R
rlg94086
Guest
Of course that is true, but what does it have to do with capping salaries? Are you saying that someone who is capable should have their salary capped because some are not capable? If so, why?
- Status
R
rlg94086
Guest
Who is blaming the lowly paid? This thread is about capping salaries. No one is recommending we cap the salaries of entry-level jobs.
Your “if everyone” scenario is just plain silly. Everyone could start their own business, if they wanted to. Everyone doesn’t start a business because not everyone has…
- the desire.
- the willingness to take a risk.
- any business ideas whatsoever.
- business acumen.
C
consumedconvert
Guest
Add 4. Not given the same oppertunities in life. Usually no one’s fault; just the way it is. And, 5. Would rather not; which is, in every way, fine. E.g., perhaps some would rather spend their capital providing for a very large family rather than risking it on a start-up? Legitimate reasoning.
I suggest that your contention that those who don’t start businesses of their own are either handicapped, lazy, or not as smart as entrepreneurs is elitist, and a form of class pride not to be held or endorsed.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Which is to say, unwilling to shoulder their share of the load.
And I say the same about your biased view of those who do start and run businesses. But with this difference – I defend those who contribute to the welfare of the rest of us.
C
consumedconvert
Guest
Your employees contribute to “the good of the rest of us,” I would wager. Good employees do, because they work hard.
I have no problem with those who start businesses and treat their employees fairly–I wish more did! (isn’t that pretty much a major point of Distributist theory?) I would, however, argue that society would be greatly benefitted if those businesses were prevented from becoming (or being gobbled up by) megacorps.
I am not anti-entrepreneur, I am pro-entrepreneur! Someday I may be one. I know a few, and they treat people fairly, and I respect them immensely! But it is very wrong to accuse every non-entrepreneur of being in someway defective, or lazy, or of “not shouldering the burden of society.” No one I know suggests that people have a duty to work for themselves, and few would argue that all have that opportunity; in fact, they do not. People are given different opportunities. Some who are not entrepreneurs will be given opportunities both you and I never will have, not necessarily financial. To suggest that all men are born on an absolutely level playing field, that everyone has the same opportunities, is plainly an error. People will never be afforded the same level of opportunity. That is life.
But I would argue that we can encourage opportunities of the small man over the dominance of the big corp, and ought to do so.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Let me tell you a story. I ran for Congress in '04. At one political meeting, I and my people were mingling with my opponent and his people.
My opponent’s campaign treasurer was a rice farmer – he owns and farms over 7,000 acres of rice (that’s about 11 square miles.) The value of the land alone is about $20 million. His wife has a store. She was damning and blackguarding Wal-Mart and said (so help me, I quote her exact words), “People would rather go to Wal-Mart and buy a shirt for $2.00 than come to my store and buy it for $27.00.”
Take a look at who your “small man” is before you start favoring him over a larger business.
And remember – the “Big business” is actually owned by a lot of little people – investors who scrimped and saved and bought a few thousand dollars worth of stock.
C
consumedconvert
Guest
Under distributism that man would be taxed more on his eleventh acre on his tenth, on his twentieth acre than his eleventh, on up until the ownership of 7,000 acres would be financially untenable.Let me tell you a story. I ran for Congress in '04. At one political meeting, I and my people were mingling with my opponent and his people.
My opponent’s campaign treasurer was a rice farmer – he owns and farms over 7,000 acres of rice (that’s about 11 square miles.) The value of the land alone is about $20 million. His wife has a store. She was damning and blackguarding Wal-Mart and said (so help me, I quote her exact words), “People would rather go to Wal-Mart and buy a shirt for $2.00 than come to my store and buy it for $27.00.”
But a good percentage of stock is owned by wealthy megainvestors and companies. The small guys who invest have virtually no control whatsoever over how their money is used Not the best system, I would argue.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
And that would benefit the rest of us, how?Under distributism that man would be taxed more on his eleventh acre on his tenth, on his twentieth acre than his eleventh, on up until the ownership of 7,000 acres would be financially untenable.
Ahh, you do understand how the market works? If you buy stock, you can sell it! Companies that don’t do what the investors want – regardless of how much each investor holds – wind up with falling stock prices, as disappointed investors sell.
Companies that live up to investors’ expectations, however, enjoy rising stock values, as more people find their stock attractive and buy more of it.
