Obama has chosen as his top economic adviser a man named Jason Furman.
Mr. Furman loves Walmart.
Please read the article that Mr. Furman wrote on Walmart in 2005.
. . . .
Implicit in much of the criticism of Wal-Mart is the belief that the company has
enormous resources and could easily pay higher wages or more benefits without making a major
sacrifice. After all, Wal-Mart’s mind-boggling $10 billion in profits last year make it appear as
if the company could wave a wand and do anything it wants. But Wal-Mart also has a staggering
1.3 million American employees, multiplying the costs of even a modest change in
compensation.
Overall, it is no easier for Wal-Mart to change compensation than many other companies.
This year Wal-Mart will earn about $6,000 per employee. This is virtually identical to the
average for the retail sector and somewhat below the national average of $9,000 in profits per
employee in the corporate sector. Some companies make substantially more, like Microsoft
($143,000 per employee) or General Motors ($12,000 per employee). Overall, it is not much
easier for Wal-Mart to change compensation than, say, a small business making $24,000 a year
and employing four people.
If Microsoft paid each of its employees an additional $5,000 or expanded its health
benefits, its profits would be largely unchanged. If Wal-Mart took the same step – and did not
pass the cost on to consumers – it would be virtually wiped out.
. . . .
Some have pointed to Costco (which has higher wages and more generous benefits),
arguing that if Wal-Mart were more generous with its employees it would do better at attracting,
motivating, and retaining them, increasing its total profits. I have no ability to judge whether or
not this is true, although given the choice I would trust Wal-Mart to know more about
maximizing profits and shareholder value than its critics.
http://www.americanprogress.org/kf/walmart_progressive.pdfFurman argues that Wal-Mart has lowered the price of food and is a great employer. Hmmm. Do we Democrats agree?
Oh, and what about free trade?
. . . .
"We are very much taken aback that Furman has been put at the head of this team," said Marco Trbovich, a senior aide to United Steelworkers President Leo W. Gerard, whose support is considered crucial to Obama's success in heavily unionized areas of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Minnesota and other battleground states.
Trbovich worked with Furman during Kerry's presidential campaign, in which Furman was also an economic adviser.
"He is a very bright fellow, but he is an unalloyed cheerleader for the trade policies that have been very destructive to manufacturing jobs in this country," Trbovich said. "There are very serious concerns" about his appointment.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-furman11-2008jun11,0,3477009.storyIf Mr. Obama acquaints himself with the Furman paper, maybe he'll stop the Wal-Mart bashing he engaged in during the primary campaign, when he criticized Senator Clinton in a debate by saying to her, "While I was working on those streets, watching those folks see their jobs shift overseas, you were a corporate lawyer sitting on the board at Wal-Mart." And it isn't only Wal-Mart where Mr. Furman has shown flashes of good sense. In a 2007 paper, he praised Rep. Charles Rangel's proposal to cut the corporate tax rate in America to 30.5% from 35%. It would be nice to see Senator Obama back a reduction in America's corporate tax rates. Instead, what Mr. Obama has had to offer so far in the campaign, on the economic policy front, is falsehoods festooned with flip-flops.
http://www.nysun.com/editorials/obama-nomics/79678/So Obama's top economic adviser is pro-Walmart and pro-free trade.
Let's remember, the reason slavery was brought to the U.S. was because slaves lowered the cost of production. Would Furman say slavery was a good thing since it lowered the cost of products for consumers? Walmart has not only sucked up the job market, it has destroyed local, traditional family businesses in many small towns across America, destroying the culture of the communities and their tax base. How does Walmart destroy the tax base of the community? For example, in my Mom's hometown, Walmart moved a big box store in right across the street from the established shopping center. Soon, the shops in the established center closed for lack of business. Once the dust had settled and Walmart had virtually established a monopoly, it decided to build a new even bigger store -- at the outskirts of the town. In its wake, it left a huge empty building and an ugly parking lot for the city to patrol.
It's not too late for Obama to find a better economic adviser. John Edwards could help him on that. Edwards was endorsed by an impressive list of outstanding economists. Edwards is on Obama's team, after all, so it would not be a problem for Obama to get Edwards' advice on the choice of an economics adviser.
Obama has promised to do something about poverty. This Furman fellow just doesn't sound to me like the kind of guy who really wants to do much about poverty. Nothing wrong with keeping Furman on the team, but it sounds like Furman should not be the team leader. His should just be one of a number of opinions considered.
Obama fans, does your leader pay attention to you? If so, please let him know how you feel about this guy Furman. Do you like Furman or not?
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
