The Gap Widens

President4242

Tue Nov 25 08:49:18 -0800 2008

manage

DESPITE the bailouts?  Not a single one of the bailouts has targeted the lower classes yet, and I don't think they're going to because the upper crust just doesn't care unless they're forced to.

The way the bailouts have been structured so far, it seems the whole point has been to increase the gap between the rich and the poor by making sure the rich aren't charged for their mistakes.

The Gap Widens

The Baron

Tue Nov 25 12:15:18 -0800 2008

manage

Good thing I refreshed and saw you had posted almost word for word what I had just typed.

The Gap Widens

President4242

Tue Nov 25 12:56:44 -0800 2008

manage

The second part or the first part?

If I abuse my editor priviledges in any way- it's on my own posts.

The Gap Widens

The Baron

Tue Nov 25 16:33:14 -0800 2008

manage

Just commenting you mirrored my thoughts perfectly on both parts of your post.

I had typed almost exactly what you had, then went back to look at the original post to see if there was anything I wanted to add to mine before posting, and saw your post so eloquently already saying what I was about to.

Great minds thinking alike and all that.

The Gap Widens

truthAddict

Tue Nov 25 12:34:26 -0800 2008

manage

What is it, in a few words, that all Republicans believe? We believe - along with millions of Democrats and Independents - that a government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have. - Gerald Ford

Well maybe a few R's and D's used to believe it. Long, long ago.

The Gap Widens

Mansing

Wed Nov 26 10:39:18 -0800 2008

manage

Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases.  Thomas Jefferson

 

Most bad government has grown out of too much government. Thomas Jefferson

The Gap Widens

President4242

Wed Nov 26 13:48:54 -0800 2008

manage

I'd actually debate with Jefferson on that first one, in that if your government truly can't provide you with everything you need in some form, then it can't insure your Right to Life, and without being able to live, liberty is of little or no use.

Having said that, I see those rights as being hierarchial, not equal.  The founding fathers thought that they were equal, they couldn't foresee a day where one's insurance company would unplug life support for a patient to increase profits, or where a mother would kill her own child to increase her liberty.

The Gap Widens

Charles E Hill

Wed Nov 26 19:30:10 -0800 2008

manage

...or where a mother would kill her own child to increase her liberty.

Abortion has been around for quite a very long time.  One specific method -- a pessary -- is mentioned by Hippocrates in the 4th Century BCE in the original version of the Hippocratic Oath.

It was not a crime and was quite common in the U.S. during the 1700s and early 1800s.  I don't believe this went unnoticed by the founders of the nation.

The Gap Widens

James Parker

Fri Nov 28 12:38:40 -0800 2008

manage

Liberty means responsibility. 

There is only one form of government that promises everything you need.  And all it wants from you is everything you've got and everything you ever will have, to paraphrase the dude. (Initials K.M.)

 I think maybe we're about to get it. 

The Gap Widens

baboon

Tue Nov 25 12:52:41 -0800 2008

manage

I could expect a CEO to make 10x the salary of the junior engineer.  That big number spread out over the total number of people is not really that much "overhead".  Now that number seems to be pushing towards 1000x.  It seems to be reaching a point where half everyone's even "share" of the company's profits go to a select few.  Or in reverse, you could be taking home twice as much if salaries were capped at, say, 10x the fully trained/educated entry worker (I'll leave out the cleaning staff and various administrative positions that could be filled by temp agencies).

Here's my prediction of where this trend will take us.  I think I heard of a few isolated cases already, but I too lazy to search around.

Individual people will own entire towns.  In cities, it will be by neighborhood.  The idea of a regular citizen purchasing a house (or condo) will be ridiculous.  In todays money, it would be choice of buying a house for $2m or renting for $2k/mo.

When we can point out an individual person who has more wealth than the amount requested to "bailout" the entire car industry, something is gone wrong.  At some point, you have to step back from your driving principles (capitalism) and recognized that the results have gone horribly awry.

I've mentioned it before, but I still don't understand what the end goal is of these people in these upper circle.  No one is going to make movies and video games when you can't sell the million copies to break even.  A lot of what makes life entertaining depends on a lot of other people sharing in the burden (Cartman's theme park comes to mind).  Do we really want to go back to the medieval times?  Was that even fun for the wealthy?  Sure, you will have pretty gardens behind the stone walls, but technology will be dead.  How far does indeptedness and loss of free choice have to go before we can use the word slavery again?

