News What Alternative kind of Government do you Support?

[Smurf]

Well Franz under certain circumstances I would agree that the people should have looked after themselves, but if the Corporation affected the village (assuming it existed before the mine opened) in a way that it could not sustain itself after it left, it is the fault of the corporation for doing it, and/or the fault of the state for not setting up correct parameters under which the mine should opperate and/or for not educting the people enough that they could tell this wasn't a good contract.

 

[Aquamarine]

Explain.

So if Enron suddenly lowers the wages of 500,000 workers in 34 states, then that's ok because a new company will just offer 500,000 new jobs with higher wages? or do you think 100,000 new companies will just start up with better wages than Enron is currently providing even though they didn't start up with wages equal to Enron when Enron was abiding the minimum wage?

If a large company suddenly lowered its wages people there would start to leave at first opportunity. Some would start new companies, some would go to other already existing companies, some would go to new companies started by others. If the large company insisted on keeping the wages lower than what others are paying, they would soon have no employees left.

The minimum wage only affects 2% of the population.

 

[franznietzsche]

Well Franz under certain circumstances I would agree that the people should have looked after themselves, but if the Corporation affected the village (assuming it existed before the mine opened) in a way that it could not sustain itself after it left, it is the fault of the corporation for doing it, and the fault of the state for not setting up correct parameters under which the mine should opperate and/or for not educting the people enough that they could tell this wasn't a good contract.

That is not the scenario aquamarine set out: he said there was no other reason than the mine or the support of the miners. So there would have been no town.

 

[Aquamarine]

Your comparing it to India? That's why they're damn good, because they're not Indian? That's not an argument, If I said Germans had damn good cars and then compared them to an Indian car line, what would that prove.

What are you complaining about? The poor in the US have many times the income of those in India. And for example almost all have a color television. Something many of the poor in India have never seen. Or the luxury of being fat, which the poor in the US have, while certainly not those in India.

 

[franznietzsche]

What are you complaining about? The poor in the US have many times the income of those in India. And for example almost all have a color television. Something many of the poor in India many have never seen. Or the luxury of being fat.

I don't think the poor appreciate the luxury of being fat.

Sorry,couldn'tt resist.

 

[Aquamarine]

I have to agree with Smurf's response to this(partially).


The first sentence of that is simply wrong.

What is true is that if the company lowers wages too much, people will leave in search of a company that does pay better, but that does not mean that one wil magically manifest itself.

However assuming that there is not a monopoly, then yes, competition with other companies to keep workers will keep wages up.

An important partof the free market systemis that it is not a monopoly. If all sectors of the economy were held in a monopoly, then mandate minimum wages would be necessary, but monopolies are not free market.

An above average profit will attract competitors. This can be prevented for a time with for example patents or trade secrets. But for a mature industry, the profits of surviving companies have a tendency to return to the mean over time. But it is true that this doesn't happen magically or at once.

 

[Aquamarine]

How about, if a town is dependant on a mine then the people there should have either previously been paid enough to be able to move somewhere else for work, or will be given the opinion of moving at the expense of the mine and/or state.

If for some reason the mine went into bankruptcy at once and without warning, there may be people who have no savings and may need help with relocating. This may be a responsibility of the state but in general I think that private charity can solve most of such problems if taxes are very low.

Regarding the value of real estate in the town, this is not the responsibility of the state any more than losing money due to the stock market speculation is.

 

[honestrosewater]

This is different from the principle of the current system how?

Assuming you mean the current system in the US...
Citizens do not have to 1) know all the laws nor
2) explicilty agree to be subject to the laws.

Also, the "spirit" of the nomocracy, in my view, is that the law determines every government action. So a law granting absolute power to someone to do as they please would be technically allowed but contrary in spirit. In other words, a "true" nomocracy would have as one of its laws that every government action must be determined by law.

The US system is similar to a nomocracy by coincidence, not because it's a federal republic.

 

[Zlex]

Hell; why don't we just make minimum wage $1000/h?

Then everyone will be rich...right?

 

[Smurf]

no we'd just have prices skyrocket and in response there would be massive inflation.

 

[vanesch]

then they should not have gone there to work.

So maybe the state should have forbidden then that that mine opened in the first place, no ?
Or better yet, the town should be bombed at night, just before the news got out that the mine will close because they cannot compete anymore with a mine on the other side of the globe where the ore is taken out much easier ?
You cannot expect the majority of people who are on one hand supposed to take low level jobs with a wage that doesn't permit them to even live decently to have such a macro economic prediction power that they foresee what will happen to them 30 years from now, no ?
Are you all so terribly egoistic that you cannot spare, say, 5% from your income to prevent some poor families from starving ?

