Corperations create poverty

Originally posted by normbenign
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 ...[text shortened]... at the expense of everyone else. But the notion of corporations creating poverty is just wrong.

Always confusing issues with the drone of a seemingly serious voice.

Huge numbers of people are self employed in fifth rate occupations with marginal incomes. It is possible to be self employed profitably and have a good income but it is not what most people experience and much self employment is a confused status in any event, entered into for tax (evasion) purposes.

A major feature of work in the past forty years has been what is called "hollowing out" of organisations, by which core functions are protected and peripheral tasks outsourced. That sweet sounding term means people have been thrown out of the security of full time employment into a badly paid and highly insecure environment of short term contracts. Again, a small proportion of people prosper in that environment but for most people it represents a straight loss of status and security.

The ideological fantasy of the small business start-up growing into a new corporation is just that for most people and most firms - a fantasy.

The moralistic reference to "young people" is insultingly inaccurate. All the evidence shows that inherited wealth, privilege and status is returning to limit the possibility of advancement for most people without advantages of birth. The economic evidence shows that "work" in all its forms, including entrepreneurship, is earning a declining share of world income, while inherited wealth, invested in safe accounts, is earning a growing and unfair proportion of the world's income. This was so well documented by Piketty that I need not expand here. I know you have at least opened his book.

You may not personally object to gross and accelerating inequalities of income and wealth but the economic damage it causes is manifest, well documented and also growing.

Originally posted by normbenign
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 ...[text shortened]... at the expense of everyone else. But the notion of corporations creating poverty is just wrong.

When I say I am lost in this debate I am referring to my education and my lack of knowledge.I am using only base logic based on what I can see. Corporations may only employ 1/3 of all people but you can guarantee that they have a profound impact on the employment circumstances of the other 2/3. What I see in Australia is the more productive that society becomes,the longer we are being asked to work. That is not logical. except that it is, as the corporations are stealing the productivity. If social justice means anything then everyone has some level of ownership in everything. As I stated before,I call myself a social capitalist. Greed is, I believe, an undeniable human trait, but it must be managed. I believe that the gap per-say is not so much the problem as what causes the gap. their is no connection between what I produce at PPG and my pay. It is clear that the more I produce then the more likely it is that someone will lose their job. That is not fair. Check for yourself their share price performance since the GFC. The GFC was their rational to attack workers pay with a vengeance. Check also the execs packages. Massive increases. The workers have always ( in my days at least) been recognized as "adding value". Yet they are being devalued because they are deemed easily replaceable.

Originally posted by whodey
This is a must see Bill

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naBmYqtvs2U

The history of the British East Indies Company and the British government is helpful in understanding how the real world has worked for a very long time.

Essentially, England conquered India through their corporation. Corporations are nothing more than a tool of war for various cou ...[text shortened]... taxes actually came down. The fight was to not allow the East Indies Company a monopoly on Tea.

Average hours works seems to be steadily decreasing. http://stats.oecd.org/index.aspx?DataSetCode=ANHRS

People continually have new toys like cable TV, computers, cel phones. Look around you the standard of living is better and better. It's time to stop complaining.

Originally posted by finnegan
Always confusing issues with the drone of a seemingly serious voice.

Huge numbers of people are self employed in fifth rate occupations with marginal incomes. It is possible to be self employed profitably and have a good income but it is not what most people experience and much self employment is a confused status in any event, entered into for tax (eva ...[text shortened]... come and wealth but the economic damage it causes is manifest, well documented and also growing.

It's employees who receive tips from waitresses to taxi drivers who live in the cash economy. Let's stop singling out people who own businesses who provide jobs, take risk and work hard.

People continually have new toys like cable TV, computers, cel phones. Look around you the standard of living is better and better. It's time to stop complaining.[/b]

Some better, some worse, That's the point. Don't just look in your own back yard to draw an overly simplistic conclusion.

Originally posted by quackquack
It's employees who receive tips from waitresses to taxi drivers who live in the cash economy. Let's stop singling out people who own businesses who provide jobs, take risk and work hard.

We desperately NEED people that own successful businesses, and we need to reward them for that effort and risk taken. that is not the corporate structure that is causing this problem. That is part of the solution.

Originally posted by finnegan
Always confusing issues with the drone of a seemingly serious voice.

Huge numbers of people are self employed in fifth rate occupations with marginal incomes. It is possible to be self employed profitably and have a good income but it is not what most people experience and much self employment is a confused status in any event, entered into for tax (eva ...[text shortened]... tart-up growing into a new corporation is just that for most people and most firms - a fantasy.

