Why has so much power/influence left labor and gone to capital, at least in the US

Great Debates
61

OP can be rephrased to ask why it is Big Business rather than People that have political power in U.S.A. A big part of the answer is the unfortunate removal of legal restrictions on media power and campaign financing.

There are also mindset differences between Americans and, say, Europeans. In discussions of public-financed health-care, Europeans often advocate altruism. When the topic comes up at SDMB, I’ve yet to hear a Doper who has health insurance discuss anything but whether his/her own health insurance situation will be improved by a government program.

Americans tend to have excessive faith(*) in Free Markets. Recently I complained here that Al Jazeera is probably a more objective news network than, e.g., CNN and that it was too bad it wasn’t more readily available in the U.S.A. The only response was “If there was a market for it, it would be available.” (Whenever I hear that TV provides people that which they in fact will watch, I’m reminded of the deer transfixed watching oncoming headlights. :dubious: )

There are other examples showing how a unique American mindset affects politics, but that would be a topic for another thread.

62

I used to think of Al Jazeera as an anti-Israel propaganda organ. Then I discovered that it is interesting. Any news source will emphasize some stories rather than others, and some facts rather than others. That is why one should get news from various sources. FOX News has been known to lie and exaggerate. Rush Limbaugh is a notorious liar.

This is Al Jazeera’s website:

63

Calvinism and Social Darwinism resonate in the United States. Most Americans, and especially most white Americans, like and admire the rich, even when they have no realistic chance of becoming rich.

Many Americans also enjoy feeling superior to the poor, even those poor people who work hard at unrewarding jobs, and who are morally responsible.

64

No, he has a real definition, and you have a made up one.

65

Definition of RISK
1: possibility of loss or injury : peril
2: someone or something that creates or suggests a hazard
3a : the chance of loss or the perils to the subject matter of an insurance contract; also : the degree of probability of such loss b : a person or thing that is a specified hazard to an insurer c : an insurance hazard from a specified cause or source <war risk>
4: the chance that an investment (as a stock or commodity) will lose value
— risk·less \ˈris-kləs\ adjective
— at risk
: in a state or condition marked by a high level of risk or susceptibility <patients at risk of infection>

The Webster definition certainly includes the risk of losing a job.

66

From an economic standpoint, labor only risks the opportunity costs associated with lost income. Let’s say I start a new company tomorrow. I invest my own money to set up shop and hire a bunch of workers. At the end of the year, we go out of business. We all are out of a job. The difference is that workers have whatever wages they earned over the year while I am likely out my entire investment.

The only risk labor incurs is the loss of a job they wouldn’t have in the first place if it wasn’t for me, my inginuity and investment.

And yet we are by far the wealthiest nation on Earth.

Most Americans like and admire the idea that they should be free to be rewarded for their efforts. In spite of what you read on this board, most Americans seek to manage to eek out a comfortible living for themselves and their family.

67

According to the CIA World Factbook, nine countries have higher per capita gross domestic products (GDP).
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html?countryName=United States&countryCode=us&regionCode=na&rank=10#us

According again to the CIA World Factbook this is very unevenly distributed.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2172rank.html?countryName=United States&countryCode=us&regionCode=na&rank=40#us

According to Forbes, “the five happiest countries in the world–Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands–are all clustered in the same region, and all enjoy high levels of prosperity.” These countries, of course, have social democratic economies.

68

Your mistake is in assuming already having a job to begin with. Don’t.

69

How many of those countries have a population larger than New York City?

70

No, it certainly does not, it includes the possibility of loss, and it specifically mentions investments.

An entrepreneur that starts a business risks his capital. If the business fails he loses that capital (and as mentioned thus loses is power).

The person he hires risks nothing other than the opportunity cost of working some where else. The time he spends as a cashier is rewarded with salary. It’s possible he could lose his job, it’s also possible he could lose a mitten or a toe, but he doesn’t lose is earning potential, he can still get another job.

The entrepreneur has lost his capital, and thus lost his ability to invest.

But notice, when the business fails, the first guy loses his capital AND makes nothing for the year, the second guy loses his job but earned salary for a year. That he chose to live pay check to pay check is irrelevant to the discussion.

If, on the other hand, the cashier was so dedicated to the project that he offered to forgo his salary until the business improved–that would be an investment of his time, and he now risks losing that if the business fails.

This misunderstanding of risk is really getting out of hand, can we start a sticky on the subject?

A person that shows up to work risks nothing other than the opportunity cost of working somewhere else. At the end of the day he/she will be paid for their time. Their “investment of time” will be instantly rewarded with a salary. He/she then has capital and is free to risk it however he/she wants.

If that lowly, hardworking, American labourer feels he/she deserves more of the profits, then he/she should invest his/her own capital.

71

I am not sure what the significance of that is. What matters is that the United States no longer has the highest standard of living. The Cold War is over. You no longer have the Evil Empire to kick around any more. By many criteria European countries with social democratic economies have better qualities of life. Communist China out competes us economically while buying our national debt.

European countries with higher taxes and stronger unions have been less effected by the Great Recession. They are recovering faster.

