taxes on that money. I don't want their tax credits, I want them (and all the other big corporations) to pay their fair share of taxes, which would then reduce the burden on the small businessman. I don't just blame Democrats, I don't have a lot of time for Republicans either. I have held my nose and voted Republican in the past, but I've also held my nose and voted Democratic.

OK, it sounded to me like a lot of Republican rants I've heard. Glad I gave the space for you to respond reasonably, but you have to admit I couldn't expect it.

Part of the problem is that every time someone makes a law to protect people, someone else is introducing mediating modifications to exclude someone who's paying for their next election. Those modifications have unintended (and sometimes not so unintended) consequences. It would be simple if there weren't people working the system.

As a result of that, I look for people who are working the system and vote against them. It turns out that the Republicans are the ones who are working the system in the ways that bother me the most; as a result I vote against them, but I look every time to see if they are. The fact that they keep being the ones who are is what makes me vote against them.

I would argue they do, and again, that you are not the problem but that the regulations must be made to ensure that those who are cannot screw up badly enough that they can't afford to pay for it.

Your point in a previous post about the 35 people screwing things up is valid, and it's the reason for much of the current crop of regulations. For instance, I had to use an approved water source for the potable water tanks on the concession trailer because there were people who were literally filling their tanks from lakes and rivers. I understand that, and on other threads have argued for those sorts of regulations. The problem, as I see it, is that one-size-fits-all regulations, imposed from a Federal level, are both ineffective and anti-competitive. Regulations designed to insure a 1000 employee meat packing plant is sanitary and safe are overkill for a small operation. To see if my operation was safe took an inspector 5 minutes, literally. He could see the whole plant from the door. That's an entirely different situation to poking around under massive sausage stuffing equipment looking for rat shit.

The regulations could be better implemented, but that would cost more. Where is the point of diminishing returns, and who should pay the "more?" The Republicans always seem to think the taxpayers should pay more for more regulations. I disagree. This leads to regulations that favor large businesses; I'd rather pay for the regulation with taxes, which is a good use of my taxes IMO. But this also leads to higher taxes and there's a lot of whining about that.

See where that goes?

If it were up to me, I'd devolve much more control to a state level, particularly for small scale producers that do not sell across state lines. Florida has pretty tough regs, they have to because of the tourist trade and the number of old Q-tips living here. Can't have tourists and retirees dropping dead, it's bad for Disney. Florida requires a minimum of 1/2 million product liability insurance for food producers, I would raise that minimum to 1/5 million, at least for anyone selling on a wholesale level. It's probably enough for the average restaurant or concessionaire.

I am by no means qualified to argue at that level. But I would point out that that is all fine as long as there is something preventing you from selling beyond Florida; if there is not, then there must be controls that are appropriate for beyond-Florida.

I'd also stop trying to insure that everyone is absolutely safe at all times. I eat raw oysters on a regular basis, despite the risks. I also eat raw fish, raw beef, runny eggs, fermented squid intestines (well, can't find that around here, but I have enjoyed it in Japan) and biltong. I'm willing to take the risk, it's my choice. People should have that choice, and if they get sick because of a compromised immune system the onus should be on them. However, that does not, under any circumstances, indemnify producers that do not follow proper sanitary and safety procedures.

All this is fine but within a state; different rules apply outside the state, and the federal government must regulate it there. It's not enough to say you're not selling out of state; it has to be impossible or people with lesser standards than yours will do so.

We can only insure that everything is absolutely as safe as possible by draining all the juice from life, something I don't want to do.

We're already there; personal injury law makes it so. The government merely tries to protect consumers from problems that cannot be litigated. I would argue that's their job.

[Ronja]

The problem, as I see it, is that one-size-fits-all regulations, imposed from a Federal level, are both ineffective and anti-competitive. Regulations designed to insure a 1000 employee meat packing plant is sanitary and safe are overkill for a small operation. To see if my operation was safe took an inspector 5 minutes, literally. He could see the whole plant from the door. That's an entirely different situation to poking around under massive sausage stuffing equipment looking for rat shit.

If it were up to me, I'd devolve much more control to a state level, particularly for small scale producers that do not sell across state lines. Florida has pretty tough regs, they have to because of the tourist trade and the number of old Q-tips living here. Can't have tourists and retirees dropping dead, it's bad for Disney. Florida requires a minimum of 1/2 million product liability insurance for food producers, I would raise that minimum to 1/5 million, at least for anyone selling on a wholesale level. It's probably enough for the average restaurant or concessionaire.

