Capitalism Has Destroyed / Is Destroying American Family Values

[Flash]

Hello Flash,

This is an excellent post. And very commendable to maintain composure as evince wigs out.

Obviously you have first hand experience with unions that I certainly do not possess. There has to be a better way to deal with the issue of union corruption than throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

You know, we frequently hear a conservative argument about how bad government is. Some extremists have expressed hatred for anything government. Sometimes I get the impression that there are government haters who would simply want to abolish government altogether. I have to wonder what they would replace it with. Government does have it's merits. We do have to accept the bad with the good in order to benefit from the merits. I think it is the same way for unions.

Really, a better model would be to allow workers to have more say in the decision making of their employer. In Germany all corporate boards must include worker representatives. That sounds like a really good idea.

I have been kicking around an idea lately. It's my idea but I doubt I am the first to have it. It has to do with the evolution of corporations. They often begin as a company owned by one person or a small group of people. These people work very hard and take on some workers to help them. They know all the workers personally when the company is still small. Typically, these workers are treated very well in the beginning. As the company grows and the number of workers grows there are people in the organization who were not there in the beginning. For them, it means a whole different thing. Eventually management becomes separated from the workers and these people are not even acquainted. It can grow so much that the leaders and the workers have never even met personally. That is a point of change for the company. Management no longer cares as much about the well being of the workers as it did in the beginning. And because there are so many workers, each one means less and less to the company, becomes less vital to the existence of the company. In the beginning, every worker was important and had an impact on success. The big seasoned corporation knows that workers are replaceable and it shows.

That is when unions become needed to remind management that the workers are people with concerns and needs, worthy of consideration.

Much of this relationship gets lost as corporations grow.

Eventually the original company owners sell out to a larger corporation which buys other corporations.

Workers are no longer valued at all. They are thought of as an expense. That's just no good for people who need a job. It makes America pitiful, not great.

So here is my idea to deal with that:

Let corporations become employee-directed after the original owners die or want to sell out. The corporation should not be allowed to become worker-insensitive. The problem with corporations are kind of like the problem with government. It is an entity we humans created but then it becomes something that exists much longer than the humans who created it. It continues to grow more and more powerful because it exists far longer than any human can live. Humans thus are at a disadvantage vs corporations. Many of them have already existed for several generations and are far more powerful than most humans.

We know we must have a well established government. It is less clear why we must have well established corporations.

Corporations were never originally intended to outlast humans. Their original charters were temporary. Perhaps we never should have changed that.

See Mondragon Corporation.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Flash,

Your reply is based on putting me into an partisan, bigoted stereotype you assume must characterize all those who do not agree with you on every point.

Wow. You're right. I did exactly that. Sorry about that. I try not to do that. Thanks for nailing me on it.

Everybody does not fit into such a simplistic dichotomy. I want stocks and profits to go higher for the ordinary worker because millions of teachers, plant workers, pipefitters, etc. own retirement accounts and retire with well over $1 million after 40 years of accumulated earnings. It is naive and unrealistic to
assume only the wealthy benefit from stock.

Yeah, but those people should actually be getting more for their lifetime of commitment. There once was a day when the corporation would have paid 100% of a worker's retirement pension. This doesn't appear to be an improvement, since worker wages have not risen proportionally to executive incomes since that time period.

I believe it is a fact that most stocks are owned by the super-rich. The rest of us all put together, even upper middle, own less than 50% of all stocks. So here we are, all the people who worked for those big corporations, and made their earnings possible, we are splitting up scraps, yet the real spoils go to the insiders at the top of the pyramid. And it's a top-heavy pyramid. Really, as far as accumulated wealth goes, it is an inverted pyramid.

Unions made great contributions to the U. S. but we would not still have child labor or other benefits without them--although they brought it about sooner. But today's young people are not nearly as sympathetic to unions and the percentage of unionized workers has declined sharply leaving primarily public employees as the only target for increased membership.

Ahh. That indicates the pro-corporate-profits PR campaign has worked.

Sometimes movements (unions, civil rights) are ruined by their own success. When they have run out of major legislation to rally around they have little appeal to new membership.

