You've expressed the argument well. I just don't think the math works out.
Yes, if large numbers of people buy local, that will keep the money in town--and bid up the costs of labor for people to do this local work. We don't bring slave labor and poverty-level wages home, because increased demand works to support wages--but it also raises costs. That makes local products even less competitive with products sourced globally.
The end result of going down that path is that an individual person is best off if everyone else buys local, but that person goes ahead and buys the lowest cost item. (This is part of the reason we see so much effort to exhort people to buy local.)
I've seen the Story of Stuff. What I'm saying is that relying on people to make the right economic choice won't solve the problem--because these hidden costs are paid by everybody. Until these hidden costs are embedded in the prices people pay, it will always make sense to buy the cheapest and let other people pay part of the cost.
This year we moved from California to the South, our professional salary is more than in San Francisco--almost $90k--but deciding to play super-frugal and live even more miserly than the poor of Texas, thus, this being my first time in an apartment complex full of the working-class Latinos and Blacks (migrant unemployed, cleaners, gardeners, etc.)
While we prosper immensely, I learned:
Our neighbors do shop religiously on Craigslist and Wal-Mart but most are uninformed, undiscerning consumers. They work 12 hours a day, or go months without work and barely have time to reflect, much less have internet proficiency to compare. These communities are struggling to achieve a middle-class life partly because they get ripped off A LOT, every week, way more than whites or East Asian communities do. When they make money, established contractors are more likely to make errors on lay people's paychecks and make it hard for them to get their money even months after it is due. When they spend money, they are miserably informed about what's free, what's false advertising, and will spend more maintenance costs because businesses charge them more for services. Take rebooting a computer. Where most college students do this for free, our roommates were charged $200+ because they didn't know about computing. For a car service that my family mechanic does for $50, they were charged nearly $1000. Over the past month, we've heard them receive calls at home from loan sharks to advertisement deals to small insurance companies showing how they can get more for their money, the sort of aggressive/persuasive marketing to the working class that rarely happened in my privileged residences before.
Often deceived and many times disillusioned by their own friends and social acquaintances through pyramid schemes, my working class neighbors are often gracious, friendly but resigned. Walmart, Sam's Club and the 99-Cent Store may be the most legitimate establishments they trust, suspicion being that small-local businesses are often (to them) fraudulent, unfair and discriminatory. Most of this Hispanic-Black community is in debt, yet, they spend more than double what I do to get by because they are so often locked out of the economy that serves "my-type" of people. Local business here is NOT the romanticized handmade organic place that served artsy pastries, here it's the seedy pawn shop or filthy garage.
This abrupt realization made me very aware that the fact that I naturally trust friends in social circles, that I access many more tools, options and price structures and financing vehicles at my disposal including Wise Bread, is a class privilege. To understand poverty, we should understand this double-standard.
My family has been using various models of Tracfone for years. Yes, it is much less expensive and there are no service contracts than other cellular services. However, Tracfone is the worst when it comes to customer service. The 1-800 number you call for Tracfone is in the Philippines and not very many representatives speak English very well. I had three inactive phones that I wanted to reactivate. I purchased three 60-minute airtime pins on their web site and discovered that they combined them all into one 180-minute pin. I called to explain the problem. They willingly walked me through the process of reactivating 2 of the 3 phones with 60 minutes each. However the third phone needed a new part (SIM card), which had to be mailed. They informed me that once the new part arrived to call them and they would then be able to reactivate the phone. In the meantime, the number two phone would not work. I called them about it and they walked me through the process of getting it working again. When the part for the number 3 phone finally arrived, I called Tracfone as instructed. They informed me that I would have to buy more airtime for the phone because they added the airtime to my number 2 phone and blamed me for the problem. I explained the problem to a supervisor and still got nowhere. I reversed the charges to my credit card and I'll never do business with Tracfone again!
As an actual poor American,this issue hits home, and I have been a consistent critic of 'local' and 'sustainable' movements to the extent their goods and services are inaccessible to the poor.
I have been saying for some time that unless addressed, poverty will frustrate local and sustainable movements.
These people can hardly expect poor Americans to buy local and to live green when doing so makes them financially worse off.
