Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

15 million, thats what less than 1/2 of 1% of Americans? The people with the least amount of money in the US, I fail to see the problem. I would love to see all the money these "deadbeats" have received total for the last 20 years and compare it to one bailout.

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:It wasn't good enough for pre-revolution France. That is why they had a revolution. Everyone rich was chased out of the country or had their heads chopped off.

Killkrazy...sacrasm alert FAIL!

Time for some learning more gooder!

Pish and tush!

Right. It's my bedtime.

"Its good to be the King!"

Frazzled wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:It wasn't good enough for pre-revolution France. That is why they had a revolution. Everyone rich was chased out of the country or had their heads chopped off.

Killkrazy...sacrasm alert FAIL!

Time for some learning more gooder!

Can we learn about the Jews next? I liked the part about the Jews.

The article didn't explicitly state the numbers, but my hunch is most of the 15 million folks who get the kick-back do so because they make a pittance and have kids. I saw the "$8000 refunded on an $11,000 refund" number but I'm curious on how they came to that. Kids are only worth something like $1000 or $1500 in credit and I think that's only up to 3 or so. Maybe they're counting food stamps or something.

Anyway, it sounds like most of these folks are working - they're just making barely anything. It sounds like one of the more effective welfare plans we have in place so I have a hard time getting worked up about it.

DutchKillsRambo wrote:15 million, thats what less than 1/2 of 1% of Americans? The people with the least amount of money in the US, I fail to see the problem. I would love to see all the money these "deadbeats" have received total for the last 20 years and compare it to one bailout.

There's about 300 million Americans, so 15 million is about 5% of the total population.

Poastan in a troll thread.

The level of rhetorical chaff in this particular debate is infuriating.

"Redistribution of wealth" is a bad term. It's obvious that we're doing it all the time already, and it's necessary in any society that wishes to deal with its poor in a fashion besides "kill them if they get uppity."

So it's not universally bad, but it's still a matter of degrees and outcomes. If it's excessive and stifles commerce, it's bad. But to some extent, it's better to just pay people, even lazy worthless people, what it takes for them to not be a detriment to themselves and to society. While it might be morally upsetting to some, it's actually better to pay a guy $1000 to shut up and sit in his house than it is to pay $2000 to replace the thing he stole cause he was angry you wouldn't give him $1000.

I'm also completely sick of "the rich need pay their fair share." It's such class-warfare hate jabber, it demeans anybody who says it. The top 1% of all earners in America pay 40% of all taxes. They're paying FAR more than their "fair share." I never ran the numbers exactly, but I'd speculate that if you're not in the top 5% of all earners, you're probably getting more in terms of goods and services for your tax dollars than you're putting in. So, bascally, 95% of Americans are paying LESS than their "fair share," and the only people paying their fair share ARE the rich.

(and, of course, how you value the provided goods and services is up to you, but if we assume that everyone benefits equally from those goods and services, then the vast majority get out more than they put in)

It's not about what's "fair." It's about what's "effective."

It's about maximizing tax revenue. You tax in a way that maximizes your revenue over as long a term as possible. If taxing the top 1% even more is possible, and won't cripple spending over the long term, I'm all for it. If lowering taxes on the rich would actually increase revenue, again, I'm all for it.

I'm not claiming to be a macroecnomic genius, I'm not saying I know how to set up the rates and brackets...

I'm just saying that if all people do is argue about "fairness" and class warfare BS, that's asking all the wrong questions, there's NO way to get the right answer.

Pay your taxes and stop complaining america.....

Phryxis wrote:The level of rhetorical chaff in this particular debate is infuriating.

"Redistribution of wealth" is a bad term. It's obvious that we're doing it all the time already, and it's necessary in any society that wishes to deal with its poor in a fashion besides "kill them if they get uppity."

So it's not universally bad, but it's still a matter of degrees and outcomes. If it's excessive and stifles commerce, it's bad. But to some extent, it's better to just pay people, even lazy worthless people, what it takes for them to not be a detriment to themselves and to society. While it might be morally upsetting to some, it's actually better to pay a guy $1000 to shut up and sit in his house than it is to pay $2000 to replace the thing he stole cause he was angry you wouldn't give him $1000.

I'm also completely sick of "the rich need pay their fair share." It's such class-warfare hate jabber, it demeans anybody who says it. The top 1% of all earners in America pay 40% of all taxes. They're paying FAR more than their "fair share." I never ran the numbers exactly, but I'd speculate that if you're not in the top 5% of all earners, you're probably getting more in terms of goods and services for your tax dollars than you're putting in. So, bascally, 95% of Americans are paying LESS than their "fair share," and the only people paying their fair share ARE the rich.

(and, of course, how you value the provided goods and services is up to you, but if we assume that everyone benefits equally from those goods and services, then the vast majority get out more than they put in)

It's not about what's "fair." It's about what's "effective."

