It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 9
28
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2018 @ 05:44 PM
link   
All you have to do is look at Venezuela to see how well that works out.

Each new version of socialism is convinced that it will work. But I don't think it will.

You need incentive to get a lot of people off their butt and work. If you get rid of the threat of poverty or the incentives to work, your society will implode. It may take time but it will fail




posted on Aug, 18 2018 @ 06:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: torok67

Ok so it should be established that these companies are corporations and are owned by stockholders. Not private individuals.

Plus, if you read the request it just gives more control to employees to appoint directors. Then additionally directors and shareholders have to agree by 75% before political contributions are made. Why is any of this a bad thing? Why won't anyone seriously answer this question and everyone keeps giving me platitudes and talking points?


I haven't read the entire thread. This is the first time I'm replying to a thread in a long time.

I personally wouldn't want t appoint directors. I'm a production worker in a large corporation. They have facilities at least in two states, one in Canada, and one in Cjina that I'm aware of. In my location they have three large buildings and at least two large warehouses.

Honestly I don't know who the directors are. I don't know who could even be considered qualified. I know who the overall manager is who oversees the supervisors in my building. I know his boss comes in for large employee meetings when things are about to change or how the company is doing over all. My knowledge doesn't extend beyond that. I do not feel qualified to make that type of decision.

I have had co-workers say they could run things better, complain about pay, this that and everything else. One co-worker sayes he has his own landscaping business and could run things better. My immediate thought is there is a major difference between a small business and a huge corporation spread across the states let alone contentants.

Any one of these people may make a better manager for my department only. The one who would really be qualified t be a manager doesn't want the position.

To give a vote to the employees would not be good especially without restrictions or a list of people they could choose from. Otherwise oh this or that co-worker would be good for the position. When in reality no one really has a clue to what is needed and what needs to be done to run the company successfully.

As far as employees having a say. We really don't. Things are changing because so many people voted with there feet and left. We have a high turn over rate. There were people who left the same day they came in. Some of the better employees left because they got fed up.

They didn't listen to us about low pay, to much overtime, and not treating us right. They listened to the temp services when they said the same thing. Now they are trying to change things after quality going down because the ones who knew what they were doing left. Also mistakes costing the company hundreds of thousands t millions a month.

Honestly even if employees voted in directors, they would have not made much of a difference. Either the other directors would have over rode, used peer pressure, or strong armed somehow the ones the employees put in. Any person the employees put in can be corrupted. They may have good intensions at first. Those intensions can change. Politics can be a nasty game even in the corporate setting, and maybe even nastiet. In essence, you are putting a sheep in a wolfs den.

If there was a list of qualified candidates, it probably end up worse than the last presidential election with a lot of propaganda mixed in with some truth if the people were serious about getting the job. Or we would get a breif one paragraph of why this person is qualified with no real information. Who is really going to do there homework on the potential director.

Anyhow I'm sure the list of people would be ones they already want. We would just be making the final decision for hr. In essence, the employees don't have a choice since the choice has really already been made.

I do not see a scenario that would benefit the company and employees.

I hope this answers your question.



posted on Aug, 18 2018 @ 07:56 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Holding a corporation accountable to the stakeholders does not mean taking orders from them, it means making decisions with them in mind as well as the shareholders. In other words, if Nestle wants to build a water plant in California, it should take into consideration the drought there and how they might affect water shortages if they built there. If a company has workers, it has to take into consideration their well-being.

The voting that Warren proposes is only for political activities that the company engages in, something like campaign donations I gather. I guess the stakeholders might also vote on who is allowed on the board of directors, but I could not find that.

This is how things work currently:


... for executives to set aside shareholder profits in pursuit of some other goal like environmental protection, racial justice, community stability, or simple common decency would be a form of theft. If reformulating your product to be more addictive or less healthy increases sales, then it’s not only permissible but actually required to do so. If closing a profitable plant and outsourcing the work to a low-wage country could make your company even more profitable, then it’s the right thing to do.

edit on 18pmSat, 18 Aug 2018 19:57:18 -0500kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2018 @ 09:06 PM
link   
a reply to: darkbake

If a corporation abuses its employees too much, they leave. This is power an employee always has.