My father was OCAW and I was a Teamster, so I am not hostile to unions, just forced membership. I found pressure from other members (often hostility) is probably a better way to get other employees to join than laws. Of course, hiring halls have bypassed some of those procedures. When I was teaching our union did nothing for members and raises and benefits came from the legislature. That is why WI teacher unions have dropped by 40% since they prohibited union shops. Our teachers' union gave us that same guilt trip about getting benefits without joining although they were not responsible for any of them

Perhaps unions should have mandatory periodic leadership change?

Of course, no way any large entity is going to be all good. But neither is it going to be all bad, and there is a purpose to be served.

 

[Flash]

Yeah, but those people should actually be getting more for their lifetime of commitment. There once was a day when the corporation would have paid 100% of a worker's retirement pension. This doesn't appear to be an improvement, since worker wages have not risen proportionally to executive incomes since that time period.

Corporations, cities, labor unions, states paying 100% of a retirement pension is what is driving many of them bankrupt today. They were too generous and now cannot pay the pensions. Rather than defined benefit they have switched to defined contribution plans which work well. The worker builds up a large retirement account and has access to that entire amount unlike pensions which are usually monthly payments. The employer is then free from the obligation of covering those pension payments which have caused such problems. And, many employers match whatever the worker chooses to contribute up to certain limits. That money is not taxable (until withdrawal) and the worker pays less taxes annually and pays no taxes on the amount growing in his account.
It is beneficial to all involved

I believe it is a fact that most stocks are owned by the super-rich. The rest of us all put together, even upper middle, own less than 50% of all stocks. So here we are, all the people who worked for those big corporations, and made their earnings possible, we are splitting up scraps, yet the real spoils go to the insiders at the top of the pyramid. And it's a top-heavy pyramid. Really, as far as accumulated wealth goes, it is an inverted pyramid.

As a worker I don't care whether the wealthy own more stock or make more money than me. If I am doing well I am happy and do not envy or resent their success. According to Gallup 52% of American own stocks. I also have many relatives who choose to spend none of their money on investments/retirement and will have nothing but Social Security.

That indicates the pro-corporate-profits PR campaign has worked.

It means those workers in Silicon Valley and other high tech companies who have massages, catered food, video games, and are able to work at home if they choose do not really feel the need for unions. Do a search for "millenials joining organizations" and you will get a list of sites telling organizations how they can attract millenial membership because they are not "joiners." The large decline in union membership supports that contention although most of the decline is due to the decline in manufacturing jobs.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello evince,

dude I tried nice


they dont respect nice

I have seen Flash patiently laying out his reasons for believing what he does and being nice, which is more than he got in return.

I give them all they deserve

I disagree. It does not appear warranted.

It is incumbent on a society that is plagued by a faction that lies to publically shame those liars until they stop lying or shut the fuck up

The best way to counter lies (if indeed that is what is being dealt with) is to point out the error and state the facts.

I reflect the society I live in

Invective is funny to most Americans

Perhaps that is only your perception and not reality.

liars need to pay a price for lying

Flash posted an opinion. He didn't claim it was a fact. We need to hear all views. Opinions will vary. That does not constitute lying, and even if it does the thing to do is simply post the truth and back it up with evidence if possible.

You simply need to make a better more convincing argument.

Unless, perhaps, you feel that the USA is better off divided and strongly polarized to the point that neither side will even give the other side the respect of listening to their view and then offering a different perspective.

Should we change the saying to:

United is baloney. Divided and falling we must be.

?

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Flash,

Corporations, cities, labor unions, states paying 100% of a retirement pension is what is driving many of them bankrupt today. They were too generous and now cannot pay the pensions. Rather than defined benefit they have switched to defined contribution plans which work well. The worker builds up a large retirement account and has access to that entire amount unlike pensions which are usually monthly payments. The employer is then free from the obligation of covering those pension payments which have caused such problems. And, many employers match whatever the worker chooses to contribute up to certain limits. That money is not taxable (until withdrawal) and the worker pays less taxes annually and pays no taxes on the amount growing in his account.
It is beneficial to all involved

The problem here is it's all about the corporation's benefit. We need policy in our society that is all puts people first. Are we a nation of people or a nation of corporations? When the population level of a nation is considered, it is not talking about corporations. Corporations cannot exist without people. Humans can exist quite well without corporations. Corporations should exist for our benefit, not the other way around. We invented them. They didn't invent us.