It's about maximizing tax revenue. You tax in a way that maximizes your revenue over as long a term as possible. If taxing the top 1% even more is possible, and won't cripple spending over the long term, I'm all for it. If lowering taxes on the rich would actually increase revenue, again, I'm all for it.

I'm not claiming to be a macroecnomic genius, I'm not saying I know how to set up the rates and brackets...

I'm just saying that if all people do is argue about "fairness" and class warfare BS, that's asking all the wrong questions, there's NO way to get the right answer.

QFT

Here: http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

Notice that the top has paid more and more over time, and the bottom has paid less and less. And that's during GWB's tenure as well...

Imagine what will happen under Obama?

Again, not saying it's bad, just that it's reality. The rich pay a LOT and over time they're paying even more. The "fair share" language is loaded BS. It shouldn't even be how we talk about it, but if it has to be, it should at least be marginally correct.

Phryxis wrote:
I'm just saying that if all people do is argue about "fairness" and class warfare BS, that's asking all the wrong questions, there's NO way to get the right answer.

Yup.

Phryxis wrote:The level of rhetorical chaff in this particular debate is infuriating.

"Redistribution of wealth" is a bad term. It's obvious that we're doing it all the time already, and it's necessary in any society that wishes to deal with its poor in a fashion besides "kill them if they get uppity."

So it's not universally bad, but it's still a matter of degrees and outcomes. If it's excessive and stifles commerce, it's bad. But to some extent, it's better to just pay people, even lazy worthless people, what it takes for them to not be a detriment to themselves and to society. While it might be morally upsetting to some, it's actually better to pay a guy $1000 to shut up and sit in his house than it is to pay $2000 to replace the thing he stole cause he was angry you wouldn't give him $1000.

I'm also completely sick of "the rich need pay their fair share." It's such class-warfare hate jabber, it demeans anybody who says it. The top 1% of all earners in America pay 40% of all taxes. They're paying FAR more than their "fair share." I never ran the numbers exactly, but I'd speculate that if you're not in the top 5% of all earners, you're probably getting more in terms of goods and services for your tax dollars than you're putting in. So, bascally, 95% of Americans are paying LESS than their "fair share," and the only people paying their fair share ARE the rich.

(and, of course, how you value the provided goods and services is up to you, but if we assume that everyone benefits equally from those goods and services, then the vast majority get out more than they put in)

It's not about what's "fair." It's about what's "effective."

It's about maximizing tax revenue. You tax in a way that maximizes your revenue over as long a term as possible. If taxing the top 1% even more is possible, and won't cripple spending over the long term, I'm all for it. If lowering taxes on the rich would actually increase revenue, again, I'm all for it.

I'm not claiming to be a macroecnomic genius, I'm not saying I know how to set up the rates and brackets...

I'm just saying that if all people do is argue about "fairness" and class warfare BS, that's asking all the wrong questions, there's NO way to get the right answer.

I hear the 1% pay 40% argument quite frequently, and I have no doubt it is true. What you're not mentioning is that most of the wealth in the country is concentrated in that same small group of people. After all, isn't the entire purpose of a progressive income tax to tax those who can most afford it?

Also, I think that ultimately the wealthy are actually getting the most from tax dollars, because their ability to *be* rich is completely dependent on the infrastructure of society and the availability of labor, labor that may indeed rely upon public services to be able to work.

This is why a flat tax is so grossly unfair. The fact is it requires a certain amount of resources just to survive, which is a constant value regardless of how much wealth you control. Therefore it costs the poor a greater percentage of their income just to live a standard of living considered 1st world, or even survive.

The bottom line is I'm having trouble digging up sympathy for someone who is paying out a couple hundred grand in taxes when they're making the greater part of a million dollars, for example.

I don't buy the concept that the market rewards the most productive. From what I can tell, it doesn't seem like the "doers and thinkers" of society are necessarily being rewarded for going above and beyond.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Samus_aran115 wrote:Pay your taxes and stop complaining america.....

That's another issue. If people would actually pay their taxes, then perhaps that upper tax bracket wouldn't need to be as heavily taxed.

Phryxis wrote:So it's not universally bad, but it's still a matter of degrees and outcomes. If it's excessive and stifles commerce, it's bad. But to some extent, it's better to just pay people, even lazy worthless people, what it takes for them to not be a detriment to themselves and to society. While it might be morally upsetting to some, it's actually better to pay a guy $1000 to shut up and sit in his house than it is to pay $2000 to replace the thing he stole cause he was angry you wouldn't give him $1000.