The Gap Widens

phred14

Tue Nov 25 18:19:18 -0800 2008

manage

Neuvo feudalism.

Actually, it's even worse.  In good old fashioned feudalism the lords accepted responsibility for "their" people.  From the neuvo-feudal lords point of view, this is even better, because they have no responsibility, only benefits and authority.

The Gap Widens

zotz

Tue Nov 25 19:00:21 -0800 2008

manage

"At some point, you have to step back from your driving principles (capitalism) and recognized that the results have gone horribly awry."

Thoughts on Corporate Reform

It could be what you say but it could also be that the principles have not been followed. I guess that is to be hashed out.

Still, I think it might be important for all of us to see that one particular form of "capitalism" (if that is indeed what we now have) may not be the only way that capitalism can play out.

all the best,

drew

The Gap Widens

phred14

Wed Nov 26 07:01:05 -0800 2008

manage

"At some point, you have to step back from your driving principles (capitalism) and recognized that the results have gone horribly awry."

You need go no further. 

I suggest that the underlying assumption is incorrect, and therefore any correct conclusions can only be accidental.

I suggest that capitalism should be considered a very useful tool, NOT a principle, and therein lie many of today's problems.

Think for a moment of "Capitalism as a Principle."  They say that nature is red in tooth and claw, and speak of the savagery.  By that same way of thinking, capitalism is green in tooth an claw, equally savage, just on a monetary playing field rather than physical.  If you really want to think capitalism for a moment, think health care, or any other essential for that matter: "If you can't afford the basics of life, go away and die!"  Think Ebeneezer Scrooge's "surplus population," etc.

I'm not suggesting doing away with capitalism, because communism and socialism are also silly/stupid for attempting to deny the value of greed as a motivator.  It's just that elevating greed to a principle works just as badly as denying it.

Capitalism should be considered a tool to help society, a very powerful one, but a tool nonetheless.

The Gap Widens

zotz

Wed Nov 26 09:25:48 -0800 2008

manage

"I suggest that capitalism should be considered a very useful tool, NOT a principle, and therein lie many of today's problems."

"Capitalism should be considered a tool to help society, a very powerful one, but a tool nonetheless."

I guess we would need to get down to doing some defining of terms...

I am for people first, but hmmm...

So, what principles would you put forward?

all the best,

drew

The Gap Widens

President4242

Wed Nov 26 09:41:07 -0800 2008

manage

This is easy for me:  Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

In that order.

Every human being in the United States, even illegal aliens and fetuses, deserve a right to life and the four Maslow needs that support life:  Food, Clothing, Shelter, Medical Care.  Since the pregnant woman supports the first three for the fetus, she deserves a special place of honor outside the regular economy that insures these things, but all human beings deserve all of that.  When we can't find the ability to provide these things for all human beings, we lose the ability to guarantee liberty and the pursuit of happiness for all citizens.

Liberty for all citizens- that is, all law abiding citizens.  This means not only following the letter of the law, but it's spirit- you can do whatever you want as long as you aren't defrauding others.  I'd point out that our current economic system is basically just a big con game- massive involuntary wealth transfer from the poor to the rich.

The Pursuit of Happiness- note, we're not saying you're guaranteed to CATCH it, only pursue it.  This is a merit-based right to a large extent; we assume that if we've guaranteed you life and liberty, then the invisible hand of the free market will reward you with luxuries for your own personal pursuit of happiness in porportion to your abilities.  I propose we limit capitalism to this last principle; and only allow capitalism in situations where it doesn't interfere with the first two.  

Note this doesn't mean that the poor deserve any more from their government for food than bread, water, and concentrated vitamin pills.  Or that their medical care should be any different than say, Cuba provides for their population.  Or that the free governmental clothing should be any more than a cheaply made unisex unitard, or that the free government housing be anything more than the 6'x10' cells we provide for prisoners.  For most people, private charity or the free market will provide more anyway.  

But you asked for principles- and those are the principles upon which the US Government originally promised in the Declaration of Indepdence.  The Constitution, the Five Branches of government (Congress, Executive, Judicial, Press, and Wall Street) are all an attempt to provide the last of those principles.  I say we DESERVE the first two principles first, and the last of those principles last, and they should be prioritized as such.