 

[vanesch]

Hell; why don't we just make minimum wage $1000/h?

There is no need for a minimum wage if very basic primary needs are taken care off by the state. If you get a minimum housing (I mean a room with a bed), food (say, soup and a loaf of bread) and essential medical care, then this determines "minimum wage" because if what you earn doesn't buy you even that, you simply don't work for it.
Next, there should be a social programme like giving them some professional instructions and so on to try to get most of them "up and running" again.
I can assure you that MOST people who have humanely the choice to improve upon their situation would do so. But not if it means, get separated from your family, work in terrible conditions which are so bad for your health that you know you won't survive that in 10 years and other abuses.
And those that don't are really in such a miserable situation that whipping them with more poverty to get them to work will not really increase much the total GNP.

There should be a minimum of care for the others, (no matter how bad their decision history may have been) otherwise you're just a bunch of animals.

 

[Hurkyl]

You have no right to shelter--you have a right to build, or earn one.

And if the number of people who need to sustain themselves exceeds the number of jobs available to them that pay a living wage, then there's a problem, né?

And don't forget to account for the fact that there are others (e.g. teenagers) competing for those same jobs.

 

[franznietzsche]

And if the number of people who need to sustain themselves exceeds the number of jobs available to them that pay a living wage, then there's a problem, né?

And don't forget to account for the fact that there are others (e.g. teenagers) competing for those same jobs.

But its not the government's problem. Its their problem.

 

[Smurf]

It's too late to be arguing this. Can't we all just get alone?

 

[franznietzsche]

It's too late to be arguing this. Can't we all just get alone?

Never ever ever.

 

[russ_watters]

And don't forget to account for the fact that there are others (e.g. teenagers) competing for those same jobs.

You mentioned cashiers before: you just posted the solution. Teenagers are the ones who should be doing the minimum wage jobs - adults should get better jobs (we'll get to skills...).

And if the number of people who need to sustain themselves exceeds the number of jobs available to them that pay a living wage, then there's a problem, né?

Fortunately, in a mature capitalistic society, that isn't the case. Its ironic that some of the so-called socialist countries in Europe have several times the unemployment as the US.

Because a person has a right to life.

There are unskilled workers who must support themselves. Thus, there must be unskilled work that pays enough to support an unskilled person.

I really think you misunderstand what "right to life" - and maybe even the concept of "rights" itself means. Rights are negative, not positive: they are protected, not given. Having the right to life means no one is allowed to kill you, it does not mean (for example) that the government is required to provide you with healthcare.

The same goes for standard of living: the Constitution is there to protect your "...pursuit of happiness" - it does not exist to provide happiness for you.

So that brings us to those unskilled workers: why are they unskilled? Are they unskilled because they didn't finish high school(for example)? If so, the government has done all it is required to do - the rest is up to them. Government welfare and the minimum wage exists to counter real hardship - not to fix everyone's mistakes. Child welfare, disability, short-term unemployment compensation - these are the types of things government is responsible for.

Requiring people be paid a living wage for any job and be provided with all their needs is more consistent with socialism/communism and has proven itself to not work: it doesn't pull the underpriveledged up, it pulls everyone down.

 

[loseyourname]

How do you get companies that see this as in their best interest? The ones we have now fight transparency kicking and screaming.

Companies don't have to see this as in their best interest. If it were, then we wouldn't need any kind of government, now would we? All companies have to do is comply or be fined very heavily.

And how do economies of scale operate? If governmental decisions are all local and but corporate decisions can be global, you'd end up with a kind of corporate feudalism, with your proposed central governments sort of serving the role the church played in medieval feudalism.

I'm not sure what you mean. Governmental decisions in this system would only pertain to local decisions, except of course in defense and diplomacy. It wouldn't be all that different from the local governments already in place, except that the powers would be very minimal. Economies of scale can operate exactly the way they already do, but without interference. You'll have to elaborate on why you think global business decisions would interfere with the wills of localities.

 

[BobG]

I'm not sure what you mean. Governmental decisions in this system would only pertain to local decisions, except of course in defense and diplomacy. It wouldn't be all that different from the local governments already in place, except that the powers would be very minimal. Economies of scale can operate exactly the way they already do, but without interference. You'll have to elaborate on why you think global business decisions would interfere with the wills of localities.

Canton, OH is a good example of what some of you have been talking about. Is it illegal or unethical for Hoover to move its headquarters from Canton to Iowa the same year Timken closed three of its Canton factories? The young have two choices - seek a future somewhere else or accept a lower economic lifestyle in their hometown near their families.