Law enforcement is actually very expensive. So much so that the average savings in crime prevention found in many of the studies done on the subject is 10:1. Which is to say that paying that guy $1,000 to shut-up saves $10,000 in the cost of law enforcement necessitated by that guy's tendency to riot when he's starving and can't afford food, and his tendency to steal food, clothing, etc. And when things get that bad, inevitably the left becomes so radicalized that it becomes violent (see every right-wing dictatorship ever for examples), which means you're fighting a lot of domestic terrorism.

I'm also completely sick of "the rich need pay their fair share." It's such class-warfare hate jabber, it demeans anybody who says it. The top 1% of all earners in America pay 40% of all taxes. They're paying FAR more than their "fair share." I never ran the numbers exactly, but I'd speculate that if you're not in the top 5% of all earners, you're probably getting more in terms of goods and services for your tax dollars than you're putting in. So, bascally, 95% of Americans are paying LESS than their "fair share," and the only people paying their fair share ARE the rich.

This is a disingenuous argument though. It's true that the top 1% of income receivers pay 40% of the taxes, but the failure to mention that in its proper context is very misleading. Because it's also true that the top 1% owns 42% of the liquid wealth in America, while the bottom 80% own only 7% of that wealth. Now consider that along with these facts, there is the fact that only 19% of the income of that top 1% comes from actual wages and salaries, the vast majority (80%+) comes from "investments" in other people's labor that allows them to control the dispersion of profits in such a way that they perpetually earn more from other people's labor than the person doing the actual work.

Gailbraithe wrote:

Phryxis wrote:So it's not universally bad, but it's still a matter of degrees and outcomes. If it's excessive and stifles commerce, it's bad. But to some extent, it's better to just pay people, even lazy worthless people, what it takes for them to not be a detriment to themselves and to society. While it might be morally upsetting to some, it's actually better to pay a guy $1000 to shut up and sit in his house than it is to pay $2000 to replace the thing he stole cause he was angry you wouldn't give him $1000.

Law enforcement is actually very expensive. So much so that the average savings in crime prevention found in many of the studies done on the subject is 10:1. Which is to say that paying that guy $1,000 to shut-up saves $10,000 in the cost of law enforcement necessitated by that guy's tendency to riot when he's starving and can't afford food, and his tendency to steal food, clothing, etc. And when things get that bad, inevitably the left becomes so radicalized that it becomes violent (see every right-wing dictatorship ever for examples), which means you're fighting a lot of domestic terrorism.

I'm also completely sick of "the rich need pay their fair share." It's such class-warfare hate jabber, it demeans anybody who says it. The top 1% of all earners in America pay 40% of all taxes. They're paying FAR more than their "fair share." I never ran the numbers exactly, but I'd speculate that if you're not in the top 5% of all earners, you're probably getting more in terms of goods and services for your tax dollars than you're putting in. So, bascally, 95% of Americans are paying LESS than their "fair share," and the only people paying their fair share ARE the rich.

This is a disingenuous argument though. It's true that the top 1% of income receivers pay 40% of the taxes, but the failure to mention that in its proper context is very misleading. Because it's also true that the top 1% owns 42% of the liquid wealth in America, while the bottom 80% own only 7% of that wealth. Now consider that along with these facts, there is the fact that only 19% of the income of that top 1% comes from actual wages and salaries, the vast majority (80%+) comes from "investments" in other people's labor that allows them to control the dispersion of profits in such a way that they perpetually earn more from other people's labor than the person doing the actual work.

You're just repeating the same thing I said, except that you're ok apparently with the left being violent because its just too much to take, while the "right" is just being "evil" violent. In other words, its ok to be violent if they agree with you.

I knew there was a reason that I liked you, Grignard.

Grignard wrote:You're just repeating the same thing I said, except that you're ok apparently with the left being violent because its just too much to take, while the "right" is just being "evil" violent. In other words, its ok to be violent if they agree with you.

You're putting a lot of words and ideas in my mouth, which I think is a bit unfair.

I think it's okay to be violent if you are being oppressed and have no other recourse. Don't you? Or do you deny the slave the right to break his chains and rise up against the slave-owner?I think that violent opposition to the oppression of powerless people by the state is reasonably justified, and in the modern context such violence is generally leftist in orientation. I think its far more justified than the sort of violence that is typified by right wing extremism, which generally involves brutalizing minority groups that lack the power to defend themselves.

What you're not mentioning is that most of the wealth in the country is concentrated in that same small group of people. After all, isn't the entire purpose of a progressive income tax to tax those who can most afford it?

As to the first bit, I think I'm pretty explicitly mentioning tht when I say that the top 1% pay 40%. Clearly these people have to be very wealthy in order to pay such a huge amount and still be very wealthy.

Also, I think that ultimately the wealthy are actually getting the most from tax dollars

While I don't agree with the specific example you give, I think this is probably true. The more you have, the more you do, the more you rely on "the system." If you run a trucking company, you benefit a lot more from the interstate highway system than somebody who doesn't even own a car, for example.

