News Where Do Labor Unions Fit in a Capitalist Society?

[arildno]

I woke up feeling like bashing the chinese today :D

Been there, done that; what about Danes?

 

[alexandra]

I woke up feeling like bashing the chinese today :D

Been there, done that; what about Danes?

Whatever... anyone who's a different nationality to what WE are...

 

[alexandra]

As for the working class in the developed world being defeated and in crisis, I think that is nonsense. If you compare conditions today with even 50 years ago there have been huge advancements in living standards for the working classes by whatever yardstick you care to mention.

Oh, really? Well, here is some research I've done:

Often under-valued and overlooked, employees earning less than $15,000 annually are estimated to
make up nearly one-third (32%) of American workers today, with an additional 20% in the $15,000 –
25,000 earnings category (Carnevale and Rose, 2001). Reference: http://www.bc.edu/centers/cwf/research/publications/meta-elements/pdf/LowWageStudy.pdf

Notice: "nearly one-third (32% of American workers today. And here is an estimate of exactly how poor this is:

How much income do most Americans believe it takes to provide adequately for a family of four?
Most Americans think that it takes about $35,000 annually to adequately house, clothe and feed a family of four.

See http://www.usnewswire.com/topnews/qtr1_2003/0107-103.html for more details of public opinion survey. - Reference: http://www.osjspm.org/101_poverty.htm#7

And here are some stats for the UK:

Just under 1 in 4 people in the UK – or nearly 13 million people – live in poverty, according to the latest figures. This includes nearly 1 in 3 children (almost 4 million)...

One recent survey showed that about 6.5 million adults go without essential clothing, such as a warm waterproof coat, because of lack of money.

Over 10.5 million people live in financial insecurity: they can’t afford to save, insure their house contents, or spend even small amounts on themselves. About 9.5 million can’t afford adequate housing – heated, free from damp, and in a decent state of decoration. The crucial factor about these findings is that they are based on a survey of what the general population sees as necessities.

We also know what a dark shadow poverty casts, particularly over children’s lives and their futures. Eighteen per cent of children go without two or more items that the majority of the population says are necessities, such as adequate clothing, toys, or three meals a day.

One in five non-working families on low or moderate incomes reported being unable to afford some basic food items on most days in 2000.

Reference: http://www.oxfamgb.org/ukpp/poverty/thefacts.htm#6

Yes, obviously the working class has won! How can one argue against such victories?

If you mean by working class the true socialists i.e. the change by revolution lobby, then yes I agree they are in crisis because they no longer have a discontented mass to brew their revolution in.

Let's wait and see, shall we?

The only major issue socialists (a term I use in the context of your definition) seem to have to complain about these days is that under capitalism some people end up extremely rich; which seems odd to me. I'd have thought these idealists would be above such materialism. Just because someone has a bigger bank balance doesn't make them any happier so why envy them?

Yes, sure. That's the only major issue... as the facts quoted above attest.

I have many criticisms of what I see as the 'unacceptable face' of capitalism but in general it is the best system yet devised and through the efforts of modern socialists will continue to evolve.
Communism is dead and gone and yes you can have your inquest over it's dead body; was it strangled at birth, was it murdered later, was it a doppleganger or was it simply a useless system. None of this changes the fact it's dead and the only thing that breathed life into it in the first place was extreme poverty and hardship so without those ingredients you can forget about it being resurrected.

Let's wait and see, I say again. People are *momentarily* defeated - your statement sounds like something Orwell's character O'Brien in '1984' (http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/1984/) would say. If we give into the O'Briens of the world, there is truly no hope. If people who say such things are right, there is truly no hope for humanity: it deserves the end its going to come to.

