My last article brought up some interesting questions. In the article, I established that the government has a responsibility to make sure that employees are treated fairly by employers. I gave some examples of how legal contracts are not inherently fair, but the first example actually showed how such a contract could be unfair to the employer and give an unfair advantage to the employee. This brings up a new question on the subject of fairness in business. If the government has a responsibility to enforce fairness in business, as it relates to the employee, does that not also mean that the government has a responsibility to make sure that the employer is treated fairly as well?
My answer to this is yes. If the employee deserves protection from unfair contracts, the employer also deserves to be protected from unfair contracts. If the employee is legally entitled to a fair share of the profits generated, the employer is also entitled to a fair share of those profits. Just as the employee deserves protection from unfair treatment from the employer, the employer deserves protection from unfair treatment from the employee.
You might ask if this is really a problem in the US. Most businesses seem to be doing far better than the average worker. Why should we even bother offering the businesses protection from unfair treatment by employees when the businesses have been the ones ripping the employees off for so long? The answer is actually very complicated. First let us talk about how employees are treating businesses unfairly.
There are some obvious ways in which employees treat businesses unfairly. The first is theft. Businesses already have some protection from that. If a business catches an employee stealing, the business can fire the employee and take him to court for damages. Theft is illegal, and the government does its best to enforce the laws against it. The second is laziness. Again, a lazy employee can be fired, though there are no laws requiring that the lazy employee compensate the business for losses. Firing a lazy employee can be dangerous though, as the business must keep enough records to back up their decision to fire the employee. This, however, is required to prevent businesses from firing employees for reasons that are illegal (religion or race, for instance) and then claiming that the employee was lazy to avoid prosecution. This is not all, but all of these are fairly minor, or are already protected against.
The biggest way in which employees treat businesses unfairly is unfair contracts. If you have not read the first article in this series, you probably should. I give a very good example of how an employee can benefit from an unfair legal contract with a business. Now, you probably want to know, if this is really that big, where can we actually see this problem in action? The answer is upper management. There are not exactly a lot of people out there with the experience to be qualified CEOs, but there are a lot of corporations out there that need qualified CEOs. This means that businesses are forced to agree to absurdly unfair contracts to hire a decent CEO. You might ask if CEOs do not deserve more pay, because they do harder work. I would agree. CEOs do deserve more pay than regular employees. CEOs generally put much more labor capital into a business than other employees. Further, CEOs often have to be available constantly and are often required to travel a lot. All of these things deserve greater compensation. That said, according to aflcio.org CEOs in 2011 made 380 times what the average worker made. Even if the average was minimum wage, the average CEO would have been paid $2,717 an hour. Computer programmers and electrical engineers do far more complex and difficult work than CEOs and they do not generally get more than $50 an hour. According to about.com the US President currently makes $400,000 a year. Assuming that the President only works 40 hours a week (which is absurd), that is only $192 an hour, and he runs the country!
This is a clear case where businesses are being taken advantage of by employees. This is wrong and not just because it is harmful to the businesses. That is money that has to be generated by paying other employees less and charging customers more. When one employee rips off a business, other employees suffer, even if the one ripping off the business is the CEO. In addition, when an employee rips off a business, customers suffer for it. Because of the extremely widespread harm that unfair treatment of businesses by employees causes, maybe it is more important for businesses to be protected from unfair practices than it is for employees.
Unfair treatment of businesses by their upper management is very probably the root of our recent economical problems. Much like unfair treatment of employees by businesses is very destructive to the lower and middle classes, unfair treatment of businesses by employees is very destructive to businesses and our economy as a whole. In the previous article, I said that without government enforcement of fairness in business, capitalism will ultimately lead to implicit slavery. The employees that are treated unfairly will be the slaves. The masters will be the employees that are treating the businesses unfairly.
Lord Rybec
Showing posts with label Occupy Wall Street. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Occupy Wall Street. Show all posts
04 May 2012
03 May 2012
Fairness in Business
Should fairness in business be enforced by the government? To what degree?
The US Republican Party asserts that businesses should be allowed to use their profits as they please. This is based on the claim that all profits gained by a business inherently belong to the business and its owners. This is seen by Republicans as a natural law. The principal of fairness, according to conservative thought, is entirely governed by contracts. The reasoning behind this line of thought is that all contractual agreements must be fair, otherwise the party being treated unfairly would not have agreed to it. Let us examine these assumptions.
First, do all the profits gained by a business inherently belong to the business? How do businesses gain profits? Most businesses gain profit by buying resources and either making them into something more useful and selling them for more than they paid, or directly retailing them at higher prices than they paid. It would seem reasonable to assume that because the business put up all of the initial capital, it is entitled to all of the profits. The business is, of course, bound by law to pay its employees whatever it contracted to pay them. This contractual agreement is assumed to always be fair, because employees would not agree to an unfair contract. The first flaw with this argument is the assumption that the business put up all of the initial capital. It may have put up all of the initial monetary capital, but where would it be if the employees had not put up work capital? The employees are thus entitled to a fair share of the profits. This brings us to the second assumption.
Is the idea that legal contracts are inherently fair, because both parties must willingly agree, a valid assumption? US law invalidates contracts that are agreed to under duress. This means that a contract where either party was forced to agree to it under threat of harm is invalid. The mere existence of such a law invalidates the assumption that contracts are inherently fair. This law is intended to mitigate a specific instance of potential unfairness of legal contracts, but by no means mitigates all of them. So, how does this apply to the previously mentioned employees?
The fairness of a contract agreement depends strongly on the specific circumstances. If the economy is in very good condition, the employees have many options for employment, the pay offered everywhere else is fair, and the other options are safe and desirable, then a contract would be totally fair for the employee. It might not be so fair for the employer though, because the employee may require more than fair wages and the competition for the employee's labor may put the business in a situation where it is forced to offer more than fair wages. If the employee is part of a union, this may make the contract even less fair for the business. The question right now though is whether the government should have a hand in requiring businesses to act fairly. Given the state of our economy and where most of the money is going, there is no question that most businesses are not suffering from being forced to pay employees more than is fair.
If the above circumstances were flipped, things would be very different. What if the economy is in the toilet, the employees have few other options for employment, the pay offered elsewhere is much worse, and the other options are not safe or are otherwise undesirable? If this is the case, a contract would not enforce fairness for the employee. The business could offer pay barely more than the other options, but far less than fair compensation for the work capital offered by the employee. The business could offer barely safer work conditions than the other options. Unless the employee is independently wealthy, he will be forced to agree to the contract so he can meet basic needs, even though it is grossly unfair. Evidence that contracts are not inherently fair can currently be found in the work contracts of every lower class worker and a good portion of middle class workers in the US.
Now for the question: What responsibility does the government have in enforcing fairness in business? Minimum wage law, that law invalidating contracts signed under duress, and many precedents set by judges ruling in favor of actors and actresses claiming that they were not paid fairly for blockbuster movies (even though they were paid exactly what they had agreed to in legal contracts) give us a pretty strong case to the effect that the government has a strong responsibility to enforce fairness in business.
Movements like Occupy Wall Street have a very strong position in their claim that responsibility for the distribution of wealth problem in the US lies squarely on the shoulders of the government. Previous government actions have asserted the responsibility of the government for enforcing fairness in business. The claims that natural law gives businesses the right to distribute their profits as they please are clearly false, as well as claims that legal contracts are inherently fair. I am all for free trade and capitalism, but I also recognize that without government enforcement of fairness in business, capitalism will ultimately lead to implicit slavery.
The US Republican Party asserts that businesses should be allowed to use their profits as they please. This is based on the claim that all profits gained by a business inherently belong to the business and its owners. This is seen by Republicans as a natural law. The principal of fairness, according to conservative thought, is entirely governed by contracts. The reasoning behind this line of thought is that all contractual agreements must be fair, otherwise the party being treated unfairly would not have agreed to it. Let us examine these assumptions.
First, do all the profits gained by a business inherently belong to the business? How do businesses gain profits? Most businesses gain profit by buying resources and either making them into something more useful and selling them for more than they paid, or directly retailing them at higher prices than they paid. It would seem reasonable to assume that because the business put up all of the initial capital, it is entitled to all of the profits. The business is, of course, bound by law to pay its employees whatever it contracted to pay them. This contractual agreement is assumed to always be fair, because employees would not agree to an unfair contract. The first flaw with this argument is the assumption that the business put up all of the initial capital. It may have put up all of the initial monetary capital, but where would it be if the employees had not put up work capital? The employees are thus entitled to a fair share of the profits. This brings us to the second assumption.