That said, when the top 1% are paying 40%, they're paying SO MUCH more than their share, it's still not "unfair" that they benefit a bit more.

This is why a flat tax is so grossly unfair.

It's not unfair if it's part of a complete system. That's to say that if you're getting a bunch of other services to help you get by, even as you pay some lesser amount in taxes, it's fine.

And, in the purest sense, it's perfectly fair. Everyone paying a flat percentage is as fair as it gets. Social welfare programs aren't really "fair" at all. They're just necessary and practical. They're actually pretty unfair to the people being forced to pay for others.

The bottom line is I'm having trouble digging up sympathy for someone who is paying out a couple hundred grand in taxes when they're making the greater part of a million dollars, for example.

I'm not suggesting you should sympathize with them at all... I'm suggesting that you shouldn't hate them, or rationalize taking their money from them based on morality. For example:

I don't buy the concept that the market rewards the most productive.

You're wondering if the rich really "deserve" to be rich. Don't worry about that. Don't worry about class warfare, it's a tool of people who want to control you, and to use that control to replace the current crop of rich with themselves. They're not trying to help you.

Worry instead, as I said, about maximizing tax revenue over the long term. Taxes aren't about social justice, or enforcing morality. They're about providing the government with revenue.

the vast majority (80%+) comes from "investments" in other people's labor that allows them to control the dispersion of profits in such a way that they perpetually earn more from other people's labor than the person doing the actual work.

And now that you're done with this Marxist drivel, please explain why it's BETTER for the worker that there NOT be any capital to fund the company that employs them?

The options:
A) You have a job, and some unseen investor gets a bigger cut than he "deserves."
B) You don't have a job.

You think B is better? Clearly it's not. But I know how you operate. You won't vote for A, because you've got:

C) Murder the racist oppressors, take their ill gotten gains, and UTOPIAAAAAAAAA! Yay! Free 2 year Art Degrees for allllll!

You're putting a lot of words and ideas in my mouth, which I think is a bit unfair.

It's unfair to the extent that it's not accurate. Which is to say, in this case, it's completely, totally fair, because he paraphrased you exactly.

Phryxis wrote:

the vast majority (80%+) comes from "investments" in other people's labor that allows them to control the dispersion of profits in such a way that they perpetually earn more from other people's labor than the person doing the actual work.

And now that you're done with this Marxist drivel...

That's not "Marxist drivel." That critique of capitalism predates Marx. Marx does not exist in a vacuum. It's also a fact.

please explain why it's BETTER for the worker that there NOT be any capital to fund the company that employs them?

The existence of capital does not necessitate the existence of capitalist. There are real world, thriving and successful examples of corporations organized around collectively owned capital that are demonstrablely better for workers and the communities that house them in every possible way.

The options:
A) You have a job, and some unseen investor gets a bigger cut than he "deserves."
B) You don't have a job.

You think B is better? Clearly it's not. But I know how you operate. You won't vote for A, because you've got:

C) Murder the racist oppressors, take their ill gotten gains, and UTOPIAAAAAAAAA! Yay! Free 2 year Art Degrees for allllll!

Actually, I would propose altering the tax structure to encourage the growth of corporate collectives modeled on the privately-owned democratic workplaces of existing corporate collectives such as the Mondragon Corporation.

Democratic workplaces, as opposed to the authoritarian workplaces that supporters of economic tyranny (i.e. you) favor, address almost all of the issues we are currently facing as a result of the class warfare of the capitalists. Wages would closer approximate the true value of labor, workers who spend decades investing their labor into companies would be able to take the majority of that value with them when they retired, more jobs would be created, there would be strong, internal incentives to self-regulate, thus necessitating far less government intervention, there would be more money available for charitable causes thus necessitating less welfare, there would be strong incentives to keep jobs in America rather than ship them overseas.

But it's much easier to accuse me of being a Soviet than, you know, actually bothering to learn a darn thing about what actual leftists believe...

You say that the choice is between tyranny and destruction. I say that a free market, like a free people, must have democracy, and that there is a third choice -- a choice that requires no violence, no theft, and achieves what we all seem to agree to want: economic prosperity and stability, a comfortable life for all people willing to work honestly, a limited government focused on defense of rights and borders, and a lighter tax burden.

But of course I am the crazy radical leftist that everyone must ignore at great peril. Because, ultimately, the system I support does not lead to the creation of an overclass that controls half the world's wealth.

And we can't have that! What would we do without Phyrxis's Beloved Masters...

A more comprehensive look at Mondragon.

There are real world, thriving and successful examples of corporations organized around collectively owned capital that are demonstrablely better for workers and the communities that house them in every possible way.

If these sort of utopian organizations were as wonderful as you suggest, the free market has no mechanism to stop them from ascending.

