I want to try something a little different here from the usual political sniping. The point of this thread is to debate the best-case scenario plans of conservatives to address some of the problems I’ll lay out below. For the purposes of this thread consider the following things as given and no problem to your plans: Opposition, precedent, or compromise. You are basically being given carte blanche to act as you see fit *within the constrains of the constitution and the law. * I don’t care about how realistic the voting would fall out, protests from the other side etc…I want to know HOW you propose to address the following concerns. If they are attainable politically, then so much the better, but it need not be a necessity. I don’t want to hear about the other side, or how what is in place sucks unless you can propose something better. Be specific. Tell me exactly HOW you plan will work, I’m genuinely interested. If you feel that these concerns are not the government’s problem, that is fine; but I expect you to still address the concerns posted. Saying: " Let the market sort it out." is not an answer that addresses the concerns. It is equivalent to simply saying: " I don’t know" or “I don’t care”. Here we go…
Large business generally has a poor track record of protecting environmental concerns when they conflict with profits. How do you propose to protect both our natural resources and the public health from negligence or abuse if not through federal oversight?
Likewise, the private sector is currently suffering from a rapidly expanding income gap. While I realize that this not necessarily a bad thing in conservative philosophy, surely you must realize that a race to the bottom for the vast majority of our citizens is not a healthy thing for our economy as a whole. How would you address this issue.
The United states is currently lagging behind in the quality and depth of our education. How do you propose to ensure standards across the country if not through federal oversight? How do you intend to address the problem with the rapid inflation of secondary education costs and the bloated numbers of young people attending?
Lastly, Health care costs have been steadily skyrocketing for the last decade. They have become so bloated that they can cripple small businesses, devastate personal finances, and prevent people from seeking care. How do you propose to fix this problem?
There you go. Four broad, complicated questions I’d like some honest, thoughtful answers to. I know we have some intelligent conservatives on board here, so I’m waiting to hear what you have to say.
While not agreeing on whether it is just or not, I don’t think it’s functional. It doesn’t work. Income inequality impacts the quality and type of life that Americans tend to call ideal. Not only is it not healthy for our economy, it’s not healthy for our families.
So, I would be very interested to hear your response to the original question. Otherwise, I am curious: would you be content if America became something other than America, even if it was perfectly just for such a thing to happen?
So when a CEO out-earns his company’s workers because he laid off most of them and slashed the pensions of the rest so the stock will go up and he’ll receive a huge bonus that’s not an injustice?
I took “injustice” as generally meaning “unfair”, not “illegal”. It is not fair that the reason some people earn more is by causing others to earn less.
In what way is it unhealthy for my family for my neighbor across the street to out-earn me?
My response is already given.
I’m not sure what this means. Are you asking if America should act unjustly to preserve the status quo?
The response to that is twofold:[list=A][li]No, that is not an injustice, and [*]you are talking about something slightly different. [/li]
We were talking about income inequity, in and of itself. One cannot assume that everyone who earns more than the average does so because he acted unjustly. For instance, a relative of mine is a doctor, and married to another doctor. They are very well-off. Is the bare fact that they earn more than me an injustice? [/list]
I don’t accept your premise (emphasis added), but… If you run a very successful company, causing another company (not so well run) to go out of business, that is “unfair” or “unjust”?
[hijack] The only way America ever becomes “something other than America” is if we endure a prolonged, national-culture-crushing occupation by a foreign power. An America under a dictatorship or a theocracy would still be America, just like France has had 10+ regime changes since 1789 and remains France. We’re a nation-state like France, not an idea-state like the USSR. [/hj]
I would think that most on the left do not find income inequality to be unfair or unjust in and of itself. Nor would many of us feel that making a huge salary is objectively unfair. What would be unfair, is slashing jobs, reducing low level employee pay and benefits, and closing locations merely to preserve a profit margin that *only *benefits the wealthy. In reality the owners and shareholders should be the first to accept losses before everyone else. They can afford it more easily, and doing so prevents the loss of jobs and money injected back into the system.
Is it OK if it benefits the non-wealthy shareholders, too? If so, why? And if not, why not? “Slashing jobs” can be a euphemism for automation. Why do you hate automation?
The more well-off can always afford losses of any kind. That seems like a very poor argument if applied to only this particular case, since it could be used to justify any action that would make the more well-off take a hit in favor of the less well-off.
It depends. When we rely on private business as the engine for our economy, that means that each little piece, (each business) should be running as efficiently as possible. Efficiency can be marked on lots of different criteria though. If you value long term health, a part that performs wildly well for a short while and burns out, (causing costly repairs and time out of service) is less efficient than one that is less productive but vastly more stable. If you value short term performance than the disposable part is more efficient. On the whole though, The best performance is one that balances all these criteria to the best benefit of all concerned.
As to automation, I’m all for it. I like low prices and efficiency, and I understand that automating can be of great assistance to savings. That is part of the issue though. America is no longer a manufacturing economy, and we are unwilling to pay a proper living wage for such jobs. I would be willing to, (and do) pay more though, for goods and services produced at home. That is not a long term fix though.
As to your second point, why shouldn’t they? When we consider the needs of a country, and the impact per person, the wealthy can afford to do more without compromising their quality of life. The middle class might hurt a bit, The lower middle class would suffer, and the working poor would be crushed. We should start from the top down and spread the pain as fairly as possible in context of impact.
How are the two examples different? In both cases someone has caused other people to earn less money even though that person did nothing illegal.
Or, if you don’t like that one, address the one about automation. I automate my company, eliminating many jobs. This lets me make more money by laying people off. Is that unfair or unjust?
Are you doing it for the long-term health of your company, or are you doing it for the sort-term gain of your stockholders, who will replace you in a New York minute if they don’t see an immediate profit? It’s not so much what you do that matters, but why you do it.
For the sake of this discussion, let’s keep it simple. I own the company. There are no stockholders. In that case, why does it matter?
The scenario is that I have done something that makes me more money and causes others to make less.
But let’s take it step further. I started the company. I decide, for whatever reason, to fire everyone. Is that unfair or unjust? It’s my company, and none of those jobs would have existed without me in the first place. By creating a job, am I somehow now beholden to the guy who has that job? Why is that?
If I own an enormous estate and decide to downsize (for no other reason than that I want to have more money to spend on other things), and in the process let go the groundskeeper, housekeeper and my personal foot masseuse, is that unjust or unfair? I’m going to save a boatload of money by downsizing and those other guys are SOL.
I think in your example it is relevant to understand the size of your company. There is difference between shutting down a 10 person, 100 person, 1000 person, and 10,000 person business. There are ripple effects on other industries, etc. Yes, on the large scale it can become unethical to act in that manner. You have through your success placed yourself into a position of great power and responsibility for the livelihood of others. There is difference between Pop’s lawn service shutting down and losing 20 employees and Acidlamp Lawn Inc laying off 2000 people just to keep bonuses where they were last year. The scale is everything.
Acid lamp, there is a major problem with the premise of your OP. Asking conservative Dopers how they would solve various problems hits a roadblock if they don’t see those situations as problems in the first place.
I own a widget factory. I can produce widgets for $1.10 in the US, or $1.00 by relocating abroad. If I relocate, that is clearly to the detriment of my workers in the US, but it is a benefit to my shareholders, and the workers abroad. It is also a benefit to those who buy my widgets, because they have $0.10 more to spend per widget purchase.
Do you understand the purpose of selling shares in a company?