Is the idea that legal contracts are inherently fair, because both parties must willingly agree, a valid assumption? US law invalidates contracts that are agreed to under duress. This means that a contract where either party was forced to agree to it under threat of harm is invalid. The mere existence of such a law invalidates the assumption that contracts are inherently fair. This law is intended to mitigate a specific instance of potential unfairness of legal contracts, but by no means mitigates all of them. So, how does this apply to the previously mentioned employees?
The fairness of a contract agreement depends strongly on the specific circumstances. If the economy is in very good condition, the employees have many options for employment, the pay offered everywhere else is fair, and the other options are safe and desirable, then a contract would be totally fair for the employee. It might not be so fair for the employer though, because the employee may require more than fair wages and the competition for the employee's labor may put the business in a situation where it is forced to offer more than fair wages. If the employee is part of a union, this may make the contract even less fair for the business. The question right now though is whether the government should have a hand in requiring businesses to act fairly. Given the state of our economy and where most of the money is going, there is no question that most businesses are not suffering from being forced to pay employees more than is fair.
If the above circumstances were flipped, things would be very different. What if the economy is in the toilet, the employees have few other options for employment, the pay offered elsewhere is much worse, and the other options are not safe or are otherwise undesirable? If this is the case, a contract would not enforce fairness for the employee. The business could offer pay barely more than the other options, but far less than fair compensation for the work capital offered by the employee. The business could offer barely safer work conditions than the other options. Unless the employee is independently wealthy, he will be forced to agree to the contract so he can meet basic needs, even though it is grossly unfair. Evidence that contracts are not inherently fair can currently be found in the work contracts of every lower class worker and a good portion of middle class workers in the US.
Now for the question: What responsibility does the government have in enforcing fairness in business? Minimum wage law, that law invalidating contracts signed under duress, and many precedents set by judges ruling in favor of actors and actresses claiming that they were not paid fairly for blockbuster movies (even though they were paid exactly what they had agreed to in legal contracts) give us a pretty strong case to the effect that the government has a strong responsibility to enforce fairness in business.
Movements like Occupy Wall Street have a very strong position in their claim that responsibility for the distribution of wealth problem in the US lies squarely on the shoulders of the government. Previous government actions have asserted the responsibility of the government for enforcing fairness in business. The claims that natural law gives businesses the right to distribute their profits as they please are clearly false, as well as claims that legal contracts are inherently fair. I am all for free trade and capitalism, but I also recognize that without government enforcement of fairness in business, capitalism will ultimately lead to implicit slavery.
14 February 2012
Death Penalty
I support the death penalty. I support it in cases when someone is such a threat to society that it would not be just to force society to pay for their room and board in a jail. I support the death penalty in cases like first degree murder, violent rape, and similar extreme cases of violation of human rights. I don't support the death penalty because criminals deserve to be punished. I support it as a means of protecting society from dangerous criminals. I support it because I find it extremely unjust that society should be forced to pay the upkeep of these people who will never be safe to release into the general public.
I do not support the death penalty for laziness. Right, long ago laziness was the difference between obtaining enough food to eat, or starving to death. Back then the death penalty (by starvation) might have been just for those who were too lazy to pull their share of the weight. That was a law imposed by nature. In some places this natural law still holds sway over humans, but not in the US. According to Wikipedia, only 2-3 percent of the US labor population works in agriculture. "US agriculture has long since passed the point of being able to meet the demand for food in the US population. Much of US agricultural production is now exported to other countries. For example, the United States exports 60 percent of its wheat crop and 30 percent of its soybeans. Agricultural products make up 10 percent of all exported US merchandise." (portaec.net) Forcing people to starve because they are lazy, or because there is not enough work to go around is essentially enforcing the death penalty for laziness. In the case of those who are not working because they cannot find work, but are looking, it is enforcing the death penalty for involuntary laziness. I know of no State in the US that enforces the death penalty for involuntary homicide. Why then is it tolerated for involuntary laziness?
I also do not support the death penalty for those with health problems that prevent them from working, or health problems that cost too much for them to pay for on their pathetically low salary, even though they may work a full 40 hours a week. This goes back to the production issue. The US produces far more than it needs to survive. Doctors might deserve to get paid for their work, but no one deserves to die for their health problems just because they don't work or don't get paid enough. Are health problems really so dangerous to society at large that those who have them deserve the death penalty because they cannot afford to pay for care? Right, I understand that people with health problems might have been an inconvenience that could have substantially harmed the rest of society, long ago. Just like food though, this is not the case in the modern US. The claim that our society cannot afford to give health care to those who cannot afford it is a lie. Humans only need a few things for survival. Specifically, humans need food, water, shelter, and clothing (and not even this in some climates). If US society had to pay for health care for everyone who cannot afford it, which of those four things would we suddenly be unable to provide for everyone? In short, those who need health care, who cannot afford it for whatever reason, do not deserve the death penalty. Again, this especially applies to those who have heath problems involuntarily (voluntary health problems would include those caused be poor choices, like smoking or reckless driving).
The US produces enough for every single citizen to have enough food, water, housing, and clothing. Our current record unemployment is a testament to the fact that the US can produce enough for everyone, even when over half the population is not working. The fact that anyone lives on the streets involuntarily, the fact that anyone in the US is undernourished, and the fact that many people in the US die every day due to lack of medical care, is a testament to the fact that we are no better than uncivilized barbarians (actually, historically barbarians helped their own when needed). The fact that many US citizens take political stands in support of this barbarism is testament that even when the tools to create a Utopia are handed to them on a platter, petty humans will just use them to cruelly rip each other off.
I support the death penalty when a heinous crime has been committed and death is the only truly just punishment. I do not support the barbaric practice of death penalty by inaction when the only crimes are laziness and poor health, at least, not when these things do not pose the slightest threat to the rest of society. Right now, humans are still uncivilized barbarians. Yes, we are barbarians with buildings, computers, cellphone, cars, and all manner of technology, but we are still barbarians. It is time to choose: Are we going to be worthless barbarians forever, or are we going to take the tools we have been given and create a truly civilized Utopia? Are we going to rise from uncivilized barbarians to become the first civilized species on Earth, or are we going stay here, playing in our own filth and killing each other over century old ideals that no longer apply?
Lord Rybec
I do not support the death penalty for laziness. Right, long ago laziness was the difference between obtaining enough food to eat, or starving to death. Back then the death penalty (by starvation) might have been just for those who were too lazy to pull their share of the weight. That was a law imposed by nature. In some places this natural law still holds sway over humans, but not in the US. According to Wikipedia, only 2-3 percent of the US labor population works in agriculture. "US agriculture has long since passed the point of being able to meet the demand for food in the US population. Much of US agricultural production is now exported to other countries. For example, the United States exports 60 percent of its wheat crop and 30 percent of its soybeans. Agricultural products make up 10 percent of all exported US merchandise." (portaec.net) Forcing people to starve because they are lazy, or because there is not enough work to go around is essentially enforcing the death penalty for laziness. In the case of those who are not working because they cannot find work, but are looking, it is enforcing the death penalty for involuntary laziness. I know of no State in the US that enforces the death penalty for involuntary homicide. Why then is it tolerated for involuntary laziness?
I also do not support the death penalty for those with health problems that prevent them from working, or health problems that cost too much for them to pay for on their pathetically low salary, even though they may work a full 40 hours a week. This goes back to the production issue. The US produces far more than it needs to survive. Doctors might deserve to get paid for their work, but no one deserves to die for their health problems just because they don't work or don't get paid enough. Are health problems really so dangerous to society at large that those who have them deserve the death penalty because they cannot afford to pay for care? Right, I understand that people with health problems might have been an inconvenience that could have substantially harmed the rest of society, long ago. Just like food though, this is not the case in the modern US. The claim that our society cannot afford to give health care to those who cannot afford it is a lie. Humans only need a few things for survival. Specifically, humans need food, water, shelter, and clothing (and not even this in some climates). If US society had to pay for health care for everyone who cannot afford it, which of those four things would we suddenly be unable to provide for everyone? In short, those who need health care, who cannot afford it for whatever reason, do not deserve the death penalty. Again, this especially applies to those who have heath problems involuntarily (voluntary health problems would include those caused be poor choices, like smoking or reckless driving).
