Costco

The New York Times has an interesting article about how Costco pays employees (much) more and with better benefits than does competing Sams Club. What's especially interesting is how some Wall Street types are criticizing the company, saying it needs to cut salaries and benefits and raise prices. One analyst said: "He has been too benevolent. He's right that a happy employee is a productive long-term employee, but he could force employees to pick up a little more of the burden."

But here's the deal. The whole thing is a non-issue. Costco is making money and growing, and seeing its stock price increase, too -- so, obviously, its own investors don't see a problem.

And this is what's wrong with stock market-based capitalism today. Even when a business is doing well (and treating both its employees and customers well), there is still the call to cut, cut, cut, cut (and raise, raise, raise prices) to make even more money, if only in the short term.

Here's my favorite quote from the article, talking about Costco's CEO Jim Sinegal:

Good wages and benefits are why Costco has extremely low rates of turnover and theft by employees, he said. And Costco's customers, who are more affluent than other warehouse store shoppers, stay loyal because they like that low prices do not come at the workers' expense. "This is not altruistic," he said. "This is good business."

I like that. Doing the right thing for customers and employees IS good business. Fuck Wall Street. Customers and employees are who matter.

And here's another thing. Costco's CEO Sinegal takes a relatively low salary, compared to other big-company CEOs:

Despite Costco's impressive record, Mr. Sinegal's salary is just $350,000, although he also received a $200,000 bonus last year. That puts him at less than 10 percent of many other chief executives, though Costco ranks 29th in revenue among all American companies.

"I've been very well rewarded," said Mr. Sinegal, who is worth more than $150 million thanks to his Costco stock holdings. "I just think that if you're going to try to run an organization that's very cost-conscious, then you can't have those disparities. Having an individual who is making 100 or 200 or 300 times more than the average person working on the floor is wrong."

I like that. A CEO with a conscience who cares about his employees. He knows that when a CEO makes too much more than his employees it's just wrong. Sometimes, enough is enough.

So where do you want to shop today?

Election

The big election is this coming Tuesday, and for anyone who cares here are my recommendations.

The Presidential Election

President of the United States: Barack Obama. It's a reluctant recommendation, because I'm sorely disappointed by his lack of accomplishments in many fields, as well as his continuation of the (probably illegal) Bush administration policies regarding drone warfare and the imprisonment-without-trial that is Guantanamo Bay. Still, Obama is a far sight better than the competition, the lying, two-faced, corporatist, social neanderthal called Mitt Romney. I'd rather have a smart, socially conscious president than a dim (re: Bush) self-interested (re: Romney) one. So Obama it is.

Minnesota Local Races

In our local races, I make the following recommendations:

• United States Senator: Amy Klobucher. Really, there's no competition here. Senator Klobuchar is smart and effective, and her opponent is -- wait a minute, what's his name again?
• United States Representative, 2nd District: Mike Obermueller. I'm not sure Obermueller has a chance against the incumbent John Kline, but we deserve better than a lock-step Republican who is out of step with the progressive nature of our state. 
• State Senator, District 56: Leon Thurman. Because we need to vote out the current obstructionist Republican legislature.
• State Representative, District 56B: Will Morgan. Because he sent us the most campaign literature, several pieces per day over the past month or so. I feel like I know him personally. Plus I really dislike the positions of his opponent, Roz Peterson.
• Dakota County Commissioner, District 5: Dave Giles. Because he isn't Liz Workman.
• Burnsville Mayor: Jerry Willenburg. Another reluctant recommendation. I really don't think Jerry knows what he's doing, but Mayor Elizabeth Kautz has been in office too long and I'm tired of her personal projects and her reaping the rewards of office. While I wish there were other options, it's simply time for a change.
• Burnsville City Council (vote for two): Steve Cherney and Mary Sherry. This is more a recommendation not to vote for right wing nutcase and closet Libertarian Bruce Johnson and the totally unqualified Suzanne Nguyen (who's actually a neighbor of mine). Cherney's been on the council before, so he should know what he's getting into; Sherry's an incumbent, pal of the mayor, and a bit ditzy, but she's better than the other alternatives. (Maybe I'll run for council myself, next time...)
• Amendment 1 (Gay marriage): No. Why would we want to stop people who love each other from getting married? We don't have enough of that these days. Plus, even if you're not a fan of gay marriage, we don't need to amend the state constitution to take away people's rights; the constitution is about giving rights, not taking them away.
• Amendment 2 (Voter ID): No. We don't need it. The verified incidence of voter fraud is nil. This is a solution (and an expensive one) in search of a problem, really just an attempt to disenfranchise the poor and elderly in the guise of civil service. We need more people voting, not less.