Ha Ha! You're right Kate - I didn't mention where I fell in this equation! Since I snacked throughout the day, I managed with two tacos and a beer, which was plenty. Because of my Professional Hobo lifestyle, even this small expenditure was a bit of a treat...but one that fit the budget as well.
I love the definitions of vacation Mom (#5) has....it doesn't have to be a destination at all. Your vacation words are probably along the lines of "quiet, peace, solitude"!
But as for Hawaii being the destination, it is one of many. Simply transport Taco Tuesday to any location (or even aspect of life as MadJayHawk indicated), and the principles remain the same.
And especially for somebody living in the western part of North America, Hawaii can actually be an inexpensive place to fly to for some warm respite from the winter. I happened to be living there at the time, and saw the place from a different perspective, I guess. But I kept company with many a budget traveler in my time there...it can indeed be done.
By the way Russel, the location was Ocean's on the Big Island, not Oahu.
I totally agree that you can buy many consumer goods locally, second-hand, and through off-retail means. But there is a risk (though slight) when doing this, as well. With retail stores, you can be fairly certain that they have followed protocol to ensure that the goods came from licensed suppliers. With Craigslist, Goodwill, or even a garage sale, you can't. Just because people don't sell TV's out of the backs of trucks as obviously as they used to, doesn't mean stolen or knock-off goods aren't out there.
I'm glad to see people using creativity in getting goods. I just caution them to be careful, use common sense, and beware of any "too good to be true" deals. Especially around the holidays, when theives will pawn anything for cash.
90% of what I buy is local. How do I manage this? Just about everything in my house is second hand. I buy from thrift stores, flea markets and garage sales. I also use craigslist to and freecycle to find what I need for free. Oh, and about 50% of the furniture in my house--fabulous antique pieces--I trash picked off the curb. My money stays in the community, often doing double-duty as my purchases from charity-owned stores provide AIDS healthcare, food for the homeless and job training. Buying used allows me to have a much higher standard of living than I would if I bought new. I can buy better quality used merchandise for the same price as buying new at a box store. For example, I just bought a pristine condition, used cashmere sweater for $20 that I'll be able to wear for years. Lastly, buying used conserves resources.
I think preferential buying (e.g. buy local) is a very inefficient way to try to reform the world. It strikes me as a modern form of indulgences: sacrifice some money to feel absolved of guilt, without actually fixing anything. Corporate America doesn't have any kind of mechanism to connect individual purchasing decisions with their actions. Suppose I'm suddenly inspired to stop shopping at Wal-Mart, and one store sees a .001% drop in revenue; are they really going to notice that AND conclude that it's a statement about their social responsibility AND decide to change their ways?
My view is that it's much more effective to buy things as cheaply as possible and donate the savings to a charity, non profit, or political campaign working on the issues you care about. Our political system IS designed to respond to individual viewpoints, and good charities/non-profits work to use donations to maximum advantage.
There are a handful of companies that I think really are too evil to do business with, and I do boycot those. Past that I think philanthropy is a much better use of disposable income.
i noticed this when working as a business reporter. if i mentioned a customer who had a problem, no matter how small, to pr (or an exec for that matter), they wanted all the details and wanted to fix it. the same problem had often already been blown off or bungled by customer service.
of course, they knew that i had the power to write about the problem in a major metroplitan newspaper read by hundreds of thousands of people. so i don't know how they would have responded to the same info directly from the customer.
if pr ignores you, and your problem is serious enough to warrant the effort, enlist the help of local media. even if it doesn't get taken up by the local "problem solver" column, if you can pique the interest of any old business reporter in your problem, one call from them and the company will probably pay attention.
While the focus of this article seems to be local vs inexpensive with the presupposition that "Rational people try to buy what they need at the cheapest price they can find," it is unreasonable to view cost as solely a function of the individual's pocketbook. It is never a "purely economic argument."
The heart of the Buy Local, Source Local (BL/SL) movement is social justice. The reality is that we cannot produce every good or service in our own backyards. We need to have other economically viable communities to trade with (regardless of which corner of the globe they may be.) BL/SL encourages consumer responsibility, fair trade and income parity among the citizenry.