The US produces enough for every single citizen to have enough food, water, housing, and clothing. Our current record unemployment is a testament to the fact that the US can produce enough for everyone, even when over half the population is not working. The fact that anyone lives on the streets involuntarily, the fact that anyone in the US is undernourished, and the fact that many people in the US die every day due to lack of medical care, is a testament to the fact that we are no better than uncivilized barbarians (actually, historically barbarians helped their own when needed). The fact that many US citizens take political stands in support of this barbarism is testament that even when the tools to create a Utopia are handed to them on a platter, petty humans will just use them to cruelly rip each other off.
I support the death penalty when a heinous crime has been committed and death is the only truly just punishment. I do not support the barbaric practice of death penalty by inaction when the only crimes are laziness and poor health, at least, not when these things do not pose the slightest threat to the rest of society. Right now, humans are still uncivilized barbarians. Yes, we are barbarians with buildings, computers, cellphone, cars, and all manner of technology, but we are still barbarians. It is time to choose: Are we going to be worthless barbarians forever, or are we going to take the tools we have been given and create a truly civilized Utopia? Are we going to rise from uncivilized barbarians to become the first civilized species on Earth, or are we going stay here, playing in our own filth and killing each other over century old ideals that no longer apply?
Lord Rybec
23 January 2012
Inflation vs Wage Increase
I recently wrote a paper for an English class (which I will post here eventually) based on the income distribution problems in the US. This paper required actual research and citations, so I ended up looking up things like average inflation and wage increase over the last 50 years. What I found is appalling and rather damning for large businesses. It turns out that the current situation is many times worse than I had initially thought.
The two above mentioned statistics (inflation and wage increase) should give a very clear indication of exactly where the problem lies. The statistics are as follows: average inflation from 1961 to now (the last 50 years) is 659%, and average wage increase for the lower 99% of wage earners is 75%. If you don't see the problem, let me explain.
This means that businesses are charging 6.5 times more for goods, but only paying 1.75 times more wages (to 99% of the population). Note that for the top 1%, wage increase is 250%, which is still only half of the rate of inflation. In short, everyone is getting ripped off, except for the few CEOs that are keeping the enormous leftovers.
Ok, this might sound kind of bad now (to me, this by itself is appalling). There is more though. The cost of production is literally at all time lows. I am not talking monetary costs. In the end, all production costs break down to labor. The cost, in labor, of producing even the most advanced technology is less than it has ever been, in the entire history of mankind. Our ability to produce food is legendary. The US produces many times more food than we need and with only a tiny fraction of the available labor. This goes for nearly everything produced in the US. Instead of lower prices however, businesses are raising them. Instead of using the surplus cash to pay their workers a fair wage though, they hoard it, paying their CEOs absurdly high wages (see that xkcd.com comic I posted a bit ago; typical CEO wages are $5,000 an hour), and squandering it on other fairly pointless endeavors.
I tried to explain this to someone recently, and the excuse for inaction was that it is none of our business if other people are getting ripped off by businesses. I was told that I could leave the US if I did not like how the businesses here treat people. First, to my knowledge, there is no place in the world that employers treat their employees fairly. The US and Europe are the best we have (actually, this is debatable) and both stink. This idea that ripping off people is ethical as long as they agree to it is nauseating to me (I believe I also posted my opinion on the idea that it is ethical to charge as much as people are willing to pay; I feel the same about the idea that it is ethical to pay the lowest wages people are willing to work for). Now the first argument, that it is none of our business, is just as bad. This is the argument used by Germans who were not willing to help the Jews. I know a cliche that fits this situation perfectly: "All that is needed for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing." I apologize if some people find this comparison to Nazi Germany to be offensive, but if you will take the time to think about it, you will find that there is little difference. If you believe that slavery in the South was bad and that freeing the slaves was a good thing, then it is hypocritical to claim that this injustice is none of your business. (When I post my paper, you will find that what is happening in the US now is not that far from actual slavery.)
I am a member of the LDS Church, commonly known as Mormons. Most Mormons that I know are very conservative. I consider myself to be fairly conservative (though I do not like to associate myself with the Republican party, as I have found it to be no less corrupt than any other party). Still, my religion dictates that it is my business to care that my fellow humans are being treated unfairly and are being oppressed. I have heard the argument that those running businesses have the agency to choose how to treat their employees. This, however, is not a valid excuse to allow them to continue to rob them of fairly earned wages. This argument is as valid as the argument that thieves should not be prevented from robbery (or punished for it), because they have the agency to act as they please. We live in a democratically run government (at least, in theory). It is the business of the people to enforce fairness. This is the purpose of a democratic government. My religion specifically states that I am my brother's keeper and that the term "brother" is used to represent every human ever born and that ever will be born. In short, my religion expressly dictates that how others are treated by their employers is my business. The agency of others does not even apply in this case. Any Mormon that tries to use this argument as an excuse for inaction does not understand the teachings of their religion. This applies equally to any religion that believes the Bible to be the Word of God.
One of these days, I will work out the math for these rates and post a projection for cost versus pay 50 years from now. I suspect that it will predict that 99% (or more) of the US population will not make enough money to eat without being on welfare in 50 years.
I doubt that this will ever happen, however. If the situation continues to decay, the Occupy Wall Street movement will eventually evolve into a violent revolution, and our government and all of the big businesses that control it will be destroyed. If the government tries to quell the movement, it will be another Tienanmen Square and will probably result in even a more violent revolution. Of course, maybe this is what SOPA and PIPA are all about. Maybe our government is trying to gain control of the internet so that they can kill thousands of protestors and then cover it up, just like China did. I doubt that it will work here, however. If nothing else, the nerds (I include myself in this group) will manage to spread the news even against all the efforts of the government to cover it up.
Since my last few posts, the government has not done anything significant to appease the 99%. In fact, they have blatantly tried to further oppress them (SOPA, PIPA). At the rate they are going, revolution is nigh. I recommend preparing. Still, don't give up. If it is possible to force our government to acknowledge that it is at the mercy of the people, peacefully, then it will take the effort of as much of the US population as possible.
Lord Rybec
The two above mentioned statistics (inflation and wage increase) should give a very clear indication of exactly where the problem lies. The statistics are as follows: average inflation from 1961 to now (the last 50 years) is 659%, and average wage increase for the lower 99% of wage earners is 75%. If you don't see the problem, let me explain.
This means that businesses are charging 6.5 times more for goods, but only paying 1.75 times more wages (to 99% of the population). Note that for the top 1%, wage increase is 250%, which is still only half of the rate of inflation. In short, everyone is getting ripped off, except for the few CEOs that are keeping the enormous leftovers.
Ok, this might sound kind of bad now (to me, this by itself is appalling). There is more though. The cost of production is literally at all time lows. I am not talking monetary costs. In the end, all production costs break down to labor. The cost, in labor, of producing even the most advanced technology is less than it has ever been, in the entire history of mankind. Our ability to produce food is legendary. The US produces many times more food than we need and with only a tiny fraction of the available labor. This goes for nearly everything produced in the US. Instead of lower prices however, businesses are raising them. Instead of using the surplus cash to pay their workers a fair wage though, they hoard it, paying their CEOs absurdly high wages (see that xkcd.com comic I posted a bit ago; typical CEO wages are $5,000 an hour), and squandering it on other fairly pointless endeavors.
I tried to explain this to someone recently, and the excuse for inaction was that it is none of our business if other people are getting ripped off by businesses. I was told that I could leave the US if I did not like how the businesses here treat people. First, to my knowledge, there is no place in the world that employers treat their employees fairly. The US and Europe are the best we have (actually, this is debatable) and both stink. This idea that ripping off people is ethical as long as they agree to it is nauseating to me (I believe I also posted my opinion on the idea that it is ethical to charge as much as people are willing to pay; I feel the same about the idea that it is ethical to pay the lowest wages people are willing to work for). Now the first argument, that it is none of our business, is just as bad. This is the argument used by Germans who were not willing to help the Jews. I know a cliche that fits this situation perfectly: "All that is needed for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing." I apologize if some people find this comparison to Nazi Germany to be offensive, but if you will take the time to think about it, you will find that there is little difference. If you believe that slavery in the South was bad and that freeing the slaves was a good thing, then it is hypocritical to claim that this injustice is none of your business. (When I post my paper, you will find that what is happening in the US now is not that far from actual slavery.)