Old style socialists are indeed in crisis and will remain so until they begin to spend their time more gainfully employed working within the system to drive out abuse and to further improve the living standards of the poor rather than continue to 'tilt at windmills'. IMHO

There is nothing 'humble' about your opinion, Art - so there is no need to claim 'humbleness'. You are so sure you're right, there's just no question in your mind. Well, don't pretend a humbleness you don't feel.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

Oh, really? Well, here is some research I've done: Notice: "nearly one-third (32% of American workers today. And here is an estimate of exactly how poor this is:

and have you considered how many of those people are teenagers flipping burgers, or people who never graduated from high school?

do they really deserve more than minimum wage, or am i just being "elitist" here? (don't even bother with elitist crap at this point, because I have worked these types of jobs myself when I was younger).

and don't fool yourself: if they removed the gov. enforced minimum wage, they sure as hell would be paid less than $5.75/hr because in reality their work is worth less than that.

and for that matter, is 1/3 really that bad? why don't you start pulling out some statistics from other countries to put things in perspective for us?

 

[alexandra]

The company owners, investors, and workers all have important stakes riding on how the well the company competes against other companies - not recognizing that a company's health was as important to the worker as the employer has been a fatal flaw for just about every US union.

You make the labor more expensive than relocation and you're cutting labor's throat. I grew up in the tire capital of the world. All of those tire plants are closed now. When it came time to invest in new factories and equipment, it only made sense to make those investments somewhere the labor was cheaper. Instead of getting less pay, those old workers get no pay (or, more realistically, every young person moves out of there as soon as they can, the same way I did).

Well, Bob, do you suggest that US workers can live on $12.77 a day? What is that annually - about $4 661.00? Should US workers accept such wages? Would you work for $12.77 a day? And could you raise a family on this wage? Oh, here is the source of my daily wage:

Goodyear to cut 480 jobs in Lincoln by 2003

BY JOHN TAYLOR

WORLD-HERALD BUREAU http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_np=0&u_pg=46&u_sid=538025
LINCOLN - Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. made it official Friday, October 18th, 2002...

The Akron, Ohio-based company will replace $18-an-hour employees at its Lincoln plant with workers at a new facility in Mexico, who probably make no more than $12.77 a day.
Reference: http://www.cyberclass.net/goodyear.htm

...rich owners were the enemy of the worker and couldn't be trusted - an idea I'd tend to relate to socialism or communism.

This is true - owners are the enemy of the worker. The workers just have to gather their courage to do something about it (no doubt, they already know who their enemy is - well, I believe they do, because people aren't as stupid as the powerful think they are).

 

[alexandra]

and have you considered how many of those people are teenagers flipping burgers, or people who never graduated from high school?

do they really deserve more than minimum wage, or am i just being "elitist" here? (don't even bother with elitist crap at this point, because I have worked these types of jobs myself when I was younger).

and don't fool yourself: if they removed the gov. enforced minimum wage, they sure as hell would be paid less than $5.75/hr because in reality their work is worth less than that.

and for that matter, is 1/3 really that bad? why don't you start pulling out some statistics from other countries to put things in perspective for us?

quetzalcoat|9, it is not my job to find statistics to prove your argument. If you want to argue against what I write, find reputable sources of information to back up your own arguments. It is truly offensive to ask me to waste my time to find out how many of those people are teenagers. If you believe in teenage slavery, find your own evidence!

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

quetzalcoat|9, it is not my job to find statistics to prove your argument. If you want to argue against what I write, find reputable sources of information to back up your own arguments. It is truly offensive to ask me to waste my time to find out how many of those people are teenagers. If you believe in teenage slavery, find your own evidence!

suffice it to say, that the vast majority of the world lives in poverty. not only that, making $30k/year is certainly not poverty (considering 2 people living together here, each making $15k/year). even the poorest people here have a car, tv, place to live, etc. and even if they cannot afford a place to live, the gov. will give them one, sweet!

"teenage slavery?" are you talking about kids losing fingers making clothing in honduras or kids here being paid $200/week in relative comfort? because one is slavery, and the other isn't.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

Should US workers accept such wages? Would you work for $12.77 a day? And could you raise a family on this wage?

yes, they are called "graduate students" and some of us manage to do it with families.

not only that, certainly our services are worth more than $12/hr, we make the same as the guy down the street picking up your garbage. does that seem fair? if not, burn down all the schools! death to the enemy! long live che guevara! raghhh!

 

[alexandra]

does that seem fair? if not, burn down all the schools! death to the enemy! long live che guevara! raghhh!

