Indeed. It's a valuable lesson, too. It never will be. But you can tilt things in your favor by not making bone head decisions on a consistent basis.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

But Capitalism is supposed to be, or should be, about recieving just rewards for working- as opposed to the proverbial welfare state or an Aristocracy. Any idea may become a reality if there is enough support for it.

My last sentence can be interpreted to be quite Orwellian can't it?

Making leaps and bounds in increasing the minimum wage for one. It doesn't need to involve some massive berocracy. Please note also that the availability of a better paying job may not always exist.

Also limit the amount of money someone may have, or earn. Thus money would be able to spread around more, increasing eqaulity and lessening the economic clout of the incredibly rich. Having 100 McDonalds doesn't help any more then having ten seperate chains of 10 restaurants.

This is not an incredibly radical idea. The existence of the scaled tax already helps to address this, even if that is not its true intent. We already know the wisdom of limiting the concentration of political power. Economic power has for ages been integral to political power, but that should not be the case in a Democracy. Independant of that, market forces should not be in the hands of the few.

For those of you who value entrepreneurship, this is also a good idea. Money makes money, thus the first million is the hardest, and the most laudable. Under such an idea, there would be more opportunities for it, and more entrepreneurs.

Whilst I wouldn't mind a system that really was based around Socialist ideal, no such radical thing needs to be implimented. Gradual shifts towards that are safer anyway.

But it is market forces that have determined which is which, and market forces, coupled with induvidual ownership, are broadly controlled by the wealthy, with checks and balances to protect them. How is that just?

A worker in a factory may work just as hard as those above him that benefit from his labour-all because there are others that can replace him. That is not just. Its an outrage- the dehuminisation of people and their entirely neccesary work. It is a factor that only aids the wealthy, making sure that wages remain low.

Also remeber that market forces do not deal fairly with education. If every factory worker decided to better themselves and learn how to do the job above them, we would just end up with either alot of over qualified worker(which is what we do have) or a lot of empty factories...and then economic collapse.

Inherited wealth can only cause for a centralisation of wealth, generation after generation. It allows for vast discrepencies in opportunitunity, increasingly defing somone not by their ability and drive, but merely into what family they were born into. That is textbook Aristocracy, and the glaringly obvious path of today's western world.

Case in point: If Bill Gates' grandson was less able than his grandfather, he would still have a good chance in the computing world against Bill Gates' reincarnation as a competitor, simply because of inherited wealth. Bill Gates would probably end up working for his grandson. In R&D.

Isn't it enough that the rich will have a priveliged upbringing? That they will still recieve the benevolence of relatives whilst they are still alive? Isn't it enough that we may leave our progeny behind knowing that we have bettered the society they live in?

"Happy 21st. Here, I got you a company." would no doubt be something that can be addressed.

Self interest is hardly the last word in jutice is it? Despots don't make commited democrats. If...headless-pixie...sigh... changed his views simply because he the one benefiting from an injust system that would make him less of a person.

Heres another: things change. The current system has only been around for a few centuries- before that the aristocracy was the dominant economic class. I'm sure the serfs comforted themselves with the belief that they were powerless, and need not confront their own weakness. That they could not change the status quo. Yet things were made better.

Catz, perhaps the optimism of youth should be a commodity more highly valued. Every step forward would have been at one point undreamed of, at another ridiculed. I do not believe that life is fair, but I do believe it can be made to be. Atleast more so.

"Just rewards" is an opinion. Nothing more. All capitalism is supposed to do is provide opportunity for you to do better. And it does that. Very well, actually. It does not promise the esoteric "just rewards". Your labor is worth what the marketplace determines. Supply and demand. If your skills are in short supply you will get paid. If your skills are in large supply you can expect little.

How would increasing the minimum wage by "leaps and bounds" help? I don't see it (and neither did over 100 studies reviewed by Congress). We can get into detail on this if you like. I think I can convince you it would not come out quite like you expect. Economics clearly dictates a major problem. And I have never known a time when a better job did not exist. Ever.

Try that and see where the jobs go! If you want to help the poor this would do the exact opposite. You would removing the incentive to create jobs. You would also rob people of the capital necessary to create jobs. You would single handedly kill our economy with that one!