I am a member of the LDS Church, commonly known as Mormons. Most Mormons that I know are very conservative. I consider myself to be fairly conservative (though I do not like to associate myself with the Republican party, as I have found it to be no less corrupt than any other party). Still, my religion dictates that it is my business to care that my fellow humans are being treated unfairly and are being oppressed. I have heard the argument that those running businesses have the agency to choose how to treat their employees. This, however, is not a valid excuse to allow them to continue to rob them of fairly earned wages. This argument is as valid as the argument that thieves should not be prevented from robbery (or punished for it), because they have the agency to act as they please. We live in a democratically run government (at least, in theory). It is the business of the people to enforce fairness. This is the purpose of a democratic government. My religion specifically states that I am my brother's keeper and that the term "brother" is used to represent every human ever born and that ever will be born. In short, my religion expressly dictates that how others are treated by their employers is my business. The agency of others does not even apply in this case. Any Mormon that tries to use this argument as an excuse for inaction does not understand the teachings of their religion. This applies equally to any religion that believes the Bible to be the Word of God.
One of these days, I will work out the math for these rates and post a projection for cost versus pay 50 years from now. I suspect that it will predict that 99% (or more) of the US population will not make enough money to eat without being on welfare in 50 years.
I doubt that this will ever happen, however. If the situation continues to decay, the Occupy Wall Street movement will eventually evolve into a violent revolution, and our government and all of the big businesses that control it will be destroyed. If the government tries to quell the movement, it will be another Tienanmen Square and will probably result in even a more violent revolution. Of course, maybe this is what SOPA and PIPA are all about. Maybe our government is trying to gain control of the internet so that they can kill thousands of protestors and then cover it up, just like China did. I doubt that it will work here, however. If nothing else, the nerds (I include myself in this group) will manage to spread the news even against all the efforts of the government to cover it up.
Since my last few posts, the government has not done anything significant to appease the 99%. In fact, they have blatantly tried to further oppress them (SOPA, PIPA). At the rate they are going, revolution is nigh. I recommend preparing. Still, don't give up. If it is possible to force our government to acknowledge that it is at the mercy of the people, peacefully, then it will take the effort of as much of the US population as possible.
Lord Rybec
21 November 2011
xkcd Money Chart
http://xkcd.com/980
I am tempted to print this on my 2' wide printer and put it on the wall. This is the most comprehensive chart of where money in the US is/goes that I have ever seen, and I just finished extensive research on this subject for a paper. I wish this had been posted a week ago.
Ok, so there are people starving in the US, while our government is spending $11 billion on military aid, and another $11 billion on foreign humanitarian aid (not certain if that is yearly, or total, but yearly makes more sense). Total US population (in 2009 according to Google) is 307 million. That is equal to $71 per person. If you discount the 50% of the population that is totally above the poverty line, and does not need the money, that is $142 per person. Note that this is not money that we are paying for our own defense. Also note that in the past this money has been used explicitly against us (by Iran and Iraq, for instance).
Corporate tax deductions are at $125 billion, which is equal to $407 per person.
Cost of war in Afghanistan is $321 billion, at $1,045 per person.
Iraq war was $784 billion, at $2,553 per person.
Stimulus spending was $206 billion in 2008 and $748 billion in 2009, totaling at $954 billion and $3,107 per person.
Recent bailouts totaled around $393 billion, $1,280 per person.
US annual charitable giving: $295 billion, at $960 per person.
And a bunch of small stuff that probably totals at several more trillion (not willing to take the hours to count it all).
So, the totals of the stuff that I provided values for is $2,872 billion. That comes out to $9,355 per person. If that money was distributed only to those that actually need it (the lower 50%), it would be $18,710 per person. xkcd.com assumes around $22,000 as the poverty level (on a per household basis). In a household of 2 people, $18,710 per person is enough money to survive on for a year, without even working a job. Many of the above are yearly figures, meaning that the government could dramatically improve the standard of living of the bottom 50% by giving them money, instead of wasting it on useless projects (admittedly, some of the money is spent on useful stuff, for instance, stimulus includes some education grants).
Note that the lower 50% includes households that earn less than $55,000 a year. Those making more than $40,000 a year and only include 2 people could be excluded based on research showing that $20,000 a year per person is the optimum income for happiness. This would further increase the per person payout of the nearly $3 trillion counted above.
Also, a wage cap and a profit cap for businesses would extremely dramatically redistribute wealth. A $500 million profit cap (I support something even more aggressive) would save $15.5 billion from Walmart (I'll be rounding down to the nearest $.5 billion), $29.5 billion from ExxonMobil, $5.5 billion from PepsiCo, $11 billion from Coca-Cola, $2 billion from VISA, $1 billion from MasterCard, $11 billion from GE, $12 billion from Berkshire Hathaway, $5.5 billion from GM, $6 billion from Ford, $19 billion from AT&T, $1.5 billion from Bank of America, $16.5 billion from JP Morgan Chase, $2 billion from Verizon, $10 billion from Citigroup, $51.5 billion from HP, $13.5 billion from Apple, $18 billion from MS, and $8 billion from Google. That totals to $239 billion, which is another $1,557 per person, and this time entirely on a yearly basis (and automatically adjusted for inflation even). And, this only includes a very small number of businesses that make over $500 million a year. If this money was distributed among the lower 50%, it would be $3,114 per year per person, enough to pull quite a few people out of the poverty level.
I don't want to do the work for finding the benefits of the wage cap, but I am certain they are at least as dramatic as the profit cap.
In short, if our government would quit squandering money, and if it would enforce a wage and profit cap, everyone one in the entire US could be living above the poverty level. (Hmm, according to the dollar section of the xkcd.com chart, the average CEO in the US makes $5,420 per hour. I could work for a single day every year at those wages, and be just barely at the poverty level. I take this to mean that each day of work for a typical CEO is robbing one person of an entire year's salary. Of course, this is presuming an 8 hour work day.)
If, in addition to this, taxes for the top 10% of wage earners was increased by even a little bit (ie, a few percent), it would generate enough more money to put the entire US population in the middle class. Note that this does not include large businesses, which would generate far more than that with a similar tax increase.
Anyhow, I like this chart. It gives very complete information (and would have made a nice reference for my paper, if it had come a week earlier).
Lord Rybec
I am tempted to print this on my 2' wide printer and put it on the wall. This is the most comprehensive chart of where money in the US is/goes that I have ever seen, and I just finished extensive research on this subject for a paper. I wish this had been posted a week ago.
Ok, so there are people starving in the US, while our government is spending $11 billion on military aid, and another $11 billion on foreign humanitarian aid (not certain if that is yearly, or total, but yearly makes more sense). Total US population (in 2009 according to Google) is 307 million. That is equal to $71 per person. If you discount the 50% of the population that is totally above the poverty line, and does not need the money, that is $142 per person. Note that this is not money that we are paying for our own defense. Also note that in the past this money has been used explicitly against us (by Iran and Iraq, for instance).
Corporate tax deductions are at $125 billion, which is equal to $407 per person.
Cost of war in Afghanistan is $321 billion, at $1,045 per person.
Iraq war was $784 billion, at $2,553 per person.
Stimulus spending was $206 billion in 2008 and $748 billion in 2009, totaling at $954 billion and $3,107 per person.
Recent bailouts totaled around $393 billion, $1,280 per person.
US annual charitable giving: $295 billion, at $960 per person.
And a bunch of small stuff that probably totals at several more trillion (not willing to take the hours to count it all).
So, the totals of the stuff that I provided values for is $2,872 billion. That comes out to $9,355 per person. If that money was distributed only to those that actually need it (the lower 50%), it would be $18,710 per person. xkcd.com assumes around $22,000 as the poverty level (on a per household basis). In a household of 2 people, $18,710 per person is enough money to survive on for a year, without even working a job. Many of the above are yearly figures, meaning that the government could dramatically improve the standard of living of the bottom 50% by giving them money, instead of wasting it on useless projects (admittedly, some of the money is spent on useful stuff, for instance, stimulus includes some education grants).