We've got huge corporations employing millions which pay no matching for retirement funds where many of the workers are on government assistance because they are so poor, but the executives of the corporation live in the lap of luxury. There is something inherently wrong with that.

I will have to disagree on the 'beneficial to all involved' thing. If the worker is paying less taxes annually in retirement that means their income plummeted. And who in the world came up with all this complex taxing stuff? Is that another idea from the think tanks of the rich and powerful so they can conduct the not-so-secret Class War?

As a worker I don't care whether the wealthy own more stock or make more money than me. If I am doing well I am happy and do not envy or resent their success. According to Gallup 52% of American own stocks.

That is not the same metric I mentioned. Sure 52% of Americans own some stock, but how much? Most of the stocks are owned by a very few at the top of the inverted wealth pyramid.

It means those workers in Silicon Valley and other high tech companies who have massages, catered food, video games, and are able to work at home if they choose do not really feel the need for unions. Do a search for "millenials joining organizations" and you will get a list of sites telling organizations how they can attract millenial membership because they are not "joiners." The large decline in union membership supports that contention although most of the decline is due to the decline in manufacturing jobs.

One of the reasons unions are in decline is because jobs are so bad people have to keep switching employers. Most modern employers have a far higher turnover rate than when unions were stronger. People who are on a job for a shorter duration have less vested in the job and are less inclined to try to improve their lot by group action and more inclined to look out for their own interest by seeking another (hopefully better) job. It doesn't appear many are finding it.

 

[Flash]

I will have to disagree on the 'beneficial to all involved' thing. If the worker is paying less taxes annually in retirement that means their income plummeted. And who in the world came up with all this complex taxing stuff? Is that another idea from the think tanks of the rich and powerful so they can conduct the not-so-secret Class War?

Not less taxes in retirement, but while they are working. Money contributed to a 401(k)/403(b) is not taxed thus lowering the employee's taxable income for the year giving him more take-home pay. He must take a certain percentage out yearly beginning at age 70 1/2 and pay taxes at that time. His taxes will probably increase in retirement because he is being taxed on his SS, pension, and/or retirement plan.

The Democrats came up with this plan and passed it into law in the Revenue Act of 1978 and signed into law by President Carter.

 

[Oracle Of JPP 714]

I can. Lock those capitalist oligarch bastards up. Then throw away the key after waterboarding those sons/daughters of bitches.

 

[Ross Dolan]

As a worker I don't care whether the wealthy own more stock or make more money than me. If I am doing well I am happy and do not envy or resent their success. According to Gallup 52% of American own stocks. I also have many relatives who choose to spend none of their money on investments/retirement and will have nothing but Social Security.

I agree with Poly that you are posting reasonable, courteous posts.

At times, that is.

In this particular cited paragraph, however, you are essentially saying, "I've got mine, screw you."

It may not seem that you are doing that...and you are doing it politely...but you are doing it. And that sentiment is something that has to stop in our nation, because it is the reason "capitalism has destroyed/is destroying American family values"...and damn near everything else.

I am not envious of the rich nor do I resent their success. But we cannot allow that cause us to disregard those who cannot compete, not only for the wealth, but for the basic necessities of life.

Think about it.

 

[Flash]

I agree with Poly that you are posting reasonable, courteous posts.

At times, that is.

In this particular cited paragraph, however, you are essentially saying, "I've got mine, screw you."

It may not seem that you are doing that...and you are doing it politely...but you are doing it. And that sentiment is something that has to stop in our nation, because it is the reason "capitalism has destroyed/is destroying American family values"...and damn near everything else.

I am not envious of the rich nor do I resent their success. But we cannot allow that cause us to disregard those who cannot compete, not only for the wealth, but for the basic necessities of life.

