How about passing a law that all companies must be fully employee owned? That would be a good start.
That is pure and classical Karl Marx.
Inequality like this is unsustainable
by slimboyfat 91 Replies latest social current
-
james_woods
-
Diest
Churches are not "true" charitable giving. I hate it when I hear Tithers talking about how charitable they are for giving 10% to a church. Romney's effective tax rate was lower than most Americans. Carried Interest is a bunch of bs. I hope the BTS and James make over 200k, it makes being a republican more forgivable.
-
2tone
Guys we know that this inequality is sustainable because united states is supposed to be the last world power according to the ten toes prophecy. Wait maybe it isnt sustainable because God says he will destroy all the nations. Wait a minute i'm confused now. Which is it?
-
james_woods
I hope the BTS and James make over 200k, it makes being a republican more forgivable.
I hope everybody makes over 200k, but the reality is that not everyone does, nor do they need to. You can still live pretty well on 100k, for example.
If you forced the economy to make everyone make 200k, it would only result in a great currency inflation and the 200k people would then be making 1 million +, but everybody would pretty much have the same standard of living they have now, if that much.
-
LostGeneration
How about passing a law that all companies must be fully employee owned?
Ok, how did Microsoft start? Employee-owned.
Facebook? Employee-owned
McDonalds? Employee-owned
I could go on, with the names of 50,000 companies.
When a company wants to expand, they seek out capital. Where does capital come from? All of those rich bastards who are trying to make money on their money. Without those dickheads, we would all be running around with 1/100th of the technology and modern comforts we enjoy today.
The second you start restricting the free flow of capital is the second everyones standard of living starts to decrease.
-
2tone
Ya cuz communism worked so well.
-
slimboyfat
That said, I'm not sure that splitting a company between its employees would work in every instance. It certainly wouldn't encourage and incentivize entrepeneurship.
Well it would certainly alter the structure of incentive that is for sure. Ordinary workers would be much more motivated for example. And it would definitely produce fairer income distribution. Why not give it a go? Why should holders of capital take income from doing nothing? Why is that fairer than a system where the workers get the full benefit of their own labour? Only ideology could convince ordinary people it is in their own interest that they should work for the benefit of those holding capital.
-
slimboyfat
That is pure and classical Karl Marx.
Thank you, not quite, but certainly a move in the right direction.
-
journey-on
The 100 wealthiest Americans have as much as the bottom 50%?
Many of the bottom 50% own guns in America don't they? I fear for the future if this situation continues. It is a colossal failure of political and ethical leadership that has allowed the situation to arrive at this point.
Judging from your above statement, slimboy, I am assuming you are not an American. Why? That bottom 50% is more than enough for the rest of us. We really and truly do not (in general) begrudge those top 100 wealthiest Americans if they made their money legally. Heck... Bill Clinton earned 10.7 million dollars in 2010 according to some reports just giving 52 speeches! None of us complained about the money he earned, but plenty probably complained about the speeches. That's what we care about. BTW, where does the far left-wing bazillionaire, George Soros, rate on that list? Talk about a money manipulator!
Also, where did you get the 50% figure? I would think it is MORE than that if you go by households. And most of those gun owners are not likely to point them at our wealthy citizens unless those wealthy people stole it or forcibly tried to take it from the rest of us. We gladly hand over $100 for a concert ticket or $1200 for a Super Bowl ticket, or any number of other seemingly extravagant purchases.......and you know what? We don't worry that somebody else is making a million times more money than us. We get up every day, get dressed, and get productive doing what we need to do. We have government programs in place to assist the poor, corporate-sponsored programs that help the communities, and lots of us contribute large sums to our favorite charities to help others.
As long as those super wealthy are contributing to taxes and charities, I don't care how much they earn as long as they are earning it legally. Speaking of contributing to charity: Romney gave 15%, Obama 1%.....oh, and Biden gave $369.00.
-
cedars
Well it would certainly alter the structure of incentive that is for sure. Ordinary workers would be much more motivated for example. And it would definitely produce fairer income distribution. Why not give it a go? Why should holders of capital take income from doing nothing? Why is that fairer that a system where the workers get the full benefit of their own labour?
Yes, it would undoubtedly alter the structure of incentive. Whether it would work in practicality and encourage the growth of new business is another matter entirely. Companies as we know them wouldn't exist if it wasn't for a few bright people with a good idea taking a massive gamble with whatever little money they had to get the ball rolling in the first place. As a business owner myself, I know how costly and risky it can be to get started. If the business then becomes succesful, it seems slightly ludicrous to carve it all up and reapportion the profits among any subsequent employees simply for being in the right place at the right time in their careers.
I'm not suggesting the current model of 'capitalism' as we know it is 'fair' in all cases, but it definitely works and keeps the world turning. No viable alternatives have been found to work. It either swings one way towards capitalism, or the other way towards communism. Humanity seems incapable of finding a halfway point. If my business were to grow to be successful, and I was fair in the way I treated my employees, I'm not sure I would want things to change all that much either.
Cedars