Other Races

I urge my friends and family back home in Indiana to vote for Joe Donnelly for the U.S. Senate over the neanderthal Richard Mourdock. (I used to vote for Dick Lugar, myself -- who the Tea Partying Mourdock ousted in the Republican primary.) And I urge any friends north of the Twin Cities to vote for Jim Graves in the Minnesota 6th District, so we can forever purge the odoriferous Michelle Bachman from our sacred land.

But these are just my opinions. Reasonable minds probably won't disagree.

Fundamentalists

There's a great article on the CNN site that asks the question, "Is Obama the 'Wrong' Kind of Christian?" This is a very nuanced and well reported story, and well worth reading. A few thoughts:

• What right does anyone have to question someone else's religious beliefs? If Obama says he's a Christian, we should respect his beliefs. Do you want someone else questioning whether you really believe what you believe?
  
• This, unfortunately, shines a spotlight on many fundamentalist Christians who think it's their way or the highway, that anyone who doesn't believe exactly as they do are just wrong, wrong, wrong. (And probably going to hell.) This, dear readers, is why religion has a bad reputation among many.
  
• The article does a great job, IMHO, of pointing out the difference between the contemporary Protestantism of the Social Gospel, prevalent in the first half of the 20th century, with the revived fundamentalist movement, which has been around since the early 20th century (remember the Scopes Monkey Trial?) but has come on strong in the past few decades.
  
• Where mainstream Protestants tend to be a bit more inclusive and certainly more socially conscious, the fundamentalists seem to view everyone else as heretics and dismiss social responsibility. For example, Rev. Gary Cass, the conservative Christian president of the Christian Anti-Defamation Commission, goes as far as to say that Christians who talk about “social justice” are often practicing “warmed-over Marxism." Really. That's what he thinks. (I guess this means Jesus was a Marxist. Who knew?)
  
• Speaking of extreme viewpoints, Rev. Steven Andrew is quoted in the article as saying that President Obama is trying to change the national motto from “In God we Trust” to “Out of Many, One,” and that the president has ordered the Pentagon to remove biblical verses from its daily report. (Really? I hadn't heard that one.) The Reverend also says, and I quote, "I think he’s an anti-Christ." Of course he is.

So is the rise of the Christian fundamentalist movement the end of progressive Christianity as we know it? Or are these just a bunch of extremists who'll bark their way to oblivion soon enough?

I'd like to hope it's the latter, but the numbers say it could be the former. God help us.

Bully

There's a difference between aggressively defending your position (and calling out lies and half-truths) and bullying. In last night's second presidential debate, the president acted... well, Presidential, while his opponent acted like an entitled, boorish brat. Mitt Romney bullied the moderator, he bullied the president, his position seemed to be "Of course it'll work. I'm doing it." Plus he lied a lot, and got called on it. Romney is a man who will do and say anything to get what he wants, because he believes he's entitled to it.

To me, the most telling moment was when Obama addressed the killings in Libya, taking full responsibility and calling Romney's politicization of the affair "offensive." It was a very Presidential (with a large P) moment, and Romney should have stopped there. But instead, showing no respect whatsoever, Romney harped on a minor point about whether Obama had called it a terrorist attack. It wasn't so much that Romney was wrong (which the president and the moderator both pointed out, and which is getting the most press afterwards), but rather that he argued the point at all. A better man would have let it drop; only a self-important boor like Romney would try to have the last word on such a somber issue.

There's no way we should entrust our country to such an out-of-touch, blustering, entitled egotist. Not that Obama's perfect, but at least he thinks of others besides himself, and has some semblance of decency. Romney doesn't. He's a rich, self-centered bastard. We don't need more of them running things.

Greed

What's wrong with capitalism? The same thing that led to the downfall of small-c communism: greed. In fact, greed is the downfall of just about every economic system so far envisioned. 

Greed is what makes communism fail; if just one person covets more than he needs, the entire system falls apart. Greed is also the corrosive exterior of capitalism, and why regulation is necessary; without adequate regulation, greedy capitalists do whatever they can to exploit the system to get more for themselves. 

Because of that very human failing, neither economic system is perfect, but at least regulated capitalism is known to work okay. Unregulated capitalism, however, is a bitch to deal with -- as we continue to recognize. (You'd think we'd remember and learn from our mistakes, wouldn't you?)

So I'm not a communist, in spite of what some of my friends on the right might think. I'm also not blindly capitalistic. To combat unmitigated greed and all the damage it can do, we need regulated capitalism. Proper regulations don't inhibit, they protect -- and everyone, at one time or another, needs that protection.