Note that the lower 50% includes households that earn less than $55,000 a year. Those making more than $40,000 a year and only include 2 people could be excluded based on research showing that $20,000 a year per person is the optimum income for happiness. This would further increase the per person payout of the nearly $3 trillion counted above.
Also, a wage cap and a profit cap for businesses would extremely dramatically redistribute wealth. A $500 million profit cap (I support something even more aggressive) would save $15.5 billion from Walmart (I'll be rounding down to the nearest $.5 billion), $29.5 billion from ExxonMobil, $5.5 billion from PepsiCo, $11 billion from Coca-Cola, $2 billion from VISA, $1 billion from MasterCard, $11 billion from GE, $12 billion from Berkshire Hathaway, $5.5 billion from GM, $6 billion from Ford, $19 billion from AT&T, $1.5 billion from Bank of America, $16.5 billion from JP Morgan Chase, $2 billion from Verizon, $10 billion from Citigroup, $51.5 billion from HP, $13.5 billion from Apple, $18 billion from MS, and $8 billion from Google. That totals to $239 billion, which is another $1,557 per person, and this time entirely on a yearly basis (and automatically adjusted for inflation even). And, this only includes a very small number of businesses that make over $500 million a year. If this money was distributed among the lower 50%, it would be $3,114 per year per person, enough to pull quite a few people out of the poverty level.
I don't want to do the work for finding the benefits of the wage cap, but I am certain they are at least as dramatic as the profit cap.
In short, if our government would quit squandering money, and if it would enforce a wage and profit cap, everyone one in the entire US could be living above the poverty level. (Hmm, according to the dollar section of the xkcd.com chart, the average CEO in the US makes $5,420 per hour. I could work for a single day every year at those wages, and be just barely at the poverty level. I take this to mean that each day of work for a typical CEO is robbing one person of an entire year's salary. Of course, this is presuming an 8 hour work day.)
If, in addition to this, taxes for the top 10% of wage earners was increased by even a little bit (ie, a few percent), it would generate enough more money to put the entire US population in the middle class. Note that this does not include large businesses, which would generate far more than that with a similar tax increase.
Anyhow, I like this chart. It gives very complete information (and would have made a nice reference for my paper, if it had come a week earlier).
Lord Rybec
25 October 2011
Wage Cap
The 200 year experiment has failed. While we have shown that large businesses with centralized mass production reduce the cost of producing goods, we have failed to show that they reduce the prices of goods. Mass production is good and useful. When done properly, it decreases production costs and increases quality. Centralizing mass production has not been good or useful. Centralized production requires robust transportation fleets, which are expensive in fuel, time, and maintenance of both vehicles and roads. The failure of the experiment, however, is not related to transportation costs. The experiment has failed due to greed and corruption.
Large companies have slowly robbed their employees and customers more and more. With this ill gotten gain, they have paid our government to make laws that give them even more power. We now live in a nation of slaves and slavers. The majority of us are slaves, while the rest are the slavers. There is no middle ground. Most of the people in the US work to produce enormous profits and are then paid only enough for room and board, while the profits they have worked so hard for go to some CEO or other person that does less work than they do. The people are now rebelling, but our government does not even know what to do, because they have never thought about how to best serve the people they govern. I have some suggestions.
I propose a wage cap. Presuming the average adult needs 8 hours of sleep a day and that this leaves them with 16 hours during the day that they could work, and presuming that the average person is capable of working like this 6 days a week, a person cannot reasonably work more than 5,000 hours in a year. Also presuming that a well trained individual can do work valued at over 10 times what the average McDonald's employee's work is worth, it might be reasonable to say that this individual should be paid $100 an hour. Given this, this person could earn $500,000 a year. If you want to argue that the work of the McDonald's worker is worth less than 10 times the trained individual, then the trained person cannot eat fast food and then shall only be able to work 13 hours a day, since he now has to spend 1 hour per meal in preparation time. So, I propose that a maximum wage be mandated that prohibits payment of more than $500,000 in combined wages and benefits per year per person. This is enough money for anyone in the US to survive quite comfortably, and it would affect less than 5% of the population.
In addition, I propose a profit cap for businesses. This should be a percentage and should represent a reasonable profit margin, that cannot be considered extortion (there should also be a fairly large maximum dollar amount, to limit the size and influence of businesses). Costs for maintenance and replacement equipment can be taken from the total profits, but research and expansion costs should not be (they must be counted as profits). Elective costs should also not be subtracted from profits, including charitable donations (it is unethical for a company to donate money that was generated by their workers). If a company generates more profits than are allowed, those profits should be equally distributed among employees (that have not reached their maximum wage) and a fine should be charged against the remaining profits (a company may instead choose to distribute before filing taxes to avoid the fine).
These two things would make a huge difference in distribution of wealth. Large businesses would be paying much less to officers, because of the wage cap. The profit cap would require the businesses to do something with this money and the rest of their overages, that does not directly benefit the company and that does not just get rid of it to charities. The only options would be to either use the money to pay the employees fairly, or reduce prices dramatically to avoid the overages in the first place. Either of these would be good. The first would directly ensure that employees get a fair share of the profits. The second would increase the value of the US dollar so much that even current minimum wage would be quite lucrative pay. In addition, many workers could cut their work hours, opening up jobs for the 9% of unemployed Americans.
An interesting side note: Those who already have large amounts of wealth would also benefit greatly from the second scenario (prices dropping), as the value of their accumulated wealth would double, triple, or even better.
I realize that this solution has some holes. The actual legislation would need to carefully address the question of exactly what costs a company can exclude from their profits, to avoid holes that would allow companies to use overages in ways that would not benefit the employees. The wage cap legislation would have to also avoid loopholes that would allow any form of compensation to not be counted in the cap. I am neither a lawyer nor a politician, so I am not qualified to actually draft this legislation, but I do feel that I am qualified to suggest a good framework that could be used in drafting legislation, by those who we pay to do that job.
I believe that this particular course of action would not only solve the distribution of wealth problem, but I believe that it would also solve most of the problems with our economy as well. It could potentially double the value of the US dollar, making us a real contender in the world economy again. It could put many Americans into higher tax brackets, which would solve the budget issues with our government (or at least make them less severe). Fixing the distribution of wealth problem would create more jobs (fewer people would need to work multiple jobs, some people would choose to work only part time, and many people would start small businesses), potentially entirely eliminating the 9% unemployment we are currently facing.
It is certain something needs to be done. As I have mentioned, I believe that we are on the brink of revolution, especially if the government does not act quickly to fix these problems. I believe this solution would fix a great number of our current problems. It would affect our capitalist economy (which, in case you missed it, is failing) by slowing expansion and limiting rates of gain, but it would not replace it will a more oppressive system, nor would it interfere with it significantly. This would benefit a vast majority of the US population, and those who did not benefit would not be significantly harmed. We need to do something, and I think that this solution would fix the most urgent problems the most quickly and the most permanently.
Lord Rybec
Large companies have slowly robbed their employees and customers more and more. With this ill gotten gain, they have paid our government to make laws that give them even more power. We now live in a nation of slaves and slavers. The majority of us are slaves, while the rest are the slavers. There is no middle ground. Most of the people in the US work to produce enormous profits and are then paid only enough for room and board, while the profits they have worked so hard for go to some CEO or other person that does less work than they do. The people are now rebelling, but our government does not even know what to do, because they have never thought about how to best serve the people they govern. I have some suggestions.
I propose a wage cap. Presuming the average adult needs 8 hours of sleep a day and that this leaves them with 16 hours during the day that they could work, and presuming that the average person is capable of working like this 6 days a week, a person cannot reasonably work more than 5,000 hours in a year. Also presuming that a well trained individual can do work valued at over 10 times what the average McDonald's employee's work is worth, it might be reasonable to say that this individual should be paid $100 an hour. Given this, this person could earn $500,000 a year. If you want to argue that the work of the McDonald's worker is worth less than 10 times the trained individual, then the trained person cannot eat fast food and then shall only be able to work 13 hours a day, since he now has to spend 1 hour per meal in preparation time. So, I propose that a maximum wage be mandated that prohibits payment of more than $500,000 in combined wages and benefits per year per person. This is enough money for anyone in the US to survive quite comfortably, and it would affect less than 5% of the population.