The Gap Widens

phred14

Wed Nov 26 10:38:35 -0800 2008

manage

I like where you start, and indeed where you go with it - I've had similar thoughts.  Nobody in the US should starve, die of exposure, or go naked.  (Unless they wish to, and those around don't object, probably because they're similarly attired.)  But that doesn't say they they deserve any sort of luxury.

That's where the free market and capitalism kicks in, and it's because it allows you to pursue your happiness.  One other aspect of that, and that's that I prefer a relatively "straight" wealth curve.  Capitalism should be accessible at every level, not just the rich.  Anyone should be able to work harder/smarter, and gain rewards, at any income level.  It is counterproductive to preserve a much greater share of the rewards for those who already have the most, because it is demotivating to those who have much less.

Which brings us back to principles - society's principles.  Robert Heinlein once said in a rather cynical way, that the goal of society is to perpetuate itself.  That's doesn't have to be cynical - any living thing struggles to survive, and that could include that composite entity known as society.

Given that start, how does society survive?  I would argue by cultivating the best membership, and making that membership happy, willing, and productive participants.  We get back to "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."  But we also get back to the wealth curve.  Capability is not so concentrated in the top 5% that the other 95% deserve nothing.  If the other 95% are demotivated, then society is losing productivity there.  A flatter wealth curve gets more out of everyone - and a healthier society.

The Gap Widens

President4242

Wed Nov 26 11:02:33 -0800 2008

manage

A flat wealth curve is a damn good idea- we need to start by getting away from the weird idea that one's boss deserves more pay simply because he is the boss, not because he produces more.

Especially since it's begining to appear that many bosses produce LESS than the workers beneath them.

The Gap Widens

zotz

Wed Nov 26 11:35:56 -0800 2008

manage

"A flat wealth curve is a damn good idea"

What do you guys mean by a flat wealth curve? And why is it a good idea? And do you mean a flat wealth curve or a flat income curve or both or ???

all the best,

drew

The Gap Widens

phred14

Wed Nov 26 12:56:29 -0800 2008

manage

I should have responded to say not "flat", but "flatter."  What we're approaching, and I'll agree that we're nowhere near there yet, is a situation where 5% of the people hold 95% of the wealth - and get 95% of the income.

In that situation, the other 95% have to work their heads off just to make do, and there's no visible way to work "up the curve."  By "flatter wealth curve" (and maybe that really means income) I mean that at any wealth/income level, you can better your situation by working harder/smarter, and at any point on the curve that effort should be visible.  (ie - readily apparent)

The Gap Widens

zotz

Wed Nov 26 14:38:30 -0800 2008

manage

A couple of things, I think a good amout of what we are seeing now is attributable to crookedness and fraud. That foolishness needs to stop.

But, I think you might want to think about whether you mean for a flatter wealth curve or a flatter income curve.

Now, what are ethical ways to get somewher like that. Or, even to maintain something like that if we can manage to get there somehow?

How are you going to stop someone from always havinf zero wealth or worse, being always in debt?

When are you going to start taking wealth by force from those who save some for later rather than blowing it all in the present?

Are you going to somehow forbid a person from working two jobs should they want more?

Are you planning on doing away with private property? If so, who gets to decide who get's to plant / harvest where?

all the best,

drew

The Gap Widens

phred14

Wed Nov 26 16:03:08 -0800 2008

manage

Now you're throwing words into my mouth and starting to generate the "fallacy of the poor rich man," right alongside the "fallacy of the broken window."  I was just looking at an article about biggest losers in the current market drop, but there's one thing to remember... the biggest loser may have lost over $30 billion, but the "pittance" he's got left is more than I have any chance of making in total earnings for my entire working lifetime plus retirement income.

The "way of the world," as pointed out in this article, is that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.  In the US, the tax code was "adjusted" early in the Bush administration to accelerate this effect.  Government/business corruption accelerates this effect.  But people look at this state of affairs as "normal," that the playing field is tilted heavily in favor of those who have, getting more.  When Obama talked about middle-class tax-cuts, cries of "wealth redistribution" rang out across the land.  Yet when Bush changed the tax code it was just as much "wealth redistribution," yet society accepts it when it's giving more to the wealthy.