As always, your entire ideology relies on the presumption that everyone besides you is evil. If there was a way to run a company that benefitted ALL involved more than the current system, then who would oppose it? SOMEBODY EVIL! I don't know who, but somebody!!! Maybe some of the crypto-fascists over at the Boy Scouts of America! Maybe some of the race profiteers at Nike! Maybe one of the grey-human hybrid conspirators over at Raytheon! SOMEBODY! SOMEBODY EVIL! LIE EVIL LIE LIE!

If these companies are so profitable and wonderful, why do we need to alter the tax code to encourage them?

But it's much easier to accuse me of being a Soviet than, you know, actually bothering to learn a darn thing about what actual leftists believe...

Here's the problem: even if your Utopian dreams are possible, you are not their agent.

You have already displayed a preposterously transparent contempt for all ideologies beside your own, a desire to demonize and hyperbolize, and a very practiced language of deception and control. You are angry, accusatory and paranoid.

So, I don't suggest that you have a Stalinist inside you because I think ALL left-minded people are closet Stalinists, I suggest it because it's extremely clear that YOU SPECIFICALLY are Stalinist at heart.

I say that a free market, like a free people, must have democracy, and that there is a third choice -- a choice that requires no violence, no theft, and achieves what we all seem to agree to want: economic prosperity and stability

Lots of big talk, no substance.

How would this system work? Where is the money coming from to fund your utopia?

I already know where... You want to take it from the "fat cat CEOs" and give it to the employees. If it wasn't for that damnable overclass, the common folks would be sitting pretty, right?

WRONG. Like all Stalinists, you're motivated by hatred of those that succeeded, not by actual compassion for the masses.

Take Dennis Kozlowski, the former CEO of Tyco, who was jailed over his egregious abuse of his company's assets. According to Kozlowski's own words, he was making something in the neighborhood of $100 million per year. Tyco had aproximately 250,000 employees at the end of Kozlowski's tenure, and an annual revenue of approximately $42 billion dollars.

Kozlowski's $100 million dollar salary accounts for 0.2% of revenue.

If all of his $100 million was taken from him, and distributed equally to all employees, that'd translate to a yearly raise of $400. Life changing, huh?

You're gonna take people from the Pinochet like oppression they suffer now, and bring them to Utopia for $400 a year?

I doubt it.

And that's one of the worst abuses in modern history. Most companies are running a much tighter shop.

So, please, you may have fooled yourself, but you haven't fooled me. I understand the plan. The plan is to promise the people that they'll be better off if the "fat cats" are all ruined. When it doesn't work, hey, at least the fat cats are ruined!

Mission accomplished!

That'll teach those snooty bastards with their four year degrees from their snooty private colleges...

Phryxis wrote:If these sort of utopian organizations were as wonderful as you suggest, the free market has no mechanism to stop them from ascending.

That's correct. However, the market has it currently exists is not free. It is controlled by a small group of economic elites who purchase legislation and tax loopholes that protect and subsidize their businesses.

If these companies are so profitable and wonderful, why do we need to alter the tax code to encourage them?

Because the tax code currently favors authoritarian corporations that can take advantage of externalities to compete unfairly with

I say that a free market, like a free people, must have democracy, and that there is a third choice -- a choice that requires no violence, no theft, and achieves what we all seem to agree to want: economic prosperity and stability

Lots of big talk, no substance.

I've given you plenty of substance. The Mondragon Corporation is a working model of exactly what I propose. Do you need me to spoon-feed you information? Is it somehow substantively different if you get my explanation of how it works rather than, i dunno, reading the articles I linked you to?

How would this system work? Where is the money coming from to fund your utopia?

Seed money from the government could be used to found community banks that would serve in the same role as Mondragon's Caja Laboral (the central bank of the collective).

I already know where... You want to take it from the "fat cat CEOs" and give it to the employees. If it wasn't for that damnable overclass, the common folks would be sitting pretty, right?

If the disparity between CEO and employee pay had remained at the same level it was in 1973 (which was roughly the same level it was in 1945), then the average worker would be earning $112,000 a year, rather than $35,000. So yes, if it wasn't for the rampant greed of the overclass, the working people of America would be doing far better off.

And any way you cut it, at the end of the day you're still sitting there defending the need for an overclass.

WRONG. Like all Stalinists, you're motivated by hatred of those that succeeded, not by actual compassion for the masses.

...

So, please, you may have fooled yourself, but you haven't fooled me. I understand the plan. The plan is to promise the people that they'll be better off if the "fat cats" are all ruined. When it doesn't work, hey, at least the fat cats are ruined!

But it does work. Mondragon proves that it works.

And again, at the end of the day, you are left begging for a master to hold his boot on the neck of everyone. You call me a Stalinist for believing in democracy and giving people a say in their workplace, but it is you who is defending the right of an overclass to rule over the masses. You are the one who is full of hatred, hatred for your fellow man, on whom you wish slavery for fear of giving him freedom.

