Why government should always have more power than private business.

[The_Honorable_Doug]

But only because they have corrupted government. Workers could just as easily seize the government for themselves (through elections or revolution or buying influence). Government is fundamentally an empty field. It's where we come together to make public decisions. Today, however, powerful businesses, giant corporations, banks, etc, run the government.

 

[idiom]

When you say "more government," what you're really saying is "more community." You believe that businessmen and investors should be allowed to just do whatever they want, regardless of what the community says (even if they say, "Hey! We don't abuse our workers in this country!"

Maybe if the businessmen don't want the community telling them what to do, maybe THEY should go somewhere else! Hahahaha!

Pretty much guarantee at this point that Doug's solution to this imbalance is implementation of Lebensraum Value Tax-Shift.

Despite the fact that America is nearly entirely a service economy and no longer uses local resources to sustain it.

 

[idiom]

Stephenie Meyer
J. K. Rowling
Oprah Winfrey

Women who had nothing and worked their way to billionaire status because they found avenues where the government did not restrict their advancement.

 

[The_Honorable_Doug]

You're right. She probably doesn't want to be at work for min wage at 3am. Hopefully that's a temporary thing that inspires her to find something better to do. There are a shitload of really great stories of people who lift themselves out of poverty with a bit of luck, a great idea, a lot of hard work, etc.. There are also a lot of people who never get out of that rut. The idea that I should have my money stolen from me to go support WalMart and a bunch of bailouts and a lot of bloated Government programs, rather than contribute directly to this poor soul, is your idea. Not mine.

Where did I suggest that I steal your money? I said that government should have more power than a private business. This is true for many reasons (especially environmental. Who owns the sky?) But in this case I wanted to discuss the relationship between the (subordinate) worker and the (dominant) owner.

 

[TheTexan]

I have marketable skills and get treated like a king where I work. My boss is one of the hardest working people I know, and I have a great deal of respect for him.

I am not "lucky" or in a "lucky field." I have worked hard and made good decisions in my life. It's not too late for you to do the same.

 

[Chester Copperpot]

You seem to forget govt has already taken 50% of your money and there is no escape... (you said you wanted to sell YOUR labor.. the govt says you dont even own your labor)

 

[MelissaWV]

Where did I suggest that I steal your money? I said that government should have more power than a private business. This is true for many reasons (especially environmental. Who owns the sky?) But in this case I wanted to discuss the relationship between the (subordinate) worker and the (dominant) owner.

Oh so you'd stop taxes, but still have a Government? Who's paying for that Government...

 

[MJU1983]

There are too many responses here for me to reply to each individual one, but keep this in mind:

The contract between worker and owner in this country is, nine times out of ten, not voluntary. You think the single mother working at Wal-Mart for the minimum wage at 3 am wants to do that? Of course not. The owners (the Walton family) were born into a position of massive wealth and power, and the poor workers were born into a position of poverty and powerlessness. We do not get a "fair shot" in this country, not even remotely, and I think you'd have to be a fool (or so privileged you can't see beyond it) to argue otherwise.

Also, the list of "threats, theft, coercion, and guns" basically sums up what the owners do to preserve their power (see: every labor strike in American history, the corporate control of government, the media, etc.)

I face-palmed in real life so here are some pics in lieu of words:

 

[idiom]

Where did I suggest that I steal your money? I said that government should have more power than a private business. This is true for many reasons (especially environmental. Who owns the sky?) But in this case I wanted to discuss the relationship between the (subordinate) worker and the (dominant) owner.

Nearly all employers were employees at some point. Even the Employers are employees of their customers. Go run a business and then discuss how dominant employers are.

You are only paying attention to successful employers. Their are many times more unsuccessful employers who risk and lose *everything* trying to create jobs.

 

[The_Honorable_Doug]

Stephenie Meyer
J. K. Rowling
Oprah Winfrey

Women who had nothing and worked their way to billionaire status because they found avenues where the government did not restrict their advancement.

You're already distracting from my original point. Of course there are an exceptional few who "work their way up" but for most people this is not a possible option. And besides, where would we all go? There is limited room "on top" in a capitalist society.

 

[Origanalist]

Can't wait for the LVT crowd to hit this one.

 

[angelatc]

[Also, by the way, this dispute is happening right now with Caterpillar. In fact, it happens with mosts businesses. The best way to raise profits for yourself is to pay your workers less and work them longer, harder hours, and the business owners have been doing that to working people for decades now.)