By suggesting that, "If we keep the production local, we either have to have much more expensive goods or else we have to pay our local workers the same pittance that the overseas workers get paid--making the working class much poorer." is ignoring another key possibility: Increased demand for local labor and expertise will create a more competitive local market which will drive cost but also wages. You are not enslaving your neighbors but empowering them. The people who lose out in a global BL/SL scenario are the investors, the speculators and the executive class. Is it any wonder the the corporate structure (of which I am part) functions like it does.
The idea of a BL/SL economy encourages investment in human capital through better living conditions, education, health care etc. It promotes sustainable resource acquisition, allocation and consumption. And most importantly, it forces us to recognize the intrinsic value of community, realize that we are all in this together and that cooperation can be a profitable as competition.
One country's perception of "poverty" jobs, is a step up for another country. While working a low skill manufacturing job, let's say broom-making, can't command a middle class wage in the USA, the opportunity to weave brooms in China is a great alternative to subsistence agriculture in the rural countryside.
If that wasn't the case, China wouldn't have witnessed the world's largest human migration from interior China to coastal China over the last decade.
I think there is also an ethical argument to be made for giving an equal opportunity for a third world worker to earn his lot selling housewares to me as there is for a local Upstate New Yorker around the corner.
I'm going to start doing a cost comparison researching the difference between what a mortgage policy and another life insurance policy for that $80,000.00 difference would run me.
a) those that shop local/organic/etc are middle class or higher and
b) the middle class or higher are more interested in buying local/organic/etc and therefore, do
If you lived where I do, there are a handful of stores to choose from that offer what a family would need to live. Walmart is one. Target is another. Both the poor and the middle class (and the upper crust) shop these stores. We also buy local and organic WHEN available.
The thinking in the article (while I really did enjoy it) is rather simplified. "Poor" is a very relative term. Someone making $35,000 a year here with a couple of kiddos in school in rural Nebraska could be considered rather well-off, but it still considered poverty-stricken according to national statistics. That same $35,000 could get you a nice rental home (or even an affordable mortgage) a pre-owned vehicle, food, utilities, and an ocassional hot turkey meal at the local diner. You could buy presents for your kids, and assuming your work paid your healthcare, you'd have fewer worries than someone getting $60,000+ in the metro (where rent is 2-3 times higher.)
From my point of view, I see the "rich" buying things that are unnecessary, and further contribute to the problems you mention. How many upper crust folks do you know who insist on brand name clothing that is no more ethical in it's production than the clothing made and sold at Walmart (except they charge $65 for the t-shirt that they paid the village clothier $.50, where Walmart sold the same thing for $6.)? I won't name names, but we all know of the mall monsters that sell image, sex, and a sense of entitlement along with their "distressed" jeans, at a price that cuts into the family meal budget. Fathers and mothers are working extra hours away from their families because they somehow think giving these things to their children is somehow improving their quality of life -- in fact, they are helping the problems you mentioned along.
I like that people are beginning to buy with their values. That has always been an American ideal that I have believed in (whether or not I hold the same ideals.) I abhor slave labor, poisons in my food, and the waste of precious resources.)
I do hope, however, that people take a long and hard look at how certain labels have given them a false sense of security. Buying from one store vs. another doesn't get you off the hook. Foods labeled "all-natural", "cruelty-free" etc. aren't always what they appear to be. There ARE items sold at stores like Target, Walmart, Walgreens, etc that can fall into your value system, and these same stores are making new efforts every day to include sustainability and responsibility into their business plans -- with a goal to offer it to EVERYONE, not just the wealthy.
The classist mentality that you acknowledged in the article is probably true to some degree, but it is also very sad. We all want what's best for our kids and planet (or at least those "Poor" people I hang with do.) Until ethical choices are available to more people, they are just a decision between feeding your family and feeding someone else's. (Because even those "ethical" companies are turning a profit!)
you're reading or have read the same book I'm reading: World Hunger, 12 Myths. I too have some reservations about their (the authors') arguments, even though I too agree with many of their premises. I think your summation that "we have exported our poverty" doesn't tell the whole story though. (And there's a large ethical quandary to be addressed there to the extent that it's true.) Clearly we haven't exported *all* our poverty. We have plenty of poor people in the US. And by lowering wages in places like Mexico, large corporations in effect make the US a more attractive destination for poor workers, who will come here legally or illegally. So yes, while we export some poverty, we have further endangered our own poor, and made ourselves a magnet for even poorer foreigners.