ETA: A private email from Phryxises full of deeply personal attacks in which he demonstrates that he's been doing a LOT of internet research on me has demonstrated to me that he is a obsessive stalker who is determined to make any argument with him deeply personal, and that he's not above using harassment and intimidation to win arguments. So I putting him on ignore and won't be responding to him in the future. I have never once felt the need to go look up any of the people I argue with on the internet, and am disturbed by people who think that's a reasonable course of action.

If the disparity between CEO and employee pay had remained at the same level it was in 1973 (which was roughly the same level it was in 1945), then the average worker would be earning $112,000 a year, rather than $35,000. So yes, if it wasn't for the rampant greed of the overclass, the working people of America would be doing far better off.

Math isn't really your strong suit, huh? More of a words guy?

I just showed you the numbers. While CEOs certainly make a lot of money these days, it's a tiny, TINY fraction of the size of the overall business.

You're misunderstanding your own numbers. It's a false assumption that the rate of increase on CEO salaries is the necessary increase in all salaries. It's not like we're all SUPPOSED to be making $112,000 a year, but the CEOs are taking it.

On the contrary, as I just showed you, the CEOs are taking something closer to $400 a year in the most abusive situations.

But it does work. Mondragon proves that it works.

It proves nothing. It suggests that it's possible, but it proves nothing.

It's possible that Mongragon has real lessons for everyone to learn from. It's also possible that it just happened to have a nice combination of talented leadership and staff, which were able to cover the inefficiencies of their system with talent and hard work.

Nobody mentions all the companies that tried to do right by their staff, and just went out of business.

Honestly, I don't know how the world looks to you, but everywhere I go, I see lazy, untalented people getting taken care of very well.

It's funny how often the guys that think the working world is out to get them are the same guys who can't refrain from saying lunatic conspiracy crap on the internet. Maybe if you weren't always "the office pyscho" you'd have an easier time finding good work.

A private email from Phryxises full of deeply personal attacks in which he demonstrates that he's been doing a LOT of internet research

Yeah, if clicking the link at the bottom of your post constitutes a "LOT of internet research," then you got me.

Gailbraithe wrote:If the disparity between CEO and employee pay had remained at the same level it was in 1973 (which was roughly the same level it was in 1945), then the average worker would be earning $112,000 a year, rather than $35,000. So yes, if it wasn't for the rampant greed of the overclass, the working people of America would be doing far better off.

Uh... how exactly is this being calculated? Because if you're just raising the average worker's wage so that it's in step with CEO pay, that's pretty silly. You'd have to be assuming huge net gains in production.

But it does work. Mondragon proves that it works.

No offense, but the success of a single corporation(or two, if you want to throw in John Lewis) doesn't make for a very convincing argument when it comes to proposing a new structure of capital management for every firm in the world. After all, you could fill a pretty large book with "wacky success stories of the business world".

ETA: A private email from Phryxises full of deeply personal attacks in which he demonstrates that he's been doing a LOT of internet research on me has demonstrated to me that he is a obsessive stalker who is determined to make any argument with him deeply personal, and that he's not above using harassment and intimidation to win arguments. So I putting him on ignore and won't be responding to him in the future. I have never once felt the need to go look up any of the people I argue with on the internet, and am disturbed by people who think that's a reasonable course of action.

Ooh, let me see what I can pull up with Google!

John Kenneth "Ken" Galbraith, OC (October 15, 1908 – April 29, 2006) was a Canadian-American economist. He was a Keynesian and an institutionalist, a leading proponent of 20th-century American liberalism and progressivism. His books on economic topics were bestsellers from the 1950s through the 1970s and he filled the role of public intellectual in this period on matters of economics.

Galbraith was a prolific author who produced four dozen books and over a thousand articles on various subjects. Among his most famous works was a popular trilogy on economics, American Capitalism (1952), The Affluent Society (1958), and The New Industrial State (1967). He taught at Harvard University for many years. Galbraith was active in politics, serving in the administrations of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson; and among other roles served as United States Ambassador to India under Kennedy.

Hmm. This doesn't sound right. Next link!

Full Name Cináed Gailbraithe

Race Human

Classes/Levels Rogue 3/Cleric 3

Gender Male

Size Medium

Age 32

Special Abilities Craft Adventure, Craft Miniatures, Game Mastery

Alignment Neutral Good

Deity Eris

Location Bothell, WA

Languages Common

Occupation Gamemaster

Strength 12
Dexterity 14
Constitution 8
Intelligence 15
Wisdom 14
Charisma 10

Nah. Communists might be rogues, but they hate God. Let me take another shot at it!

Ah ha! I knew you'd tip your hat eventually, you bloodthirsty red! How many starving Russian children did it take to make that cape?