My epiphany on the whole issue of "wealth redistribution" came in the 80's, during the savings and loan bailout.  I had a co-worker who was a neocon, before the label was coined, and he was griping about the "wealth redistribution" of welfare.  At the same time, savings and loans were failing, and my taxes were going toward bailing them out.  SOMEBODY ran away with that money, we didn't want to leave the depositors penniless, and MY tax dollars backfilled.  By one level of redirection, my wealth was redistributed to some (expletive deleted) shysters who ran off with people's life savings.  But in the eyes of society, that's not "wealth redistribution."  YES IT IS!

I'm not asking for anything draconian, taking away private property or anything else.  You're putting up a strawman in place of my opinions that's clearly easy to knock down.  I just want a level playing field, or at least more level than it is today.

As for the poor guy who won't work.  Keeping him in minimal nutrition, minimal clothing, and minimal protection from the elements is a pittance.  Any nation that can afford to have billionaires can afford not to let people die for lack of such basics.  Any person with any shred of dignity would not live in such a state, but work their way out of it, but they need the opportunity.

The Gap Widens

zotz

Wed Nov 26 16:51:52 -0800 2008

manage

Please understand, I am not trying to put words in your mouth. Rather I am asking questions trying to figure out how you see these things. To be sure that if we are arguing, we are arguing over actual disagreements and not misunderstandings.

I am not at all for the results the republicans have achieved in the last eight years. But at the same time, I think the democrats are playing the game to the advantage of the rich as well. Perhaps a different group of rich, but the rich none the less.

I see them playing a game trying to convince the poor that the middle class are rich in order to get support to wreck the middle class while doing nothing that is actually effective in hitting the rich as they say they want to.

"You" wanna hit the rich?

10% flat income tax on every human being, NO DEDUCTIONS FOR ANY REASON WHATSOEVER*** and no tax rebates of any sort.

I might say have the tax collected at the local level and then each lower level pay a percentage to the higher level.

Another 10% flat income tax that can be avoided by proof of equivalent donations to (local) charities.

People who can't make it on their remaining 90% can get help. I would prefer to see this coming from voluntary sources first and then some from local government sources.

50% inheritance taxes for any estate over X (some semi huge amount) but this only starts when the estate has passed at this size for Y generations (say Y >=3).

*** Either no corporate income taxes or no taxes on corporate dividends. I am confident this double taxation causes a good number of otherwise law abiding people to go to large lengths to avoid this situation.

Stop playing all these funky games with the money and banking. Honest money with intrinsic value and not fiat value.

Hit fraud hard. This includes deceitful advertising. Exemplified by fine print on TV ads that can't be read at TV resolution and fast talking that can't be reasonably understood by normal people. I might even say that you have to lead with the caveats...???

all the best,

drew

The Gap Widens

President4242

Wed Nov 26 14:21:49 -0800 2008

manage

Basically, that a worker's compensation should be directly related to their productive capability, not to their seniority or ability to get appointed to executive positions.

In other words, the CEO doesn't automatically deserve 10x what the lowest guy in the company gets, and certainly not 400x.  Instead, everybody in the company (or maybe the economy as a whole) gets the same base pay, with anything above that directly related to individual effort.

The Gap Widens

zotz

Wed Nov 26 11:41:36 -0800 2008

manage

"Nobody in the US should starve, die of exposure, or go naked."

What about other countries? Do their people not have the right to life?

all the best,

drew

The Gap Widens

President4242

Wed Nov 26 13:22:01 -0800 2008

manage

What about other countries? Do their people not have the right to life?

Perhaps they need to fight for it, like we did.  The original three principles come from our Declaration of Independence, which kicked off the American Revolutionary War.

The Gap Widens

Charles E Hill

Wed Nov 26 19:37:47 -0800 2008

manage

The rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are granted by our society and codified in our Constitution.  Other nations charters have similar language, but they all amount to the same thing -- rights granted by society. 

There is no such thing as a "natural right".  If you believe otherwise, feel free to parachute into the middle of the ocean, a desert, jungle or polar ice cap and try and convince nature, or some of nature's other carniverous creatures of your "right" to life.  Feel free to call a lawyer and have him protest on behalf of your estate.

The Gap Widens

zotz

Wed Nov 26 11:43:49 -0800 2008

manage

"A flatter wealth curve gets more out of everyone - and a healthier society."

I have seen someone put the case that a caste system is better because you have capable people at all "levels" of society.

