Corperations create poverty

Originally posted by normbenign
You indeed are missing a lot. There are plenty of places to work besides retrieving shopping carts at Walmart. In fact inside the corporate structure at that same corporation are a host of other positions that pay better than average for the type of services rendered. Nobody can expect to improve, or even keep up without specific effort to improve their skill sets, and seek out better employment. The great majority do so.

I am truly lost in this debate, But I thank finnegan for picking up the baton. I feel that this is so simple that endeavoring to complicate it loses the point. The "gap" is big. The "gap" is a massive problem. Only a fool can argue against these simple obvious facts. I don't believe that our system of capitalism can fix it as it is the root cause of the problem in the 1st place. Yet I feel that it is a modified capitalistic system that is needed. I call myself a "social capitalist" and that only means what it means to me. Inside most corporate structures you are only a soldier and your job is to make as many workers redundant as possible. You do that by attacking your enemy's. (with multinationals that even includes other sites of the same company) that forces them to cut costs ( shorthand for staffing levels and/or wages) which increases profits, and esp exec wages/packages, and lowers workers wages (at least the pool of taxable wages)and therefore increases the "gap". All bad, no good.

also many people are lost just trying for ages to get any job, at least in Australia. It is NOT as easy for many as you try to make it sound.

Originally posted by sh76
Go start your own company and run it how you like. If you want to work for PPG, then abide by their rules.

A corporation is a tool. It can be used however the people running it choose to use it. Capitalism creates wealth, not poverty, though of course some reigning in of excesses is an important government function and a desirable part of the market.

Every corporations needs worker bees. What you seem to be saying is that only those who run or own the corporation deserve a decent standard of living.

Originally posted by Phranny
Every corporations needs worker bees. What you seem to be saying is that only those who run or own the corporation deserve a decent standard of living.

He did not not say that. Nor is it true that only those who run or own the corporation make a decent standard of living. People earn the wages based on the value they produce. If you offer value, then people will pay more for your services, if you offer little value or your skills or interchangeable you will likely have less opportunity to make demands.

Originally posted by quackquack
He did not not say that. Nor is it true that only those who run or own the corporation make a decent standard of living. People earn the wages based on the value they produce. If you offer value, then people will pay more for your services, if you offer little value or your skills or interchangeable you will likely have less opportunity to make demands.

"People earn the wages based on the value they produce."

That is theoretically correct but incorrect in practice, or at least it has been distorted. It does not recognize that people are themselves, items of commerce subject to pricing according to supply and demand. The most acute instance of this is the labor strike where labor seeks to limit supply. In this sense, the striker is the corporation, the union, affecting pricing by control of its product, labor. Many other practical examples of corporate and political attention to supply and demand of labor are around, including opening the market to importation of labor under visa programs and on the shady side, agribusiness looking the other way on undocumented workers.

I am pro-organized labor, btw, but am ambivalent on right-to-work.

Originally posted by JS357
"People earn the wages based on the value they produce."

That is theoretically correct but incorrect in practice, or at least it has been distorted. It does not recognize that people are themselves, items of commerce subject to pricing according to supply and demand. The most acute instance of this is the labor strike where labor seeks to limit supply. In t ...[text shortened]... y on undocumented workers.

I am pro-organized labor, btw, but am ambivalent on right-to-work.

I agree that people can group together to effect the market -- whether its undocumented workers to lower wages or unions to limit supply and raise wages. To me its a political issue how much union influence or undocumented workers we wish to permit. But in no way does that make corporations evil or the creators of poverty.

Originally posted by quackquack
I agree that people can group together to effect the market -- whether its undocumented workers to lower wages or unions to limit supply and raise wages. To me its a political issue how much union influence or undocumented workers we wish to permit. But in no way does that make corporations evil or the creators of poverty.

I agree that corporations do not have as their purpose, the creation of poverty. They have as their purpose, satisfying those whose interests they serve. Those entities might be stockholders, management, politicians, unions and union members, consumers, residents of a territory they extract a mineral, crop, etc. from. These various groups may have compatible or competing interests, and some may have an interest that does in fact create poverty. So a corporation is a tool of sorts, and as a tool, can be used to satisfy 'good' or 'evil' interests.

Originally posted by quackquack
People earn the wages based on the value they produce.

Mhaahaaaah aahhhaaaaahahaahhaaa...

Guffaw...

Snicker...

Bruhaaaahahahahaaaahahahahaaaaa...

No, but really...

Whooooohoooohoohaaahahahahaaaaaaahaaaaaaa...

Where do you get them!? They're so funny!

Originally posted by JS357
I agree that corporations do not have as their purpose, the creation of poverty. They have as their purpose, satisfying those whose interests they serve. Those entities might be stockholders, management, politicians, unions and union members, consumers, residents of a territory they extract a mineral, crop, etc. from. These various groups may have compatible o ...[text shortened]... orporation is a tool of sorts, and as a tool, can be used to satisfy 'good' or 'evil' interests.