Think about it.

Just the opposite. I am applying that to all workers. I encourage all of them to get retirement accounts and invest (over 40% have both retirement and pension plans). And they are doing so since 52% of Americans own stocks. It doesn't matter if most stock is owned by the wealthy since that doesn't keep workers from buying as much as they can afford. Millions of workers are now retiring with very large sums of money which is providing them with a very good retirement. If workers and the wealthy both earn 12% on their investments, that increases inequality since the wealthy make more, but they took nothing away from others. We frequently hear the American middle class is shrinking. True, but misleading. It implies people are dropping out of the middle class to lower income levels but in reality it is because more have moved into higher income categories.

Capitalism is not responsible for those who cannot compete or the failure of family values since those are trends throughout most of the developed world. You cannot blame capitalism for greed or inequality because it exists everywhere. I am not really defending capitalism as much as I am pointing out that other systems contain all the same problems. The only alternative to capitalism, I know, is socialism and I don't think Cuba, North Korea, or China offer better solutions (and they also have graft, greed, and inequality). The evils you blame on capitalism are universal negative human traits and have existed for centuries.

And, you seem to take the "glass half empty" view of American workers today. Despite some negative trends, there are also a lot of positives. The inequality is not just between the wealthy and others, but between the workers on the bottom and the middle and working classes. The gap between those workers is also increasing (a bachelor's degree now earns $1 million more lifetime earnings).

 

[Ross Dolan]

Just the opposite. I am applying that to all workers. I encourage all of them to get retirement accounts and invest (over 40% have both retirement and pension plans). And they are doing so since 52% of Americans own stocks. It doesn't matter if most stock is owned by the wealthy since that doesn't keep workers from buying as much as they can afford. Millions of workers are now retiring with very large sums of money which is providing them with a very good retirement. If workers and the wealthy both earn 12% on their investments, that increases inequality since the wealthy make more, but they took nothing away from others. We frequently hear the American middle class is shrinking. True, but misleading. It implies people are dropping out of the middle class to lower income levels but in reality it is because more have moved into higher income categories.

Capitalism is not responsible for those who cannot compete or the failure of family values since those are trends throughout most of the developed world. You cannot blame capitalism for greed or inequality because it exists everywhere. I am not really defending capitalism as much as I am pointing out that other systems contain all the same problems. The only alternative to capitalism, I know, is socialism and I don't think Cuba, North Korea, or China offer better solutions (and they also have graft, greed, and inequality). The evils you blame on capitalism are universal negative human traits and have existed for centuries.

And, you seem to take the "glass half empty" view of American workers today. Despite some negative trends, there are also a lot of positives. The inequality is not just between the wealthy and others, but between the workers on the bottom and the middle and working classes. The gap between those workers is also increasing (a bachelor's degree now earns $1 million more lifetime earnings).

There are people, Flash, who cannot legibly sign their own name...and never will be able to do so.

To them, it doesn't matter how much better off a person with a bachelor's degree is.

There are others who CAN legibly sign their names...but are not even close to being able to compete in today's market place for labor.

To them (whether you realize it or not)...you ARE SAYING...I've got mine, screw you.

Stop looking for an alternative to capitalism...and see if you cannot see ways "capitalism" can be improved from what we have now.

 

[Flash]

There are people, Flash, who cannot legibly sign their own name...and never will be able to do so.

To them, it doesn't matter how much better off a person with a bachelor's degree is.

There are others who CAN legibly sign their names...but are not even close to being able to compete in today's market place for labor.

To them (whether you realize it or not)...you ARE SAYING...I've got mine, screw you.

Stop looking for an alternative to capitalism...and see if you cannot see ways "capitalism" can be improved from what we have now.

No, I am not. I am saying those people who are at the bottom are not there because of capitalism. They could not sign their name in an improved capitalist system, either. I am not saying "screw you" just because I am doing well. I guess I could sympathize with their plight (which I do), but that is not helping them. Capitalism already provided them ways to improve their situation--job training, apprenticeship programs, jobs. There are 6.5 million job openings in the U. S. Take one of those jobs and start at the bottom and get experience and work your way up like millions of those Americans who did so. There are many government funded education and job training programs that go unfilled, but you cannot force people to participate or work if they don't want to. Capitalism is not responsible for universal social problems.

