Better capitalism?

Interesting article. I like the example of Henry Ford raising wages. I'm all in favor of businesses across the board following this example. And, as we can see, his strategy paid off. Walmart and Gap can raise their wages right now. And if they think that's the right thing to do, why don't they? Why don't they lead by example? Nothing's stopping them! And if it's such a smart business decision, they'll benefit, right? What worker wouldn't want to go over there and work?

No--the truth is, these larger companies can't wait for the min. wage to be raised by the Federal Gov't. That is what will eliminate many of their smaller competitors. Small and mid-sized businesses are barely hanging on as it is right now. Five years of Obama and last quarter we saw a 3% contraction. By golly, he owns that. Walmart, Gap, & Costco know they can shoulder the burden--they can take the hit; but they know their payoff comes by eliminating the few smaller competitors that remain.

The writer of this article aptly points to Henry Ford as the model of success. We have to keep in mind that free enterprise works when businesses operate in their best interest, for profit. Henry Ford didn't petition the gov't to raise the wages for workers--He did it. Alternately, when gov't calls the shots, that's what you get, more gov't. It might seem like a small distinction, but this is one of the glaring differences b/t freedom and tyrany.
 
Great article, and nice to hear someone who "gets it" (of course, Warren Buffet also "gets it"). And it reinforces the message of the documentary, "Inequality for All", for which a lengthy background story is published here: http://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/feb/02/inequality-for-all-us-economy-robert-reich

Whenever I hear a politician talk about 'job creators' with the image of the corporate CEOs as illustration, I think I'd grind my teeth down to the gums because it is such a freakin' lie! Businesses only can exist if they have customers who buy goods and services, so those customers must be capable of having enough income to do so. I am presently living in Newport RI, just a block away from the avenue where the Vanderbilts and all built their massive, glittering "summer cottages" built in another Gilded Age of immense economic inequality, and yet I am in heaven because their money (and what still is a pretty financially secure community) have provided one of the richest arrays of diverse trees, many of them grand patriarchs of hundreds of years (an arborist's wet-dream, if you'll pardon the expression! :D) and the means to hire skilled people to care for them. Poorer communities have far less green space, and it is tougher to sell your services in an area where fewer people can afford to pay you according to the value you provide. Would that we could have the green, biodiverse wealth of Newport everywhere!

I would like government to be right-sized and efficient, and as long as it has the power to print money, it can help out in extreme situations like the Great Depression. I don't see free market theories working in areas such as providing health care since, ironically, competition between doctors' offices, insurance companies and hospitals actually drive prices up by adding a ton of overhead because every clinic and hospital is buying all kinds of expensive technology; the role of providing medicine and care should not be about making excessive profits (witness hospital CEOs making millions of dollars in salary per year--ridiculous when the hospital is also a tax-exempt nonprofit), it is about helping people with injuries and fighting disease. The main cause of bankruptcy filings is due to people being charged massive amounts of money to merely stay alive or live without pain.

My mother recalls the mood of the Great Depression, and that there were riots and near civil war in the streets because ordinary people were being ground down by the plutocrats who'd survived or come back from the Crash of '29. She is scared we are about to live through another time of violence and near breakdown in society, and I'm not so sure we aren't already in the downward slide with so much violence being reported in our news. I'd upgrade the pitchfork and get a mega chipper to the SCOTUS ruling that gave us Citizens United and unfettered money in political races and buying and selling of politicians--until that is reversed (and there are some good people in Congress who want to reverse it--unfortunately, they are in the minority), inequality will stay institutionalized and government branded.

Capitalism can be a good thing (if you go back to Adam Smith's vision, not today's); government can be a good thing; and the important ingredient to all this is to recognize that there is a point when self-interest, greed, and a sociopathic inability to see how other people's fortunes impact our own goes way too far, causing a complete breakdown of society and toppling our fragile ecosystem.
 
too bad gov is ran by greedy corps. it will never be what it should be. to much corruption these days we are all doomed. the less gov the better!!!!!!
 
It's a different distribution of wealth. $15/hour has to be paid by an end user. Ultimately the consumer. So now the price of their tree work went up. It's hard to find anyone that will work for less than 15$/ hr any way. It won't end unemployment or welfare you will always have a percentage of people that will be lazy.
 
DISTRIBUTION is the word of the day=politicians calling the shots, justifying bigger gov't, increasing their power, and expanding the dependency state.

The pay for tree workers is up there in the $15/hr range, as djm pointed out. But, regarding McDonald's worker's wages (say that 3X fast), they are consumers too. Now they are going to pay double for a cheeseburger, and everything else. It will be pretty much a wash; BUT, once again, the gov't gets to steer the ship, all the while gaining power by politicizing this make-believe compassion.

Please don't misunderstand--nothing personal. Most people in my pay bracket who want the min. wage hike have genuine concern/compassion for those in low-paying jobs. That compassion needs to be focused properly: instead of encouraging them to strike to get their wages raised, what's wrong with encouraging them to strive for better skills, education, work ethic, & drive?