There is a certain department in my husband's company that is experiencing this phenomena right now because the overall boss abuses the employees and they're in a place rich with jobs they could all move to ... and they are. Sooner or later, the brain drain will catch up with the company and people in higher positions will notice.



posted on Aug, 18 2018 @ 09:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Mystery_Lady

What you just described was every company ive ever worked for.



posted on Aug, 18 2018 @ 10:08 PM
link   
Elizabeth Warren is a bootlicking neoliberal fascist who earned her way through covert pedigree and nominal nepotism. She prattles to propitiate dumb people into a kumbaya message that is untenable. Among the pantheon of Democrats I can hardly think of someone less qualified to be president. In addition, she is a purebred buffarilla that probably makes her husband nauseous when she takes her clothes off. This proposed legislation epitomizes the loony extremes of unalloyed leftism that gradually encroaches with social indoctrination. I’m a centrist libertarian and feel like Trump might also pander to stupid people but at least he is forthright about his opinions rather than the false equipoise of a neutered democracy of senseless lies clothed in a plantation mentality of dulocratic servitude to advanced think tanks and social media nurseries of shadow banning reinforcement schedules



posted on Aug, 18 2018 @ 10:15 PM
link   
a reply to: ScreamButterfly


WOW! Look at all those big words! Dug out your thesaurus for that rant, didn't ya!?



posted on Aug, 18 2018 @ 10:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: ScreamButterfly


WOW! Look at all those big words! Dug out your thesaurus for that rant, didn't ya!?



It's for PhD holders only.

I bet the next horse makes it even when you out run him.

Get it?

💥🚬💥



posted on Aug, 18 2018 @ 10:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Here's a thought.

If you WANT to be a boss.

Start your own business.



This is what I hear. Bow down to your corporate overloads because as an employee you should be happy just to recieve the crumbs off your masters table.

When I take a job with a company I also take a risk with my livelihood. I take the risk that I am working for a company with good leadership that will continue to be profitable and be able to continue my employment.

You say things like "become a boss". News flash, not everyone has the mental aptitude to own and run a business. We can't have a world of bosses becaue there would be no workers.

But to you somehow the working class is too incompetent to have their own vote on how to run the company.

I ask are you a politician? If not why do you have any right to say how your government is run? If the employees have no rights to dictate the functions of the business why should the citizen have any right to dictate how our country is run?

I don't believe the employees are incompetent nor do I consider the owners somehow massively more capable. Many owners are simply men with an idea and money. You place all the value on an idea and you place the working class that brings those ideas to fruition into a class of ignorant peons that don't deserve to have a say.

I think some of these ideas are wonderful. Large corporations should have to answer to the people who make the corporation actually run. I believe in the working class. I believe the 99% should demand a say in how the businesses they work for should be run.

But who am I to even speak up or suggest that owners and employees are partners in the businesses that they make run? And why should I have the right to suggest the days of master/slave elitists mentality that you support is archaic and barbaric? I'm not part of the ownership class so I shouldn't have a right to vote.


edit on 18-8-2018 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 18 2018 @ 11:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: ScreamButterfly


WOW! Look at all those big words! Dug out your thesaurus for that rant, didn't ya!?



Lol nope. All from memory. I am highly self-educated



posted on Aug, 19 2018 @ 01:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: darkbake

If a corporation abuses its employees too much, they leave. This is power an employee always has.

There is a certain department in my husband's company that is experiencing this phenomena right now because the overall boss abuses the employees and they're in a place rich with jobs they could all move to ... and they are. Sooner or later, the brain drain will catch up with the company and people in higher positions will notice.


Not that easy. Many companies put a three month notice period on "senior" employees, which makes it almost impossible to change jobs since other companies only recruit 4-6 weeks in advance.



posted on Aug, 19 2018 @ 05:20 AM
link   
a reply to: darkbake


Holding a corporation accountable to the stakeholders does not mean taking orders from them, it means making decisions with them in mind as well as the shareholders.

You know, I am really at a loss here. It seems the entitlement mentality has finally crested.