Actually, the wealthy do not really determine which jobs are important. The market does. And the market is way too big and way too diverse for any group to have such power. Not even Bill Gates, the richest of the rich, determines what people make. The rich did not determine that Shaq makes $100 million. The rich did not determine that doctors pull down $250,000. And the rich did not decide a burger flipper makes $7.00 an hour.

Why? You do realize that he only has a job because of someone else, right? And he also benefits from his labor. He has a house, a car and can eat. It's not just Evil Co. that benefits here. If he wants more pay, he can go to school and learn some skills in greater demand.

Here's where you are wrong: If we ended up with empty factories the laws of supply demand would indicate that factory workers would now earn a bundle! You see, there would be a large demand for factory workers with no supply. Hence, wages will go up until people drop out of school to go back to the factory. Econ 101.

So? Some people win the sperm lottery. What's the big deal. Life is not fair.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

What? So some people are born better looking than others and as such have more advantages than those who are not as attractive. Maybe we should force all good looking people into surgical containment camps where they are operated on and made uglier in order to compensate for the inherent unfair advantages that the pretty people have.

Exactly.

__________________
All you need to know about the energy crisis:
ANWR Exploration Republicans: 91% Supported. Democrats: 86% Opposed.
Coal-to-liquid R's: 90% YES. D's: 78% NO.
Oil Shale Exploration R's: 90% YES. D's: 86% NO.
Outer Continental Shelf Exploration R's: 81% YES. D's: 83% NO.
Increased Refinery Capacity R's: 97% YES. D's: 96% NO

SUMMARY: 91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of America’s own oil and gas. 86% of House Democrats have historically voted against.

It will always be so. That's not to say we shouldn't work to make the playing field fair, but it will NEVER be level. It's impossible. Too many variables.

It's also apparent that we have two posters who really need Econ 101.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

doing something you love to do and not worrying about the money. Life is short and money is a drug. Money may buy temporary comfort, but happiness has nothing to do with money. Self-fulfillment is the drug of choice.

he just paid the salary of a liberal reporter!!!

Democracy is the will of the majority-carrying out their collective opinion. It would be nice to have an economic structure that had just rewards- as determined by the majority. I currently believe we don't have that- another opinion ofcourse, but that is the essence of debate after all.

Thanks for pointing out how things are now, which I have already acknowledged. I merely think it is a stupid system- mainly because it ignores that all levels of work in a valuable work are as important as the others- building blocks as it were. As for opportunity, give me a break.
Birth is a huge factor in how much opportunity you have- so Capitalism is providing smaller aounts of oportunity to a majority. Great job!

Hmmm...well you increase what the standard wage is, thus all of the lowest jobs are obviously pulled up to that level, and you begin to eat into the incredible disparites in wealth. Higher level jobs also rise in general accordance, as that is the sort of thing that self-interest is good at. Ultimately things begin to get fairer- the rest of the lower ecconomic orders benifitting from the previously bloated profits of the uber-rich.
Go on, teach me.

Sorry the incentive to create jobs? The capital? Surely I am only moving it around? There is still an incentive to run an effective company- there just isn't the ability to climb ever upwards. Why have 1 billionare when you can have lots and lots of millionares? Because it will foster competion? Lessen the concentration of economic power? Won't the people below the 'line' just rush into the breach? I mean there didn't used to be such concentration of moneys- and yet, somehow we all made it through.

Heh the capital to create jobs- whilst globalisation is sending all the jobs overseas. Why not remove a problem instead of creating the necessary solution?


Well before the introduction of any regulation they did, and things are still going to echo from such times. And they have a hand in it now actually- thanks to market forces, the rich always negotiate from a position of strength. Which cuts down wages.
Another of those fun things is if everyone started saving money, to try and take the place of the rich. Consumer spending falls, less items for sale. Prices rise! House wins!

Then ofcourse there is the slightly more active role rich take the where politicians are for sale, and pragmatism is a commodity. Hah, not to mention that to have any chance of being elected (or even for voters to know you exist) you have to be rich yourself or bankrolled. So then why bother going through lobbyists when you are in charge? Guess how the rich will feel about giving those squid gutters and extra dollar, or perhaps a greater union power to get help when the repetitive stress injury sets in?