- Not quite, quetzalcoatl9. I may come across as totally enraged at the injustices that happen in the world (and I certainly am livid with fury), but I have no illusions that guevara-style guerrilla tactics is the answer. Unfortunately, the solution is much more complex than that and will take a lot of time and effort: it involves very patient, pain-staking education - or rather, the re-education - of people who have been stupified into submission by the mass media and the lies they have swallowed hook, line and s[t]inker... Fortunately, their very lives will confirm the truth to them.

I really don't think people will continually put up with being totally exploited and used up foverever; eventually, they will be backed into a corner from which there is no escape and will be forced to see and recognise reality for what it is. Then things will start changing... My only real worry is that the environment will be beyond the point of our ability to save it before people wake up - but life is an experiment, and if this happens - well, dude, that's the end of humanity. No great loss...

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

(and I certainly am livid with fury), but I have no illusions that guevara-style guerrilla tactics is the answer.

neither do i. as a staunch capitalist, i was just trying to be funny.

but you still haven't addressed my critique of your critique..

 

[Art]

Alexandra I think it is important to point out that bodies such as Oxfam determine people as poor as those with an income of <60% of the median income for the country they are appraising. This means that however wealthy a population becomes, a sizable proportion will always be classified as poor even if they are millionaires unless of course you have a communist gov't whereby wealth is redistributed equally.
Unfortunately this would result in a country where nobody is classified as poor but given communism's economic track record everybody would live in poverty. Or as my good friend Brutus used to say Aegrescit medendo
Therefore IM ever so HO all statistics you quoted based on that ridiculous definition of poverty are equally meaningless.

You'll need to do better than this to rile the oppressed masses.

p.s. Alexandra, as you are evidently a big fan of G. Orwell what do you think of his book Animal Farm wherein he derides communism? If I'm O'Brien doesn't that make you Sqealer?

For those who haven't read Animal Farm here's a good summary of the book;

http://www.gradesaver.com/ClassicNotes/Titles/animalfarm/shortsumm.html

 

[BobG]

Well, Bob, do you suggest that US workers can live on $12.77 a day? What is that annually - about $4 661.00? Should US workers accept such wages? Would you work for $12.77 a day? And could you raise a family on this wage? Oh, here is the source of my daily wage: This is true - owners are the enemy of the worker. The workers just have to gather their courage to do something about it (no doubt, they already know who their enemy is - well, I believe they do, because people aren't as stupid as the powerful think they are).

The articles on poverty in the US and UK are a little exaggerated. Poverty levels in the US and UK are 12 and 17 percent, respectively - surprisingly bad compared to most European countries or a slew of Asian countries, but not as bad as the article portrays.

Competing with labor in other countries is a problem - obviously an American worker can't live on $12.77 a day (I think one poster thought that was $12.77/hr). The poverty level in Mexico is 40%. Of course people in Mexico will work for less - for awhile. That's how countries pull their people out of poverty - a little bit at a time - and why Asian countries that we like to put down for stealing our jobs are beginning to have lower poverty rates than we do.

If the national infrastructure is there to support industry and there are workers willing to work, someone is going to move into that job market and whoever does will have a huge competitive advantage over a company located in a more expensive country. In other words, if Goodyear didn't close their Lincoln plant to replace it with a Mexican plant, they would be closing the Lincoln plant because Michelin or Goodrich or some other company was underselling them.

Edit: And the Lincoln workers were being asked to take a pay cut from $18/hr to $14/hr, not a cut to $12.77/day. Except all the workers would have had to take a pay cut, not just the 480 being replaced by the plant in Mexico. The other workers at the plant not losing their jobs weren't willing to take a 20% pay cut to save their fellow workers jobs.

By the way, I'm not exactly pro company executives, either. I find it a little disturbing when companies are very capitalistic when it comes to the idea that the people taking the financial risks are the ones that should gain the most when the risk pays off, but suddenly become very socialistic and ask for taxpayer bailouts when business turns sour. The question was whether unions were capitalist or socialist and unions inability to recognize all the players in the game that they were competing against was a big problem for them.