Raising kids helps the understanding of this concept. The more I give them, the less they will have to do for themselves. Without care, they could end up living in my basement at 30 :( For some reason, it seems that the gov't would rather encourage this behavior than independence and self-reliance. The bottom line is that they want the votes. More people on the dole= more votes. And they will "buy" those votes with the tax dollars of the hard working--yours and mine. Now the dependence has become generational, passed down 2-3 times. Sooner or later something has to give. 50/50 in this country right now; working/ mooching (with a small % needing and deserving the help they are afforded).

We are losing the middle class! Not because of big business or the wealthy, but because our society is demonizing the rich instead of striving to emulate them. Those who have worked hard and succeeded deserve their rewards. If you want the same reward--earn it. The Roman philosopher Seneca wisely stated that "Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." It is tempting to see the rich as lucky without accounting for the years of preparation and the hair-raising risks which made that possible. Get to know some rich people; hear their stories of struggles & sacrifice. Are there rich people who have stumbled onto it (lottery) or acquired it illegitimately? Absolutely! But it's neither my job nor the government's to just take it. We live in a land with a rule of law. If the law has been broken, that is handled in court. Gov't and the media have kindled a fire of hate for the wealth generators until many feel they are entitled to "their share", even if it means taking away the rights and property of those who have. Well, that goes around, and it comes around. Who's going to pay the bills after we get rid of all those rich people? Maybe we can all go work for a poor guy, or maybe the gov't? Then we can all share equal poverty. The American Dream will be dead. At that point, no one will have the option to pull themselves into the next higher standard of living. But (sarcasm), at least we will have gotten rid of all those rich people.

Envy is one of the oldest sins--and it is still alive and well. Get to work America; stop telling yourselves and others it can't be done and find out what your potential is.
 
This article written by one of those hardworking individuals who has achieved success and the subsequent wealth isn't advocating for more government intervention. What he is pointing out is that it is to their own benefit to increase the wages without regulations imposing it. The logic being that with more income there will be growth in the market. As he so aptly points out despite his increasing wealth he only buys a few items a year. Adding to his wealth doesn't improve the economy but, paying the working class more you put money in the hands of people who have pent up demand. Take those millions and they will buy thousands of cars, clothing and other durable goods. Within the revenue structure of most companies are ample profits that instead of going to already well paid executives are better served in their employees hands. In essence reducing the multiple. Prices don't need to go up, greed and unfettered amassing of wealth by those in the upper echelons. needs to be mitigated. This doesn't get rid of the rich. The American dream won't die. But now there is real opportunity to rise above subsistence.

I wonder how much direct experience any of you have had with welfare and those that are in the system? I've worked training people to get themselves out in the working world, I've been on welfare myself. I know the frustrations of the rules that govern it. There are those that abuse that system but the vast majority are trying to get back to being productive members of society.

A more equitable society doesn't mean one without the opportunity for success. Tell me, is it only the prospect of having fabulous wealth that drives those who create?
 
Treehumper, I appreciate your concern for those trying to get back to being productive members of society. The truth is that we may see two very different uses/abuses of the system because of our geographic location. In my area, the vast majority are decidedly not trying to get back to being productive members of society. And, unfortunately, due to the handouts they receive, they have no incentive to move toward productivity. There is an old axiom--If you don't work, you don't eat. That was thrown out long ago. Now, eating is seen as a right. Some even hunt for it in our founding documents. There's WICK, Section 8 housing, unemployment (which has now been extended, I think to 90 weeks), taxpayer funded daycare, and more people dropping out of the labor market every minute. It beats working for a living--or so they are lied to. But what is it doing to our country? Decimating the middle class. So these poor unfortunates use their EBT card to purchase bread, milk, pasta, & shrimp, then pull out their cash to buy their Coors, cigarettes, & lottery tickets. While I and my family report every penny to Uncle Sam and buy peanut butter/jelly, off brand coffee, chicken, and potatoes with earned money. They drive off in their 2011 Escalade while I get in my 1999 Dodge Stratus. They're talking on their smart phone while I'm on my dumb one. They've got a satellite or cable package while we check out DVDs from the library. I'm going to work while they sit under a shade tree playing checkers. I assume it's not like that where you're at.

I am confused by your previous post:
"This article written by one of those hardworking individuals who...isn't advocating for more government intervention." Does not agree with: "Prices don't need to go up, greed and unfettered amassing of wealth by those in the upper echelons. needs to be mitigated."

If you're saying the wealthy should be generous with those in lower financial strata, then I'm with ya' (back to Henry Ford). But if mitigating their amassing of wealth "needs" to come from the gov't--that's socialism. Too many people in our history and not-so-distant past, including me, have fought to keep this country free. Don't forget that every time you ask for a little security, you have to give up a little freedom to get it. That includes financial security. Poor people all over this country are lied to about that every day. Instead of opting for the hand up, they take the handout. In doing so they compromise their dignity, self respect, and ultimately, they die a little each time someone gives them something they didn't earn. Because character is something you can't get back. And when you die, the memory of your character is the only thing you'll leave behind. Unfortunately, most politicians who tell them that they can have a free lunch don't mind that they are doing them the greatest dis-service: telling them they can't make it on their own. It's a slap in the face. The gov't that does that to people can hold them right under their thumb.
 