So basically the market is set up for them, and the regulatory system is cracked wide open.


Why? Because in a society we all owe debts to everyone else, and to the deceased realatives of everyone else. He has a house...sorry does he rent that house? A unit maybe? How olds his car? What he going to retire on? Wow, I want to hear all about the worker, He Who Lacks For Nothing,

He doesn't benifit enough. Oh and it might cause a little problem when he trys to learn and finds that, he hasn't got anything to eat on account of needing to leave his job. Maybe he should just stay at his job, to survive and slowly stagnate. Pity about the sperm lottery eh? Wish his parents
had had enough money to send him to a good school. Or any school.


Oh wow! Except that all the factory workers suddenly wouldn't be producing anything, and the economy stops because too few goods are being produced to be consumed! Demands up! Oh God price rises! I nearly got that Degree! I'd better get back to that factory or I won't be able to eat, and weall know how fast cannabalism can become a real bore. And now I've gone back to the factory, just like everyone else-and consequently my salary has returned to normal! Phew.

Let us for a moment ignore the social upheavel of a large group of people trying to better themselves. Wages would only remain better until, as you said, people returned to their previous positions.
Rich stay rich, only the poor can suffer.

Oh nicely done. Role over and die shall we? Just keep with the status quo even if it is unbearable. Rules can be changed- I don't see why they shouldn't be, seeing as things are so royaly skrewed up at the moment.

Christ. This is on the level where I nearly have to explain to someone that the sky is blue, instead of itchy.

Roles in society should be filled by those that are most capable in them. Beauty, intelligence, strength, etc. are natural attributes, which are used in various situations. Wealth does not enable somone to do anything that someone more gifted couldn't do better. It is a means to an end, not a true attribbute and is wasted on those that can't think of anything good to do with it.

Would you deny the mind of a genius a chance to study medicine, because he was born to a crack- whore? Would you prefer a system where the rich can send their mediocure children off to medical school to become mediocre doctors? Should generals, politicians only come from the wealthy classes?
Thats how it used to be (politics remains mostly the same ofcourse)- stupid people enabled to do stupid things.

If you think that your example is on par with my own then you really are an idiot.

See this is what I don't get- Democracy is all about change, improvement. Change is easiest when you don't have to stage a coup everytime you want to improve things. Yet you two gravitate towards...stagnation? Acceptance of the inability to affect change? I'm not talking about a Utopia here, just amore level playing field.

We are not where we should be, where we can be. Why stay here?

the only response that will do any good is to simply say: Take an Econ 101 course. Don't believe me. Go get the info yourself. There is not enough time to rehash the basic principles of economics.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

What, you mean all the factory workers wouldn't simultaneously quit their jobs to pursue additional education, with no one to take their place, leaving the factories empty?

I appreciate the idea that doubling the minimum wage, for instance, wouldn't double wages at the high end of the pay scale, so the net effect would be to narrow the disparity of wealth. The problem is how to make that work without committing national economic suicide. We already have difficulty competing against low-wage countries as it is.

Personally, I think the best way to protect our own standard of living is to raise the standard of living of our competitors so that they can no longer compete solely on wages. And THEN we have to make sure that we still produce and attract the top talent that will keep us on top of a heap that competes on technology, quality and efficiency.

There probably are less harmful ways to narrow the wealth gap.

Tangent: Yes, I know the argument that raising the wage eliminates jobs. But that obscures the true question, which is one of trade-offs -- a lower number of better-compensated jobs vs. a higher number of low-wage jobs. Then there's the argument that the consequent rise in prices would eliminate much of the wage gain. That seems to ignore other economic lessons such as that of Henry Ford, who succeeded in part by paying his workers enough that they could afford to buy his cars.

With the market constraining prices, raising the minimum wage will benefit those workers that receive it. The question is, how many jobs will be lost because of the wage hike, and is the difference small enough that a wage hike would produce a net gain for workers?

Extra tangent: How many of you would argue that mandating a four-day workweek would wreck the economy? And would you have made the same argument back when the five-day workweek was enacted?

__________________
Man up.