Not that I would want such a thing.

all the best,

drew

The Gap Widens

President4242

Wed Nov 26 13:22:44 -0800 2008

manage

I'd like to see people *better matched* to their capabilities.  I think that would lead to less fraud as well.

The Gap Widens

James Parker

Fri Nov 28 13:35:14 -0800 2008

manage

"...people *better matched* to their capabilities"

Plato postulated that in his Republic.  No nurturing at home, all children are wards of the state.  Every man is trained in, and sticks to his profession.

Aldous Huxley projected this into the Brave New World.  Everyone bred with certain capabilities, alpha, beta, gamma etc., educated according to their capabilities, and then indoctrinated to accept the resulting caste system.

There are no real world precise examples.

Without knowing firsthand the benefits (?) of the Indian caste system, I can say my friend from India thinks it's terrible.

It's for such reasons that he and a few others want to come to America and become American.

My own observations of the victims of the English class system tell me I want no part of that.  One of them was my great grandfather, who did not want my grandfather to attend college.  He did anyway, and became an educator and theorist who did some of the seminal work in conceiving the regional high school.

"I come from down in the valley,

where Mister when you're young,

 they bring you up to do

 like your daddy done"

Bruce Springsteen

The Gap Widens

zotz

Wed Nov 26 11:39:06 -0800 2008

manage

Are you going to go down the road that the government has the right to force the poor to work?

If not, are they going to come around with guns and take your wealth when you are working three jobs a day and give it to the person who refuses to work at one?

These are serious questions here.

I can ask similar ones with respect to government provided health care. Will they assert the right to force the unhealthy into excercise programs and other health improving life styles?

all the best,

drew

The Gap Widens

President4242

Wed Nov 26 13:25:01 -0800 2008

manage

Are you going to go down the road that the government has the right to force the poor to work?

Within their capabilities, yes, everybody should at least do *something*.

If not, are they going to come around with guns and take your wealth when you are working three jobs a day and give it to the person who refuses to work at one?

Not if my guns have anything to say about it.  I like home automation too much.

I can ask similar ones with respect to government provided health care. Will they assert the right to force the unhealthy into excercise programs and other health improving life styles?

I'd expect it.  Too much cost savings not to.  Non-health-improving lifestyles are a luxury- if you want a luxury you have to work for it.

The Gap Widens

President4242

Wed Nov 26 08:37:42 -0800 2008

manage

Here's WHY it's the only way capitalism can play out:

1.  There will always be fraud unless it is draconianly punished.

2.  Where there is fraud, there will be centralization of wealth.

3.  Where there is centralization of wealth, there will be corruption of government.

4.  Where there is corruption of government, there will be less enforcement of fraud, so goto 1.

The ignorance and allowance of the basic forms of fraud, such as advertising, is the fatal flaw of capitalism.  All the rest, comes from that initial failure.

I suggest the answer is localization, and required ownership of firearms for all adults.  If customer-inspired violence is the automatic reaction to fraud, then nobody will commit fraud.

The Gap Widens

zotz

Wed Nov 26 09:39:55 -0800 2008

manage

"Here's WHY it's the only way capitalism can play out:"

And, given the givens you state, what can play out better?

all the best,

drew

The Gap Widens

President4242

Wed Nov 26 09:49:21 -0800 2008

manage

And, given the givens you state, what can play out better?

Decentralization and localization with tariffs and mandatory gun ownership.

Everything else can be left the same, if cities can print their own money, levy their own tariffs, and if the consumer has the ability to resort to violence to redeem fraud, then there's no way for a business to get so large that there isn't punishment for fraud in one way or another (either getting a company-specific tariff ordinance assigned to your goods to prevent you from selling in a city, or by some disgruntled customer popping a cap in your ass thus preventing you from ever committing fraud again).

Basically, the same system that worked until the Constitution replaced it with a federalist system.

The federal economy experiment has failed.  It's time to replace it.

The Gap Widens

zotz

Wed Nov 26 09:54:32 -0800 2008

manage

"Decentralization and localization with tariffs and mandatory gun ownership."

And private ownership of capital cannot work in this environment?

all the best,

drew

The Gap Widens

President4242

Wed Nov 26 10:30:46 -0800 2008

manage

And private ownership of capital cannot work in this environment?

No, private ownership of capital DOES work in this environment- as long as it is not abused.  It's when private ownership gets put as a principle ABOVE life and liberty of one's neighbors, that it becomes a problem.  The decentralization and localization of the governance of private property, the ability of a city to levy tariffs against incoming economic warfare threats, and gun ownership for the protection of private property and revenge against fraud, all goes to make sure that private ownership is used and not abused.