Perhaps it is more important to discuss how capitalism can be improved that would help that situation. I am especially interested in seeing what improvements can make people stay in school so they learn how to write their name or work regularly or pass drug tests. What are your suggestions?

 

[Ross Dolan]

No, I am not. I am saying those people who are at the bottom are not there because of capitalism. They could not sign their name in an improved capitalist system, either. I am not saying "screw you" just because I am doing well. I guess I could sympathize with their plight (which I do), but that is not helping them. Capitalism already provided them ways to improve their situation--job training, apprenticeship programs, jobs. There are 6.5 million job openings in the U. S. Take one of those jobs and start at the bottom and get experience and work your way up like millions of those Americans who did so. There are many government funded education and job training programs that go unfilled, but you cannot force people to participate or work if they don't want to. Capitalism is not responsible for universal social problems.

Perhaps it is more important to discuss how capitalism can be improved that would help that situation. I am especially interested in seeing what improvements can make people stay in school so they learn how to write their name or work regularly or pass drug tests. What are your suggestions?

One suggestion I would mention immediately is that we do not need everyone working...and only the very able and talented should be working.

Some people are NEVER going to learn enough to make them productive members of society. So we either kill them...or provide for them.

I vote that we provide for them.

We have plenty of everything needed...and all we have to do is to figure out a way to distribute it so that everyone can have sufficient.

Once everyone has sufficient (probably, once everyone has plenty) then the the rest can go to whomever can get it.

But everyone should have AT VERY MINIMUM sufficient...(I prefer plenty)...with as few as possible working.

I personally see capitalism being almost as much a failure as socialism...and I honestly do not understand why some capitalists look down their noses at socialism.

 

[Phantasmal]

One suggestion I would mention immediately is that we do not need everyone working...and only the very able and talented should be working.

Some people are NEVER going to learn enough to make them productive members of society. So we either kill them...or provide for them.

I vote that we provide for them.

We have plenty of everything needed...and all we have to do is to figure out a way to distribute it so that everyone can have sufficient.

Once everyone has sufficient (probably, once everyone has plenty) then the the rest can go to whomever can get it.

But everyone should have AT VERY MINIMUM sufficient...(I prefer plenty)...with as few as possible working.

I personally see capitalism being almost as much a failure as socialism...and I honestly do not understand why some capitalists look down their noses at socialism.

I believe our nation is capable of doing both.

 

[Flash]

One suggestion I would mention immediately is that we do not need everyone working...and only the very able and talented should be working.

Some people are NEVER going to learn enough to make them productive members of society. So we either kill them...or provide for them.

I vote that we provide for them.

We have plenty of everything needed...and all we have to do is to figure out a way to distribute it so that everyone can have sufficient.

Once everyone has sufficient (probably, once everyone has plenty) then the the rest can go to whomever can get it.

But everyone should have AT VERY MINIMUM sufficient...(I prefer plenty)...with as few as possible working.

I personally see capitalism being almost as much a failure as socialism...and I honestly do not understand why some capitalists look down their noses at socialism.

Do the talented workers get no more than those doing nothing but getting plenty? That would leave many who still cannot write their names. Why go to school if I am going to get plenty? Everyone would be competing to be called unable and untalented (Idiocracy). We would no longer produce enough wealth to provide for everyone and prices would be very high because all those working for lower wages would no longer be working which would produce a shortage of goods like slaughter houses that already depend on immigrants because Americans will not do those jobs.

You are saying "screw you" as much as I am since your proposal will never occur.

 

[Ross Dolan]

I believe our nation is capable of doing both.

I agree.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Do the talented workers get no more than those doing nothing but getting plenty? That would leave many who still cannot write their names. Why go to school if I am going to get plenty? Everyone would be competing to be called unable and untalented (Idiocracy). We would no longer produce enough wealth to provide for everyone and prices would be very high because all those working for lower wages would no longer be working which would produce a shortage of goods like slaughter houses that already depend on immigrants because Americans will not do those jobs.