72

Actually, you were told that it IS available in some places in the US, depending on your cable or satellite provider, and that if it’s not available in your particular area that’s probably because there isn’t a market for it. I don’t know what you think here…if AJ was popular enough in the US that people wanted it, do you expect that those evil Big Business Owners(aar) would turn down the money they could or would make simply to, what? Keep AJ from infiltrating US broadcast markets and corrupting our cats? Considering that AJ is available on the web, I’m going to go with ‘they don’t think they can make enough money to make it worth their while to offer it in more than a few select places where the DO think there is money to be made’. If that means I have ‘excessive faith’ in the Free Markets, well, so be it. Personally, I think you just didn’t like the answers you were getting in that thread and so decided that since it ran contrary to your selective world view that you’d chalk it up to faith based reasoning instead…

-XT

73

What you appear to be saying is that the more objective news source is less available in the U.S.A. because of free market fact, which was my very point! Thank you for helping me make my point. (I do not propose a solution here; first step is to diagnose problems.)

Recently a Bill was introduced to reduce or eliminate the subsidy for NPR. May I assume you approve?

ETA: Did you read the link I posted?
Did you contemplate “deer transfixed in headlights”? That deer is doing what it does in an unrestrained “free” environment.

74

No, that was not all all what he was saying, if you look again “objective news” was not a measure for proliferation, but rather profitability. AJ isn’t widely available because there aren’t enough people that want it. “objective news” has nothing to do with it.

75

The significance is that you can’t compare the economy of a tiny, homogenius country like Luxembourg to a nation of 300 million people with a hugely diverse demographic base.

They don’t actually. We have a higher GDP. We manufacture more. We have a MUCH higher per capita GDP. The US dollar is the reserve currency of the world with 66% of all currency held being USD. The Chinese Yuan is not even in the top 5.

The only place China out competes us is in growth. And that is because they are starting from a much lower place. I’m sure China is a great place to be if you are educated and living in an urban area as part of the rising middle class. Probably not so great if you are one of the hundreds of millions of people who still live in squalor.

You can look up the numbers.

76

I agree with this. Labor also had something else for quite a while - a booming economy with little international competition where those that own the capital were willing to share the wealth because the alternative (having their workers strike) was worse. There was wealth to share, and it was fairly easy.

Margins HAVE slipped dramatically in most sectors in the past fifty years. Retail is a great one - when my uncle started working in retail in the 1960s, they’d pretty much double the cost of the good for the price. Sales were not a constant thing. And companies like Sears and Macy’s made money hand over fist.

Now you have to compete with a company like Costco, which has razor thin margins on a lot of their stuff. Or Amazon, who has very small overhead compared to a traditional brick and mortar model. So if you are going to keep your profits for your owners the same (or keep them from shrinking too much) you need to keep a lid on your costs - including labor. You also have to press your suppliers to keep a lid on their costs (Walmart is horrible for telling their suppliers that they pay their employees too much).

BTW the owners have also taken hits. A lot more companies used to pay out profits in dividends - fewer do and they are smaller. Less profits to share.

What has changed is that the top executives (who are not necessarily the owners - but often own a lot of stock) have been taking larger pieces of the profit pie - both from the investors (who do own the company) and labor. Don’t get these people confused with the owners - this is the CXO execs and the Board of Directors - who take their portion first. Also, don’t get them confused with “management” - management in a corporation has a lot of levels and middle managers aren’t usually making money hand over fist either. Wall Street hasn’t been much happier with this situation than labor - but as of yet, we haven’t been able to convince people to “restrict the free market” by capping CEO salaries and bonuses. In truth however, if you take a CEOs $10Million dollar a year package, and distribute it out to all his employees, it often isn’t really more than a token when you spread it out among a big companies tens of thousands of employees. Still, I think it sends the wrong message.

77

When the United States had the highest standard of living in the world people of your persuasion used that as proof of the benefits of the American free enterprise system. Now that other countries have economies that perform better you make excuses.

78

Because that is EXACTLY! what the voters want. In the past 40 years, voters have consistently voted to shift the power, and profits, to business and away from labor.

Expanding/inflating the labor supply by bringing in millions more immigrants each year is what the voters want. The more job seekers there are that compete for jobs means that employers can/need to reduce wages and benefits.

Allowing companies to outsource and move to asia, mexico, canada, etc is what the voters want and the voters allow them to do it and give companies tax deductions for moving jobs out of our country, and voters also wanted protective tariffs(which previously kept jobs in America) eliminated.

Candidates like Pat Robertson, Ross Perot, Pat Buchannan, etc who wanted to keep factories and jobs in America, and who wanted to reduce immigration were soundly defeated in the elections.

Ancient Chinese Curse: ** “May you get what you ask for” **

A more difficult question, is “why are American workers so stupid as to continually vote to get rid of their own jobs”? Other countries, like Canada, China, Mexico, some European countries, etc actually WANT to keep jobs and have policies to attract jobs.
.

79

And … after someone missed the point …

You guys keep helping me make my own points! I know that “objective news” has nothing to do with your or xtisme’s comments; it was a phrase I introduced. You guys focus on your faith in market principles. I think the faith is “excessive.”

I posted a link to the Atlantic opinion piece on The Market as God. I’m afraid it’s abbreviated from the printed version, but – since my own opinions are evidently unclearly articulated – it would be fun to hear your reactions to that piece.

80

I think the move to the right had other causes. Those who benefited by the move shaped it to enhance their benefits.

In Chain Reaction: The Impact of Race, Rights, and Taxes on American Politics, Thomas and Mary Edsall argue that the Democrat Party lost dominance in the United States because it was associated with the defense of black interests.

http://lilt.ilstu.edu/gmklass/pos334/archive/edsall.htm