Probably? You made an assertion about the middle class not being a product of free enterprise. Tell us what created it, and how. If you can’t, then perhaps you shouldn’t be so quick to tell us what DIDN’T cause it.
And I’m still waiting for an answer to my other question. The one about how many companies are run as you described in your earlier post. You can round off to the nearest factor of 10, but be sure to give us cites to back up your claim.
You do realize that a large portion of the middle class work for corporations or other large companies?
The success of large companies help to contribute to the middle class by providing jobs as well as the goods and services they use.
What exactly is “taxpayer money”? If you are talking about government subsidies then there is a discrepency in your argument. You ay you are against free markets but a lack of government interference would make markets MORE free. This leads be to believe that you think free markets mean companies do whatever they want with the protection of or at least the complacency of the government. This is not what “free market” means.
Small companies are not somehow better or morally superior simply by virtue of being small.
Yeah, they suck off rich students who tend to score well on achievement tests from the public school system, and if we had a privately owned school system it’d work fine … for people with lots of money. Poor people would get schools equivalent to the housing, health care and so forth that private enterprise currently affords them … i.e., shitty.
So, yeah, I’ve heard of them.
I’m not ignoring your post, but I have a lot of … might as well admit it …
work
I gotta do right now, so I can’t reply at length at present, but I’ll get back to ya.
Private schools suck off WEALTHY students (technically students with wealthy parents) from the public school system. This really doesn’t matter though because:
Even with the school systems you can see market forces in effect. Parents tend to be drawn to towns with good schools. This increases demand in those towns so real-estate prices increase. This means that you need more money to live where which means a greater tax base to improve the schools. This is how vicious/virtuous circles have been created that keep poor schools crappy while good schools get better.
You can’t fight market forces because reasonible people will generally do what they perceive to be in their best interest.
So really my response is directed to Nightime. Education is created by and affected by market forces.
I also disagree that education was the reason for either the creation or expansion of the middle class.
.
Both of these statements are incorrect IMO. The middle class was created by industry primarily, IMO…by expanding the work force in factories and offices, by expanding the economy and creating wealth not just at the top but over all, a middle class was expanded where before it had been a very small group in both Europe and America. Workers with specialized skills were the ones who were paided more and formed the middle class in industrial times. Unless you are defining ‘education’ pretty loosely of course.
And of course education is part of the free market. I’d like to see the explaination as to how its not.
-XT
I just took my middle son out of a private school and put him into public because he needed the additional resources that the private school DIDN’T have. They also had payment plans according to family income and needs, some didn’t have to pay to get in. It’s not the first private school to do so, and it won’t be the last. So, NEVER assume that private schools are superior and only cater (i.e. “suck off”) the rich.
Over 12 years of operation (of my privately owned corporation), I have saved enough money to operate another 4 months without any revenue coming in (and another 2 months’ worth if I kick my personal funds back in as well)…I guess I could just take this money and divide it among my current employees for short term happiness, but I would increase the overall risk of layoffs when there is no safety net in place since I divided it up and gave it away. But then again, I’m an owner of a privately owned company and would not let this happen, because I have a great interest in keeping the company alive for my benefit and my employee’s benefit. My self-interest is my company, and I’m pretty sure that most private owners have the same motivation.
Now, a public-owned corporation is a different animal. CEOs and Presidents of public-owned corporations MAY have their eyes on their self-interests only, and could care less about the employees and the stockholders and find ways to extract the greatest amount of compensation out of the company, leaving the public-owned company at risk for failure/lay-offs/restructuring/shareholder lawsuits/etc…that is a crime because you are stealing from the owner(s), the shareholders.
Please don’t assume that all corporations don’t give a crap about their employees, most do care.
U.S. Census Bureau Statistics of Businesses - I threw this out here because it’s the most recent and accurate account of U.S. businesses, employees, sectors, and state statistic breakdowns. I remember answering this survey (mandatory) back in 2001, and the next survey will begin soon this year.