Does the fact that a large corporation can close its factories interfere with the wills of localities?

First, the example of the bizarre. NFL owner threatens to move franchise to another town if the tax payers don't foot the bill for a new stadium equipped with luxury loges. Think the city caves? (Okay, Cleveland didn't. Oh, wait, then they changed their mind so they could replace the franchise that left.)

Major corporations have more economic power than an NFL franchise - in fact, more economic power than many small countries. They have lots more economic power than a city. Local governments will do just about anything to keep a big corporation from closing the doors on the local factory - they've seen what happened to cities in the rust belt (PA, OH, MI, etc). You can hold a company as long as the equipment in the factories and the building is still new, but when it comes to remodel and improve, big companies can find somewhere where the taxes are lower and the workers willing to work for less.

Of course, a strong central government forcing localities to buy from certain companies doesn't work that much better. In fact, Northern states banding up and imposing high tariffs on British goods so Southerners would buy from the North was as big (if not bigger) reason for the civil war as slavery was.

People do what they can do to keep making a living and local governments making local tax laws, environmental laws, etc more corporate friendly are just part of what people do. But the Constitution only guarantees an equal chance to pursuit of life, liberty, etc., it doesn't guarantee success.

People have no more right to a guaranteed middle class life in their hometown than the Native Americans had that their hunts would always bring in bountiful loads of food.

 

[honestrosewater]

Rights are negative, not positive: they are protected, not given. Having the right to life means no one is allowed to kill you, it does not mean (for example) that the government is required to provide you with healthcare.

This is a great clarification (whether I agree or not)... but you still haven't succeeded in drawing a clear line since a person can die from neglect. Ex. someone is drowning in a well, you have the chance to but don't throw them a rope and they die. Did you kill them? What if saving them would have put your own life at risk? You have to decide how much an individual is required to give to the government & their fellow-citizens. In deciding this, you should ask if "being required to give" is the same as "being stolen from" and what contradictions, if any, would result.

You also must decide if a right's utility matters. To someone dying of startvation, protection from being shot in the head may be very close to, if not compeltely, worthless. Similarly, of what worth are property rights to a person who owns no property? Or has no chance of aquiring property? Is the right to keep property worthless without the right to acquire property?

 

[loseyourname]

Canton, OH is a good example of what some of you have been talking about. Is it illegal or unethical for Hoover to move its headquarters from Canton to Iowa the same year Timken closed three of its Canton factories? The young have two choices - seek a future somewhere else or accept a lower economic lifestyle in their hometown near their families.

Does the fact that a large corporation can close its factories interfere with the wills of localities?

Under my system, the corporation would be treated the same regardless of where it was located; that is, income tax would be non-existent and the taxes they do pay would be the same in Ohio or Iowa.

As far as wages are concerned, it's difficult to fault a truly transparent capitalist system that operates without interference. No one is ever forced to work for low wages, but if they are willing, then that's the way it goes. No one if ever forced to work for or buy from anyone company and ultimately nothing ever occurs that the worker and consumer did not consent to. You might end up living in a situation dictated by majority will that you did not want, but that's exactly what happens under any democratic system.

 

[Smurf]

The problem with fining companies, is it's not the people responsible for the hardships that pay, they'll simply reduce wages to make up for the lost money, or fire people, thus causing more unemployment.

I think the real problem probably lays in the Corporation and the fact that it is legally a person. we need to correct this and prevent them from gaining too much control. In the beginning of the industrial revolution a corporation was set up for a specific purpose, like building a hospital, or a bridge, a corporation would be comissioned to do that and it would have extremely well defined rules it had to obey, now they have almost no rules and run almost unchecked internationally. That is the problem me thinks.

 

[franznietzsche]

The problem with fining companies, is it's not the people responsible for the hardships that pay, they'll simply reduce wages to make up for the lost money, or fire people, thus causing more unemployment.

I think the real problem probably lays in the Corporation and the fact that it is legally a person. we need to correct this and prevent them from gaining too much control. In the beginning of the industrial revolution a corporation was set up for a specific purpose, like building a hospital, or a bridge, a corporation would be comissioned to do that and it would have extremely well defined rules it had to obey, now they have almost no rules and run almost unchecked internationally. That is the problem me thinks.

Trust Busting ---> Zaibatsu Busting ---> COnlgomerations Busting? ----> Corporation BUsting?

Now we're all small business owners and employees (even though many small businesses are corporations for legal reasons. Heck some people incorporate themselves for legal and tax reasons).

 

[loseyourname]

The problem with fining companies, is it's not the people responsible for the hardships that pay, they'll simply reduce wages to make up for the lost money, or fire people, thus causing more unemployment.

