Lessons from The Forgotten Depression of 1920

reply to post by oblvion

What I propossed was tying worker pay to company profits, where a percentage of a companies net profits would be required to be used to pay the workers, then no amount of raised priices would leave them out of the loop, they would always be kept at a fare rate of pay, no matter the sector or the company.

If a worker is not rewarded for their positive performance, is it their responsibility to demand satisfaction and, if not taken seriously, to walk. This ultimately achieves the desired result you are describing without artificial manipulation and increased resources devoted to tax evasion and income sheltering.

Your solution appears to be mandatory profit/wealth sharing. I presume you mean to coerce this through the threat of state violence (the only mechanism available to them). If I had to project the outcome of that policy, which I think is pertinent to this conversation, it would be dramatic reduction in investment in companies who would carry this increased burden and the reallocation of those resources elsewhere.

Why don't you start a business and share your profits equally. No joke, it is being done (successfully in many cases) and it is the free market solution. If you can provide a higher quality product or service at whatever price, you will win the competition.

Thusly, we all win.

Originally posted by greencmp
reply to post by oblvion

 

What I propossed was tying worker pay to company profits, where a percentage of a companies net profits would be required to be used to pay the workers, then no amount of raised priices would leave them out of the loop, they would always be kept at a fare rate of pay, no matter the sector or the company.

If a worker is not rewarded for their positive performance, is it their responsibility to demand satisfaction and, if not taken seriously, to walk. This ultimately achieves the desired result you are describing without artificial manipulation and increased resources devoted to tax evasion and income sheltering.

Your solution appears to be mandatory profit/wealth sharing. I presume you mean to coerce this through the threat of state violence (the only mechanism available them). If I had to project the outcome of that policy, which I think is pertinent to this conversation, it would be dramatic reduction in investment in companies who would carry this increased burden and the reallocation of those resources elsewhere.

Why don't you start a business and share your profits equally. No joke, it is being done (successfully in many cases) and it is the free market solution. If you can provide a higher quality product or service at whatever price, you will win the competition.

Thusly, we all win.

edit on 9-9-2013 by greencmp because: (no reason given)

If the "freemarket" worked, walmart would not be getting hundreds of billions in profits at the expense of the tax payers feeding their workers.

If my method were employed, there would be little need for welfare, as businesses would be feeding their workers, not the tax payers so that the greedy business can put more money in their pockets.

How would investors realocate their rescources?

When it is economy wide?

All business over a certain range, say like 50 million in profits, which is more than enough for anyone to be happy with, would be forced into compliance.

If they do not, then those revenues not put towards workers pay would be pay as a year end bonus by the businesses accountant, or they would be stripped in taxes and then paid in the workers tax returns.

Nothing fancy required, all businesses are going to do a year end bookkeeping anyways, and the IRS would still just audit on a random basis, unless foul play was thought to be going on.

So walmart could still pay $8 an hour on average, and just give a profit sharing bonus at the end of the year.

Which would seem to be ideal, as most businesses would know quite how much profit was made all year at the start, so it would be best to lowball the workers most of the year, and pay out the bonuses after the books were finished for the year.

The entire economy would explode as more workers had desposable income to purchase goods and services, the customer base of all sectors would grow anually, there would be much less risk of future economic downturns and recessions, as all sectors of the economy would stay in sink, instead of those at the top getting too greedy, not paying enough, shrinking the customer base, cutting pay and benefits to maintain profit margins, causing the entire cycle to further erode.

The model they are using now is insanity.

There are no jobs because everyone is making to little, so they cant buy goods and services, so the economy continues to shrink, so the workers take another hit, so they cut employees, cut pay, and once again shrink the overall customer base of all companies again.

The way I would propose would cause the workers to always be in the loop, the customer base would always grow, the economy would reinforce itself.

The only drawback I can see is business owners and investors,( who already have more than enough, most of the time) would not get to make thousands of times more than their workers....boo hoo for them, they would only be extremely wealthy compared to everyone else, not like kings amongst the serfs....I feel so bad for them.

reply to post by oblvion

They will close up shop, plain and simple (not necessarily a bad thing except for the fact that they already ran every small business out of town with strong arm tactics supported by government power).

What makes you think that Walmart represents the free market?

Is it the chinese child slave laborers or their corporate cronyism?

Let's see, I bet I can find a photo somewhere of their CEO golfing with our fatherly leader. Whoops, sorry, I shouldn't say that, gambling is illegal unless you are the state.

Originally posted by greencmp
reply to post by oblvion

 

They will close up shop, plain and simple (not necessarily a bad thing except for the fact that they already ran every small business out of town with strong arm tactics supported by government power).

What makes you think that Walmart represents the free market?

Is it the chinese child slave laborers or their corporate cronyism?