And, in any case, corporations don't create poverty in the ultimate meaning of that word, but corporations, large, multinational corporations more than others, and financial industry corporations in particular, do very much increase poverty throughout the world.

Originally posted by quackquack
People earn the wages based on the value they produce.

Yes, over the last couple of decades, CEOs have become better and better at their jobs!

Originally posted by quackquack
I agree that people can group together to effect the market -- whether its undocumented workers to lower wages or unions to limit supply and raise wages. To me its a political issue how much union influence or undocumented workers we wish to permit. But in no way does that make corporations evil or the creators of poverty.

This is inconsistent with your prior claim; if people are paid based on the value they produce how can being in a union effect their wage?

In truth, what you are paid is based on the relative power of the worker and the employer and that can surely be affected by being in a union.

Originally posted by Shallow Blue
And, in any case, corporations don't create poverty in the ultimate meaning of that word, but corporations, large, multinational corporations more than others, and financial industry corporations in particular, do very much increase poverty throughout the world.

Without trying to be argumentative, what do you mean that they do not create it, they just increase it.Same,same????. They will only stop increasing the "gap" when external controls force them. At the moment those external controls are not enough. You cannot increase the poverty without actually creating it, can you???

Originally posted by quackquack
He did not not say that. Nor is it true that only those who run or own the corporation make a decent standard of living. People earn the wages based on the value they produce. If you offer value, then people will pay more for your services, if you offer little value or your skills or interchangeable you will likely have less opportunity to make demands.

If you offer value that is not appreciated or is perceived to be easily replaced then you get minimum.Corporations rarely offer any more than they absolutely feel that they absolutely have to. The ones at the top get paid the most when they add nothing to society. The ones that "add value" to the product( i.e usually those at the coal face) get the least. And whereas it may be true that not only those at the top make a decent standard of living, they are the ones that "always do". They do when the company rises, they do as the company falls, they do when the company performs well and they do when it performs bad, they do if they are fantastic, they do when they are pathetic. No matter what they do to the company they do well. Maybe not in relation to other execs but "always" in relation to those at the bottom.

Originally posted by jimmac
Corporations rarely offer any more than they absolutely feel that they absolutely have to.

You are in control of your household funds. For all practical purposes, you are the CEO of your resources. It becomes necessary for you to purchase transportation. You decide to purchase a Territory SUV.

Of course, you are aware loads of individuals, from design, manufacture, to final sales depend on profits from your purchase to house and feed their families.

Did you:
1-Negotiate hard to pay the absolute minimum for your shiny, new Territory?
<Or>
2-Did you say to yourself, I will pay a higher price than I could have negotiated in order to support others?

If you choose #1 you are a greedy CEO of your financial institution! In which case you're saying that only you and those in your personal corporation deserve a decent standard of living.

You and I know what your choice is. 😏

[i]Originally posted by Quarl.

You and I know what your choice is. 😏[/b]

you are absolutely correct, though I do not do this as hard as I used to. As stated before, I call myself a social capitalist. We are all greedy. Though this is a relative terminology. This about the system being broken because it does not control the greed. Also the powers of the corporations are bit different to the power of an individual. The corporations are effectively bullies. When I bargain hard for a new SUV ( I have never brought a "new" car.) the dealership usually has the upper hand and some level of control over the trade. Workers ( those at the lower end) most often do not.

Originally posted by jimmac
I am truly lost in this debate, But I thank finnegan for picking up the baton. I feel that this is so simple that endeavoring to complicate it loses the point. The "gap" is big. The "gap" is a massive problem. Only a fool can argue against these simple obvious facts. I don't believe that our system of capitalism can fix it as it is the root cause of the probl ...[text shortened]... s to get any job, at least in Australia. It is NOT as easy for many as you try to make it sound.

I think the reason you're lost is the starting point of blaming corporations. I've got no idea of the numbers down under, but in the US corporations employ only about a third of workers. The other two thirds are either self employed or work for unincorporated small businesses.

Included in the corporate employment are many small businesses who organize as corporations, so those that work for the conglomerates are a minority. Nobody thinks it is easy to move ahead, nor should it be. What I see is a younger generation that believes it is entitled to more than it is getting, and is not willing to personally change the rules of the game with individual effort.

The gap isn't really a problem. What do I care about someone with an income exponentially bigger than mine? I care more about the basics. Do I have opportunity? I care if government regulations and rules favor others, and limit my opportunities, or if government takes an inappropriate share of my earnings, or favors others by groups over me. I care that government operated banks cause my money to regularly inflate so that over time it loses substantially its purchasing power. And where government and large corporations oppose and defy markets, bad things happen. Best example of that was the bailout of GM with taxpayer funds. Great for GM employees, at the expense of everyone else. But the notion of corporations creating poverty is just wrong.