One can, one did, but one ages, energy must be conserved, you begin to think “Maybe I can cut back on this whole ‘undermining’ thing, say, Tuesdays and Thursdays. See how that goes…”
For someone who professes fairly anti-Christian sentiments, you sure seem to be applying similar logic to the existence or not of free markets, especially with respect to labor.
It isn’t some sort of theoretical thing- it’s an empirically derived explanation for how things do actually work. Somehow, strangely, after the artificially imposed markets in former Communist countries were removed, free (or mostly free) markets popped up. It sure seems to be the natural state of things for humans.
But you don’t get it… nobody’s making decisions with the express intent of screwing others around. The system works based on everyone’s own self interest- if enough people decide that their labor as a janitor is worth more than say… $7 an hour, then that price will go up. The fact that it’s set at $7 isn’t some dastardly thing done in a smoke-filled room by men in 3 piece suits and handlebar mustaches, it’s more than likely set by middle-management types in HR and whatever functional area of the company is doing the hiring. They look at comparative salary resources, and offer accordingly. If no one bites at that rate, they up it a little bit. If they get a bunch of overqualified people, they lower it, with the intent of getting the right person for the job at the right price.
The fact that CEOs make big salaries isn’t due to some combination of unbridled avarice and nefarious dealings with underlings, it’s because whoever’s doing the hiring- the Board of Directors, most likely, feel that this person is worth that amount of compensation to run the company. He’s directly more responsible for the way the company goes than some dude who tightens bolts on the assembly line. Generally, the bolt-tightener can cause some warranty recalls if he does his job badly. The CEO on the other hand can fuck up and lose everyone’s job. Why shouldn’t he make some multiple of the other guy’s salary? The risk to the company is exponentially higher, so his reward should be commensurate.
It’s a noble idea to think that everyone’s valued and everyone should be able to make a living. The problem is that essentially you DO have to take someone else’s money to ensure that, and people tend to resist having their money taken to be given to someone who didn’t work as hard for it, or who didn’t take the same risks, or who didn’t make the same sacrifices.
Personally, I’m incensed when the government takes my money and uses it on people who made bad decisions or who were just plain lazy, or those who are here illegally and have no right to even work here or make a home here.
I’ve spent my entire life trying to make the best decisions I can, so that I am successful, and taking risks and making sacrifices for the same reason. I didn’t fuck around in high school and get knocked up, and nor did I fail to graduate. I don’t see why making dipshit decisions like those should entitle someone to the money I worked, risked and sacrificed to earn. They should have made better decisions or worked harder, in my opinion.
That’s the problem with the socialist end of the spectrum in my opinion- they basically want to level everyone in some sense, and effectively negate the sacrifices, risks and toil that others have put in, to effectively reward those who did not.
No they don’t “want to level everyone,” or at least the vast, vast majority of the leftist-socialist types don’t. What they want is to level a certain subset of the population, in such a way that certain persons whom they deem as rich lose much, and they personally gain or lose very little.
To be middle-class in America is to be wildly wealthy in the eyes of most of the world. Suppose we put any of the SDMB’s most ardent socialists in a room in an actual microcosm of the world’s population: say one other middle-class person from another developed western nation, three factory workers who make $5000 a year, and fifteen peasant farmers and day laborers from developing nations who live on a dollar a day.
Do you really think the armchair socialist would still be in favor of an equal distribution of the combined resources of all twenty people?
Maybe the two of you should focus your energies and attention on getting jobs so the rest of society doesn’t have to support you?
That’s the problem with socialists. They think all the wealth in the world just sprung out of thin air and it should therefore be spread around. Wealth isn’t derived from the government printing money. It is derived from individuals who convert raw materials into products and services people want and need. To you, the J.P. Morgans and Andrew Carnegies are greedy robber-barron industrialists. To that I say that every single worker who took a salary from US Steel or any company dependent on US Steel owes them for their entire livlihood. And if you want any more proof of that, I suggest you read up on how any Rust Belt steel town faired after the American steel industry declined.
Oooh, snap! Say what you will about tighty rightys, you just can’t beat them when it comes to pithy rejoinders.
Do you write for Mallard Fillmore?
I’m with you, but I think you undermine your own point with that rhetoric. Those workers do not “owe” their employers for their livelihoods. Similarly, those employers do not “owe” those workers for their labor which made those companies successes. Each party voluntarily entered into a mutually beneficial arrangement. Assuming their contractual obligations were met on both ends, they parted on even terms. Neither party owed each other anything after they parted ways.
I am an ardent supporter of the free market, but it makes me uncomfortable when people talk about how consumers should be grateful to companies. Both sides should be though of equal participants.
I’ve thought about this for awhile. It’s a mutually beneficial relationship, however it is one that depends on some individual or individuals having the wherewithal to create a viable business for people to work at. It’s not about being “grateful to companies” in a sense that you should kowtow to them. It’s just about understanding where these jobs come from in the first place.