Quote:
...
If it wasn't for the big mean corporations you would not have a computer, telephone, electricity, automobile, food on the table, internet access, or, in most cases a job or retirement investments.
And if it wasn't for the big, mean government, you'd be speaking Russian (or German, or French, or for that matter, wouldn't be here because it was government-granted charters which started the colonies in the first place...), you wouldn't have [i]any[/i] possessions because crime would be rampant, and you very may well not even be alive because there would be no emergency services to respond when needed, such as when someone came to rob you and you got into a gunfight with them.
No one’s arguing that big business doesn’t play in integral role in the economy. Of course it does. The argument is being made–and is historically well supported–that abuse of power, be it from corporations or government, must be kept in check for the good of a stable society. Corporations exist to make money. They don’t exist to give people decent wages or even treat them fairly. There’s no moral or social responsibility mandate for a corporation. Everything a corporation does is guided by the bottom line. If they pay a decent wage and give good benefits, it’s because they value the unique contributions their employees make to supporting their mission of making money for the shareholders. If they treat workers like vermin, it’s because they can get away with it without negatively impacting the bottom line. If a corporation is “a good corporate citizen” of a community, it’s because the community has a greater degree of leverage against the corporation where violating that level of “trust” (if you can call it that) would negatively impact their bottom line. (The “kiss-up” quotient.) That’s the reality. That’s why workers have to stand up and make the corporations value their contributions, treat them fairly, and protect their jobs. The corporations are under no obligation to do any of that. If their shareholders are happy, that’s all they care about.
Quote:
...
Try this on for size:
http://www.measuringworth.com/calculators/compare/
Interesting site, but it works against supporting your premise by virtue of the disparity in values depending on which of the featured calculations you use. No conclusions can be firmly drawn from the vastly different results each calculation gives. Most economists agree, however, that the buying power of the dollar was at its maximum in the 50s and 60s. (Interestingly, that's also a time when corporate and personal tax rates were at their highest because we had to, oh, pay for a war that recently ended...)
Quote:
...
I still have my budget someplace from when I was earning the equivalent of $12/hr with a family. It can be done, but not with all the crap people think they "need".
I'm glad you could make it work, but what's the point you're making? I'm sure we all could if push came to shove, just to survive. But that doesn't mean it's desirable. We've worked hard and educated ourselves to get to where we are--most of us would like to see that preserved, if not continue improving it.
Quote:
...
My quarrel is with the union thug bosses, who do not have the interests of their membership at heart.
Steve, you've hit the nail on the head. The problem is that [i]everyone's[/i] playing to their own personal interests, and they're often cross purposes and in many cases contrary to what they're supposed to be doing. Corporations exist to make money. That's the easy one. No surprises, no pulled punches. We know what they are and what motivates them. Then there's "we the people." Collectively, we exist to make money, too. Unfortunately that cuts into the corporations' mission of making money because they'd rather have it for themselves and their shareholders than having to pay it to their workers as an expense. So, "we the people" turn to two organizations--the labor unions and the government. Both organizations exist to protect its members (citizens). And when they work, it's a good thing. Many unions do a good job of representing the needs of their membership. But when they decide to take political stands to "make a point," it begins to get a bit murky as to whether they've really got the best interests of their membership in mind. The same holds true for government. "We the people" elect our representatives. The problem is that once they're in office, they often forget that they actually represent [i]us,[/i] and pick and choose their stances based on who's contributing more to their re-election campaign. Since "we the people" typically lack the organized means to funnel vast sums of money into their war chests, the corporate interests win that battle, and "we the people" lose out.
He who has the gold makes the rules.
Later,
K