In addition, I propose a profit cap for businesses. This should be a percentage and should represent a reasonable profit margin, that cannot be considered extortion (there should also be a fairly large maximum dollar amount, to limit the size and influence of businesses). Costs for maintenance and replacement equipment can be taken from the total profits, but research and expansion costs should not be (they must be counted as profits). Elective costs should also not be subtracted from profits, including charitable donations (it is unethical for a company to donate money that was generated by their workers). If a company generates more profits than are allowed, those profits should be equally distributed among employees (that have not reached their maximum wage) and a fine should be charged against the remaining profits (a company may instead choose to distribute before filing taxes to avoid the fine).
These two things would make a huge difference in distribution of wealth. Large businesses would be paying much less to officers, because of the wage cap. The profit cap would require the businesses to do something with this money and the rest of their overages, that does not directly benefit the company and that does not just get rid of it to charities. The only options would be to either use the money to pay the employees fairly, or reduce prices dramatically to avoid the overages in the first place. Either of these would be good. The first would directly ensure that employees get a fair share of the profits. The second would increase the value of the US dollar so much that even current minimum wage would be quite lucrative pay. In addition, many workers could cut their work hours, opening up jobs for the 9% of unemployed Americans.
An interesting side note: Those who already have large amounts of wealth would also benefit greatly from the second scenario (prices dropping), as the value of their accumulated wealth would double, triple, or even better.
I realize that this solution has some holes. The actual legislation would need to carefully address the question of exactly what costs a company can exclude from their profits, to avoid holes that would allow companies to use overages in ways that would not benefit the employees. The wage cap legislation would have to also avoid loopholes that would allow any form of compensation to not be counted in the cap. I am neither a lawyer nor a politician, so I am not qualified to actually draft this legislation, but I do feel that I am qualified to suggest a good framework that could be used in drafting legislation, by those who we pay to do that job.
I believe that this particular course of action would not only solve the distribution of wealth problem, but I believe that it would also solve most of the problems with our economy as well. It could potentially double the value of the US dollar, making us a real contender in the world economy again. It could put many Americans into higher tax brackets, which would solve the budget issues with our government (or at least make them less severe). Fixing the distribution of wealth problem would create more jobs (fewer people would need to work multiple jobs, some people would choose to work only part time, and many people would start small businesses), potentially entirely eliminating the 9% unemployment we are currently facing.
It is certain something needs to be done. As I have mentioned, I believe that we are on the brink of revolution, especially if the government does not act quickly to fix these problems. I believe this solution would fix a great number of our current problems. It would affect our capitalist economy (which, in case you missed it, is failing) by slowing expansion and limiting rates of gain, but it would not replace it will a more oppressive system, nor would it interfere with it significantly. This would benefit a vast majority of the US population, and those who did not benefit would not be significantly harmed. We need to do something, and I think that this solution would fix the most urgent problems the most quickly and the most permanently.
Lord Rybec
What's it Worth?
There are many different types of value. Humans perceive value based on usefulness, need, rarity, mental stimulation, work or resources that went into an object, age, and many other factors. Probably the biggest factor of real value is need. What value is a big screen TV when you are starving the death? Usefulness and cost of production are also very strong factors of real value. Humans have invented another factor of value though. The phrase, "It is only worth what people are willing to pay," has been misconstrued to mean that the value of a thing is the highest price people are willing to pay for it.
The phrase, "It is only worth what people are willing to pay," was originally intended to convey the fact that an object which is appraised at a high value is only really worth that if you can find someone willing to pay that price for it. It was not intended to mean that it is ethical to charge any amount of money for an object, if someone is willing to pay that much. In fact, the US has anti-extortion laws to prevent businesses from taking advantage of shortages of goods needed for survival by raising prices (laws which have not been enforced during the last few disasters of sorts that those laws were created to cover).
I find that the most ethical method of determining value of goods for sale is to base the price on the cost of production. If a device costs $50 in parts and labor to produce, then that device should not be priced at $1,000. If it is, then it is extortion and theft. Of course, if the production of that device requires expensive equipment, then the cost of the device should reflect that, but it is still not ethical to make the first 100 customers pay for the manufacturing equipment and then keep the excessive profits from future sales.
There are many industries that abuse capitalism in ways that rip off the customer. Companies that produce electronic media are a major contender for the least ethical business practices. Electronic media is especially easy to do this with, because it only has to be produced once and then unlimited numbers of copies can be made at almost no additional cost. A music artist may spend 320 hours (2 months at 40 hours a week) composing a new album. The artist might then spend 20 hours recording all the tracks. Several people (3 maybe) at the studio will also be working to record the album and they might then spend 20 hours editing the tracks and mastering the first copy of the album. The record label might spend 100 hours working on advertising and pay some radio stations or TV stations for advertising time. The label will then copy the master onto thousands or millions of CDs. After this, people or stores will order the CDs, but they will pay shipping and handling, so the label does not have to worry about that. If each person involved gets paid $50 an hour (which I doubt), then the total labor costs through creating the master comes out to $25,000. The cost of the actual CDs (let's say 500,000) probably comes out to less than $50,000 (10 cents a piece is probably a high estimate). If each CD sells for $15 and the record label gets $10 from each, that comes out to $5 million. Presuming $500,000 in advertising costs, the company spent $575,000 on the entire thing and just made nearly 10 times that back. That is 1,000% return. That is absurd, especially given that the stores only made a 50% profit. Worse though, if the CD sells well, then the record company can quickly make another 500,000 copies for less than $50,000 and make another $5 million, at a 10,000% rate of return. Right, some money goes to royalties, but the pathetic rate of royalties for nearly any form of media is negligible (ever wondered why many musical artists keep going on tour, even when they have repeatedly stated how much they hate it). Why do we let the companies keep charging us for a product when society has already paid back several times what it cost to produce? This is extortion. Continuing to charge for a product that has already been paid for is theft.
It is not just media companies that do this though. Whenever new technology comes out, prices start very high. They generally slowly drop over time, but not at the rate they should. I understand that the cost of research and development has to be paid. This does not bother me. Once it is paid off though, quit charging us for it. New computer technology can take years to perfect. A lot of money goes into research. When it is finally ready, the prices are necessarily high. Most technology research is paid off within the first year after release. Somehow, even though devices like laptops only cost $50 to $100 to manufacture, we are still being charged $1,000 or more five or ten years later. When I found out about the low cost of manufacturing laptop computers, the technology was 5 years old. Now, 3 or 4 years later, the prices are finally dropping to more reasonable rates (though, $200 from $50 is still 400% return). The funny thing though is that they are not even using the old, cheaper technology. The new laptops are using new technology, which leads me to believe that $50 a piece was a high estimate and that modern laptops cost more like $25 (or less) to make, which means the return on a $200 laptop is 800%, which is still extortion.
Most of the world may disagree with me, but I am here to say: Charging the highest prices people are willing to pay is not ethical. Cheating people because they don't know better or because they are desperate is wrong. The value of merchandise should be based on how much it cost to produce, not on some math that maximizes profits but puts it out of the budget of people who really need it. What happens to those people that need food, but the math excludes their budget? Ever wonder why so many people need welfare just so they can afford to eat? Charging more than the poor can afford for food just to get a few extra dollars is evil and wrong. People are going hungry in the US because businesses have convinced us that it is ethical to rip off anyone who can afford to pay. It is not ethical to base prices on what people can afford. This is what is destroying our economy.
Lord Rybec
The phrase, "It is only worth what people are willing to pay," was originally intended to convey the fact that an object which is appraised at a high value is only really worth that if you can find someone willing to pay that price for it. It was not intended to mean that it is ethical to charge any amount of money for an object, if someone is willing to pay that much. In fact, the US has anti-extortion laws to prevent businesses from taking advantage of shortages of goods needed for survival by raising prices (laws which have not been enforced during the last few disasters of sorts that those laws were created to cover).
I find that the most ethical method of determining value of goods for sale is to base the price on the cost of production. If a device costs $50 in parts and labor to produce, then that device should not be priced at $1,000. If it is, then it is extortion and theft. Of course, if the production of that device requires expensive equipment, then the cost of the device should reflect that, but it is still not ethical to make the first 100 customers pay for the manufacturing equipment and then keep the excessive profits from future sales.