Do you have any comprehension whatsoever of how a corporation is operated? Do you have any inkling of what goes on outside your little department? My experience says that in an average workforce, maybe 5% do... 60-70% are mediocre employees who do their job and go home... and 25-35% are useless weight that just care about their paycheck, company be damned. Every single one of them has a job because there is a job to be had. Those jobs did not pop out of thin air... they were created because someone had a dream and the tenacity to create a need for the jobs.

Let's look at a grocery store chain, shall we? The vast majority of the employees are clerks who run the checkout registers, baggers, and stockers. They know their job. That clerk knows how to work the cash register; the bagger knows how to safely bag groceries so as not to crush the bread under the milk. The stockers know where products go so customers can find them every week. But the clerks don't know what the balance on the profit/loss statement is, or what the cash flow situation looks like, or even what is possible on that register when a manager swipes their card. The stockers have no idea how the inventory system works, how long it takes to get products in, or really how many products are expected to be sold next week. Even the managers don't know all that, although they know part of it.

Now let's look up the chain... somewhere there are purchasing agents who do know how many gallons of milk a store is expected to sell next week. They have the education and logistic ability to determine that with some accuracy. There's a HR department that knows what to look for in each job classification. There are experts in food preservation there to minimize waste from spoilage, experts in security who know how to prevent inventory shrinkage. And at the top of that pyramid sits a CEO. His job is to make sure everything runs smoothly and profitably. He knows business practices, and he knows what each person in that company is supposed to be doing. He makes the major decisions.

But above him sits the Board of Directors. Their job is simply to tell the CEO, whom they hire, what is expected. It's not a 40-hour workweek; rather, it's a once in a while meeting to discuss with the CEO how the company is doing and how it can work better. Whatever that Board of Directors decides, goes. If they decide that the goal of the company is to hire twice as many people as they need so the poor employees only have to work half as hard, then that is what happens. If they say the business needs to expand into a larger area, that is what happens. If they decide to increase profit, that is what happens. They are hired (voted in) by the stockholders, usually annually, so the Board has free reign for a year at a time.

The majority stockholders, who are the ones the Board really answers to, are the people who paid for the stores, the fixtures, the salaries, the equipment, the warehouses... all through those stock purchases. They didn't pay for all that to lose money or even to break even... they paid for it so they could make money. Not a single one woke up one morning and said to their self, "Self, I want to own a grocery chain." They woke up thinking "I want more money. What can I invest in?" Minority stockholders (retirement accounts, annuities, etc.) also expect the money they paid for that stock to grow. That's why they paid for it. As long as the stock is growing, making them money, they're happy and all those jobs are secure. If the stock stops growing, they are going to sell their stock, dropping the price, and all of a sudden the company doesn't have enough money to pay for all those employees. The employees get laid off when that happens, because there's not enough money to pay them.

So as soon as you take away 40% of the control of the company from the people who paid the money to make it run, these people will take their money elsewhere. The company will have to lay off workers. Those workers won't have enough money to buy the things they used to, and other companies will suffer and experience layoffs. Lather, rinse, repeat. It will be another case of that Great Recession we just went through, when people couldn't afford food and had to live on food stamps.

And guess what? Unemployed people won't have any more say-so in how companies run than they do now. The only difference is they won't have the money they used to have.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 19 2018 @ 05:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Isurrender73


When I take a job with a company I also take a risk with my livelihood. I take the risk that I am working for a company with good leadership that will continue to be profitable and be able to continue my employment.

Really? What is the profit/loss statement for the company you work for? What are their 5-year goals? Who sits on the Board of Directors? If you can't answer that, then you did not do any due diligence when choosing a company for it's ability to continue to be profitable and continue your employment.

If you get laid off, what do you lose? Do you get paid for the hours you worked? Can you go get another job elsewhere? If so, then you lost nothing. The stockholders lost cash money that they can't go to another company to get back... it's gone.


You say things like "become a boss". News flash, not everyone has the mental aptitude to own and run a business. We can't have a world of bosses becaue there would be no workers.

And yet, you think those who are not competent to start and run a business should run a business?


But to you somehow the working class is too incompetent to have their own vote on how to run the company.

Actually, you said that, quoted just above.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 19 2018 @ 05:34 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

The German economy would seem to suggest otherwise.