 

[loseyourname]

Oh, really? Well, here is some research I've done: Notice: "nearly one-third (32% of American workers today. And here is an estimate of exactly how poor this is:

That study says at the very beginning that it is a study of hourly workers. Hourly workers make up only the bottom rung of companies. If salaried workers were included, the numbers would not look nearly so bad. A lot of these hourly workers are, as quetzalcoatl points out, high school or college students working to go out, see a movie, and maybe buy some drinks. The retail and customer service industries, huge industries in the US, are especially loaded with people like this, people for whom this money is more than enough.

Aside from that, even if 32% of American workers were making less than $15,000/year (they aren't), you still wouldn't have contradicted Art's statement, which was that conditions have improved drastically, not that conditions are currently perfect. You seem to ignore that little detail in almost all of your posts. Capitalism is the devil, but what was the world like before capitalism? Economies were supported by real slaves and serfdom, and probably 95% of the world's wealth was owned by a miniscule noble class. There was little to no technological innovation and absolutely no prospect of class mobility. You can't possibly say capitalism has made the world worse off.

 

[alexandra]

That study says at the very beginning that it is a study of hourly workers. Hourly workers make up only the bottom rung of companies. If salaried workers were included, the numbers would not look nearly so bad. A lot of these hourly workers are, as quetzalcoatl points out, high school or college students working to go out, see a movie, and maybe buy some drinks. The retail and customer service industries, huge industries in the US, are especially loaded with people like this, people for whom this money is more than enough.

I have closely reread the Introduction to that paper – it is impossible to tell from the information it gives whether most (or even a lot) of these hourly workers are high school or college students. We can’t settle this argument with information in that paper – we’ll have to look for evidence elsewhere.

Aside from that, even if 32% of American workers were making less than $15,000/year (they aren't), you still wouldn't have contradicted Art's statement, which was that conditions have improved drastically, not that conditions are currently perfect. You seem to ignore that little detail in almost all of your posts. Capitalism is the devil, but what was the world like before capitalism? Economies were supported by real slaves and serfdom, and probably 95% of the world's wealth was owned by a miniscule noble class. There was little to no technological innovation and absolutely no prospect of class mobility. You can't possibly say capitalism has made the world worse off.

I think I’ve already stated this elsewhere – I understand that capitalism was a necessary phase of development (well, if not necessary, it definitely happened - and one cannot discount history); of course I do not wish to propose that we retreat to a more primitive social formation such as feudalism, and of course capitalism constituted an advance over feudalism. I am simply arguing that capitalism is not ‘the end of history’ – it is not the final transformation, the ‘best of all possible worlds’. It is a system based on exploitation, individualism and greed, and it overwhelmingly favours those who are already wealthy and disadvantages those who are poor. It is therefore not perfect (a better social system can supersede it). Moreover, capitalism and its underlying ideology is dangerous (potentially catastrophically dangerous) because it has inbuilt features that value profit above all else, including above environmental concerns. It is a short-sighted system based on greed and this threatens the viability of our planet’s climate and therefore threatens our existence as a species.

 

[alexandra]

The articles on poverty in the US and UK are a little exaggerated. Poverty levels in the US and UK are 12 and 17 percent, respectively - surprisingly bad compared to most European countries or a slew of Asian countries, but not as bad as the article portrays.

Ok, Bob - but I wouldn't mind knowing where you got your 12 and 17 percent statistics from (I'm always on the look-out for good references).

Competing with labor in other countries is a problem - obviously an American worker can't live on $12.77 a day (I think one poster thought that was $12.77/hr).

Thank you for pointing this out (the misconception) - it saves me having to:-)

In other words, if Goodyear didn't close their Lincoln plant to replace it with a Mexican plant, they would be closing the Lincoln plant because Michelin or Goodrich or some other company was underselling them.

Edit: And the Lincoln workers were being asked to take a pay cut from $18/hr to $14/hr, not a cut to $12.77/day. Except all the workers would have had to take a pay cut, not just the 480 being replaced by the plant in Mexico. The other workers at the plant not losing their jobs weren't willing to take a 20% pay cut to save their fellow workers jobs.

A variation on the point you make below: why is it that ordinary workers have to sacrifice their salaries for their workmates while CEOs are actually given larger (and absolutely obscene) salaries - why does cutting costs not affect upper management? I mean, where's the fairness in a system that works like this?