It also means that the main method of getting "more than your fair share", that is, more than your customers give you willingly, is utterly destroyed.

Unless fraud is treated in such a draconian fashion that the fraudster has no place to escape to, then fraud will overwhelm any economic system.

The Gap Widens

zotz

Wed Nov 26 11:31:02 -0800 2008

manage

Please note that this is not by way of disagreement...

"It's when private ownership gets put as a principle ABOVE life and liberty of one's neighbors, that it becomes a problem."

How can you have liberty if you cannot own the stuff you need to feed yourself? (Means of production...)

I know things can be abused and am not for that at all.

"It also means that the main method of getting "more than your fair share", that is, more than your customers give you willingly, is utterly destroyed."

Trade you for willingly might be a better term / concept than give you willingly...

all the best,

drew

The Gap Widens

President4242

Wed Nov 26 11:40:39 -0800 2008

manage

How can you have liberty if you cannot own the stuff you need to feed yourself? (Means of production...)

What in the above says that you can't?  All I'm saying is that the government *also* owns the stuff it needs to allow you to feed yourself.  If you want something other than bread, water, and vitamin suplements, you've got to provide it yourself.

Trade you for willingly might be a better term / concept than give you willingly...

There is no such thing as a willing trade is the problem with that- there is always fraud where there is trade.

Here's the difference:  

I'm the ONLY guy who knows how to make gadget foo, and I'll only accept gold-pressed latinum for it.  That's trade- based on secrecy and fraud.

I'm A guy who knows how to make gadget foo among many, and because I make it better than anybody else, you're willing to offer me product bar which you make better than anybody else for it.  That's giving willingly.

I'm saying the 2nd is better for everybody involved, even though arguably it will make the individual worse off.

The Gap Widens

zotz

Wed Nov 26 11:49:37 -0800 2008

manage

"That's giving willingly."

No, that's trading willingly. Giving to me willingly would be giving me bar for nothing in return.

"What in the above says that you can't?  All I'm saying is that the government *also* owns the stuff it needs to allow you to feed yourself."

OK, fine by me.

Now, I happen to come from a place where the government is messed up enough that they are not likely to have what they need for long unless they resort from taking from the rest at the point of a gun but there you go. As long as private people are allowed to own what they need to take care of themselves, we are off to a good start.

all the best,

drew

The Gap Widens

President4242

Wed Nov 26 12:17:43 -0800 2008

manage

No, that's trading willingly. Giving to me willingly would be giving me bar for nothing in return.

Without the trade secret, you are basically getting nothing in return.  You could just as easily create gadget foo yourself.

Now, I happen to come from a place where the government is messed up enough that they are not likely to have what they need for long unless they resort from taking from the rest at the point of a gun but there you go

Well, that's the entire world thanks to the fraud of fractional reserve central banking.  But what you don't realize is that ALL private property, for all time, has been taken from somebody at the point of a gun.

There is no economic system that was established without the threat of violence.

As long as private people are allowed to own what they need to take care of themselves, we are off to a good start.

Or at least a better start than the current form of corporatism, where there are no private individuals left.

The Gap Widens

zotz

Wed Nov 26 12:55:01 -0800 2008

manage

"Without the trade secret, you are basically getting nothing in return.  You could just as easily create gadget foo yourself."

A couple of things...

Would you force someone to tell you how they cook their food?

Or are you talking patents and not trade secrets?

I would guess that if we compared skills, we could find something where we would both be better off if I made two foos and you made two bars and I traded you one of my foos for one of your bars than if I made myself a foo and a bar and you made yourself a foo and a bar. Can we agree on this?

I think we may be using terms differently and not disagreeing on some issues but I am confused enough by your use of the language / terms not to be sure.

"There is no economic system that was established without the threat of violence."

??? Please explain. Do you posit that we cannot interact with each other unless we threaten violence upon one another?

"But what you don't realize is that ALL private property, for all time, has been taken from somebody at the point of a gun."

So, in your view, how should things be? (wrt real property and things people make from stuff they find / gather.)

all the best,

drew

The Gap Widens

President4242

Wed Nov 26 13:31:52 -0800 2008

manage

Would you force someone to tell you how they cook their food?