E
estesbob
Guest
I worked my way through college through shoveling guts in the slaughterhouse. After seven years in the real-world I quit a high paying job to start my own business. Now tell me some more about people not being given the same opportunities. What is it that I did that you couldn’t do?
C
consumedconvert
Guest
Perhaps nothing. For all I know, you would have a more difficult time rising than I would. But don’t count me out. I’m not finished living yet, now am I?
And my guess is I’m significantly youger than you are, so give me a chance. Who knows? Maybe.But both you and I have a much better chance than an inner-city kid who attends a failing school system that can’t teach him basic mathematics or how to read.
Point: Not all people have equal opportunities. Don’t forget: “Time and chance happen to all men” (loose quote from Ecclesiates). Some businesses prosper, some don’t; sometimes condistions favor one person while not favoring another.
To argue anything different is to argue that all inteligent, able-bodied poor people are lazy, an idea completely against the tenets of the Faith. “Blessed are the poor,” right?
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
Now you have a valid point.Perhaps nothing. For all I know, you would have a more difficult time rising than I would. But don’t count me out. I’m not finished living yet, now am I?
But both you and I have a much better chance than an inner-city kid who attends a failing school system that can’t teach him basic mathematics or how to read.
Let us remember that educating the children is a government responsibility – it’s in most states’ constituitions. A good deal of poverty is traceable to the government’s failure to do its constitutional duty.
And, because the Federal Constitution (in the 14th Amendment), guarentees us all equal protection under the law, a kid who attends a failing school system is also having his constitutional rights violated – he’s not getting an education comparable to other kids.
E
estesbob
Guest
So because the government thinks it’s more important to teach our kids how to put on condoms than it is a teaching basic I should be penalizedto make up for it?Perhaps nothing. For all I know, you would have a more difficult time rising than I would. But don’t count me out. I’m not finished living yet, now am I?
But both you and I have a much better chance than an inner-city kid who attends a failing school system that can’t teach him basic mathematics or how to read.
Point: Not all people have equal opportunities. Don’t forget: “Time and chance happen to all men” (loose quote from Ecclesiates). Some businesses prosper, some don’t; sometimes condistions favor one person while not favoring another.
To argue anything different is to argue that all inteligent, able-bodied poor people are lazy, an idea completely against the tenets of the Faith. “Blessed are the poor,” right?
C
consumedconvert
Guest
Who said that? The whole point of Distributism is that the entrepreneur should be **favored and protected **over megacorps.
The point of my previous post was to dispute your suggestion that all people have equal opportunities, and that those who do start businesses are necessarily superior to the able-bodied people who cannot, or the able-bodied poor.
E
estesbob
Guest
If I’m superior the country is in more trouble than we thought. My point is some people are willing to take chances- sometimes it blows up in their faces and sometimes it succeeds. We shouldn’t penalize success.
A
anthony022071
Guest
vern humphrey
< And your “monetary circulation” was “cut off” by Wal-Mart?
Give us some cites. >
It’s all over the Internet how much damage Wal-Mart has done to small businesses in small towns throughout America.
< No, anti-trust laws are pro-capitalism. >
Anti-trust laws were made to break apart monopolies that evolved through the capitalist system and flourished within that system.
Remember that Capitalism is “the private ownership of the means of production and distribution, operated for profit in a competitive system.”
That’s a theoretical definition. In reality,monopolies and capitalism are not mutually exclusive. The business practices of someone who has a monopoly aren’t much different than his business practices when when he had viable competition;it’s just that he has all the leverage in his favor.
cooperativeindividualism.org/abelson-sidney_monopoly.html
< Indeed, competition never existed in a pure state, and whenever it did approach such a state its tendency was short-lived. The history of laissez-faire is not so much the record of a reality as of an ideal.
There is abundant proof in economic history for substantiation of this conclusion. It is not necessary, however, to go far back to the past; the present and the immediate past tell the story more eloquently than ever. For example, Professor Ely in one of the earlier editions (1919) of his Outlines of Economics wrote:
“Everywhere in the industrial field the tendency toward monopoly is present. Business men endeavor so far as possible to shelter themselves from the effects of the competitive struggle by means of some privilege, but if none is to be found, and if competition becomes very keen, they endeavor to combine with other business men.” >
< “Profits in American industry,” writes E. D. Kennedy in a remarkable book entitled Dividends To Pay, “are almost in direct proportion to the extent to which competition has been eliminated.” A brilliant array of government statistics, based on the direct reports of corporations, substantiate this conclusion. >
< And your “monetary circulation” was “cut off” by Wal-Mart?