Absolutely. Your labor isn't worth very much unless you can supply a skillset that's somewhat limited, or if there's a big demand for your labor. That's the only legitimate way to make wages rise.

Using government to force wages up above their natural level creates unemployment. If you doubt that, Google "unemployment in states with higher minimum wage." Study after study show the higher the minimum wage, the higher the unemployment.

Nobody owes you anything. They don't owe you a job at all, much less one that pays 6 digits.

 

[angelatc]

There are too many responses here for me to reply to each individual one, but keep this in mind:

The contract between worker and owner in this country is, nine times out of ten, not voluntary. You think the single mother working at Wal-Mart for the minimum wage at 3 am wants to do that? Of course not. The owners (the Walton family) were born into a position of massive wealth and power, and the poor workers were born into a position of poverty and powerlessness. We do not get a "fair shot" in this country, not even remotely, and I think you'd have to be a fool (or so privileged you can't see beyond it) to argue otherwise.

Also, the list of "threats, theft, coercion, and guns" basically sums up what the owners do to preserve their power (see: every labor strike in American history, the corporate control of government, the media, etc.)

It's obviously Bush's fault that the single mother working in WalMart started breeding without a proper baby daddy. Happy now?

 

[idiom]

You're already distracting from my original point. Of course there are an exceptional few who "work their way up" but for most people this is not a possible option. And besides, where would we all go? There is limited room "on top" in a capitalist society.

You would bring them all down if you bothered to work and compete. Those who are at the top are simply not being properly competed with. Often due to government protection, or simply working a lot harder than their competitors.

Read this

http://www.market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=209444

and come back.

Finally there are situations like Blitz. You probably have one of their gas cans in your garage. The tort bar claims they sold "defective" gasoline cans. You'd think that the "defect" would involve a can that, for example, split open and spilled gasoline where it could catch fire.

You'd be wrong.

“The lawsuits have involved adult individuals who have used gasoline to start a fire or accelerate a fire,” she said.

Got it?

Let's put in plain language -- the lawsuits involved people who poured gasoline out of a Blitz can either onto something they then lit on fire (and got burned when it flashed) or poured gasoline on an existing fire.

As a result of our so-called "liability" system when someone is a five-alarm dumb-ass and lights themselves on fire by pouring gasoline on a lit fire, or uses gas as a firestarter and fails to do so in a way that precludes themselves from being immolated, it's the container manufacturer's fault.

And as such this small business, which employed 300 people, is gone.

I have a number of ideas for small businesses. I have capital to deploy in an attempt to start and run them too.

I will start and run exactly zero of them until and unless the three points above are addressed.

And that, my friends, is why entrepreneurship in America is in decline.

 

[JamesButabi]

Hi,

So let's say I'm a worker for a business. At this business, as it goes in a typical capitalist society, I am in a subordinate position to the boss, who is the representative of the ultimate owners (i.e., the investors who own the business.)

As a worker, I am unable to participate in any decisions regarding the operations of this business: not over sales, not over pay, not over hours, not anything. Maybe the boss gives me a little say, but, for the most part, the boss holds the power. This business is structured as an authoritarian hierarchy, in which power only flows from the top down, and not the bottom up. The workers below are dependent on the owners above for salary, and thus for their food, shelter, health, education, everything needed to live.

As a worker, I cannot go anywhere else: unemployment is very high, and I, lacking any way to provide for myself otherwise (I don't own a factory, or land, or have any access to money), must sell my labor to the business owner or else my children will starve. Fundamentally, I work on their terms only.

Now let's say that this business begins to take in record profits for the investors. (My co-workers and I are the ones doing all of the useful labor, but remember: we have no say how the profits are split.)

Now let's say that this business says to my co-workers and me, "We want to increase profits even more. This is a business, right? All workers must take a 50% pay cut. Oh, and we are cutting health benefits too. The workload will be the same, but we, the owners and investors, want an even bigger share of the profit pie. Actually, we'd like you to work 10 hours a day instead of 8. If you don't like it, go starve in the streets."

You see now that we have a situation in which power is (vastly) asymmetrically distributed between the workers and the owners. Andthe investors, clearly, in this case, are abusing the workers.