By the way, I'm not exactly pro company executives, either. I find it a little disturbing when companies are very capitalistic when it comes to the idea that the people taking the financial risks are the ones that should gain the most when the risk pays off, but suddenly become very socialistic and ask for taxpayer bailouts when business turns sour.

Yes - good point. But I seem to feel a lot more indignant about such unfair practices than others do. It is because I clearly see and understand these aspects of capitalism (who the system favours, and at whose cost) that I cannot understand why it should have so many defenders - especially amongst a group of people who are as well-educated and as well-trained in critical thinking skills (when it comes to science at least) as PF members are. Why do scientists stop being scientific when it comes to patriotism, ideology and politics? This truly perplexes me.

 

[alexandra]

Alexandra I think it is important to point out that bodies such as Oxfam determine people as poor as those with an income of <60% of the median income for the country they are appraising.

Yes, but this is an EU-accepted definition. Note, also, that from what is stated in the rest of the paragraph, these figures show only part of the picture – they “don’t mean very much by themselves…” etc:

Poverty is measured here as below 60 per cent of contemporary median net disposable income in 2000/01. This is the ‘poverty line’ which has been accepted recently across the European Union to measure the extent of poverty in member states; it is not the same as a comprehensive definition of poverty, which includes many other dimensions. These figures look at incomes in Great Britain, after housing costs have been paid, and include the self-employed. These figures don’t mean very much by themselves -- they only refer to low incomes relative to the rest of the population in the UK. They don’t tell us much about the many different aspects of poverty and the way people experience it. http://www.oxfamgb.org/ukpp/poverty/thefacts.htm

This means that however wealthy a population becomes, a sizable proportion will always be classified as poor even if they are millionaires unless of course you have a communist gov't whereby wealth is redistributed equally. Unfortunately this would result in a country where nobody is classified as poor but given communism's economic track record everybody would live in poverty. Or as my good friend Brutus used to say Aegrescit medendo

Well, ok – so this is the best of all possible worlds. How sad… I wonder if that’s what the people who are having a hard time of it think (and will forever think)?

Therefore IM ever so HO all statistics you quoted based on that ridiculous definition of poverty are equally meaningless.

Well, Art, obviously you are wasting your time responding to me then - if everything I post is meaningless. Perhaps you just want to irritate me by being ‘humble’? Oh well, go ahead – it’s amusing…

You'll need to do better than this to rile the oppressed masses.

That’s not what I’m trying to do on these discussion boards. I’m trying to have intellectual discussions with people who like discussing ideas. I realize (I’m not as stupid as you think) that there are no “oppressed masses” here – and I also (cleverly) realize why it is that my ideas get slammed and ridiculed so frequently. I analyse the social world in terms of class, so please give me credit for knowing the class that the people I am talking to belong to.

p.s. Alexandra, as you are evidently a big fan of G. Orwell what do you think of his book Animal Farm wherein he derides communism? If I'm O'Brien doesn't that make you Sqealer?

For those who haven't read Animal Farm here's a good summary of the book;

http://www.gradesaver.com/ClassicNotes/Titles/animalfarm/shortsumm.html

Art, Orwell was not deriding communism (though this is what you would have been taught to interpret the classic, Animal Farm, as doing (for obvious, propagandistic reasons); he was deriding Stalinism, which was a barbaric political system and deserved totally to be discredited by all genuine socialists (Orwell was a socialist – you seem to know about him, so you’ll know he fought in the Spanish Civil War on the side of the anarchists. That’s where he learned about the reality of Stalinism). It is really annoying when people deliberately use the terms Stalinism and communism interchangeably – they are not the same thing. Stalin was neither a socialist nor a communist. Stalin was a dictator. Ah yes, the ‘Squealer’ dig – well, if it makes you feel better, go ahead… In my ridiculous fashion, I will continue to analyse the world the way it makes sense to me and draw my own conclusions about what is happening.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

Capitalism is the devil, but what was the world like before capitalism? Economies were supported by real slaves and serfdom, and probably 95% of the world's wealth was owned by a miniscule noble class. There was little to no technological innovation and absolutely no prospect of class mobility. You can't possibly say capitalism has made the world worse off.

"Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on Earth and need means to deal with one another—their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun."

-Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand

 

[BobG]

Ok, Bob - but I wouldn't mind knowing where you got your 12 and 17 percent statistics from (I'm always on the look-out for good references).

The CIA World Fact Book (quite a few other references use this as their source reference, as well, so the numbers from other sources often match this)

I used to have some UN statistics as well, but I don't think they have the report on their website anymore (it was a little older report, in any event).

 

[alexandra]

The CIA World Fact Book (quite a few other references use this as their source reference, as well, so the numbers from other sources often match this) report on their website anymore (it was a little older report, in any event).

Thanks, Bob. I will have to have a look at it - here's a shameful admission: I just couldn't bring myself to refer that resource (for ideological reasons) But this is incredibly silly of me, and I will have to overcome my aversion because, from what I've read in the Factbook thread, it seems to be a pretty good source of information.

 

[alexandra]

"Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on Earth and need means to deal with one another—their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun."

-Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand

Charming! What faith she has in humanity

 

[BobG]

A variation on the point you make below: why is it that ordinary workers have to sacrifice their salaries for their workmates while CEOs are actually given larger (and absolutely obscene) salaries - why does cutting costs not affect upper management? I mean, where's the fairness in a system that works like this?

If I were a heavy investor in Goodyear and their CEO got a hefty raise, I'd be screaming. Their stock prices fell from a high of $76/share in 1998 to $8.37 at the time of the story (2002) to under $4/share by 2004. They're a company in trouble, even if they have gotten back up to double digits.

Of course, the same could be said of United Airline's CEO, whose retirement benefits weren't affected by the company bailing out on employee retirement benefits. You could possibly justify that somewhat since the airline environment has changed substantially since United's commitment to provide and fund those benefits - a fact that has had more to do with United's problems than management ineptitude. You still would think management would get paid based on whether they win or lose, though.

 

[vanesch]

If I were a heavy investor in Goodyear and their CEO got a hefty raise, I'd be screaming. Their stock prices fell from a high of $76/share in 1998 to $8.37 at the time of the story (2002) to under $4/share by 2004. They're a company in trouble, even if they have gotten back up to double digits.

The reason why failing CEOs often get big bail-out checks is probably that their "power of nuisance" is so big, that giving them $20 million extra to make them leave 6 months earlier and without making trouble, will cost the company MUCH LESS than if the guy would stay on and be difficult. So the "price to get quickly off a bad CEO" is probably optimized with these big checks. Just my idea.

EDIT: if this is true, this would mean that if you, as a CEO, feel the wind turning, better make a complete mess of it right away, so that they pay you A LOT to leave :-)

 

[selfAdjoint]

The reason why failing CEOs often get big bail-out checks is probably that their "power of nuisance" is so big, that giving them $20 million extra to make them leave 6 months earlier and without making trouble, will cost the company MUCH LESS than if the guy would stay on and be difficult. So the "price to get quickly off a bad CEO" is probably optimized with these big checks. Just my idea.

EDIT: if this is true, this would mean that if you, as a CEO, feel the wind turning, better make a complete mess of it right away, so that they pay you A LOT to leave :-)

That's part of it maybe. But I am of the view that the set of CEOs of US companies is not a meritocracy at all, but a jobs pool for the Brahmin class of the US. See how many failed CEOs go right into another CEO position.

 

[alexandra]

Of course, the same could be said of United Airline's CEO, whose retirement benefits weren't affected by the company bailing out on employee retirement benefits. You could possibly justify that somewhat since the airline environment has changed substantially since United's commitment to provide and fund those benefits - a fact that has had more to do with United's problems than management ineptitude. You still would think management would get paid based on whether they win or lose, though.

This is exactly what I mean, though, by harping on about the injustice of a socio-economic system based on private ownership - it is inherently (according to my analysis) unjust and therefore flawed. That's why I think we could do better than this:-) But for whatever reasons (to do with past experiences we have had, our current situation in life, etc), we all arrive at different conclusions, even when examining the same facts. But I enjoy having discussions with people who refer to the facts (thanks, BobG), even if we don't ultimately agree on the conclusions we reach once we've completed our analyses.