Simple two step process to internet anonymity:

1) Don't be fascinatingly insane.
2) Don't put a link toyour personal information at the bottom of all your posts.

Phryxis wrote:

There are real world, thriving and successful examples of corporations organized around collectively owned capital that are demonstrablely better for workers and the communities that house them in every possible way.

If these sort of utopian organizations were as wonderful as you suggest, the free market has no mechanism to stop them from ascending.

Examples such as the John Lewis Group in the UK and farmers' co-operatives in many countries show this can be done successfully.

The US Census Bureau says the average size of a US household is 2.61, so we are talking about just over 39 million deadbeat people which 13% of the population.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:If the disparity between CEO and employee pay had remained at the same level it was in 1973 (which was roughly the same level it was in 1945), then the average worker would be earning $112,000 a year, rather than $35,000. So yes, if it wasn't for the rampant greed of the overclass, the working people of America would be doing far better off.

Uh... how exactly is this being calculated? Because if you're just raising the average worker's wage so that it's in step with CEO pay, that's pretty silly. You'd have to be assuming huge net gains in production.

While I don't have the report at my fingertips, I believe the number was achieved by calculating productivity gains over the last forty years and adjusting worker pay as if the disparity between CEO pay and worker pay had not increased one-hundred fold. It was assumed in the data that CEO pay would be much lower (though still more than anyone actually needs in a year).

But it does work. Mondragon proves that it works.

No offense, but the success of a single corporation(or two, if you want to throw in John Lewis) doesn't make for a very convincing argument when it comes to proposing a new structure of capital management for every firm in the world. After all, you could fill a pretty large book with "wacky success stories of the business world".

Mondragon is not a single corporation, it's a federation of 256 businesses with 82k+ employee-owners. And Mondragon is only one example of collective corporations that use the Mondragon system, there are dozens more in Spain.

Ah ha! I knew you'd tip your hat eventually, you bloodthirsty red! How many starving Russian children did it take to make that cape?

ALL OF THEM. MOAR SKULLS FOR THE SKULL THRONE!!!

The Coop too, in the UK.

There are plenty of this kind of business. They are a minority, sure, but there are enough of them not to dismiss them as a fad or exception.

Gailbraithe wrote:While I don't have the report at my fingertips, I believe the number was achieved by calculating productivity gains over the last forty years and adjusting worker pay as if the disparity between CEO pay and worker pay had not increased one-hundred fold. It was assumed in the data that CEO pay would be much lower (though still more than anyone actually needs in a year).

In that case I'm still rather skeptical of it. As Phryxis noted, CEO salaries are usually a tiny percentage of a firm's salary expenses. Maybe if it was being applied to all high-level executives the case would be stronger.

Mondragon is not a single corporation, it's a federation of 256 businesses with 82k+ employee-owners. And Mondragon is only one example of collective corporations that use the Mondragon system, there are dozens more in Spain.

As a swarm of small businesses Mondragon doesn't seem very significant at all, which is why I thought it more useful to consider it a single entity. Also, the problem with using Spain as an example is that the Spanish government heavily favors what it classifies as small businesses. While you would be correct to note that many of the policies in place by the U.S. government favor large businesses (with little cause), it goes both ways, in this case.

Kilkrazy wrote:The Coop too, in the UK.

There are plenty of this kind of business. They are a minority, sure, but there are enough of them not to dismiss them as a fad or exception.

I wouldn't dismiss them as a fad, and I wouldn't dismiss them as "an exception" in the sense that they just "got lucky". My main concern would be that they're A. favored by government policy B. in an industry (or subset of an industry) that's conducive to the type of structure C. strengthened by the ideological commitment of employees or customers and/or D. simply gain heavily from being well-established (essentially, the first three points having occurred in the past, rather than at the present). I would guess that this, combined with some luck, is the explanation for the structure being quite successful at times, only moderately successful most of the time, and not present at all in many cases.

Essentially, the co-op structure is neither a failed concept nor the "wave of the future", it's a structure among many, and it fills certain roles well and other poorly, like any other structure. Thus while it's one thing to be supportive of its current prominence, or even supportive of an expansion in its use, it's quite another to believe that all or most firms should operate under this structure. The former may be supported empirically, but the later can, at this point, really only be supported ideologically, such as through the use of Marx's theory of capitalist exploitation.

Gailbraithe wrote:
That's not "Marxist drivel." That critique of capitalism predates Marx. Marx does not exist in a vacuum. It's also a fact.

Its not actually a fact, as you cited what appears to be an arbitrary range without methodological information to actually indicate what it is your figure amounted to. As such, we are left to accept your interpretation of a dervied statistic as 'fact', which any competent academic will tell you is rhetorical nonsense.

Also, the labor theory of value predates Marx, but the manner in which you are using it to critique capitalism is distinctly Marxist.