I'd also stop trying to insure that everyone is absolutely safe at all times. I eat raw oysters on a regular basis, despite the risks. I also eat raw fish, raw beef, runny eggs, fermented squid intestines (well, can't find that around here, but I have enjoyed it in Japan) and biltong. I'm willing to take the risk, it's my choice. People should have that choice, and if they get sick because of a compromised immune system the onus should be on them. However, that does not, under any circumstances, indemnify producers that do not follow proper sanitary and safety procedures.

We can only insure that everything is absolutely as safe as possible by draining all the juice from life, something I don't want to do.

.

It's interesting that there seems to be a growing trend and pressure for legislation in the EU that is pretty exactly opposite to the one laklak describes for the US (further centralization of food production). Yet the official motivation for both types of regulation / directive change is food safety and avoiding epidemics especially. Here the logic of that motivation is that smaller scale food processing and shorter distribution chains create smaller scale problems, if problems do ensue.

For example, in Finland farms are allowed to establish their own "farm slaughterhouses" (tilateurastamo/pienteurastamo), and sell directly to consumers from their own butcher shop. There are of course strict hygiene norms for these, but not quite as draconian as for the big, industrial slaughterhouses and large grocery stores that sell every kind of food, not only meat and meat products.

Small scale selling of any food products directly to consumers from a farm is also specifically allowed.

We also have a seeming loophole in the food safety laws, which I suspect was created intentionally: farms are also allowed to sell "bathing milk" or "raw milk" (kylpymaito/tinkimaito/raakamaito/ternimaito) directly to consumers, and also via farmers' markets, without the usual demands on pasteurization and homogenization. The consumer then decides how (s)he uses the milk. Well, as you can guess, quite many people happily consume it as drink or make cheese at home, and thus far there has been one real problem, when over 100 people got sick after a wedding, in 1999 - nothing else that could be described as an epidemic, or indeed even a confirmed case of milk-vector illness. The consumers are allowed to decide for themselves - the product is not forbidden, only the responsibility for the use is the individual's own.

I like this system very much. We have not utilized it often, but for example the wild boar meat products that we bought when we vacationed in Kuusamo were quite an experience - especially the tour we got to see the then-current herd.


Sources (unfortunately in Finnish, all of them, but I'm sure WB can verify, if that is needed):
http://yle.fi/alueet/turku/2009/07/kyyt ... 80938.html
http://www.evira.fi/portal/fi/elintarvi ... /?bid=2695
http://www.evira.fi/portal/fi/elintarvi ... kimaidosta

[laklak]

OK, it sounded to me like a lot of Republican rants I've heard. Glad I gave the space for you to respond reasonably, but you have to admit I couldn't expect it.

Lol, I'm FAR worse than a Republican, I'm a fiscal conservative, social liberal, otherwise known as a small "L" libertarian. Hope this doesn't mean we can't discuss things, I've enjoyed it so far.

But I'm not crazy, I swear. I'm not a Tea Bagger, I don't believe all taxation is theft or we should abolish the FBI or the FAA. But I do think the Federal government is taking too large a roll in daily life and is getting into areas best left to the individual states. I opposed the bank bailout, think there should be some sort of public option health care but not single payer, think Obamacare is fatally flawed, support abortion on demand and legalization of drugs, and believe in a modified free market. I also think they should take most of the AIG and Bank of America executives out and stand them up against a wall. I think the Patriot Act is the single biggest threat to individual freedom in the history of the nation, think we should pull out of both Iraq and Afghanistan, and I own a bunch of guns and a pit bull.

There are those that think positions like that are de facto evidence of insanity.

We're already there; personal injury law makes it so. The government merely tries to protect consumers from problems that cannot be litigated. I would argue that's their job.

I would agree. Contracts and litigation are the first level of protection, after that regulation is necessary.

[Seth]

Throw up some import tariffs against cheap labor countries like China to remove their price advantage and jobs will come back home.

I'm good with that. The problem is that such tariffs never occur in a vacuum, and China will throw up tariffs as well and drive our companies out of business there. I think GM does more business in China now than in the US. They love our cars there.

Actually, it was a tariff war that exacerbated the Great Depression. Ever hear of the "Smoot-Hawley Act?"

[Seth]

The vast majority of non-citizen, and non-legal resident aliens working in the farm industry are, in fact, legal. Only a small percentage of farmworkers are illegal. So, in no sense of the word can it be said that "illegal aliens" do work Americans "won't" do.