I don't have all the answers, clearly. It's a very complicated situation. But as someone who can afford *not* to shop at Wal-mart, I don't. I think and hope that I'm doing the right thing by not participating in funneling more money away from the poor, and into the pockets of the richest of the rich.
I put in the Digital Stream converter box on our 2 TV's and in the digital mode get only channels 45-50. It doesn't pick up the VHF channels 1-13 that come in on analog.
The Channel Master antenna is a VHF antenna - is there a way to add UHF?
So how do I get channels 1-13 in digital? When the converter box scans it only gets the 45-50 channels.
Thanks
Runescape is great if you limit your time on it, and set goals in it. Also every once in awhile, if you are bored while playing it, waste a lot of money on getting a skill up, then use the skill to remake all that money. which benefits you overall in the game. Oh yeah some other advice: don't bring your most valuable items everywhere, especially the wilderness and multi-combat areas, you will probably lose it :P
I did this actually, Quit a good carrer job after my daughter finished scool and was out on her own, I went backpacking in northern Minn. I was alone and after a few months the heat, bugs and seclusion got to me and I headed to more familiar territory and looked for a job again but I am going to try again soon.
@ JRR:
You've expressed the argument well. I just don't think the math works out.
Yes, if large numbers of people buy local, that will keep the money in town--and bid up the costs of labor for people to do this local work. We don't bring slave labor and poverty-level wages home, because increased demand works to support wages--but it also raises costs. That makes local products even less competitive with products sourced globally.
The end result of going down that path is that an individual person is best off if everyone else buys local, but that person goes ahead and buys the lowest cost item. (This is part of the reason we see so much effort to exhort people to buy local.)
@ funkright:
I've seen the Story of Stuff. What I'm saying is that relying on people to make the right economic choice won't solve the problem--because these hidden costs are paid by everybody. Until these hidden costs are embedded in the prices people pay, it will always make sense to buy the cheapest and let other people pay part of the cost.
This year we moved from California to the South, our professional salary is more than in San Francisco--almost $90k--but deciding to play super-frugal and live even more miserly than the poor of Texas, thus, this being my first time in an apartment complex full of the working-class Latinos and Blacks (migrant unemployed, cleaners, gardeners, etc.)
While we prosper immensely, I learned:
Our neighbors do shop religiously on Craigslist and Wal-Mart but most are uninformed, undiscerning consumers. They work 12 hours a day, or go months without work and barely have time to reflect, much less have internet proficiency to compare. These communities are struggling to achieve a middle-class life partly because they get ripped off A LOT, every week, way more than whites or East Asian communities do. When they make money, established contractors are more likely to make errors on lay people's paychecks and make it hard for them to get their money even months after it is due. When they spend money, they are miserably informed about what's free, what's false advertising, and will spend more maintenance costs because businesses charge them more for services. Take rebooting a computer. Where most college students do this for free, our roommates were charged $200+ because they didn't know about computing. For a car service that my family mechanic does for $50, they were charged nearly $1000. Over the past month, we've heard them receive calls at home from loan sharks to advertisement deals to small insurance companies showing how they can get more for their money, the sort of aggressive/persuasive marketing to the working class that rarely happened in my privileged residences before.
Often deceived and many times disillusioned by their own friends and social acquaintances through pyramid schemes, my working class neighbors are often gracious, friendly but resigned. Walmart, Sam's Club and the 99-Cent Store may be the most legitimate establishments they trust, suspicion being that small-local businesses are often (to them) fraudulent, unfair and discriminatory. Most of this Hispanic-Black community is in debt, yet, they spend more than double what I do to get by because they are so often locked out of the economy that serves "my-type" of people. Local business here is NOT the romanticized handmade organic place that served artsy pastries, here it's the seedy pawn shop or filthy garage.
