It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Elizabeth Warren’s Batty Plan to Nationalize . . . Everything

page: 13
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in


posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 09:05 PM
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Unions used to be very successful at organizing worker interest. Yet we've demonized and stripped them of their powers over and over again.

Say what? Unions are more powerful now than at any time in their history. There are some industries in some areas where a worker cannot work, cannot take a job in their chosen field, unless they join a union. The AFL-CIO is a massive organization itself, dwarfing many of the actual plants where its workers work.

I really don't think that questions of motivation are really a good reason to not implement a policy.

Perhaps in a few cases, but generally when a program is implemented with poor intentions, the results are poor as well. Unions were a good idea and worked well until people got into power who had poor intentions.

Workers were successfully engaged in their place of employment before. I don't see why we can't get them engaged again.

I agree. But to do that, we need to stop taking power from the workers and giving it to the unions. The balance of power between worker and union, just as the balance of power between worker and employer, is a sensitive thing, and should be adjusted cautiously.


posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 10:01 PM
a reply to: Isurrender73

I was a business consultant to millionaires who would testify on my behalf that I know how to run a business better than 90% of those who actually run businesses. So your assumptions of me have no merrit.

If you are so fantastic at running a business, why aren't you?

Oh, maybe here's why:

I actually think a CEO that can't do the job of his employees is out of touch with them and has no right to his title.

The person overseeing a machine shop should have machinists experience. The person who runs a cleaning service should understand the problems with a cleaning service. The contractor overseeing construction of a building should know a lot about building. In those respects I agree with you.

But when you get a company large enough, like say a company like Toshiba that makes electronic components, computers, and several other items... or maybe someone like GE that makes everything from light bulbs to kitchen appliances to radios... then you cannot find a person who knows everything about the business! The human brain simply cannot hold all that information. So you have a chain of command... a CEO who knows business, advised and supported by Vice Presidents of various departments, who are advised and supported by Supervisors of various sections of their departments, all the way down to the dude on the floor who is in charge of a single shift in one room of one plant.

As someone with that godlike knowledge of all things business, I would have thought you already understood that. Look up "chain of command."

The motivator and marketer is not 100 times more valuable to an organisation than the actuall shipbuilders.

Agreed to a point. Motivation and marketing are not more important than shipbuilding. But how many CEOs are in a company? One, by definition. How many line employees are in a company of the size we are discussing? Thousands. So if a company has, say, 7000 line employees and one CEO that makes 350 times the pay of the average employee, then CEO management is costing 0.05% as much as the actual manufacturing. Manufacturing is 20 times more expensive to the company, and thus 20 times more valuable.

As someone with godlike knowledge of all things business, I would have thought you already understood that. Look up "multiplication."

People like to consider themselves superior and justify a lifestyle that is 100 times more lucrative than the worker.

Everyone likes to consider themselves superior and justify a lifestyle that is 100 times more lucrative than than others.

Those who own businesses and run businesses have a skillset. Those who are employees have a skillset. No business can run without both skillsets. Why is one skillset so disproportionately compensated?

Now you're confusing me. What businesses of what size are we discussing? The OP is about a plan that affects corporations of over $1 billion in sales (or maybe assets? I don't think Warren even has that figured out yet). No business of that size is run by Cousin Bob out of a small office. The CEO doesn't even run the company... the Board of Directors do, by hiring CEOs to do the day-to-day oversight. If a CEO makes a mistake, it could cost the company everything... if a line worker makes a mistake, it can cost a little to repair, but not bankrupt the company. the more expensive mistakes are, the more a good, dependable employee is worth. As someone with godlike knowledge of all things business, I would have thought you already understood that. Look up "risk vs. reward."

As to why one skillset is more expensive? Because it is rarer. Why is gold more expensive than tin? Why are diamonds more expensive than glass? Why is a Rolls Royce Silver Shadow more expensive than a Ford Fiesta? It's called supply and demand. As someone with godlike knowledge of all things business, I would have thought you already understood that. Look up "supply and demand."


posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 10:02 PM
a reply to: Isurrender73

The floor sweeper?

Are floor sweepers excluded from Warren's plan?


posted on Aug, 22 2018 @ 11:45 PM
a reply to: TheRedneck

Why I don't own my business? I wasn't raised with the ideology that owning a business was something to strive for. At one point I had the finacial means to do so but a mid life crisis took away that opportunity. But even then I was looking into investment in property not company ownership.

I have been 4 steps from the board of directors in the 5th largest global corporation. I had a rather decent relationship with the 3 people above me. At one point towards the end of my career I had the ear of the whole company as my ideas were considered that important to listen to.