Stakeholder representing on company boards has been in place there for decades and it has been consistently one of the most successful and stable economies the world.

It has also managed to maintain manufacturing as a significant portion of its economy, unlike most other large developed economies.



posted on Aug, 19 2018 @ 05:37 AM
link   
a reply to: stormcell


Many companies put a three month notice period on "senior" employees

Which is unenforceable. Anyone can quit any job at any time, with or without notice. The only thing the company can do is mark it on their records.

I give good employers a minimum of two weeks notice, sometimes more depending on how long they need to replace me. Bad employers get that piece of paper I keep in my back pocket that reads "I resign my position effective immediately." Bad trucking companies get a phone call from home the day I am scheduled to go back on the road: "I don't drive for you any more; where do you want your truck?"

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 19 2018 @ 06:04 AM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

Not just Germany many countries in Europe have this policy



posted on Aug, 19 2018 @ 06:06 AM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot


The German economy would seem to suggest otherwise.

Stakeholder representing on company boards has been in place there for decades and it has been consistently one of the most successful and stable economies the world.

It has also managed to maintain manufacturing as a significant portion of its economy, unlike most other large developed economies.

It would appear that both Germany and Japan use the stakeholder model. Thank you for educating me on this.

I would, however, like to point out this observation:

People in Germany and Japan…do not have quite the same views about money and motives as Gordon Brown and Bill Clinton have. They tend to believe that, although money is a splendid thing to have, and few people would not put themselves out to get some, if you want to know why people work hard, work conscientiously, work creatively, work entrepreneurially, money is only a small part of the answer: you need also look at social structures, the perceived fairness of organizational arrangements, friendships, collegiality, obligations arising from personal relations, as well as the intrinsic satisfactions of the work itself.

I have had the opportunity to study some of the many social differences between Western culture and Japanese culture (I am intrigued by it; don't ask me why), and the differences are quite stark. Traditional Japanese employment is for life. While it is possible to be fired, it is a mark of shame that the Japanese have traditionally seen as worse than death. So the Japanese do not need the money to continue working, and the companies would consider it a dishonor to not pay their employees well and take care of them.

That dynamic simply does not exist in most Western cultures. It may in German culture; I am not that familiar with them.

I do know that this graph shows a stable, but also stagnant GDP growth rate.



Now, compare that to the US GDP growth:



So while the concept of stakeholder control may be acceptable in Germany and Japan, it is not due to economic benefits but rather societal preferences. I do not believe such a plan, applied under legislation, would go over well in the US.

That said, there are many companies who do this voluntarily in a different matter: employee stock options, which is a business plan I favor wholeheartedly for a myriad of reasons. I have no problem with a company choosing to use a different business model, even those I disagree with. My biggest problem is when the government decides to force such a societal change at the point of a gun (which is what all legislation is).

At least this has been tried in other cultures, and we thus have some data to go on. I was not aware it had.

TheRedneck



posted on Aug, 19 2018 @ 06:07 AM
link   
The people who parrot the right wing narrative are as bad as the lefties

They present theory based on a world they want to exist not on the real world we actually live in

The fact of the current world we live in is that our current form of capitalism is incredibly out of balance and predatory and we need to balance it out

Its destroting communities, our earth and the economy



posted on Aug, 19 2018 @ 06:29 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

German economy also took a smaller hit to its economy in 2008/09 than the US did so growth post then would be expected to be slower. (not to mention the albatross that is the Euro).

The problem with purely voluntary schemes is that they allow a race to the bottom. This is particularly true during economic downturns which in turn makes the economic cycle more severe.

I am not sure that the cultural differenced between Germany and the US are all that great. US culture was influenced by German culture almost as much as it was by the UK.

Social change has always been influenced by legislation, the US tax code is deliberately designed to encourage charity (and largely controls the definition of charity). Government is fundamentally how we as a society decide what kind of change we want and what we don't.



posted on Aug, 19 2018 @ 06:45 AM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

What about life overall for the average German prior to allowing a million unskilled uneducated 3rd world immigrants into their country.

Is it better than for the average American?

Are they happier?

Has the average product and service in America improved in the last ten years?



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join