Always avoiding dealing directly with that droning, while spewing Marxist drivel that has proven false everywhere it is tried.

I was personally self employed in one of those "fifth rate occupations" and did quite well, thank you.

The point I made was not that people could expect Bill Gates type success through self employment, but that working for a major corporation was but one choice for young people. Others may offer more prospects for fair remuneration, and it isn't up to society or government to equalize results due to inequality of effort.

Originally posted by jimmac
When I say I am lost in this debate I am referring to my education and my lack of knowledge.I am using only base logic based on what I can see. Corporations may only employ 1/3 of all people but you can guarantee that they have a profound impact on the employment circumstances of the other 2/3. What I see in Australia is the more productive that society beco ...[text shortened]... nized as "adding value". Yet they are being devalued because they are deemed easily replaceable.

I suspect that what you see down under is that for quite a while corporations have been intimidated into overpaying many workers, and that gravy train is drying up, as it is also in the US. The Big Three Automakers here are the best example of that.

On the matter of the overpayment of the "supermanager" that Piketty identifies, it is largely true, but that sort of thing goes on due to consumer indifference, and shareholder laxity. Also, in some few cases, those CEOs absolutely are justified in the large salaries and bonuses they earn.

The trick is for those of us who think a corporation over pays its executives, and underpays its workers, to suspend our purchase of those products or services, and stop buying the stock. For example, I will never purchase a GM car or truck, as I disapprove of the government bailout of this entity. Same goes for Chrysler, who has twice been bailed out by taxpayers. If we are stockholders, then use our votes to oust the offending supermanagers.

It is hopeless to rely on government to do what we ought to be doing as individuals.

Originally posted by normbenign
Always avoiding dealing directly with that droning, while spewing Marxist drivel that has proven false everywhere it is tried.

I was personally self employed in one of those "fifth rate occupations" and did quite well, thank you.

The point I made was not that people could expect Bill Gates type success through self employment, but that working for ...[text shortened]... ation, and it isn't up to society or government to equalize results due to inequality of effort.

Your personal employment history is not evidence. In addition, I assume you are close to or beyond retirement so your education, training and work history took place in a very different environment to that facing young people today in the US and the UK. Anyone who is idiotic enough to think that young people today can enjoy the conditions we enjoyed decades in the past is just economically illiterate and emotionally smug and self satisfied. We do not prosper because we are morally superior, but because we are fortunate. It is time people like you got that message. If young people today did what we did, in the same way, they would not achieve the same results, because the rules of the game have been altered to their disadvantage.

Originally posted by normbenign
[b]I suspect that what you see down under is that for quite a while corporations have been intimidated into overpaying many workers, and that gravy train is drying up, as it is also in the US.

I am a bit frustrated here.I can agree with the "perception" of intimidation.( sort of) but the automatic assumption that the worker was " overpaid" reeks of stupidity. In those days everyone got a "fairer share" of the pie, and everyone was happy.( usually). Now with the power of multinationals, if you don't like them stealing your money, they will go somewhere else. That is after they have created an environment of dependency. You seem to be trying to miss the point, though I do applaud that you stand on your principles and avoid buying from " bad" companies. Also. in " NO " cases of super payouts justified in a publicly listed company. Most companies expand by means of destruction with 0 public good attached. You can say it is good because you see the " evidence" yet it is that same "evidence" that you see as good I see the bad side of. People can not get " rich" without someone else ( usually many many someones) parting with some ,or all, of their money. There is only X money in the pool. Baring printing more (which they do need to do, circumstantially). The more "more" that some get means, obviously, the less others get. there are many good justifications for that, of which running a public company, gambling with someone else's money in a game that you cannot lose, is NOT one of them. I can already hear your response. if they do not perform then they can get kicked out. That is one of the biggest "what the's " ever on a number of fronts.1st. Shareholders have " NO " say in the affairs of large corporations. NONE at all. try out voting the "big boy's" club of managed funds that vote for their " client's". 2nd even when they "lose" and get kicked out they walk away with more than 10 people would earn in their lifetime.

Also Finnegan may indeed be a Marxist socialist ( I do not know)but so what. The ones that i know are usually good descent and honest people. They also are damn damn good at being honest with the facts. And NEVER attempt to mislead.

Originally posted by finnegan
We do not prosper because we are morally superior, but because we are fortunate. It is time people like you got that message. If young people today did what we did, in the same way, they would not achieve the same results, because the rules of the game have been altered to their disadvantage.