 

[alexandra]

But I am of the view that the set of CEOs of US companies is not a meritocracy at all, but a jobs pool for the Brahmin class of the US. See how many failed CEOs go right into another CEO position.

Brahmin class! Great stuff, selfAdjoint!

 

[vanesch]

Just a bold proposition - as an intellectual exercise :-)

What if there were a MAXIMUM ownership allowed for ? Say, at something like $100 million or so ? That wouldn't change zitch to most people so almost all (good) incentive to DO and take initiative according to the capitalist idea remains intact. It would however naturally break the power of big corporations and a few very rich individuals, which is usually seen as the corrupting factor in capitalist systems. It would in fact lead naturally to a more smooth market mechanism (automatic limitation of monopoly situations). Large corporations could not exist, but would naturally be "woven networks of small companies" to do the same thing.
There is no revolutionary idea that needs to be invented to impose this limit: the system exists already and is called "taxes": it is sufficient to raise the taxation level to 100% once you reach the allowed limit.

(runs and hides...)

 

[alexandra]

Just a bold proposition - as an intellectual exercise :-)

What if there were a MAXIMUM ownership allowed for ? Say, at something like $100 million or so ? That wouldn't change zitch to most people so almost all (good) incentive to DO and take initiative according to the capitalist idea remains intact. It would however naturally break the power of big corporations and a few very rich individuals, which is usually seen as the corrupting factor in capitalist systems. It would in fact lead naturally to a more smooth market mechanism (automatic limitation of monopoly situations). Large corporations could not exist, but would naturally be "woven networks of small companies" to do the same thing.
There is no revolutionary idea that needs to be invented to impose this limit: the system exists already and is called "taxes": it is sufficient to raise the taxation level to 100% once you reach the allowed limit.

(runs and hides...)

I'd go with that (maybe bring that maximum figure down a bit, though)! You get some excellent ideas, vanesch - if I could vote for you, I definitely would!

 

[vanesch]

I'd go with that (maybe bring that maximum figure down a bit, though)!

No, no, the idea is still that you can get unethically rich, buy a nice luxury boat and everything. However, no legal person should have SO MUCH money that it turns into political power. I don't know exactly where that limit is.

 

[loseyourname]

Just a bold proposition - as an intellectual exercise :-)

What if there were a MAXIMUM ownership allowed for ? Say, at something like $100 million or so ? That wouldn't change zitch to most people so almost all (good) incentive to DO and take initiative according to the capitalist idea remains intact. It would however naturally break the power of big corporations and a few very rich individuals, which is usually seen as the corrupting factor in capitalist systems. It would in fact lead naturally to a more smooth market mechanism (automatic limitation of monopoly situations). Large corporations could not exist, but would naturally be "woven networks of small companies" to do the same thing.
There is no revolutionary idea that needs to be invented to impose this limit: the system exists already and is called "taxes": it is sufficient to raise the taxation level to 100% once you reach the allowed limit.

(runs and hides...)

How do you tax assets that are not liquid? Let's say someone buys an Arena Football League team for $20 million. The league takes off, the team is very successful and becomes worth $200 million. Will you force him to give half ownership to the government? What possible interest could the government have in owning half of an AFL team?

 

[vanesch]

How do you tax assets that are not liquid? Let's say someone buys an Arena Football League team for $20 million. The league takes off, the team is very successful and becomes worth $200 million.

First, I think indeed my number of $100 million is too low.
But to answer your question, the team would have to SPLIT UP into smaller groups, which could then eventually reach "business agreements" to play games together. Best would even be that the members of the team became independent, proposing their services of game for one, or a set, of games, to the "team" which would only be a "game organizer" (worth much less without the players!). The players would be "playing consultants" :-)
A much higher flexibility would arise that way: no "big contracts" and things like that, just individual players, worth what they are worth, proposing their individual services to "game organizers", for one, or a few (package deals :-) games.
In most big companies, this system is applied anyway, by splitting up the personnel in "business units", which play the game of internal competition. Instead of keeping that competition internally, you could put it on the market straight away, business units making up "virtual companies" in a dynamical process. It wouldn't change much, except for the big corporate structures, which wouldn't exist anymore, but just emerge as dynamical business relationships.