A quick web surf suggests that about 25% of all farm workers are here illegally:

Nearly a quarter of all farm workers are here illegally, and according to the Pew Hispanic Center, 17 percent of those cleaning the nations' offices and 12 percent preparing food in the country don't have legal work papers.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... Id=5250150

Granted NPR is not the most reliable source, but given their liberal leanings, those numbers are probably lower than the reality rather than higher. If your numbers for citizen and legal resident farm workers are correct - and I have no reason to believe otherwise - then the arithmetic says that there are more foreign farm workers here illegally than on legal H2A visas.

If we take that number, 25%, as the true number, it still means that it is flat out wrong that "illegals are doing jobs that Americans WON'T do." The remaining 75% of folks doing those jobs are either American citizens or legal aliens. Americans WILL do those jobs. I know that for a fact because Americans do, in fact, do those jobs.

The unemployed factory workers and paper-shufflers won't. The fact that some Americans will do field labor does not impugn the fact that American farmers generally cannot hire a sufficient number of American workers for the fields so they are forced to hire illegal immigrants. In Palisade, CO this year, fruit growers offer $25 per hour for orchard workers to anyone who needed a job. They found almost universally that the local American workforce that was unemployed would show up for a day, or perhaps two, and would then simply abandon the job because it's fucking hard work and they would rather take unemployment than sweat in the orchards. Orchardmen need reliable full-time workers who will stay the entire season, because you can't learn the work overnight, it takes skill and experience.

The same is true of farmers nationwide. They can offer well-paid jobs doing manual field labor to Americans, but they can't find enough of them to fill their needs, so they resort to those who are accustomed to such work, the illegal aliens, who come here precisely because they know they can find work because most Americans are pampered and lazy.

Not all, by any stretch of the imagination, but certainly most of those who are currently unemployed, who could be employed if they were willing to relocate and do the sort of hard manual labor that's available, but won't. That's because the government is paying them to stay unemployed, and unemployment checks are easier to pick up than onions.

If government cuts off the checks, and people start to get *really* hungry, they will begin to take the jobs that need to be filled in order to eat.

Or they can join a union, organise, and meet the bosses from a position of strength...

Unions forever!

Which is perfectly fine with me so long as the government isn't putting it's thumb on the scales and using regulations and laws to tip the balance in favor of the labor unions and against the employer. As long as it's a private matter between labor and employer, then what results is a freely-negotiated contract, which I'm fully in favor of.

But when government institutes laws and regulations that disadvantage and constrain the employer and give advantage to the workers, it's nothing less than government socialist tyranny and no resulting contract can be considered a "meeting of the minds" and a voluntary contract because it's been coerced by the government favoring labor (because they represent more votes most often) to the detriment of the employer's ability to refuse to negotiate and hire a new workforce.

That's exactly the case with the National Labor Relations Board, that's dominated by union interests but has regulatory authority over business. It's completely unfair and immoral.

If I were running a company that was being coerced by the NLRB and the unions, I'd shut it down and fire everybody, sell the assets and retire and fuck the workforce, who can starve to death in the gutter for all I would care, since the ingrates failed to understand which side of the bread their butter was on.

You can't force an employer to be an employer after all.

[Seth]

You ever wonder where the "local businessman" went? Where did the "family owned mom and pop store" go?

That's another aspect of capitalism. When I was a child, just about all our food was bought at shops across or a little along the street we lived in. We had two grocers, a baker, a Konditorei, and a tailor within five minutes' walking distance, or less. This was in a residential area, and there was nothing extraordinary about our street. Unless my father had to buy a new car, decided to buy one of those newfangled amplifiers, or something like that, we simply had no need to go shopping for our needs anywhere else.

Then this huge store opened in the city. The owners opened similar establishments in other cities around the same time, and due to their buying power they were significantly cheaper than our local shops. All of a sudden we made weekly trips to the Kaufhalle. It took a few years, but eventually there was not a single shop left in the street I grew up in.

Small businesses have a much smaller chance of succeeding today because the chains of supermarkets (mhhh, supermarkets) smother their chances of succeeding with their buying power. That's capitalism at work again. No longer does a shopkeeper pump milk from his bulk container into the two-litre container you brought along. Now you reach into a chiller and grab a carton containing the stuff yourself. So efficient. So labour-saving. So small-business killing. So, no, I don't wonder where the local businessman and the family-owned shop went. I know what happened to them. They've been pushed out by bigger fish. At best they have become a franchisee. More likely though, wage earning or salaried employees of Coles-Myers or Walmart.