There are many industries that abuse capitalism in ways that rip off the customer. Companies that produce electronic media are a major contender for the least ethical business practices. Electronic media is especially easy to do this with, because it only has to be produced once and then unlimited numbers of copies can be made at almost no additional cost. A music artist may spend 320 hours (2 months at 40 hours a week) composing a new album. The artist might then spend 20 hours recording all the tracks. Several people (3 maybe) at the studio will also be working to record the album and they might then spend 20 hours editing the tracks and mastering the first copy of the album. The record label might spend 100 hours working on advertising and pay some radio stations or TV stations for advertising time. The label will then copy the master onto thousands or millions of CDs. After this, people or stores will order the CDs, but they will pay shipping and handling, so the label does not have to worry about that. If each person involved gets paid $50 an hour (which I doubt), then the total labor costs through creating the master comes out to $25,000. The cost of the actual CDs (let's say 500,000) probably comes out to less than $50,000 (10 cents a piece is probably a high estimate). If each CD sells for $15 and the record label gets $10 from each, that comes out to $5 million. Presuming $500,000 in advertising costs, the company spent $575,000 on the entire thing and just made nearly 10 times that back. That is 1,000% return. That is absurd, especially given that the stores only made a 50% profit. Worse though, if the CD sells well, then the record company can quickly make another 500,000 copies for less than $50,000 and make another $5 million, at a 10,000% rate of return. Right, some money goes to royalties, but the pathetic rate of royalties for nearly any form of media is negligible (ever wondered why many musical artists keep going on tour, even when they have repeatedly stated how much they hate it). Why do we let the companies keep charging us for a product when society has already paid back several times what it cost to produce? This is extortion. Continuing to charge for a product that has already been paid for is theft.
It is not just media companies that do this though. Whenever new technology comes out, prices start very high. They generally slowly drop over time, but not at the rate they should. I understand that the cost of research and development has to be paid. This does not bother me. Once it is paid off though, quit charging us for it. New computer technology can take years to perfect. A lot of money goes into research. When it is finally ready, the prices are necessarily high. Most technology research is paid off within the first year after release. Somehow, even though devices like laptops only cost $50 to $100 to manufacture, we are still being charged $1,000 or more five or ten years later. When I found out about the low cost of manufacturing laptop computers, the technology was 5 years old. Now, 3 or 4 years later, the prices are finally dropping to more reasonable rates (though, $200 from $50 is still 400% return). The funny thing though is that they are not even using the old, cheaper technology. The new laptops are using new technology, which leads me to believe that $50 a piece was a high estimate and that modern laptops cost more like $25 (or less) to make, which means the return on a $200 laptop is 800%, which is still extortion.
Most of the world may disagree with me, but I am here to say: Charging the highest prices people are willing to pay is not ethical. Cheating people because they don't know better or because they are desperate is wrong. The value of merchandise should be based on how much it cost to produce, not on some math that maximizes profits but puts it out of the budget of people who really need it. What happens to those people that need food, but the math excludes their budget? Ever wonder why so many people need welfare just so they can afford to eat? Charging more than the poor can afford for food just to get a few extra dollars is evil and wrong. People are going hungry in the US because businesses have convinced us that it is ethical to rip off anyone who can afford to pay. It is not ethical to base prices on what people can afford. This is what is destroying our economy.
Lord Rybec
23 October 2011
Class Warfare
Mitt Romney made a statement essentially accusing the Occupy Wall Street movement of inciting class warfare. I find this interesting, given the fact that one basis of our original government was that it was a classless system. How then, if our government is supposed to be a classless system, can Romney claim that any political movement within the US could be inciting class warfare?
This actually brings up a much deeper problem within our society and government. The very existence of social classes within our society is in opposition to the basic precepts of the US Constitution. If anything can incite class warfare in the US, then our system is deeply flawed. The problem is not that anyone or anything is inciting class warfare, but the fact that class warfare is even possible. Instead of attacking those "inciting class warfare," we need to be questioning the existence of social classes in our society in the first place. If we were living in a truly classless system, class warfare would not even be possible. Occupy Wall Street is justified, by the entire concept of the US government, in inciting class warfare against any social class that believes that they are above another (or that even sees themselves as a separate social class). The upper class should not exist. The lower class should also not exist. How then is it that distinct social classes have come to exist within our society?
Our founding fathers left Europe for two reasons: first, to gain religious freedom, and second, to escape the oppressive class system that allowed the upper aristocratic classes to lord over the the less fortunate. They created a government system designed to allow each person an equal chance in life. They swore off the social and financial class systems of the European nations and designed the new government system to not tolerate classes. However, as our society has evolved, our government has not. The old system worked fairly well for the technology and knowledge of that day. Now though, we have much more complex economical systems that are not sufficiently covered by the old system. In the old system there have been found many loopholes that have allowed social classes to reappear. We now have the ability and power, which was not had in the past, to fix this problem. Unfortunately, our current government does not have the ethics of our founding fathers. Our founding fathers actually cared about the people they governed. Our current government does not.
We need a government that will eliminate social classes. We need a government that will listen to the people and do the will of the people, not the will of the companies or the will of the 1% of the population that is rich. Many people in Europe immigrated to the US to escape oppressive social classes. We do not have the luxury of a place to run to, to escape oppression. We have been backed up against a wall by an oppressive government that is allowing itself to be controlled by an oppressive social class that should not even be allowed to exist. The peaceful protests of Occupy Wall Street should be taken by our government as the warning hiss of a cornered wild cat. Guess what will come next?
This actually brings up a much deeper problem within our society and government. The very existence of social classes within our society is in opposition to the basic precepts of the US Constitution. If anything can incite class warfare in the US, then our system is deeply flawed. The problem is not that anyone or anything is inciting class warfare, but the fact that class warfare is even possible. Instead of attacking those "inciting class warfare," we need to be questioning the existence of social classes in our society in the first place. If we were living in a truly classless system, class warfare would not even be possible. Occupy Wall Street is justified, by the entire concept of the US government, in inciting class warfare against any social class that believes that they are above another (or that even sees themselves as a separate social class). The upper class should not exist. The lower class should also not exist. How then is it that distinct social classes have come to exist within our society?
Our founding fathers left Europe for two reasons: first, to gain religious freedom, and second, to escape the oppressive class system that allowed the upper aristocratic classes to lord over the the less fortunate. They created a government system designed to allow each person an equal chance in life. They swore off the social and financial class systems of the European nations and designed the new government system to not tolerate classes. However, as our society has evolved, our government has not. The old system worked fairly well for the technology and knowledge of that day. Now though, we have much more complex economical systems that are not sufficiently covered by the old system. In the old system there have been found many loopholes that have allowed social classes to reappear. We now have the ability and power, which was not had in the past, to fix this problem. Unfortunately, our current government does not have the ethics of our founding fathers. Our founding fathers actually cared about the people they governed. Our current government does not.
We need a government that will eliminate social classes. We need a government that will listen to the people and do the will of the people, not the will of the companies or the will of the 1% of the population that is rich. Many people in Europe immigrated to the US to escape oppressive social classes. We do not have the luxury of a place to run to, to escape oppression. We have been backed up against a wall by an oppressive government that is allowing itself to be controlled by an oppressive social class that should not even be allowed to exist. The peaceful protests of Occupy Wall Street should be taken by our government as the warning hiss of a cornered wild cat. Guess what will come next?
Occupy Wall Street
It is time for me to discuss a number of political ideas that I have had that could solve many of the current problems with the economy and the distribution of wealth issues that plague our nation and much of the world. First though I would like to discuss the Occupy Wall Street movement and the obvious implications of not fixing these problems.
Occupy Wall Street is the child of oppression. Much like the communist revolutions in Russia, Vietnam, Korea, and China, this movement is a response to the continued oppression of the poor and middle classes by the rich. As with the communist movement, I believe that if these problems are not fixed in a timely manner, this will end in a bloody revolution and the utter destruction of the US government. Thomas Jefferson once said that he believed that every government needs a good revolution at least every 200 years. The US government has gone far over that, and really has not done too badly. If the US government wants to survive though, it must bend to the will of the people that it was designed to serve. The American people have a strong sense of entitlement (which I do not necessarily agree with, but which exists nonetheless). This sense of entitlement is evolving into the sense of freedom that our founding fathers had and people are beginning to realize that the people of the US are no longer a truly free people. As the Occupy Wall Street movement points out, 99% of the US population are enslaved to 1%.