Out of the 115 million+ employees, almost half work in companies of 500+ employees, and the other half in companies below 500 employees, yet only 0.3% of the total number of companies have 500+ employees. Since everyone one here has been assuming, I will make the assumption that most of 500+ companies are public-owned and most of the 499 and less corporations are privately owned. So, 0.3% of all companies have CEOs, and other executives that MAY try to abuse the corporate salary structure, yet some of us here are thinking that all corporations have a tendancy to do this because they are greedy. I don’t see that. I see some abuses, and those abusers should be nailed to the wall, but it’s not a rampant thing like so many of us want to believe.
Average salary: $34,783 = (the roughly $4 Trillion divided by the roughly 115 Million employees)
I hate coming late to the party, but I’ve passed up several other responses to this question.
If QtM’s fictional receptionist is an integral part of his business, is difficult to replace, and whose absence would have a severe adverse impact on his business, then it is in QtM’s interest to pay her well. If QtM does not, someone else will, because such a receptionist will be in demand. If, however, QtM can call a temp agency and get a near-equal replacement the next day, then his or her worth is definitely less. A good employee not treated well has leverage to find a better employer. An average employee does not have the same leverage. If every receptionist in QtM’s area sees his exceptional one, and raises their game to match, the market will reset itself (not necessarily in the receptionists favor).
Maybe they don’t advertise publicly, but every employer I know (mostly in the investment management field) offers bounties to its employees for referrals. So if I left job A for job B because job B pays more, they’ll give me an incentive to get more people from job A. There’s also the incentive to bring in good people, as I will be graded not only by my work, but by the quality of my referrals. Obviously, I’m not calling in the guy surfing porn (or the SDMB 
) all day long. I’m calling in someone who will make me look good.
Employees will know who pays what if they want to know. They’ve just got to work at it. And then, the employee must prove to the better paying employer that he deserves to be there. He’s got to quantify his talent and his skill, and demonstrate that he is more highly skilled and worth a greater wage.
The reasons the employers don’t post a wage is that often, the wage settled upon is dependent on several different things. Also, in my experience, you know less about what the guy sitting across from you is making than what the guy working two blocks over in your competitor is making. Employers don’t want their employees to know any uneven wage distribution (even if warranted due to skillsets) in the workplace.
In re: various arguments we’ve posted, I’m gonna give you one, but take two back.
When Yeticus posted that stat about the $4 trillion/115 million employees/$34k ea, my immediate thought was “Lies, damn lies, & statistics”. So I went to Fortune & found that the top 500 executives pulled in $3.3 billion in 2002(?) I think that was the year they’d quoted). Anyway, yanking that figure out only took the mean down by $28. So maybe those top wage earners don’t gobble up as much of the profits as I imagined - of course, I didn’t do any research on stockholders, or private vs. public companies, etc. And maybe if the next 1000 highest paid executives were figured in as well, it might skew the figure a little more. But still, it wasn’t as dramatic as I expected.
So I’ll give you that one.
But…People were making comparisons between industry at the beginning of the 20th century and now. Well, correct me if I’m wrong (and undoubtedly someone will) but didn’t we institute child labor laws around then, because businesses had the kiddies working 14 hr days? And am I the only one who read The Jungle? It’s my opinion that the reason businesses operate more ethically now isn’t because it was profitable, but because government forced them to. Capitalism didn’t set that agenda, people did.
The other factor we haven’t discussed at all is the environment. My wealthy (self-made) friend pointed that out when I mentioned this thread, wanting her (different from my experience) view. She asserted immediately that one way people become wealthy is by not paying for the costs of their pollution - that they’re using “the commons”, which aren’t assigned a market value.
Babies crying, gotta stop, sorry this is incomplete.
/nitpick
Business didn’t have the kiddies working 14hr days…they ALLOWED kids to work those hours. There is a key difference there. No one was forcing kids to work…at least businesses weren’t forcing them.
/nitpick
As for the rest, my own point was that there is a lot more wealth today all throughout society than there was at the turn of the century…or any other time in the past for that matter.
I don’t think anyone is argueing with you that business’s operate more ethically now than in the past, or that the reason for that has to do with pressures from society instead of directly from business. Of course the way people looked at business is different today than it was back then…society itself has undergone myriad and radical changes from that time.
Finally, I don’t think anyone is argueing that there should be no controls at all on the market or on business. The point of contention is where exactly on the sliding scale those controls should be. The more heavily you control the more you distort the market. If you have no controls at all it opens the way for potential abuse. My own thoughts are to go with the minimum number of controls while still avoiding abuse. As society changes though, so the various controls on business change.
Oh, it has a market value alright. If its important to society to not have a polluted environment then controls are put into place, clean up is done, emmisions are regulated, etc. If society doesn’t put a high price on a clean environment then controls are loosened. In America there is a higher price on personal freedom (i.e. the ability to drive anywhere and anytime you want) and lower taxes…and lower gas prices…than on the importance of an immaculate environment. This isn’t from the rich…its from the people. Look for instance at the price of gas here in America compared to, say, Europe. And look at what the people are willing to pay as far as taxes to support a cleaner environment. Its all a matter of priorities…and for the American people (as a whole), while it would be nice to have a clean environment, its more important to pay less in taxes and less at the pump.
All that being said, our companies DO spend money on pollution control…because they are regulated to do so. And this is an instance where society can and should dictate to business some controls. But those controls are at the will of the people. We certainly COULD regulate more…but then the prices of things would go up. So, its a balance that our society, overall, is comfortable with. Today. A few years down the pike it could all change and the Environment could become the big hot button issue…and our priorities could shift.
-XT
Great Og, it sounds like we’re mostly in agreement.
Because I think what I’ve been saying all along is – we, as a society, could decide that the accumulation of huge portions of wealth is gross, not a virtue.
Employers could be respected because of how their employees lived, not because they themselves were obscenely rich.
What we are fundamentally in disagreement over is where the sliding scale should reside. Thats often the case in these types of discussions I’ve found. Almost no one who is both sane and knowlegable is going to expound (openly at least) a communist style economics system. So it becomes a matter of exactly HOW regulations are implemented, how much government interference is desired or necessary (depending on your perspective :)), and how heavily various segments of society are taxed (and as an aside exactly what said taxes are spent on, what the priority of spending is, and whether or not you are running a deficit).
We are also in disagreement of course over this as well: “we, as a society, could decide that the accumulation of huge portions of wealth is gross, not a virtue” Such an outlook is and should remain a PERSONAL choice. The PERCEPTION (which seems to be what you are driving at) should be in each individuals eyes…not a dictate of or by society. Its a fundamental difference between us…you want to impose your world view (in this case your outlook or perception of the Super Wealthy) and I don’t…I want people to be free to make their own decisions and their own opinions on such things. Even you who disagree with me. 
Within the bounds set by society on the regulation and taxation of business, whatever a business owner takes from his or her business is theirs to do with as they please. To me, having fulfilled their obligations to society by paying their taxes and such they are free to do what they want…within the law of course.
Just like whatever an employee takes is and should be theirs to do with as they please. All within the bounds of society of course. I disagree with you that society should regulate further what it takes from people…and certainly skewing itself to take more from the rich just because they are rich.
-XT
So should an employer that employs research scientists necessarilly be respected more than an employer that employs cashiers?
fessie: Where are you getting this idea that most people admire the rich simply BECAUSE they are rich? I think that is a strawman. People might envy the rich, or be somewhat in awe of their lifestyle, but admire? I don’t see it. Look how rich businessmen are typically portrayed in movies. They are usually cartoonish Lex Luthor types who are evil for the sake of being evil. In fact, I think many of the posts to this thread are informend more by these absurd Hollywood images than by what exists in real life.
I’ve been flipping through Journals of Ayn Rand and she addresses this. In her day she was (surprise surprise) an avid supporter of the HUAC and its efforts to purge Hollywood of communists and communist sympathizers. She testified before them on at least one occasion to deconstruct a rather blatant piece of wartime propaganda drek called Song of Russia, which makes the Soviets look all cheery and prosperous at a time when the U.S. needed them as Eastern allies vs. the Germans. Rand was a little disappointed at the ease of taking apart Song of Russia because it was a pretty pissant movie. She really wanted to testify about the multiple-Oscar winning 1947 film The Best Years of Our Lives, in which a veteran returning from the European theatre:
[ul][li]Gets bumped from a plane seat by a wealthy, offensive businessman;[/li][li]Get treated badly in his job at a national-chain drugstore; and[/li][li]Gets turned down for a bank loan[/ul][/li]
Rand was sure all of these were pretty blatant attempts to discredit capitalists. Then again, Rand was a little bit nutty.
I should have said “mandatory education.” You are correct that capitalism will support private schools.
Mandatory education, child labor laws, worker’s compensation, pensions, organized labor, and many other factors are responsible for the relatively successful times for the American middle class. Government intervention in areas such as pollution, as has been brought up already, is a major factor in the greater overall quality of life. I’m not up to writing an essay on it right now.
These government interventions into capitalism prevented a nightmare. We already know that capitalism left unregulated leads to steadily declining conditions for workers, increasingly impossible odds of self improvement, and increasing concentration of wealth in fewer and fewer hands.
This is also why, as I have already said, we don’t have a free market in America! You are acting as though I am suggesting further intrusions into the market, but that is not a logical conclusion to be drawn from anything I have said; we already have a huge government presence in the market, and it may well be that what I really think needs to be done is decrease the government policies which subsidize certain businesses at the expense of society as a whole.
Indeed, my number one concern is how government is being controlled by business, and no longer represents the people.
Just for a random example - Americans have been forced to pay twice the international rate for sugar for decades (sometimes about 4 times the rate). This protectionism for the sugar industry makes no sense; it costs the public enormous amounts of money, and it hurts sugar using industries in America, which provide way more jobs than the sugar industry does. Not to mention, it is a complete waste of money on an inefficient industry.
Another example - the big “campaign finance reform” was actually a boon to special interests, doubling the amount of hard money they can give to candidates, and leading companies like Enron and Arthur Anderson to be able to give millions to Republican candidates. Republicans limited soft money, but only because they were already getting more hard money, and they wanted to double it, and because hard money is much more useful (can be used for advertising for a specific candidate rather than for getting out the vote).
Why, when the population overwhelming supports reducing the prohibitively expensive costs of politics, do politicians refuse to do anything? Who are they representing? Enron?
Obiously I can’t name all the companies run like that… Enron, Arthur Anderson, Qwest, Tyco, Worldcom, Adelphia, and many more that weren’t caught but somehow revealed millions of dollars in discrepencies (oops) in their accounting.
I don’t think I need to name them all. History tells us all we need to know. Just look at the savings and loan catastrophe. We know that, given a chance, human nature is to act in self interest at the expense of others.
The government has to change the playing field so that acting to harm society isn’t in one’s best interest. Just as, in the prisoner’s dilemma, the solution is to make it so ratting out one’s partner is not in one’s best interest. But the prisoners can’t do that - only the government can.
I’m not sure what the point of that post was. Am I supposed to think that I’m a little bit nutty as well?
Anyway, I’ll stand by my assertion that you can find ridiculous Hollywood caricatures of eeeeeeeeeeevil business men in the posts thruought this thread. If you really want, I’ll quote a few of the for you.
Business men and women are no different than any other men or women.
It’s human nature which is essentially selfish, not some special “business nature.”
Well, if you are, then so am I, because I (mostly) agree with Rand. I just acknowledge that though she was a strident and noble warrior against communism (a system I despise thouroughly), she was also a bit of a fruitcake.
The same book, by the way, includes her notes on a movie script she wanted to write about the Manhattan Project. It might’ve been cool.
Anyhoo, simpleminded stereotypes about the rich abound, as about every group. I dislike populist rhethoric generally and the OP served up a big heaping pile o’ crap that suggests not even a slight working notion of Econ 101.