This abrupt realization made me very aware that the fact that I naturally trust friends in social circles, that I access many more tools, options and price structures and financing vehicles at my disposal including Wise Bread, is a class privilege. To understand poverty, we should understand this double-standard.
My family has been using various models of Tracfone for years. Yes, it is much less expensive and there are no service contracts than other cellular services. However, Tracfone is the worst when it comes to customer service. The 1-800 number you call for Tracfone is in the Philippines and not very many representatives speak English very well. I had three inactive phones that I wanted to reactivate. I purchased three 60-minute airtime pins on their web site and discovered that they combined them all into one 180-minute pin. I called to explain the problem. They willingly walked me through the process of reactivating 2 of the 3 phones with 60 minutes each. However the third phone needed a new part (SIM card), which had to be mailed. They informed me that once the new part arrived to call them and they would then be able to reactivate the phone. In the meantime, the number two phone would not work. I called them about it and they walked me through the process of getting it working again. When the part for the number 3 phone finally arrived, I called Tracfone as instructed. They informed me that I would have to buy more airtime for the phone because they added the airtime to my number 2 phone and blamed me for the problem. I explained the problem to a supervisor and still got nowhere. I reversed the charges to my credit card and I'll never do business with Tracfone again!
As an actual poor American,this issue hits home, and I have been a consistent critic of 'local' and 'sustainable' movements to the extent their goods and services are inaccessible to the poor.
I have been saying for some time that unless addressed, poverty will frustrate local and sustainable movements.
These people can hardly expect poor Americans to buy local and to live green when doing so makes them financially worse off.
Ha Ha! You're right Kate - I didn't mention where I fell in this equation! Since I snacked throughout the day, I managed with two tacos and a beer, which was plenty. Because of my Professional Hobo lifestyle, even this small expenditure was a bit of a treat...but one that fit the budget as well.
I love the definitions of vacation Mom (#5) has....it doesn't have to be a destination at all. Your vacation words are probably along the lines of "quiet, peace, solitude"!
But as for Hawaii being the destination, it is one of many. Simply transport Taco Tuesday to any location (or even aspect of life as MadJayHawk indicated), and the principles remain the same.
And especially for somebody living in the western part of North America, Hawaii can actually be an inexpensive place to fly to for some warm respite from the winter. I happened to be living there at the time, and saw the place from a different perspective, I guess. But I kept company with many a budget traveler in my time there...it can indeed be done.
By the way Russel, the location was Ocean's on the Big Island, not Oahu.
Thanks for the comments all!
I totally agree that you can buy many consumer goods locally, second-hand, and through off-retail means. But there is a risk (though slight) when doing this, as well. With retail stores, you can be fairly certain that they have followed protocol to ensure that the goods came from licensed suppliers. With Craigslist, Goodwill, or even a garage sale, you can't. Just because people don't sell TV's out of the backs of trucks as obviously as they used to, doesn't mean stolen or knock-off goods aren't out there.
I'm glad to see people using creativity in getting goods. I just caution them to be careful, use common sense, and beware of any "too good to be true" deals. Especially around the holidays, when theives will pawn anything for cash.
Yeah for local trade!
Linsey Knerl
90% of what I buy is local. How do I manage this? Just about everything in my house is second hand. I buy from thrift stores, flea markets and garage sales. I also use craigslist to and freecycle to find what I need for free. Oh, and about 50% of the furniture in my house--fabulous antique pieces--I trash picked off the curb. My money stays in the community, often doing double-duty as my purchases from charity-owned stores provide AIDS healthcare, food for the homeless and job training. Buying used allows me to have a much higher standard of living than I would if I bought new. I can buy better quality used merchandise for the same price as buying new at a box store. For example, I just bought a pristine condition, used cashmere sweater for $20 that I'll be able to wear for years. Lastly, buying used conserves resources.
I think preferential buying (e.g. buy local) is a very inefficient way to try to reform the world. It strikes me as a modern form of indulgences: sacrifice some money to feel absolved of guilt, without actually fixing anything. Corporate America doesn't have any kind of mechanism to connect individual purchasing decisions with their actions. Suppose I'm suddenly inspired to stop shopping at Wal-Mart, and one store sees a .001% drop in revenue; are they really going to notice that AND conclude that it's a statement about their social responsibility AND decide to change their ways?