Orkeosaurus wrote:In that case I'm still rather skeptical of it. As Phryxis noted, CEO salaries are usually a tiny percentage of a firm's salary expenses. Maybe if it was being applied to all high-level executives the case would be stronger.

I will continue to try to find the article, but I'm fairly certain that the math assumed that all high-level executives would also see their pay trend downward.

As a swarm of small businesses Mondragon doesn't seem very significant at all, which is why I thought it more useful to consider it a single entity. Also, the problem with using Spain as an example is that the Spanish government heavily favors what it classifies as small businesses. While you would be correct to note that many of the policies in place by the U.S. government favor large businesses (with little cause), it goes both ways, in this case.

I'm not sure I'd call a business with 300+ employees (the average size of firms within Mondragon) "small businesses" -- I work for a small business and work with many other small businesses, and most have under 50 employees.

And obviously the government plays a vital role in determining the nature of businesses that flourish. Phyrxises may gleefully attack me as a Stalinist for suggesting that the government should align the tax code and regulatory environment to favor democratic workplaces, but he does so only by ignoring the reality that the government currently aligns the tax code and regulatory environment to favor his preferred schema: where a tiny wealthy elite is allowed to live off the labor of thousands, and those thousands who have their labor stolen are allowed to live in dire poverty.

Kilkrazy wrote:The Coop too, in the UK.

There are plenty of this kind of business. They are a minority, sure, but there are enough of them not to dismiss them as a fad or exception.

I wouldn't dismiss them as a fad, and I wouldn't dismiss them as "an exception" in the sense that they just "got lucky". My main concern would be that they're A. favored by government policy B. in an industry (or subset of an industry) that's conducive to the type of structure C. strengthened by the ideological commitment of employees or customers and/or D. simply gain heavily from being well-established (essentially, the first three points having occurred in the past, rather than at the present). I would guess that this, combined with some luck, is the explanation for the structure being quite successful at times, only moderately successful most of the time, and not present at all in many cases.

Essentially, the co-op structure is neither a failed concept nor the "wave of the future", it's a structure among many, and it fills certain roles well and other poorly, like any other structure. Thus while it's one thing to be supportive of its current prominence, or even supportive of an expansion in its use, it's quite another to believe that all or most firms should operate under this structure. The former may be supported empirically, but the later can, at this point, really only be supported ideologically, such as through the use of Marx's theory of capitalist exploitation.

The primary disadvantage that co-operatives face when competing with capitalist firms is this: Capitalist firms can more easily shift costs to other participants in the market against the will and desire of those other participants. These are called externalities.

For example, imagine General Motors finds itself competing with Co-Operative Motors in the same markets. Both are producing cars of equivalent value and sold at similar prices. GM decides to engage in a price war, and cuts the cost of their cars by 35% -- completely obliterating their profit per car. In order to re-coup the loses they incur, they "downsize" their workforce -- laying off tens of thousands of workers. Co-Operative Motors, being owned by its employees, can't engage in such "downsizing" and thus can only pray that GM can't keep up the price war long enough to drive them out of the market.

But the people are really going to feel the cost of GM's tactics are not Co-Op Motors, but the tens of thousands of hard-working people who have had their economic viability dispossed of in order to serve the profit margins of the elites who own GM. And the thousands of people who work for small businesses that cater to those employees. In other words, the cost of GM's tactics is the destruction of American towns like Flint, Michigan and the ruination of American society.

This becomes even more problematic when the state creates tax incentives and trade policies that enable GM to never hire back those tens of thousands of Americans, and instead allows them to replace those employees with cheaper labor from countries with oppressive regimes that are willing to bear the cost of suppressing labor value for GM.

Another example of externalities is found in the Kentucky coal mines. If the coal miners ran things, there would be no expense spared on safety equipment. But under the authoritarian arrangements of capitalism, the mine owners may elect to keep costs down (and thus profits up) by forcing unsafe working conditions on employees. Those unsafe working conditions in turn create costs for the state (mostly in terms of health costs, plus rescue efforts from collapsed mines), which are in turn paid for by all of us.

You can see these externalities being created in almost every large corporation, generally in the form of pollution that society must pay to clean up, instability in American communities held hostage by corporations, and ever increasing social costs of supporting the employees of firms that refuse to treat their employees fairly -- such as the several studies that have found that Wal-Mart destroys local economies and its own employees are often heavy users of publicly-funded social services.

And what is the counter-argument? It always boils down to "If we don't let a tiny elite abuse us, steal from us, and slowly choke the life from our society, then the sky will fall and everything will be destroyed in some vague, unspecified way."

I say its bull. We are a free country, a free people, and we do not need an overclass. What we need is some fundamental respect for our humanity in the workplace. We need systems that recognize we work for our own benefit, not to be cogs in a machine that creates profit for people who have no loyalty to us and would happily let us all die if it made them an extra penny.