Last edited:
I guess at the end of the day I have a moderate amount of success because I worked my butt off for it. I'm not in favor of just giving away a higher rate of pay or anything without hard work in trade. Almost everyone can do something to contribute and they should. In my opinion you need to be worth 15/ hr. I don't have a problem with people making a huge amount of money. They should if they were innovative enough to come up with an idea and make it work. At the end of the day paying people an equitable wage is good business anyway. People value their job and you as the employer much more and are motivated to succeed. Steve Jobs once said that when you realize that all these huge accomplishments were achieved by normal people then you realize how limitless the opportunities are. That saying holds true. Most of us are afraid to be successful and afraid to work that hard.

I've pontificated enough.
 
Most huge accomplishments that involve making a lot of money are achieved by the most privileged in our society. Their are vast swaths of our population who are cut off totally from any possibility of success. I work my ass off, and I am still living paycheck to paycheck. I don't blame welfare recipients, or people who are more hard up than myself. I take issue with the billionaires who have cornered the market on wealth. And the government that they have bought and paid for. Red or blue that shit is a joke.
 
If one measures success by his or her own desires you might find success comes more easily than you think.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BRT
Respectfully, the market isn't cornered on wealth. People said the same things about Carnegie and Rockefeller decades ago, and since then our economy has generated untold trillions and made millions of people rich. Sometimes it just takes vision to see the opportunities. Ten years ago there was no Facebook and now Mark Zuckerberg rules the world. Out of thin air his vision and talent created billions of dollars and thousands of jobs. He probably understood the futility of arguing over how big his slice of the economic pie was. Sometimes you're better off baking your own damn pie.

Economies are not constant or static. They change and hopefully grow. Someone getting richer does NOT mean that someone else is getting poorer. And he who is poor today need not be poor tomorrow.

As an aside, this talk of greed is interesting. After all, greed is but an emotion. Just as I can't "magic" myself taller, rich guys can't "greed" themselves rich- they have to earn it somehow. And besides, to paraphrase one my fav political philosophers, why is it greedy to want to keep what I have earned, but not greedy to want to take it from someone else?
 
Bucknut, You couldn't be more wrong. Zuckerburg did not create anything out of thin air. Geez, he simply took a college freshman directory to the internet. He didn't create any money. Advertising dollars simply moved from traditional print media to the internet. So in his case, getting richer did mean that others got poorer—traditional advertisers.

I don't doubt that Zuckerburg is a smart, hard-working guy, but it's also beyond debatable that he was fabulously lucky to be in the right place at the right time with the right skills. He benefitted enormously from the hard work of many engineers and scientists who came before him.

He has made an enormous amount of money, obscene perhaps, from a economic system he had no part in setting up. Common sense would dictate that he return a large portion of that money for the common good via a fair and progressive tax system. That's not some pinko-communist assertion, it's a recognition that poorly regulated capitalism will cause a dystopic society with catastrophic wealth disparities, wealth that is used not to improve quality of life, but to consolidate power and influence.
 
Yes, that is what I'm talking about and this article is pointing to, BRT. What Mr, Hanauer is talking about is the impact that concentrating wealth at the top is having. That there is mounting frustration for those that work yet fall behind. Real wages stagnate while the news is rife with increasing wealth for the very rich. Instead, what is being advocated here is the very simple. Increase the wages of the lowest earners to the point they are no longer need government subsidy. When a percentage of Walmart employees- and remember these are not the same people but, it is the same percentage for the company- are paid wages that put them in the category of being eligible for some form of subsidy then that is, in effect, a corporate subsidy that is part of their business model. Can this be considered acceptable?

Oh and the Rockefellers and Carnegies were the original robber barons. While increasing their personal fortunes they did so while making all efforts to keep the increasing wealth of their companies to themselves, while ignoring the very real plight of their workers. Sorry, but a civilized society doesn't vilify the working poor while finding more ways to concentrate wealth in a select few.
 
GlennButler said:
Bucknut, You couldn't be more wrong. Zuckerburg did not create anything out of thin air. Geez, he simply took a college freshman directory to the internet. He didn't create any money. Advertising dollars simply moved from traditional print media to the internet. So in his case, getting richer did mean that others got poorer—traditional advertisers.

I don't doubt that Zuckerburg is a smart, hard-working guy, but it's also beyond debatable that he was fabulously lucky to be in the right place at the right time with the right skills. He benefitted enormously from the hard work of many engineers and scientists who came before him.

He has made an enormous amount of money, obscene perhaps, from a economic system he had no part in setting up. Common sense would dictate that he return a large portion of that money for the common good via a fair and progressive tax system. That's not some pinko-communist assertion, it's a recognition that poorly regulated capitalism will cause a dystopic society with catastrophic wealth disparities, wealth that is used not to improve quality of life, but to consolidate power and influence.
Click to expand...

GlennButler said:
Excuse me while I go get a pitchfork.
Click to expand...


That was easy.
Thanks for all your hard work, Glenn.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom