Where Do Labor Unions Fit in a Capitalist Society?

[alexandra]

and have you considered how many of those people are teenagers flipping burgers, or people who never graduated from high school?

do they really deserve more than minimum wage, or am i just being "elitist" here? (don't even bother with elitist crap at this point, because I have worked these types of jobs myself when I was younger).

and don't fool yourself: if they removed the gov. enforced minimum wage, they sure as hell would be paid less than $5.75/hr because in reality their work is worth less than that.

and for that matter, is 1/3 really that bad? why don't you start pulling out some statistics from other countries to put things in perspective for us?

quetzalcoat|9, it is not my job to find statistics to prove your argument. If you want to argue against what I write, find reputable sources of information to back up your own arguments. It is truly offensive to ask me to waste my time to find out how many of those people are teenagers. If you believe in teenage slavery, find your own evidence!

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

quetzalcoat|9, it is not my job to find statistics to prove your argument. If you want to argue against what I write, find reputable sources of information to back up your own arguments. It is truly offensive to ask me to waste my time to find out how many of those people are teenagers. If you believe in teenage slavery, find your own evidence!

suffice it to say, that the vast majority of the world lives in poverty. not only that, making $30k/year is certainly not poverty (considering 2 people living together here, each making $15k/year). even the poorest people here have a car, tv, place to live, etc. and even if they cannot afford a place to live, the gov. will give them one, sweet!

"teenage slavery?" are you talking about kids losing fingers making clothing in honduras or kids here being paid $200/week in relative comfort? because one is slavery, and the other isn't.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

Should US workers accept such wages? Would you work for $12.77 a day? And could you raise a family on this wage?

yes, they are called "graduate students" and some of us manage to do it with families.

not only that, certainly our services are worth more than $12/hr, we make the same as the guy down the street picking up your garbage. does that seem fair? if not, burn down all the schools! death to the enemy! long live che guevara! raghhh!

 

[alexandra]

does that seem fair? if not, burn down all the schools! death to the enemy! long live che guevara! raghhh!

- Not quite, quetzalcoatl9. I may come across as totally enraged at the injustices that happen in the world (and I certainly am livid with fury), but I have no illusions that guevara-style guerrilla tactics is the answer. Unfortunately, the solution is much more complex than that and will take a lot of time and effort: it involves very patient, pain-staking education - or rather, the re-education - of people who have been stupified into submission by the mass media and the lies they have swallowed hook, line and s[t]inker... Fortunately, their very lives will confirm the truth to them.

I really don't think people will continually put up with being totally exploited and used up foverever; eventually, they will be backed into a corner from which there is no escape and will be forced to see and recognise reality for what it is. Then things will start changing... My only real worry is that the environment will be beyond the point of our ability to save it before people wake up - but life is an experiment, and if this happens - well, dude, that's the end of humanity. No great loss...

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

(and I certainly am livid with fury), but I have no illusions that guevara-style guerrilla tactics is the answer.

neither do i. as a staunch capitalist, i was just trying to be funny.

but you still haven't addressed my critique of your critique..

 

[Art]

Alexandra I think it is important to point out that bodies such as Oxfam determine people as poor as those with an income of <60% of the median income for the country they are appraising. This means that however wealthy a population becomes, a sizable proportion will always be classified as poor even if they are millionaires unless of course you have a communist gov't whereby wealth is redistributed equally.
Unfortunately this would result in a country where nobody is classified as poor but given communism's economic track record everybody would live in poverty. Or as my good friend Brutus used to say Aegrescit medendo
Therefore IM ever so HO all statistics you quoted based on that ridiculous definition of poverty are equally meaningless.

You'll need to do better than this to rile the oppressed masses.

p.s. Alexandra, as you are evidently a big fan of G. Orwell what do you think of his book Animal Farm wherein he derides communism? If I'm O'Brien doesn't that make you Sqealer?

For those who haven't read Animal Farm here's a good summary of the book;

http://www.gradesaver.com/ClassicNotes/Titles/animalfarm/shortsumm.html

 

[BobG]

Well, Bob, do you suggest that US workers can live on $12.77 a day? What is that annually - about $4 661.00? Should US workers accept such wages? Would you work for $12.77 a day? And could you raise a family on this wage? Oh, here is the source of my daily wage: This is true - owners are the enemy of the worker. The workers just have to gather their courage to do something about it (no doubt, they already know who their enemy is - well, I believe they do, because people aren't as stupid as the powerful think they are).

The articles on poverty in the US and UK are a little exaggerated. Poverty levels in the US and UK are 12 and 17 percent, respectively - surprisingly bad compared to most European countries or a slew of Asian countries, but not as bad as the article portrays.

Competing with labor in other countries is a problem - obviously an American worker can't live on $12.77 a day (I think one poster thought that was $12.77/hr). The poverty level in Mexico is 40%. Of course people in Mexico will work for less - for awhile. That's how countries pull their people out of poverty - a little bit at a time - and why Asian countries that we like to put down for stealing our jobs are beginning to have lower poverty rates than we do.

If the national infrastructure is there to support industry and there are workers willing to work, someone is going to move into that job market and whoever does will have a huge competitive advantage over a company located in a more expensive country. In other words, if Goodyear didn't close their Lincoln plant to replace it with a Mexican plant, they would be closing the Lincoln plant because Michelin or Goodrich or some other company was underselling them.

Edit: And the Lincoln workers were being asked to take a pay cut from $18/hr to $14/hr, not a cut to $12.77/day. Except all the workers would have had to take a pay cut, not just the 480 being replaced by the plant in Mexico. The other workers at the plant not losing their jobs weren't willing to take a 20% pay cut to save their fellow workers jobs.

By the way, I'm not exactly pro company executives, either. I find it a little disturbing when companies are very capitalistic when it comes to the idea that the people taking the financial risks are the ones that should gain the most when the risk pays off, but suddenly become very socialistic and ask for taxpayer bailouts when business turns sour. The question was whether unions were capitalist or socialist and unions inability to recognize all the players in the game that they were competing against was a big problem for them.

 

[loseyourname]

Oh, really? Well, here is some research I've done: Notice: "nearly one-third (32% of American workers today. And here is an estimate of exactly how poor this is:

That study says at the very beginning that it is a study of hourly workers. Hourly workers make up only the bottom rung of companies. If salaried workers were included, the numbers would not look nearly so bad. A lot of these hourly workers are, as quetzalcoatl points out, high school or college students working to go out, see a movie, and maybe buy some drinks. The retail and customer service industries, huge industries in the US, are especially loaded with people like this, people for whom this money is more than enough.

Aside from that, even if 32% of American workers were making less than $15,000/year (they aren't), you still wouldn't have contradicted Art's statement, which was that conditions have improved drastically, not that conditions are currently perfect. You seem to ignore that little detail in almost all of your posts. Capitalism is the devil, but what was the world like before capitalism? Economies were supported by real slaves and serfdom, and probably 95% of the world's wealth was owned by a miniscule noble class. There was little to no technological innovation and absolutely no prospect of class mobility. You can't possibly say capitalism has made the world worse off.

 

[alexandra]

That study says at the very beginning that it is a study of hourly workers. Hourly workers make up only the bottom rung of companies. If salaried workers were included, the numbers would not look nearly so bad. A lot of these hourly workers are, as quetzalcoatl points out, high school or college students working to go out, see a movie, and maybe buy some drinks. The retail and customer service industries, huge industries in the US, are especially loaded with people like this, people for whom this money is more than enough.

I have closely reread the Introduction to that paper – it is impossible to tell from the information it gives whether most (or even a lot) of these hourly workers are high school or college students. We can’t settle this argument with information in that paper – we’ll have to look for evidence elsewhere.

Aside from that, even if 32% of American workers were making less than $15,000/year (they aren't), you still wouldn't have contradicted Art's statement, which was that conditions have improved drastically, not that conditions are currently perfect. You seem to ignore that little detail in almost all of your posts. Capitalism is the devil, but what was the world like before capitalism? Economies were supported by real slaves and serfdom, and probably 95% of the world's wealth was owned by a miniscule noble class. There was little to no technological innovation and absolutely no prospect of class mobility. You can't possibly say capitalism has made the world worse off.

I think I’ve already stated this elsewhere – I understand that capitalism was a necessary phase of development (well, if not necessary, it definitely happened - and one cannot discount history); of course I do not wish to propose that we retreat to a more primitive social formation such as feudalism, and of course capitalism constituted an advance over feudalism. I am simply arguing that capitalism is not ‘the end of history’ – it is not the final transformation, the ‘best of all possible worlds’. It is a system based on exploitation, individualism and greed, and it overwhelmingly favours those who are already wealthy and disadvantages those who are poor. It is therefore not perfect (a better social system can supersede it). Moreover, capitalism and its underlying ideology is dangerous (potentially catastrophically dangerous) because it has inbuilt features that value profit above all else, including above environmental concerns. It is a short-sighted system based on greed and this threatens the viability of our planet’s climate and therefore threatens our existence as a species.

 

[alexandra]

The articles on poverty in the US and UK are a little exaggerated. Poverty levels in the US and UK are 12 and 17 percent, respectively - surprisingly bad compared to most European countries or a slew of Asian countries, but not as bad as the article portrays.

Ok, Bob - but I wouldn't mind knowing where you got your 12 and 17 percent statistics from (I'm always on the look-out for good references).

Competing with labor in other countries is a problem - obviously an American worker can't live on $12.77 a day (I think one poster thought that was $12.77/hr).

Thank you for pointing this out (the misconception) - it saves me having to:-)

In other words, if Goodyear didn't close their Lincoln plant to replace it with a Mexican plant, they would be closing the Lincoln plant because Michelin or Goodrich or some other company was underselling them.

Edit: And the Lincoln workers were being asked to take a pay cut from $18/hr to $14/hr, not a cut to $12.77/day. Except all the workers would have had to take a pay cut, not just the 480 being replaced by the plant in Mexico. The other workers at the plant not losing their jobs weren't willing to take a 20% pay cut to save their fellow workers jobs.

A variation on the point you make below: why is it that ordinary workers have to sacrifice their salaries for their workmates while CEOs are actually given larger (and absolutely obscene) salaries - why does cutting costs not affect upper management? I mean, where's the fairness in a system that works like this?

By the way, I'm not exactly pro company executives, either. I find it a little disturbing when companies are very capitalistic when it comes to the idea that the people taking the financial risks are the ones that should gain the most when the risk pays off, but suddenly become very socialistic and ask for taxpayer bailouts when business turns sour.

Yes - good point. But I seem to feel a lot more indignant about such unfair practices than others do. It is because I clearly see and understand these aspects of capitalism (who the system favours, and at whose cost) that I cannot understand why it should have so many defenders - especially amongst a group of people who are as well-educated and as well-trained in critical thinking skills (when it comes to science at least) as PF members are. Why do scientists stop being scientific when it comes to patriotism, ideology and politics? This truly perplexes me.

 

[alexandra]

Alexandra I think it is important to point out that bodies such as Oxfam determine people as poor as those with an income of <60% of the median income for the country they are appraising.

Yes, but this is an EU-accepted definition. Note, also, that from what is stated in the rest of the paragraph, these figures show only part of the picture – they “don’t mean very much by themselves…” etc:

Poverty is measured here as below 60 per cent of contemporary median net disposable income in 2000/01. This is the ‘poverty line’ which has been accepted recently across the European Union to measure the extent of poverty in member states; it is not the same as a comprehensive definition of poverty, which includes many other dimensions. These figures look at incomes in Great Britain, after housing costs have been paid, and include the self-employed. These figures don’t mean very much by themselves -- they only refer to low incomes relative to the rest of the population in the UK. They don’t tell us much about the many different aspects of poverty and the way people experience it. http://www.oxfamgb.org/ukpp/poverty/thefacts.htm

This means that however wealthy a population becomes, a sizable proportion will always be classified as poor even if they are millionaires unless of course you have a communist gov't whereby wealth is redistributed equally. Unfortunately this would result in a country where nobody is classified as poor but given communism's economic track record everybody would live in poverty. Or as my good friend Brutus used to say Aegrescit medendo

Well, ok – so this is the best of all possible worlds. How sad… I wonder if that’s what the people who are having a hard time of it think (and will forever think)?

Therefore IM ever so HO all statistics you quoted based on that ridiculous definition of poverty are equally meaningless.

Well, Art, obviously you are wasting your time responding to me then - if everything I post is meaningless. Perhaps you just want to irritate me by being ‘humble’? Oh well, go ahead – it’s amusing…

You'll need to do better than this to rile the oppressed masses.

That’s not what I’m trying to do on these discussion boards. I’m trying to have intellectual discussions with people who like discussing ideas. I realize (I’m not as stupid as you think) that there are no “oppressed masses” here – and I also (cleverly) realize why it is that my ideas get slammed and ridiculed so frequently. I analyse the social world in terms of class, so please give me credit for knowing the class that the people I am talking to belong to.

p.s. Alexandra, as you are evidently a big fan of G. Orwell what do you think of his book Animal Farm wherein he derides communism? If I'm O'Brien doesn't that make you Sqealer?

For those who haven't read Animal Farm here's a good summary of the book;

http://www.gradesaver.com/ClassicNotes/Titles/animalfarm/shortsumm.html

Art, Orwell was not deriding communism (though this is what you would have been taught to interpret the classic, Animal Farm, as doing (for obvious, propagandistic reasons); he was deriding Stalinism, which was a barbaric political system and deserved totally to be discredited by all genuine socialists (Orwell was a socialist – you seem to know about him, so you’ll know he fought in the Spanish Civil War on the side of the anarchists. That’s where he learned about the reality of Stalinism). It is really annoying when people deliberately use the terms Stalinism and communism interchangeably – they are not the same thing. Stalin was neither a socialist nor a communist. Stalin was a dictator. Ah yes, the ‘Squealer’ dig – well, if it makes you feel better, go ahead… In my ridiculous fashion, I will continue to analyse the world the way it makes sense to me and draw my own conclusions about what is happening.

 

[quetzalcoatl9]

Capitalism is the devil, but what was the world like before capitalism? Economies were supported by real slaves and serfdom, and probably 95% of the world's wealth was owned by a miniscule noble class. There was little to no technological innovation and absolutely no prospect of class mobility. You can't possibly say capitalism has made the world worse off.

"Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on Earth and need means to deal with one another—their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun."

-Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand

 

[BobG]

Ok, Bob - but I wouldn't mind knowing where you got your 12 and 17 percent statistics from (I'm always on the look-out for good references).

The CIA World Fact Book (quite a few other references use this as their source reference, as well, so the numbers from other sources often match this)

I used to have some UN statistics as well, but I don't think they have the report on their website anymore (it was a little older report, in any event).

 

[alexandra]

The CIA World Fact Book (quite a few other references use this as their source reference, as well, so the numbers from other sources often match this) report on their website anymore (it was a little older report, in any event).

Thanks, Bob. I will have to have a look at it - here's a shameful admission: I just couldn't bring myself to refer that resource (for ideological reasons) But this is incredibly silly of me, and I will have to overcome my aversion because, from what I've read in the Factbook thread, it seems to be a pretty good source of information.

 

[alexandra]

"Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on Earth and need means to deal with one another—their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun."

-Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand

Charming! What faith she has in humanity

 

[BobG]

A variation on the point you make below: why is it that ordinary workers have to sacrifice their salaries for their workmates while CEOs are actually given larger (and absolutely obscene) salaries - why does cutting costs not affect upper management? I mean, where's the fairness in a system that works like this?

If I were a heavy investor in Goodyear and their CEO got a hefty raise, I'd be screaming. Their stock prices fell from a high of $76/share in 1998 to $8.37 at the time of the story (2002) to under $4/share by 2004. They're a company in trouble, even if they have gotten back up to double digits.

Of course, the same could be said of United Airline's CEO, whose retirement benefits weren't affected by the company bailing out on employee retirement benefits. You could possibly justify that somewhat since the airline environment has changed substantially since United's commitment to provide and fund those benefits - a fact that has had more to do with United's problems than management ineptitude. You still would think management would get paid based on whether they win or lose, though.

 

[vanesch]

If I were a heavy investor in Goodyear and their CEO got a hefty raise, I'd be screaming. Their stock prices fell from a high of $76/share in 1998 to $8.37 at the time of the story (2002) to under $4/share by 2004. They're a company in trouble, even if they have gotten back up to double digits.

The reason why failing CEOs often get big bail-out checks is probably that their "power of nuisance" is so big, that giving them $20 million extra to make them leave 6 months earlier and without making trouble, will cost the company MUCH LESS than if the guy would stay on and be difficult. So the "price to get quickly off a bad CEO" is probably optimized with these big checks. Just my idea.

EDIT: if this is true, this would mean that if you, as a CEO, feel the wind turning, better make a complete mess of it right away, so that they pay you A LOT to leave :-)

 

[selfAdjoint]

The reason why failing CEOs often get big bail-out checks is probably that their "power of nuisance" is so big, that giving them $20 million extra to make them leave 6 months earlier and without making trouble, will cost the company MUCH LESS than if the guy would stay on and be difficult. So the "price to get quickly off a bad CEO" is probably optimized with these big checks. Just my idea.

EDIT: if this is true, this would mean that if you, as a CEO, feel the wind turning, better make a complete mess of it right away, so that they pay you A LOT to leave :-)

That's part of it maybe. But I am of the view that the set of CEOs of US companies is not a meritocracy at all, but a jobs pool for the Brahmin class of the US. See how many failed CEOs go right into another CEO position.

 

[alexandra]

Of course, the same could be said of United Airline's CEO, whose retirement benefits weren't affected by the company bailing out on employee retirement benefits. You could possibly justify that somewhat since the airline environment has changed substantially since United's commitment to provide and fund those benefits - a fact that has had more to do with United's problems than management ineptitude. You still would think management would get paid based on whether they win or lose, though.

This is exactly what I mean, though, by harping on about the injustice of a socio-economic system based on private ownership - it is inherently (according to my analysis) unjust and therefore flawed. That's why I think we could do better than this:-) But for whatever reasons (to do with past experiences we have had, our current situation in life, etc), we all arrive at different conclusions, even when examining the same facts. But I enjoy having discussions with people who refer to the facts (thanks, BobG), even if we don't ultimately agree on the conclusions we reach once we've completed our analyses.

 

[alexandra]

But I am of the view that the set of CEOs of US companies is not a meritocracy at all, but a jobs pool for the Brahmin class of the US. See how many failed CEOs go right into another CEO position.

Brahmin class! Great stuff, selfAdjoint!

 

[vanesch]

Just a bold proposition - as an intellectual exercise :-)

What if there were a MAXIMUM ownership allowed for ? Say, at something like $100 million or so ? That wouldn't change zitch to most people so almost all (good) incentive to DO and take initiative according to the capitalist idea remains intact. It would however naturally break the power of big corporations and a few very rich individuals, which is usually seen as the corrupting factor in capitalist systems. It would in fact lead naturally to a more smooth market mechanism (automatic limitation of monopoly situations). Large corporations could not exist, but would naturally be "woven networks of small companies" to do the same thing.
There is no revolutionary idea that needs to be invented to impose this limit: the system exists already and is called "taxes": it is sufficient to raise the taxation level to 100% once you reach the allowed limit.

(runs and hides...)

 

[alexandra]

Just a bold proposition - as an intellectual exercise :-)

What if there were a MAXIMUM ownership allowed for ? Say, at something like $100 million or so ? That wouldn't change zitch to most people so almost all (good) incentive to DO and take initiative according to the capitalist idea remains intact. It would however naturally break the power of big corporations and a few very rich individuals, which is usually seen as the corrupting factor in capitalist systems. It would in fact lead naturally to a more smooth market mechanism (automatic limitation of monopoly situations). Large corporations could not exist, but would naturally be "woven networks of small companies" to do the same thing.
There is no revolutionary idea that needs to be invented to impose this limit: the system exists already and is called "taxes": it is sufficient to raise the taxation level to 100% once you reach the allowed limit.

(runs and hides...)

I'd go with that (maybe bring that maximum figure down a bit, though)! You get some excellent ideas, vanesch - if I could vote for you, I definitely would!

 

[vanesch]

I'd go with that (maybe bring that maximum figure down a bit, though)!

No, no, the idea is still that you can get unethically rich, buy a nice luxury boat and everything. However, no legal person should have SO MUCH money that it turns into political power. I don't know exactly where that limit is.

 

[loseyourname]

Just a bold proposition - as an intellectual exercise :-)

What if there were a MAXIMUM ownership allowed for ? Say, at something like $100 million or so ? That wouldn't change zitch to most people so almost all (good) incentive to DO and take initiative according to the capitalist idea remains intact. It would however naturally break the power of big corporations and a few very rich individuals, which is usually seen as the corrupting factor in capitalist systems. It would in fact lead naturally to a more smooth market mechanism (automatic limitation of monopoly situations). Large corporations could not exist, but would naturally be "woven networks of small companies" to do the same thing.
There is no revolutionary idea that needs to be invented to impose this limit: the system exists already and is called "taxes": it is sufficient to raise the taxation level to 100% once you reach the allowed limit.

(runs and hides...)

How do you tax assets that are not liquid? Let's say someone buys an Arena Football League team for $20 million. The league takes off, the team is very successful and becomes worth $200 million. Will you force him to give half ownership to the government? What possible interest could the government have in owning half of an AFL team?

 

[vanesch]

How do you tax assets that are not liquid? Let's say someone buys an Arena Football League team for $20 million. The league takes off, the team is very successful and becomes worth $200 million.

First, I think indeed my number of $100 million is too low.
But to answer your question, the team would have to SPLIT UP into smaller groups, which could then eventually reach "business agreements" to play games together. Best would even be that the members of the team became independent, proposing their services of game for one, or a set, of games, to the "team" which would only be a "game organizer" (worth much less without the players!). The players would be "playing consultants" :-)
A much higher flexibility would arise that way: no "big contracts" and things like that, just individual players, worth what they are worth, proposing their individual services to "game organizers", for one, or a few (package deals :-) games.
In most big companies, this system is applied anyway, by splitting up the personnel in "business units", which play the game of internal competition. Instead of keeping that competition internally, you could put it on the market straight away, business units making up "virtual companies" in a dynamical process. It wouldn't change much, except for the big corporate structures, which wouldn't exist anymore, but just emerge as dynamical business relationships.

 

[GENIERE]

Just a bold proposition - as an intellectual exercise :-)

I like the concept. I don't like the tax aspect. I cannot at this moment conceive a practical means of implementation but I'll give it a go. I think it worthy of much mental effort. Capitalism does certainly have the major flaw of rapid concentration of wealth in the hands of the few while sluggishly enriching the millions. I believe socialism and Marxism are dead animals and should be discarded. The only elitist government I can think of existed in France for a brief period after Louis was disposed. It was an utter failure. I’m not aware of a long-term success of a benevolent dictatorship. Capitalism has withstood the test of time yet appears to be less successful then it once was. IMO we have only the choice of improving capitalism or devising an entirely new system.


...

 

[alexandra]

First, I think indeed my number of $100 million is too low.

vanesch, you just lost my vote Who would need even $100 million dollars to live well in a lifetime?

 

[loseyourname]

First, I think indeed my number of $100 million is too low.
But to answer your question, the team would have to SPLIT UP into smaller groups, which could then eventually reach "business agreements" to play games together. Best would even be that the members of the team became independent, proposing their services of game for one, or a set, of games, to the "team" which would only be a "game organizer" (worth much less without the players!). The players would be "playing consultants" :-)
A much higher flexibility would arise that way: no "big contracts" and things like that, just individual players, worth what they are worth, proposing their individual services to "game organizers", for one, or a few (package deals :-) games.
In most big companies, this system is applied anyway, by splitting up the personnel in "business units", which play the game of internal competition. Instead of keeping that competition internally, you could put it on the market straight away, business units making up "virtual companies" in a dynamical process. It wouldn't change much, except for the big corporate structures, which wouldn't exist anymore, but just emerge as dynamical business relationships.

Whether you think that is fair economically or not, I can say the idea of players being continual free agents and only banding together for pickup games basically, kills the sport for me as a fan. I think many fans would agree, which very well might bankrupt the league. It's hard to root for a team that is constantly taking on and losing players from game to game, and it's equally hard to root for a player that is never on the same team.

 

[vanesch]

vanesch, you just lost my vote Who would need even $100 million dollars to live well in a lifetime?

I treat physical and legal persons on the same level, so $100 million would be the very maximum that a corporate structure can be worth. That's not very much if you want to set up a car factory or a commercial airplane factory, for instance. Even if much (that was the goal) is subcontracted. That's why I think that the limit should probably be a bit higher.
The point was not to stop people from being insanely rich (have a private jet and so). That's part of the dream, and it doesn't HURT anyone. The point was to stop so much value to accumulate in the hands of one physical person, or in the hands of a legal person (structure) that it becomes POWER, so that it can start to weight upon decisions in society (which I think, is the main problem with capitalism). Murdoch wouldn't be there if this limit was imposed.
Imagine you bring down the limit to say, $1 million. That hinders too much individual initiative. Of course, you can live "reasonably well" on $1 million (even if it isn't *that* much for the rest of your life !) as a person, but can you do much (setting up a small business) ?
With $10 million, you could set up a small business, but you would hinder slightly more ambitious plans. The idea was NOT to hinder private initiative. The idea was only to break the corrupting power of big capital concentrations.

 

[vanesch]

It's hard to root for a team that is constantly taking on and losing players from game to game, and it's equally hard to root for a player that is never on the same team.

I never understood people rooting for something else than their village team in which they played when they were kids, but never mind :-)
The market will regulate that, normally. After all, the team CAN stay together, and will then be worth exactly $100 million, and stay there. It is up to the team members to estimate whether they will be worth more when they separate or not, and whether they go for the money, or for the team :-)

 

[Art]

vanesch, you just lost my vote Who would need even $100 million dollars to live well in a lifetime?

That is why it is pretty irrelevant how much personal wealth a person accumulates, they can only spend so much on personal items within their lifetime.
Limiting personal wealth is aimless in itself as it is not as if this money is taken out of circulation and so unavailable to anybody else. On the contrary it is more normally found invested in businesses which provide goods, services and jobs. The real issue with people accumulating enormous amounts of individual wealth is the power this gives them to shape society to their liking through the influence they exert on both governments and the members of society.

 

[alexandra]

I treat physical and legal persons on the same level, so $100 million would be the very maximum that a corporate structure can be worth. That's not very much if you want to set up a car factory or a commercial airplane factory, for instance. Even if much (that was the goal) is subcontracted. That's why I think that the limit should probably be a bit higher.
The point was not to stop people from being insanely rich (have a private jet and so). That's part of the dream, and it doesn't HURT anyone. The point was to stop so much value to accumulate in the hands of one physical person, or in the hands of a legal person (structure) that it becomes POWER, so that it can start to weight upon decisions in society (which I think, is the main problem with capitalism). Murdoch wouldn't be there if this limit was imposed.
Imagine you bring down the limit to say, $1 million. That hinders too much individual initiative. Of course, you can live "reasonably well" on $1 million (even if it isn't *that* much for the rest of your life !) as a person, but can you do much (setting up a small business) ?
With $10 million, you could set up a small business, but you would hinder slightly more ambitious plans. The idea was NOT to hinder private initiative. The idea was only to break the corrupting power of big capital concentrations.

Ah, vanesch - I'm glad to see you care about my vote. Ok, your arguments are convincing, so you get my vote back.

Now, when you're in power, could I be part of your team? I'd love a go at changing the dreams (so maybe minister of education would be the position I'd like - and, of course, we'd need somebody really sensible as minister of mass media). I'd try to foster a love of knowledge in the schools - knowledge because of curiosity and interest in the universe. If people had such dreams ("I want to be a great mathematician", "I want to be the best astrophysicist", etc), then they could live on a lot less than even $1 million (because academic books would be very, very cheap)

 

[alexandra]

The real issue with people accumulating enormous amounts of individual wealth is the power this gives them to shape society to their liking through the influence they exert on both governments and the members of society.

Good point, Art. But even if this is the only reason, it's a pretty good one for legally limiting the ability to accumulate excessive wealth. I'm not saying 'abolish all private property' - I liked vanesch's idea of keeping it at reasonable levels (even though we disagree - as we are bound to - about what 'reasonable' means in this context).

 

[Smurf]

and, of course, we'd need somebody really sensible as minister of mass media

oh! oooh! ME! ME! PICK ME VANESCH!

 

[vanesch]

oh! oooh! ME! ME! PICK ME VANESCH!

Sorry, I'd love to, but I still have to place my brother in law, my 2 sisters, my uncle, my 3 nephews and a few buddies of me