Actually, it happens because CONSUMERS want the best possible price for the best possible goods, and it's not universally true that large discount retailers drive small business out, because small business can serve needs that the big retailers cannot or do not wish to serve. Generally, the market for the small business person turns to niche goods and services rather than staples, but people can make a living in a Wal-Mart town, they just have to do what Wal-Mart does not do.

Take McGuckin's Hardware in Boulder, CO. It's the finest, most expansive hardware store in the nation. It's a family-owned business that has grown from modest beginnings because it stocks things the bigs don't stock, and it does business in a way the bigs like Lowes and Home Depot don't. I willingly eschewed both Lowes and Home Depot when I lived near McGuckins precisely because I wanted the service I got and the selection of sometimes odd items. And if I needed something they didn't stock, they would find it, procure it, and generally carry it from them on. They have a stock list of more than 2 million items at present, and it grows every day. I even make regular trips to McGuckins now that I live more than 80 miles away, for the same reason.

And, you can go there to "Bolt Canyon" and buy ONE screw, or ONE washer, for three cents, if that's all you need. It's all about serving the customer's needs and desires, and McGuckins does it better than anybody else when it comes to hardware, housewares, gardening equipment, tools and a zillion other items. Unlike Lowes, they don't have a stock of twenty-five of the same kind of hammer, they have, quite literally, a selection of 25 DIFFERENT kinds, types and styles of hammers. They don't have four styles of electric alarm clocks, they have FORTY different styles. They don't have two types of brooms and two types of mops, they have TWENTY types of each, along with every accessory and companion product, from fifteen types of mop buckets to twenty types of cleaners IN STOCK and on hand at every moment. They have perhaps two hundred different types of rubber ring-type seals and companion seats for just about ever brand and type of faucet made since perhaps 1930.

They have more than a hundred different sizes of rubber "O" rings. It's simply amazing what you can find there, and they have a huge staff of specialized, highly competent people wearing green vests who will help you find exactly what you need.

You can't blame a retailer like Wal-Mart for serving the needs of its customers more efficiently that the mom-and-pop shop. It's the customers who choose to patronize Wal-Mart, so it's THEY who are "at fault" if anyone is. Free markets play no favorites other than as selected by the consumer. Adapt or die.

[Seth]

You ever wonder where the "local businessman" went? Where did the "family owned mom and pop store" go?

That's another aspect of capitalism. When I was a child, just about all our food was bought at shops across or a little along the street we lived in. We had two grocers, a baker, a Konditorei, and a tailor within five minutes' walking distance, or less. This was in a residential area, and there was nothing extraordinary about our street. Unless my father had to buy a new car, decided to buy one of those newfangled amplifiers, or something like that, we simply had no need to go shopping for our needs anywhere else.

Then this huge store opened in the city. The owners opened similar establishments in other cities around the same time, and due to their buying power they were significantly cheaper than our local shops. All of a sudden we made weekly trips to the Kaufhalle. It took a few years, but eventually there was not a single shop left in the street I grew up in.

Small businesses have a much smaller chance of succeeding today because the chains of supermarkets (mhhh, supermarkets) smother their chances of succeeding with their buying power. That's capitalism at work again. No longer does a shopkeeper pump milk from his bulk container into the two-litre container you brought along. Now you reach into a chiller and grab a carton containing the stuff yourself. So efficient. So labour-saving. So small-business killing. So, no, I don't wonder where the local businessman and the family-owned shop went. I know what happened to them. They've been pushed out by bigger fish. At best they have become a franchisee. More likely though, wage earning or salaried employees of Coles-Myers or Walmart.

...pushed out by bigger fish who are better able to pay the costs and expenses associated with taxes and onerous regulations...

As I said, Wal-Mart can afford to hire an HR and Benefits department to deal with the myriad of labor and employment issues. Sam's Bakery and Deli can't. Sam's bakery and deli is on a shoestring budget, and making him give his stock clerks maternity/paternity leave, a month of paid vacation, and other such perks quickly becomes prohibitive. Wal-Mart can soak it up easily.

You asked me if I ever wonder where the local businessman and the family owned store went. I told you where they went, and why: It's capitalism at work.

Yup, they were replaced by more efficient, less costly goods, which consumers flocked to. Wal-Mart did not sent out commando hit-teams to exterminate the competition (like Stalin did) they just out-competed mom and pop and the PUBLIC responded by patronizing Wal-Mart. Not Wal-Mart's "fault" at all, it's the fault of mom and pop for not competing or not finding a niche that Wal-Mart doesn't serve...of which there are millions.