Give us some cites. >
It’s all over the Internet how much damage Wal-Mart has done to small businesses in small towns throughout America.
< No, anti-trust laws are pro-capitalism. >
Anti-trust laws were made to break apart monopolies that evolved through the capitalist system and flourished within that system.
Remember that Capitalism is “the private ownership of the means of production and distribution, operated for profit in a competitive system.”
That’s a theoretical definition. In reality,monopolies and capitalism are not mutually exclusive. The business practices of someone who has a monopoly aren’t much different than his business practices when when he had viable competition;it’s just that he has all the leverage in his favor.
cooperativeindividualism.org/abelson-sidney_monopoly.html
< Indeed, competition never existed in a pure state, and whenever it did approach such a state its tendency was short-lived. The history of laissez-faire is not so much the record of a reality as of an ideal.
There is abundant proof in economic history for substantiation of this conclusion. It is not necessary, however, to go far back to the past; the present and the immediate past tell the story more eloquently than ever. For example, Professor Ely in one of the earlier editions (1919) of his Outlines of Economics wrote:
“Everywhere in the industrial field the tendency toward monopoly is present. Business men endeavor so far as possible to shelter themselves from the effects of the competitive struggle by means of some privilege, but if none is to be found, and if competition becomes very keen, they endeavor to combine with other business men.” >
< “Profits in American industry,” writes E. D. Kennedy in a remarkable book entitled Dividends To Pay, “are almost in direct proportion to the extent to which competition has been eliminated.” A brilliant array of government statistics, based on the direct reports of corporations, substantiate this conclusion. >
C
cynic
Guest
In the meantime while they’re working in an entry level low income job, they need to be payed enough to exist, to afford study, or to save enough to start a business.I think the point he was making was erecting an excuse for not maximizing his potential.
Most people have a 40+ year working life. People have been known to start out as mail clerks or hod-carriers and wind up as the CEO. So if he starts a business, he hires young people, trains them and over the course of time, they either get promoted (and perhaps take over the business when he retires) or move on to more responsible (and better paid) jobs elsewhere – or start their own businesses
This ideology that pigeon holes low incomes workers as losers who’ve squandered their potential, well it doesn’t help.
R
rlg94086
Guest
Not at all. I’ve been a “low income worker” more than once. Most low income workers aspire to greater things.
C
cynic
Guest
But to improve your situation and job prospects you need some basic things. The ability to afford food, shelter, spare time for study or training, enough in your wages to save beyond the cost of these.
These things were afforded to you as a worker in most part because of unions and government (unfortunately). Examples of being a minimum wage, overtime rates discouraging excessive hours, health and safety laws. These things were not brought about by employers. The kindly boss who generously trains and grows his staff is not the reality for a lot of workers You can’t rely of the good will of the owner/manager to voluntarily provide the basics - because many won’t and simply see their staff as a cost, not an asset. Well meaning aspiration and self help beliefs shouldn’t be used to justify exploitation.
R
rlg94086
Guest
Boy, you are a cynic.
I came from a single-parent, lower class household (mom was a secretary…rented…no assistance for college), started as a busboy and then a waiter…both are less than minimum wage plus tips. I have never worked a union job, don’t have a degree (2 years of college - didn’t finish), and worked my way up to field sales from an entry-level credit/collections job.
I have had plenty of good will from owners and managers. You need to stop being so negative. There are a lot of good people in the world. I could take anyone willing to succeed who does not have a substance abuse problem or serious mental health issues and help them to succeed. If you know of someone, send them my way.
Quite frankly, attitude and appearance can get you a long way. If you are a positive person and have basic grooming skills, that is a good start. If you are intelligent, that definitely gives a huge boost. If you actually have a degree (unlike me) then that does make it a little easier.
V
vern_humphrey
Guest
It’s all over the internet how there was a second gunman on the Grassy Knoll, how 9-11 was a plot by the International Zionist Conspiricy ™, the CIA, the Free Masons, etc., etc.
So give us a cite. With numbers.
But first explain to us what you mean by “money circulation” being “cut off.”
No, anti-trust laws were made under pressure from capitalists and consumers to restore competition and make the system more capitalist.
No, that’s the actual definition.
What you’re trying to do is argue against something that exists only in your imagination, and are trying to get the rest of us to accept a phoney definition to further your argument.
When monopolies come into existance, capitalism ceases to exist.
- Status