What I can tell you about my experience. In the entire time I was there and in the other endeavors in my life I have met less than 5 people who I would say had some sort of impressive skillset.

The most successful people seemed to possess 2 traits.

1. The gift of gab, the ability to make rich people feel comfortable and willing to put them in charge. Not that these people were any better than some of their subordinates at running the business, they were just better at selling themselves.

2. The other trait is being surrounded by great people. From my experience this is more luck than a skillset. It's true some people are better at cutting off the low hanging fruit, but for the most part who they hired was based more on a crapshoot than any real interviewing and interpersonal skills.

I would say a great training department is far more valuable to a company than the CEO or the investors. And I would say truly great teachers of business are far fewer than most would imagine. Yet most of the higher ups that I have been around did not posses this skillset.

According to Plato the sophist rises to the top because they are the best at swindling rich men out of their money with fine sounding arguments. This isn't really an accomplishment because wealth is not a sign of intelligence. But the wealthy consider themselves highly intelligent. It is for this reason that the sophisticated speaker can so easily persuade the wealthy that they need his skillset.

The sophist is the highest paid not because his skillset is the most valuable but because he is the best salesman of himself and his skills.

I don't think the skillset of the CEO is rare at all. I believe most A types who understand the business could fill that role. Some are just better at selling themselves than others.

posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 12:18 AM
a reply to: Isurrender73

Why I don't own my business? I wasn't raised with the ideology that owning a business was something to strive for.

And yet, here you are telling us that the financial rewards of running a business are so great they should be available to everyone, whether or not they can do the job.

*sigh* Do as I say, not as I do.

I'm telling you it isn't for everyone. I owned a C-corp. I started it with $500 and it gave me a very sweet income for 10 years until illness forced me to close it. I loved the job... had the meanest, most unrealistic, slave-driving boss I have ever had - me - but it was pure utopia. And I am telling you, the vast majority of people cannot run one effectively.

Are there some who could but never got the chance? Sure! Absolutely! But how are you going to implement a government plan to even identify them, much less give them that chance? Answer: you can't. The skillset is too arbitrary; what works for one guy won't work for another... and yes, a good deal of it is luck.

As for the issue about salesmanship... that is the way the world has been since time immemorial. Good salesmen can sell, and most good salesmen make a lot of money doing so. Bad salesmen (like me) would starve trying to sell diamonds for a penny a pound with a 10,000,000% commission! That's why I don't work in sales... if I need something sold, I'm better off hiring a salesman.

What I can do is negotiate. I guess one could say that is the equivalent of selling oneself; don't ask me to explain that contradiction. All I know is that when dealing with powerful people, I tend to do well... when dealing with the public, not so much.

What government program should Lie-a-Watha propose to make people have to accept me as a salesman? Oh, I know! This one demands that every employee has to be given the role of a stockholder, so why not a program that says people must buy from anyone who is selling something?

Yeah, sounds ridiculous, but it's the same principle.


posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 06:15 AM
I don't see why you are at a loss, I am saying that the board of directors would still be in charge of the company, but they would also have to consider the livelihoods of their workers and the health and well-being of their customers, among other things, in addition to how much money they make. The workers would not be making the decisions.

posted on Aug, 23 2018 @ 06:49 AM
a reply to: darkbake

The workers would not be making the decisions.

That sounds like you are under the impression the workers will be voting for only fine, upstanding executives. That is unlikely, given the responses in this thread. Those who have not been in an executive position or at least had intimate contact with what such a position entails, typically despise those in an executive position. Therefore, the likelihood is high that workers would be voting in someone not qualified to make the decisions, just to spite the 'suits.' After all, it seems many here think sitting on that board is so easy anyone can do it.

It is the very nature of elitism that is in some way responsible for businesses being able to run effectively. The barrier to owning a company is purely financial, and this barrier closes voting rights on the Board to those who do not have the ability to make the big bucks and therefore do not understand how a company should run. A large percentage of stock in most large corporations is admittedly owned by average people, but that ownership is through a mutual fund that is managed by a financial company. The individual investors do not have direct ownership of the stock itself, only ownership of the account which owns the stock. Therefore any voting rights go to the company that actually owned the stock as part of a mutual fund portfolio. Also, such funds typically use preferred stock rather than common stock; preferred stock receives preferential treatment in payouts (hence the name) but at the expense of voting rights.

Take away that barrier, and you will see the same (or at least similar) results to what is happening in Venezuela.


top topics

<< 10  11  12   >>

log in