If they expect me to buy it, yes, of course.  Half truths are as good as lies, and lies lead to fraud.

Or are you talking patents and not trade secrets?

Well, to get a patent you need to disclose to begin with.

I would guess that if we compared skills, we could find something where we would both be better off if I made two foos and you made two bars and I traded you one of my foos for one of your bars than if I made myself a foo and a bar and you made yourself a foo and a bar. Can we agree on this?

Yes, but it has to be based on personal merit- working harder.  Not on half-truths and lies- working smarter.

I think we may be using terms differently and not disagreeing on some issues but I am confused enough by your use of the language / terms not to be sure.

You can be sure I'm using the widest possible interpretation of the terms.

??? Please explain. Do you posit that we cannot interact with each other unless we threaten violence upon one another?

It's even worse than that.  We can't even own anything unless we threaten violence upon one another.  Violence is in fact the very basis of private ownership.

So, in your view, how should things be? (wrt real property and things people make from stuff they find / gather.)

No, but I can't find any example anywhere where it isn't (and therefore, it must be acknowledged and accounted for).

I'm saying the best way to account for it seems to be to attempt to have everybody armed equally and keep economic interactions personal; within two degrees of aquaintenceship, so that if somebody steals from you, you can always track them down and kill them.

The Gap Widens

zotz

Wed Nov 26 14:10:08 -0800 2008

manage

"so that if somebody steals from you, you can always track them down and kill them."

With that I think I will end thisthread.

all the best,

drew

The Gap Widens

gstovall

Wed Nov 26 13:14:09 -0800 2008

manage

Back in the dark ages, when I transitioned to a managerial role for a few years, I was managing people who were making more than I was, because even though my base pay was higher than theirs, they were eligible for overtime and I wasn't.  It was a real kick in the head, because I had been at the same paygrade  (not eligible for overtime pay) for several years before doing a lateral move to management, and it became clear to me that I had been a team leader and advisor, and working considerably more hours per week than the people I was advising, yet was making less money than the people I had been supervising.  That discrepancy did not last for too many more years until overtime pay was removed for EVERYONE.  Sigh.

My point is that while there are exceptions, in general management is more difficult than a technical role.  I've been both a technical lead and a manager, and I chose to go back to a technical lead role, because I enjoy it more, and there are not as many headaches.  Given the fact that  management is typically more and more of a headache as one goes higher, I think there should be some level of a multiplier over the previous salary level for each new level.  However...

I observe that senior execs make 30X what I, a 20 year veteran professional make, and that they receive into their NON-CONTRIBUTORY retirement accounts more each year than I will be able to save in a lifetime of labor using the company's 401K plan.  So yes, something is currently out of whack in our world.

Whiners

Charles E Hill

Wed Nov 26 19:53:52 -0800 2008

manage

What is stopping you from doing some work on the side and creating your own product or starting your own business?

I'm not picking on you specifically.  This entire thread seems to be filled with whiners who want "the company" to pay them more, yet none of them mentioned even the slightest inkling of going into business for themselves.

Invent something.  Code software.  Write a book, play, script, song or game.  Start a company.  Develop a product or skill that someone will pay you more money for than working as an interchangable, commodity laborer.

America, Britain and Australia (to name a few) weren't built on "I'll do my company job but whine you don't pay me enough", but they certainly sound like that is where they're going to die from the tone of this thread.  How about actually going out and busting your hump for YOU for a change, instead of complaining abou the inequities of corporate welfare.  Less "I deserve" and more "I earned".

Whiners

gstovall

Thu Nov 27 08:07:57 -0800 2008

manage

Good question.

I do have 9 patents to my name (owned by my company, of course), so at least the base level of creativity was/is there.

I think the biggest obstacle, other than fear of the unknown, is the fact that one has to have two years of living money saved up to cover expenses.  That, and the thought of having a sizable family and going without medical insurance.

The time may indeed come when I HAVE to do that, because I no longer have the choice of continuing to work for a large corporation.

There are people all around me who are doing exactly that, providing a valuable service that people pay for.  And yet, I see that they are doing it by virtue of not needing any medical care, and going without dental work.  I fix computers for friends and acquaintances all the time, but there is no way I could actually maintain any decent standard of living for a family based on THAT skill, so it really does have to be something more valuable that.  Despite the fact it's, often a nasty messy business, plumbing seems like something that actually seems to be able to provide a decent modest standard of living.