(From this situation, things get even worse for the overall economy: The workers are underpaid and, as a class, are unable to match their production value with their purchasing power (if every business owner pays theirs workers 1 "unit of value" (UOV) to produce 2 UOV's, we approach a situation of over-production and then all kinds of messes ensue (the owners can only spend so much of their money on luxury goods and re-investment. Sometimes, they even promote foreign wars to open new markets for all the over-produced goods. This is a component of imperialism. But for the most part, the investor class has been hoarding money in off-shore accounts, somewhere between $21 and $32 trillion, actually, on a global scale.)

Anyway, back to the workers.

So what are we supposed to do? We could:

1) Start a union, in which case we all get fired immediately
2) Go on strike, in which case we all get fired immediately. The owners will turn armed guards on us if they need to (this has happened thousands of times in history.)
3) We could encourage a consumer boycott, which is not going to work.
4) We could smash and sabotage the workplace, in which case we all go to jail.

OR

5) We could appeal to a higher authority, that is, the government, the ultimate voice of the community.

___

Look, it's nice to live in this fantasy world where government is always bad and private businessmen somehow incorruptible, but the truth is that businessmen and investors, who are only concerned about turning bigger and bigger profits, would pay their workers nothing if they could get away with it (what is wage-slavery but another form of (legitimate) slavery? A worker isn't free, after all, and just like a slave, you have to pay for the basics: food, shelter, health, etc.)

This is why we need a stronger government: it is the sphere of democracy, in which (theoretically) all citizens can participate as equals, unlike in a private business, where workers are subordinated to the interests of the investors/owners/bosses. In this case, the government can step in to prevent the workers from abuse, if they are unable to do so themselves.

Thoughts?

[Also, by the way, this dispute is happening right now with Caterpillar. In fact, it happens with mosts businesses. The best way to raise profits for yourself is to pay your workers less and work them longer, harder hours, and the business owners have been doing that to working people for decades now.)

I admittedly only skimmed your post, but of your list of options the first thing that came to my mind was offer my services to a competitor or different organization. I don't know about you, but as an employer I find it pretty difficult to find people that are very good for my company and I do my best to retain them rather than screw them over.

 

[angelatc]

Also! I don't think you all understand the key point here: what I am describing is the fundamental antagonism of all capitalist societies, that between the worker and the owner and who holds power, how to split the profit, etc. This scenario I described is really happening right now: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/01/caterpillar-labor-dispute_n_1179098.html

And this has happened continuously without pause at businesses throughout history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_history_of_the_United_States

What you don't understand is that the worker isn't entitled to any of the profit unless he's a stockholder. He's selling a product (his labor), not buying shares. He's not a partner unless he puts some cash on the table.

 

[angelatc]

You're already distracting from my original point. Of course there are an exceptional few who "work their way up" but for most people this is not a possible option. And besides, where would we all go? There is limited room "on top" in a capitalist society.

That's not true at all. Traditionally in America, almost all people who live below the poverty level only do so for a short period. In this country, people are indeed upwardly mobile.

Well, we were, until government started helping.

And it's ridiculous to say there's limited room at the top in a capitalist society. Just the opposite is true.

 

[TheTexan]

You're already distracting from my original point. Of course there are an exceptional few who "work their way up" but for most people this is not a possible option. And besides, where would we all go? There is limited room "on top" in a capitalist society.

1) Government hands out privileges to the highest bidder
2) Government creates expensive regulations that makes it very difficult to start a small business
3) Government is responsible for the massive inflation & boom/bust cycle that makes it very difficult for middle class to save money

If you want a better chance to prosper and get "on top"... get rid of government.

 

[erowe1]

While unemployment is high? While nobody is hiring? What if every business treats their workers poorly? That's not a legitimate option. It's like saying to a slave, "well, go be a slave for someone else then!"

The government is the reason unemployment is high.

There are a lot of unemployed people out there who would like to be able to offer their labor at a wage lower than the government allows them to, or in conditions below what the government allows. But the government took those options away from them. So now they're unemployed.

 

[angelatc]

But only because they have corrupted government. Workers could just as easily seize the government for themselves (through elections or revolution or buying influence). Government is fundamentally an empty field. It's where we come together to make public decisions. Today, however, powerful businesses, giant corporations, banks, etc, run the government.

Are you under some illusion that if the workers rose up and seized control of government that they would not be influenced and changed by the power they would now wield?

Socialism has a Himalayan stack of bodies to prove that theory dead wrong.