My employment history is as relevant, or more so than socialist ranting. You want to put words in my mouth, that I did not utter. I am well into retirement, but in most respects things aren't that different.

I actually agree with the portion I quoted in your post. I got the message, got it 30 years ago, when I had to become computer literate, and did so, on my own.

The game always changes, and always will. Humans have nearly two decades in which to prepare for the changes, before they must support themselves. It is time you got the message that the ones who prepare successfully ought not be thought to be responsible for those who don't.

Part of the game is luck of birth, and I don't mean being born to wealth. That can be as bad as being born to poverty. The real killer is being born to parents who don't or can't take responsibility for their self determination, and people like you who propagate the nonsense that responsibility is a collective thing.

You argue against a non argument. Morally superior isn't part of the equation, and luck is a minor factor. Opportunity, and grasping it is.

Originally posted by jimmac
I am a bit frustrated here.I can agree with the "perception" of intimidation.( sort of) but the automatic assumption that the worker was " overpaid" reeks of stupidity. In those days everyone got a "fairer share" of the pie, and everyone was happy.( usually). Now with the power of multinationals, if you don't like them stealing your money, they will go somewh ...[text shortened]... ople. They also are damn damn good at being honest with the facts. And NEVER attempt to mislead.

No attempt to mislead. When I said intimidated, I'm not disagreeing with your perception that wages may have been fairer in that era.

The multinationals have been that for decades, long into my working days. I've seen huge multinationals go bankrupt, and in most cases get bailed out of their stupidity by government, allegedly for the benefit of the workers. In the case of Chrysler in the 70s, workers were being paid way above scale for their skill sets. The company kept building cars they weren't selling, and eventually went broke, but for taxpayer bailouts.

One of the unrecognized culprits in all of this is the Federal Reserve, and I suspect the national bank in Australia has similar culpability. The availability of almost unlimited credit, and depending on it for business capital leads business to do things they wouldn't otherwise do, like overproduce to temporarily save jobs. The result of constantly expanding the money supply over time is inflation, and corresponding raises in wages that give the impression of doing better, while really barely keeping up.

Market distortions often result in usually stodgy business types becoming "riverboat gamblers". Sometimes they win, and sometimes the opposite. All I'm really saying is that each of us has to make personal choices, and not be lured into a herd mentality. We can, and often have to make changes to assure our remaining competitiveness.

Originally posted by normbenign
No attempt to mislead. When I said intimidated, I'm not disagreeing with your perception that wages may have been fairer in that era.

The multinationals have been that for decades, long into my working days. I've seen huge multinationals go bankrupt, and in most cases get bailed out of their stupidity by government, allegedly for the benefit of the wo ...[text shortened]... herd mentality. We can, and often have to make changes to assure our remaining competitiveness.

My apologies if you thought I was suggesting that YOU were trying to mislead. I was only saying that the socialist party people that I know are almost to honest. If they were true politicians they would lie to curry favor, but they present their solutions [which I think are as of cue ( no offense meant to finnegan ) as the American model of capitalism], a bit to honestly for the average person to digest.

I agree strongly that the banks have a lot to answer for. The gains the banks made as a result of the GFC was obscene. It is my understanding that both the government and the banks seem to have colluded in " stealing" money that was meant to be used for stimulating the economy to the mutual benefit of everyone.

I also agree that we need to avoid the herd mentality but as I suggested before that is not always easy.

Originally posted by jimmac
People can not get " rich" without someone else ( usually many many someones) parting with some ,or all, of their money. There is only X money in the pool. Baring printing more (which they do need to do, circumstantially). The more "more" that some get means, obviously, the less others get. .

Jim you’re confusing two issues here i.e. money supply and wealth. The world continues to produce wealth every day and by wealth I mean anything that you value. From the pencil on your desk to the house you live in, to a super tanker, it can all be regarded as wealth and it is growing every second.

There is not one pie that everyone scrabbles to get a piece of, there are millions of pies and millions more (wealth) being created.

Money supply is a separate issue and the number of dollars in circulation should rightly be based on the amount of wealth that there is, if the number of dollars were fixed but wealth increased we’d have deflation which is not really desirable but not as bad as it sounds either. On the other hand we have goobermints oversupplying money, this is another tax on anyone that happens to hold a real dollar. They continue to print, release, wave the majic wand more dollars into existence than what there is wealth being created, this is the root of inflation.

So in either case one person being wealthy does not equal another person being poor.

Wealth and money...different. Money is just a tool, a measurement of wealth, it is not wealth.

Originally posted by normbenign
Marxist

Don't use words whose meaning you don't understand.