You are saying "screw you" as much as I am since your proposal will never occur.

Actually...if you have fewer workers...fewer people willing to work...

...wages for people who do work will be VERY high.

You want someone to empty your garbage. Sure...but only for big bucks.

No, Flash, I am not saying "screw you"...although you are (I suspect inadvertently.)

And IT WILL HAPPEN...either peacefully...or as the result of a revolution to dwarf all previous ones.

 

[PoliTalker]

Hello Frank,

I agree with Poly that you are posting reasonable, courteous posts.

At times, that is.

In this particular cited paragraph, however, you are essentially saying, "I've got mine, screw you."

It may not seem that you are doing that...and you are doing it politely...but you are doing it. And that sentiment is something that has to stop in our nation, because it is the reason "capitalism has destroyed/is destroying American family values"...and damn near everything else.

I am not envious of the rich nor do I resent their success. But we cannot allow that cause us to disregard those who cannot compete, not only for the wealth, but for the basic necessities of life.

Think about it.

Good point. That was a rather strongly implied statement that those who have anything critical to say about anyone rich automatically envy them, which is an incorrect assumption.

 

[Flash]

Actually...if you have fewer workers...fewer people willing to work...

...wages for people who do work will be VERY high.

You want someone to empty your garbage. Sure...but only for big bucks.

No, Flash, I am not saying "screw you"...although you are (I suspect inadvertently.)

And IT WILL HAPPEN...either peacefully...or as the result of a revolution to dwarf all previous ones.

What percent of adults will still work? And, how do we decide who is talented to work or not? It sound like we would have an elite meritocracy.

I think your prediction about a revolution is wildly overly optimistic.

"Revolution Now! We No Longer Want to Work But We Still Want Plenty" "Revolution Now: I Am Not Talented Enough to Work"

I think the difference in our "screw you" attitude is that I want everybody to do well. You are saying "screw you" to those who still have to work and have their wealth redistributed to those who don't.

Wages would have to be very high because they will not be able to afford services and products. Will some people still be talented enough to pick up our garbage? We would save a lot of money by eliminating all those schools which are no longer needed for the untalented class.

 

[Ross Dolan]

What percent of adults will still work? And, how do we decide who is talented to work or not? It sound like we would have an elite meritocracy.

I think your prediction about a revolution is wildly overly optimistic.

"Revolution Now! We No Longer Want to Work But We Still Want Plenty" "Revolution Now: I Am Not Talented Enough to Work"

I think the difference in our "screw you" attitude is that I want everybody to do well. You are saying "screw you" to those who still have to work and have their wealth redistributed to those who don't.

Wages would have to be very high because they will not be able to afford services and products. Will some people still be talented enough to pick up our garbage? We would save a lot of money by eliminating all those schools which are no longer needed for the untalented class.

Okay...we disagree, Flash.

That's allowed...in fact, it is healthy.

I dare to suppose a civilization where the right to work...is, itself, earned.

Neither of us knows how this will go...so all we can do is to speculate. I hereby change my comment, "And IT WILL HAPPEN...either peacefully...or as the result of a revolution to dwarf all previous ones" to:

My guess is it will happen, either peacefully or as the result of a revolution which will dwarf all previous ones.

 

[Flash]

Okay...we disagree, Flash.

That's allowed...in fact, it is healthy.

I dare to suppose a civilization where the right to work...is, itself, earned.

Neither of us knows how this will go...so all we can do is to speculate. I hereby change my comment, "And IT WILL HAPPEN...either peacefully...or as the result of a revolution to dwarf all previous ones" to:

My guess is it will happen, either peacefully or as the result of a revolution which will dwarf all previous ones.

Who will revolt? The people who want to work and support the others or the ones who want to be supported?

What if I don't want to earn the right to work and rather have everybody else support me? Sounds a little like "privileged slavery"

I went to college in the 1960s and the students were always talking about "when the revolution comes." Now they are stockbrokers.

I think there is value in working and developing your talent and skills. It beats having a class of obese slobs.