I think the real problem probably lays in the Corporation and the fact that it is legally a person. we need to correct this and prevent them from gaining too much control. In the beginning of the industrial revolution a corporation was set up for a specific purpose, like building a hospital, or a bridge, a corporation would be comissioned to do that and it would have extremely well defined rules it had to obey, now they have almost no rules and run almost unchecked internationally. That is the problem me thinks.

There is no problem with fining companies. How many business owners have you known? Every one that I have suffered a great deal of hardship from being fined. Believe me, the last thing they want to do is lower wages or fire people. They do not benefit from low worker morale.

People are always quick to bemoan the corporation and blame it for all of the world's ills. Consider the fact that no corporation would ever exist if you were not either working for it or buying from it. Every corporation in existence is there because the consumer wants it to be there.

I believe what you're thinking of, as far as bridge-building and such is concerned, are public authorities, which I have a bit of a love affair with myself. I think there should be far more of them.

 

[Smurf]

All I want is more restrictions on corporations, more rules, and god damnit, fine the people responsible, not the corporations, Exxon can take a thousand blows and still make more from the exploitation than it paid for doing it. The people can't.

 

[loseyourname]

All I want is more restrictions on corporations, more rules, and god damnit, fine the people responsible, not the corporations, Exxon can take a thousand blows and still make more from the exploitation than it paid for doing it. The people can't.

More rules and more restrictions is in general what leads to higher prices and lower wages and attempts to evade the rules and restrictions. If you just let the free market operate under full disclosure, then it's simple. Don't work for Exxon and don't buy from Exxon if you don't support Exxon. Any company that wants to remain in existence has no choice but to satisfy its customers (read: you).

 

[Smurf]

I can see the logic in that, under ideal free market conditions I might even agree with you but the corporations have already accumulated too much power and the effectiveness of the free market to prevent monopoly is compromised. The media controls the minds of the people and the corporations control their lives. We have arrived at a state where a great number of people are dependant on these corporations, it's like an addiction, the media is keeping us psychologically addicted while the lifestyle keeps us physically addicted.

This causes for more serious measures than simply letting the free market take control...
and for gods sake Corporations shouldn't be legal people!

 

[Hurkyl]

I really think you misunderstand what "right to life" - and maybe even the concept of "rights" itself means. Rights are negative, not positive: they are protected, not given.

The "right to life" isn't very well protected if, say, an area has 10,000 people that can't afford to move, but only enough wages to support 7,500 people, now, is it?

Fortunately, in a mature capitalistic society, that isn't the case.

If that's the case (and stays the case), then good -- however this is not what has been argued thus far.

 

[franznietzsche]

The "right to life" isn't very well protected if, say, an area has 10,000 people that can't afford to move, but only enough wages to support 7,500 people, now, is it?




If that's the case (and stays the case), then good -- however this is not what has been argued thus far.

YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO A GOOD LIFE

You only have a right to a life. No standard of living is included in that.

 

[BobG]

In a way, I agree with Smurf.

Coorporations are nothing more than a collection of the people who run the company, people who work for the company, people who invest in the company, and people who buy from the company. Coorporations don't pay taxes. Since every coorporation is exposed to about the same tax costs, all can pass their tax burden on in higher prices (or lower wages and benefits and lower dividends). Coorporations are taxed because people do see them as faceless. It's easier for politicians to tax through corporations than it is to tell people directly that their taxes are going to be raised. (i.e - corporations collect taxes for the government through higher prices)

Being non-human, corporations are also amoral. They act to do one thing - generate money. Folks that generate money for them stay hired - those that don't generate money get fired. But, that may change.

Watch the technology that's starting to come out. You'll soon be able to scan products on the shelf and automatically retrieve info about the company from your laptop or wireless connection. Not that you'd want to do that kind of research in the middle of grocery shopping, but if you subscribed to a service that catered to your concerns (from an environmental group or a union group, for example), a quick scan could tell you whether that particular product was politically correct (at least in the eyes of the group who's service you subscribe to).

The same could theoretically apply to investors. The most common initial investment for the middle class novice is mutual funds. The investor often might not even know what companies those mutual funds are invested in. Since it's an overall strategy of diversity that usually determines your probable rate of returns vs. the specific companies you invest in, investment groups could sell politically correct mutual funds that cater to the political interests of its investors. Provided a good overall strategy for types of investments to make, a monkey throwing darts can usually pick stocks on a par with investment advisors, since no one knows how each and every stock is going to perform. The only danger is that, by picking only stocks politically correct to an investor, the investor might wind up picking too narrow a spread where all are likely to go up or down together.