We may not see this as slavery, because we have the freedom to quit our jobs whenever we want. No one is applying physical force to cause us to provide them with labor. Further, the labor that we provide is compensated. It is easy to miss the fact that we are indeed slaves. Maybe I can make it more obvious. The 1% of the population that are the slavers require that we work for them. They force us to do so by taking away opportunities for us to work for ourselves. Small businesses have an extremely high failure rate. Obviously, some of the problem is that not everyone has the skills to effectively run a small business. However, a larger part is that small businesses have to pay full taxes, while large businesses get many tax cuts. Also, the monopolistic practices of large businesses make it impossible for small businesses to be profitable in a vast majority of markets. Occasionally slaves do escape, but often only to join the 1% that are enslaving the rest of us. Furthermore, the black slaves of the South were also compensated for their work. They were given room and board. Likewise, most modern jobs provide only enough pay for room and board, and many do not even provide that. A majority of Americans are literally being paid like slaves were in the South and a good portion of those are getting paid less than that. Evidence of this is that so many people have to rely on the welfare system to survive. Like slaves, most Americans are being forced to work for wages that are far less than fair.
The people of the US have finally begun to protest against the slavers and against the corrupt government that is supporting the slavers. Occupy Wall Street is the organized embodiment of a literal slave uprising. It is growing at an ever increasing rate as the slaves are recognizing the truth it is preaching. Thankfully, unlike historical slave or peasant uprisings, the people of Occupy Wall Street have chosen to begin the uprising in a civilized manner, with peaceful protests. Now it is the government's turn to act. It can either decide to eliminate corruption from within its ranks and reform our entire economical system, or it can do what it has become accustomed to and take bribes in return for keeping the slavers on top. This time though, that could be a fatal mistake. If peaceful revolution fails, our government will eventually be destroyed.
Occupy Wall Street has been criticized for choosing not to make any formal demands. Attacks have been made claiming that the movement must be disorganized and without focus. I agree with the assessment that an organized protest does not need to make specific demands. Occupy Wall Street is demanding reform that will correct a number of problems, problems which they have stated loudly and clearly. They are not required to provide the solutions; that is the job of the government. Frankly, most of the people of the Occupy Wall Street movement are not qualified to suggest solutions and they obviously realize this. Given this I find great wisdom in their choice to not make demands. The goal of the movement is not to correct problems. The goal of the movement is to identify problems and then demand that those problems be corrected by those with the responsibility to protect the 99% of the population that they have been neglecting.
We need an economy that allows us to escape slavery without becoming the slavers. We do not want wealth at the expense of everyone else and we do not want others to be wealthy at our expense. We have a government that we have hired through elections to protect us. It is their responsibility to provide us that. Instead of criticizing Occupy Wall Street for not offering solutions, our government needs to step up and earn their pay. It is their responsibility to enforce fairness, not that of a group of regular citizens that have no training in policy making. It is our job to tell our government what we want. It is their moral obligation to figure out how to do it. All we want is an honest government and our fair share of what we have worked so hard to create. Occupy Wall Street is not making demands because it is only asking for honesty and fairness. If the people of a nation must demand honesty and fairness from their government, it is time for that government to be overthrown and replaced.
Occupy Wall Street is an uprising of the oppressed peasant and slave classes that have been oppressed since the middle of the last century (and some would even argue much earlier). This is the US equivalent of the communist revolutions that spread across the Eastern Hemisphere at the beginning of the last century. If our government ignores this movement, we could end up in the same situation as many communist countries did, when their governments were overthrown and replaced with governments that eventually became tyrannical dictatorships. I support the Occupy Wall Street movement and I hope that our government has sense to act before it is too late.
Lord Rybec
Occupy Wall Street is the child of oppression. Much like the communist revolutions in Russia, Vietnam, Korea, and China, this movement is a response to the continued oppression of the poor and middle classes by the rich. As with the communist movement, I believe that if these problems are not fixed in a timely manner, this will end in a bloody revolution and the utter destruction of the US government. Thomas Jefferson once said that he believed that every government needs a good revolution at least every 200 years. The US government has gone far over that, and really has not done too badly. If the US government wants to survive though, it must bend to the will of the people that it was designed to serve. The American people have a strong sense of entitlement (which I do not necessarily agree with, but which exists nonetheless). This sense of entitlement is evolving into the sense of freedom that our founding fathers had and people are beginning to realize that the people of the US are no longer a truly free people. As the Occupy Wall Street movement points out, 99% of the US population are enslaved to 1%.
We may not see this as slavery, because we have the freedom to quit our jobs whenever we want. No one is applying physical force to cause us to provide them with labor. Further, the labor that we provide is compensated. It is easy to miss the fact that we are indeed slaves. Maybe I can make it more obvious. The 1% of the population that are the slavers require that we work for them. They force us to do so by taking away opportunities for us to work for ourselves. Small businesses have an extremely high failure rate. Obviously, some of the problem is that not everyone has the skills to effectively run a small business. However, a larger part is that small businesses have to pay full taxes, while large businesses get many tax cuts. Also, the monopolistic practices of large businesses make it impossible for small businesses to be profitable in a vast majority of markets. Occasionally slaves do escape, but often only to join the 1% that are enslaving the rest of us. Furthermore, the black slaves of the South were also compensated for their work. They were given room and board. Likewise, most modern jobs provide only enough pay for room and board, and many do not even provide that. A majority of Americans are literally being paid like slaves were in the South and a good portion of those are getting paid less than that. Evidence of this is that so many people have to rely on the welfare system to survive. Like slaves, most Americans are being forced to work for wages that are far less than fair.
The people of the US have finally begun to protest against the slavers and against the corrupt government that is supporting the slavers. Occupy Wall Street is the organized embodiment of a literal slave uprising. It is growing at an ever increasing rate as the slaves are recognizing the truth it is preaching. Thankfully, unlike historical slave or peasant uprisings, the people of Occupy Wall Street have chosen to begin the uprising in a civilized manner, with peaceful protests. Now it is the government's turn to act. It can either decide to eliminate corruption from within its ranks and reform our entire economical system, or it can do what it has become accustomed to and take bribes in return for keeping the slavers on top. This time though, that could be a fatal mistake. If peaceful revolution fails, our government will eventually be destroyed.
Occupy Wall Street has been criticized for choosing not to make any formal demands. Attacks have been made claiming that the movement must be disorganized and without focus. I agree with the assessment that an organized protest does not need to make specific demands. Occupy Wall Street is demanding reform that will correct a number of problems, problems which they have stated loudly and clearly. They are not required to provide the solutions; that is the job of the government. Frankly, most of the people of the Occupy Wall Street movement are not qualified to suggest solutions and they obviously realize this. Given this I find great wisdom in their choice to not make demands. The goal of the movement is not to correct problems. The goal of the movement is to identify problems and then demand that those problems be corrected by those with the responsibility to protect the 99% of the population that they have been neglecting.
We need an economy that allows us to escape slavery without becoming the slavers. We do not want wealth at the expense of everyone else and we do not want others to be wealthy at our expense. We have a government that we have hired through elections to protect us. It is their responsibility to provide us that. Instead of criticizing Occupy Wall Street for not offering solutions, our government needs to step up and earn their pay. It is their responsibility to enforce fairness, not that of a group of regular citizens that have no training in policy making. It is our job to tell our government what we want. It is their moral obligation to figure out how to do it. All we want is an honest government and our fair share of what we have worked so hard to create. Occupy Wall Street is not making demands because it is only asking for honesty and fairness. If the people of a nation must demand honesty and fairness from their government, it is time for that government to be overthrown and replaced.
Occupy Wall Street is an uprising of the oppressed peasant and slave classes that have been oppressed since the middle of the last century (and some would even argue much earlier). This is the US equivalent of the communist revolutions that spread across the Eastern Hemisphere at the beginning of the last century. If our government ignores this movement, we could end up in the same situation as many communist countries did, when their governments were overthrown and replaced with governments that eventually became tyrannical dictatorships. I support the Occupy Wall Street movement and I hope that our government has sense to act before it is too late.
Lord Rybec
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)