par·a·site [par-uh-sahyt] Show IPA noun 1. an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of
which it obtains nutriment. 2. a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper
return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others. 3. (in ancient Greece) a person who received free meals in return for amusing or impudent
conversation, flattering remarks, etc.
sym·bi·o·sis (smb-ss, -b-) n. pl. sym·bi·o·ses (-sz) 1. Biology A close, prolonged association between two or more different organisms of
different species that may, but does not necessarily, benefit each member. 2. A relationship of mutual benefit or dependence.
Our current economic model runs as follows.
A business takes as much as possible, as often as possible, while always giving back the least amount possible in all situations.
Which of the above definitions does this model fit?
IMHO it most closely follows the parasitic model. It is my contention that a new more symbiotic model is needed to avoid future financial crashes, and
fix the current fiscal decline we are experiencing.
I also have a solution, that I feel will best serve this end. It is a new system never before tried or brought up as far as I have discovered. It is
by no means perfect, but I feel it is at least worth exploring. By discussion we can either, find it flawed and untenable, or see its merits, and try
to hammer out the kinks in its design.
I propose a system, where employees pay is directly tied to a businesses profits, as such, a business would be required, to pay a percentage of its
annual profits to employees through out the year in hourly pay rate, or quarterly or year end bonuses, if the pay rate of the employee over the year
is inadequate to the percentage of profits made by the company.
Such as system would end the need of workers at a company making billions a year in profits, from being subsidized by the tax payers. So a company
with billions in profits would no longer, in effect be getting their billions in profits, through the tax payer supporting their workers, the business
would be held responsible for this.
As should be obvious, if the company can make billions a year in profits, they can pay their workers enough not to require welfare.
Also, it would have another added benefit, it would end the current cycle of, by ensuring the workers/ customers could always afford the products of
the business, so that there would never be another shrinking customer base( unless the customers dont like your products).
As it stands now, the problem is that the customer base of businesses is shrinking, because of decades of stagnant or declining wages. eroding the
customer base more every day. The answer proposed in times past was to raise the minimum wage. this however doesnt actually help anyone. It instead
hurts more overall.
When minimum wage is raised, companies raise the price of their goods to make up the difference. so it does not in anyway help the already underpaid,
and also brings those that were above the poverty level down to it, by raising the line of the poverty level. for example. when minimum wage was
$4.25 an hour, a person making $8.00 was paid over twice as much as the poverty line. When it was raised to $7.25, it didnt bring those suffering at
$4.25 up out of poverty. it simply brought those making $8.00 down to the poverty line, by raising it to adjust for inflation.
Now if employers paid more for those workers at $8 it would be a different matter, but this never happens, instead, jobs like warehouse and factory
labor that used to pay well, now pay the same as fastfood. It helped nobody, but made things worse for more people overall.
Under the plan I mentioned, there would be no minimum wage, as wages would mirror company profits in real time.
Yes at first the rich would lose out, and not like the plan, but after a year or 2 of this plan, the customer base would expand, and make up the
difference overall. So the business would be able to expand, as there were more customers for their products. Which would in turn raise the profits of
the company, which would in turn raise the pay of the workers, as it is tied directly to a percentage of company profits being paid to their workers.
So it would reinforce the customer base further..........and on and on.
This would then have another added benefit, where workers would feel compelled to work harder and more efficiently, as the would get more pay, when
the company did better. Raising productivity, making more profits, and paying them even better as a result.
This is only a starting point, and needs work of course. as far as the percentage of profits going to workers pay, etc.
But I feel it would basically overnight solve several key problems with our economic downturn.
1) eroding customer base
2) welfare, as those working would make enough to support them selves, and not need government aid
3) balance out the pay between the top and the bottom, keeping them on track with eachother
4)stop the system of lowering more people into poverty, and instead raise everyone willing to work out of it
What do you think ATS? all comments are welcomed, please think logically, and be overly critical. As any idea with merit can survive, a good running
through the ringer, and one that isnt, can not.