One thing I see that could be a decent business is auto painting.  Auto painting, with the right tools (and they're not very expensive)  is a relatively easy thing to do.  Yet, people will pay a decent amount of money for it.  However, it is a luxury item, so in hard times, it also will be a non-starter.

My wife has tried several times to start a home business, and every attempt has failed, even though she put a LOT of time and effort into startup.  So it really is about finding what people WILL pay for, and it's not always so easy to figure that out.

Whiners

Charles E Hill

Thu Nov 27 08:37:32 -0800 2008

manage

Well, it helps if your wife has a job -- however small the pay -- that provides health and dental insurance.

You're right that fixing computers, computer training and setup isn't going to get you anywhere.  That itself is a commodity service and it is hard to compete with high school kids who live at home and have no expenses.

Plumbing, along with electrician, is a good one but requires a lot of training and a State license.  God help you break into those businesses if you live in Union States.

The auto painting requires artistic skills that I don't have, so I can't comment. 

I know what you mean about failing several times.  The only thing I can say is to paraphrase Edison about the lightbulb -- you only need to succeed once.

Whiners

gstovall

Thu Nov 27 15:47:05 -0800 2008

manage

:)  My wife was working as a manager up until about a year ago for a local resort, the most expensive vacation spot in this hub of vacation spots.  The place did offer medical benefits.  However, the costs were complete lunacy.  To cover just her, with major medical only, would have cost 50% of her paycheck.  To have covered the entire family, with just basic reasonable medical and dental coverage, could have taken several times her monthly pay each month.  Needless to say, we stuck with my insurance.  :)

The cost of my insurance plan at work has gone up about 10x over the last 8 years, and the cost of prescriptions has gone up 15X.  But even at the terrible toll that takes on our livelihood, I'm still grateful to have it, because the alternative is...terrible to comprehend.

Whiners

Charles E Hill

Thu Nov 27 16:00:13 -0800 2008

manage

I've been lucky, I guess.  I have 3 kids and almost never needed insurance.  The couple of times it would have come in handy, the deductables were too high and I ended up paying everything out of pocket anyway.

The only time I've used it is this year, when my first grandbaby was born in late July.  My daughter lives at home and attends college, so is covered under my insurance.  Still, my yearly family deductable is $5,450 and the total cost was closer to $8,500.  Now that it is met, I'm taking the opportunity to have a corneal transplant I've been putting off for years.  Insurance is covering 100% of that cost ($11,500).

Everything else over the last 20 years has just been out of pocket, but I've been lucky in that we haven't had any major expenses.  I've just maintained catastrophic coverage, just in case.

Whiners

gstovall

Fri Nov 28 04:49:05 -0800 2008

manage

I'm really glad that you've not had much need for medical insurance over the years, and that you got your corneal transplant!

My wife was receiving these shots that used to cost us $50 a pop in out of pocket costs.  Now, they're $600 a pop.  We've decided that the cost of the shots outweigh our ability to pay for them, and have sought alternate treatment.  In fact ANY outpatient surgery thing now costs us at least $600 in out of pocket costs, escalating from there.  And with the insurance plan having transitioned from a 100% coverage to a 90/10 plan, we can no longer afford to REALLY get sick. Yeah, I know the above paragrah looks like more whining, but it does show that it's getting dire for those who do make even moderate use of health care. 

I guess if I look at it with a survivalist/rationalist mindset, then for the survival of the species, it's not a bad thing for those who need some form of health care to not receive it, because that gives the potential to remove possibly weaker members from the world.  Of course, we've run under that system forever, and it hasn't seemed to resolve these "weakness" issues, so I guess it's not being a terribly effective strategy, eh?  Sure is a cost effective one, though.  :)

Whiners

Charles E Hill

Fri Nov 28 06:27:09 -0800 2008

manage

I know that healthcare costs have gone up by astronomical amounts over the last decade or two.  It forced my family to focus seriously on preventative measures.

I also had some luck in negotiating with doctors (but NOT hospitals) for reduced costs if I just pay in cash and no paperwork.  For the simple things like kids physicals, basic bloodwork, annual exams, vaccinations, etc. it is easy to do.  For the more complicated it can be a killer.

Considering the average lifespan was less than 40 in 1900, we've come a long way in the last century.

Best of luck.