My view is that it's much more effective to buy things as cheaply as possible and donate the savings to a charity, non profit, or political campaign working on the issues you care about. Our political system IS designed to respond to individual viewpoints, and good charities/non-profits work to use donations to maximum advantage.
There are a handful of companies that I think really are too evil to do business with, and I do boycot those. Past that I think philanthropy is a much better use of disposable income.
i noticed this when working as a business reporter. if i mentioned a customer who had a problem, no matter how small, to pr (or an exec for that matter), they wanted all the details and wanted to fix it. the same problem had often already been blown off or bungled by customer service.
of course, they knew that i had the power to write about the problem in a major metroplitan newspaper read by hundreds of thousands of people. so i don't know how they would have responded to the same info directly from the customer.
if pr ignores you, and your problem is serious enough to warrant the effort, enlist the help of local media. even if it doesn't get taken up by the local "problem solver" column, if you can pique the interest of any old business reporter in your problem, one call from them and the company will probably pay attention.
While the focus of this article seems to be local vs inexpensive with the presupposition that "Rational people try to buy what they need at the cheapest price they can find," it is unreasonable to view cost as solely a function of the individual's pocketbook. It is never a "purely economic argument."
The heart of the Buy Local, Source Local (BL/SL) movement is social justice. The reality is that we cannot produce every good or service in our own backyards. We need to have other economically viable communities to trade with (regardless of which corner of the globe they may be.) BL/SL encourages consumer responsibility, fair trade and income parity among the citizenry.
By suggesting that, "If we keep the production local, we either have to have much more expensive goods or else we have to pay our local workers the same pittance that the overseas workers get paid--making the working class much poorer." is ignoring another key possibility: Increased demand for local labor and expertise will create a more competitive local market which will drive cost but also wages. You are not enslaving your neighbors but empowering them. The people who lose out in a global BL/SL scenario are the investors, the speculators and the executive class. Is it any wonder the the corporate structure (of which I am part) functions like it does.
The idea of a BL/SL economy encourages investment in human capital through better living conditions, education, health care etc. It promotes sustainable resource acquisition, allocation and consumption. And most importantly, it forces us to recognize the intrinsic value of community, realize that we are all in this together and that cooperation can be a profitable as competition.
"we have exported our poverty"
One country's perception of "poverty" jobs, is a step up for another country. While working a low skill manufacturing job, let's say broom-making, can't command a middle class wage in the USA, the opportunity to weave brooms in China is a great alternative to subsistence agriculture in the rural countryside.
If that wasn't the case, China wouldn't have witnessed the world's largest human migration from interior China to coastal China over the last decade.
I think there is also an ethical argument to be made for giving an equal opportunity for a third world worker to earn his lot selling housewares to me as there is for a local Upstate New Yorker around the corner.
Again, thank you for your help and advice.
I'm going to start doing a cost comparison researching the difference between what a mortgage policy and another life insurance policy for that $80,000.00 difference would run me.
But the assumption made is that:
a) those that shop local/organic/etc are middle class or higher and
b) the middle class or higher are more interested in buying local/organic/etc and therefore, do
If you lived where I do, there are a handful of stores to choose from that offer what a family would need to live. Walmart is one. Target is another. Both the poor and the middle class (and the upper crust) shop these stores. We also buy local and organic WHEN available.
The thinking in the article (while I really did enjoy it) is rather simplified. "Poor" is a very relative term. Someone making $35,000 a year here with a couple of kiddos in school in rural Nebraska could be considered rather well-off, but it still considered poverty-stricken according to national statistics. That same $35,000 could get you a nice rental home (or even an affordable mortgage) a pre-owned vehicle, food, utilities, and an ocassional hot turkey meal at the local diner. You could buy presents for your kids, and assuming your work paid your healthcare, you'd have fewer worries than someone getting $60,000+ in the metro (where rent is 2-3 times higher.)
From my point of view, I see the "rich" buying things that are unnecessary, and further contribute to the problems you mention. How many upper crust folks do you know who insist on brand name clothing that is no more ethical in it's production than the clothing made and sold at Walmart (except they charge $65 for the t-shirt that they paid the village clothier $.50, where Walmart sold the same thing for $6.)? I won't name names, but we all know of the mall monsters that sell image, sex, and a sense of entitlement along with their "distressed" jeans, at a price that cuts into the family meal budget. Fathers and mothers are working extra hours away from their families because they somehow think giving these things to their children is somehow improving their quality of life -- in fact, they are helping the problems you mentioned along.
I like that people are beginning to buy with their values. That has always been an American ideal that I have believed in (whether or not I hold the same ideals.) I abhor slave labor, poisons in my food, and the waste of precious resources.)
I do hope, however, that people take a long and hard look at how certain labels have given them a false sense of security. Buying from one store vs. another doesn't get you off the hook. Foods labeled "all-natural", "cruelty-free" etc. aren't always what they appear to be. There ARE items sold at stores like Target, Walmart, Walgreens, etc that can fall into your value system, and these same stores are making new efforts every day to include sustainability and responsibility into their business plans -- with a goal to offer it to EVERYONE, not just the wealthy.
The classist mentality that you acknowledged in the article is probably true to some degree, but it is also very sad. We all want what's best for our kids and planet (or at least those "Poor" people I hang with do.) Until ethical choices are available to more people, they are just a decision between feeding your family and feeding someone else's. (Because even those "ethical" companies are turning a profit!)
Thanks, Philip!
Linsey Knerl
maybe watch this video for some insight.. http://www.storyofstuff.com/
there are hidden costs and we all pay
i am so hip connected to my cell phone that I can't live without a phone being beside me at all times.
Where I live we can park close to the entrances if you own a hybrid
you're reading or have read the same book I'm reading: World Hunger, 12 Myths. I too have some reservations about their (the authors') arguments, even though I too agree with many of their premises. I think your summation that "we have exported our poverty" doesn't tell the whole story though. (And there's a large ethical quandary to be addressed there to the extent that it's true.) Clearly we haven't exported *all* our poverty. We have plenty of poor people in the US. And by lowering wages in places like Mexico, large corporations in effect make the US a more attractive destination for poor workers, who will come here legally or illegally. So yes, while we export some poverty, we have further endangered our own poor, and made ourselves a magnet for even poorer foreigners.
I don't have all the answers, clearly. It's a very complicated situation. But as someone who can afford *not* to shop at Wal-mart, I don't. I think and hope that I'm doing the right thing by not participating in funneling more money away from the poor, and into the pockets of the richest of the rich.
WHAT IS YOUR RUNESCAPE NAME??? AND GOOD UR DAMM SMART, MY RS NAME IS ISMAELPOPE
I'll have to read this book. I'm from an area of LA where there's a street named Hellman, and I bet it's for him. It's on the eastside.
I put in the Digital Stream converter box on our 2 TV's and in the digital mode get only channels 45-50. It doesn't pick up the VHF channels 1-13 that come in on analog.
The Channel Master antenna is a VHF antenna - is there a way to add UHF?
So how do I get channels 1-13 in digital? When the converter box scans it only gets the 45-50 channels.
Thanks
lol. nice...
Runescape is great if you limit your time on it, and set goals in it. Also every once in awhile, if you are bored while playing it, waste a lot of money on getting a skill up, then use the skill to remake all that money. which benefits you overall in the game. Oh yeah some other advice: don't bring your most valuable items everywhere, especially the wilderness and multi-combat areas, you will probably lose it :P
Wow??!!"anything left in the cars is fair game, maam."
excuse me? She's saying that she or other staff stole your wife's stuff and that that's normal at that office.
an "enlightened" employer would take this as an opportunity to teach some of the finer points and goals of customer service.
a less englightened one would just fire her. But it can be hard to find good help at less than $10 an hour pay.
I did this actually, Quit a good carrer job after my daughter finished scool and was out on her own, I went backpacking in northern Minn. I was alone and after a few months the heat, bugs and seclusion got to me and I headed to more familiar territory and looked for a job again but I am going to try again soon.