Let's see, I bet I can find a photo somewhere of their CEO golfing with our fatherly leader. Whoops, sorry, I shouldn't say that, gambling is illegal unless you are the state.

edit on 9-9-2013 by greencmp because: (no reason given)

Yes because all businesses would rather close up shop and make nothing, than make a little less on their obviously outrageous profit margins.....sure.

The same was said when the minimum wage was instituted, guess how many actually closed up shop?

The business exists because there is a want of the products or services they provide, another will gladly take their place and pay correctly under the new employment rules, so let them walk away if they want, it is their right to not make any money out of stupidity if they wish it to be that way.

It is not their right to employ endentured servants, or slave labor, as both are illegal, and both are what their breed has caused.

There are no better jobs for these people to get, as all sectors are working together to make the current "norm" possible. They have no choice but to take what work there is at the time, as most are simply lucky to have a job.

All the while, those with more rescources than the next 15 generations of their family could ever spend make record profits off the backs of these over worked underpaid people, who have no choices.

It is pathetic that anyone could support this system and say it works, when history shows quite obviously it only works if your the guy on top, it doesnt do anything for the guys making all that money for the guy on top though.


It sounds like you believe the minimum wage should be abolished, and walmart et al should pay these people cents an hour, as alot of folks will work for anything they can get, as $1 is better than no dollars.

All the while making even more money they did nothing to make, unless you count screwing the less fortunate over, they do alot of that. While hoarding the money, which then shrinks the economy, as economic growth comes from money changing hands, not from a few rich people hoarding it all.

It does no good at all for the country for there to be 100 people with 1 trillion dollars each in a safe. the economy will not even exist, even though there is 100 trillion dollars out there. take the same 100 trillion dollars and give it to everyone equally, the economy would explode from the money being spent. It does the entire country a lot of good for that same 100 trilion dollars to be in the hands of the many, being spend on goods and services, causing economic activity.

How do you not understand this?

It is the very basis of economics.

reply to post by oblvion

It is pathetic that anyone could support this system and say it works, when history shows quite obviously it only works if your the guy on top, it doesnt do anything for the guys making all that money for the guy on top though.

Are we talking across each other here?


It seems to me we are in agreement:

• You want change and I want change, check
• You believe that the state has failed the people and is in cahoots with big business and so do I, check

Is it your position that government, having consistently proven its inability to behave in the best interests of the people, should be given more power?

greencmp
reply to post by oblvion

 

It is pathetic that anyone could support this system and say it works, when history shows quite obviously it only works if your the guy on top, it doesnt do anything for the guys making all that money for the guy on top though.

Are we talking across each other here?

It seems to me we are in agreement:

• You want change and I want change, check
• You believe that the state has failed the people and is in cahoots with big business and so do I, check

Is it your position that government, having consistently proven its inability to behave in the best interests of the people, should be given more power?

edit on 9-9-2013 by greencmp because: (no reason given)

Touche....

Well yes and no.

I think the plan I have in mind could be easily implemented with minimal .gov interaction.

As it would obviously benefit all to follow it.

Yes the top levels would take an initial hair cut, but these people understand the long game most of the time. There are obvious merits and prosperity in a system that allows for constant growth, without all the draw backs of the current system we have.

Half of a billion is better than all of nothing, which is exactly where we are headed if somthing isnt done very soon.

The cycle your seeing is self defeating, it is going to all come crashing down, as the customer base shrinks more and more every day, as all sectors of the economy continue to cut hours and pay in the misguided attempt to maintain their profit margins, in a ever shrinking pool of customers.

All that is needed is for those with the money, to start sending it out of their bank vaults into the hands of the people. Who will now having disposable income, purchase goods and services, that will bring that same money right back into their hands. All the while growing their customer base, and increasing profits.

While it is not done at the expense of the people, but at the hands of the people.

Too bad all these mega corps cant see past their balance sheets to see that they are the reason this is going on, and they are collectively causing their ruin on the whole across the entire economy.

Meh...what evs though....not like anyone will listen, as all but a very small few are already to indoctrinated and brainwashed into thinking that a system that feeds off others like a parasite, instead of supporting eachother like symbiots could ever do anything but fail miserably in the end.

Right now all the cards are in the hands of those at the top, when those at the bottom are the ones generating all their income, yet not seeing any reward for it.

This will end, or the system will end on its own.

One day most of those "worthless" "skilless" folks on the bottom will awake and say..."it isnt even worth it" and everyone will find out exactly how unimportant their positions were. Too bad it will be too late at that moment.

Crime will explode, there will not be any gas stations open,no food places open, no grocery stores open, no janitors, no parking attendants, no hotel workers...etc as nobody thinks it worth $8 an hour when gas is $6 a gallon and their rent is more than they can make in a month. When the only jobs that even pay enough to live are in offices, like it is today but only 2 times worse, so about 5 more years from now, as 60% of the working populous are the working poor, living in poverty even after working 40+ hours a week.

Let gas or food go up just 10% more, and they will be wrung for every dime they have just to make it back to work and keep a roof over their heads......this is coming in the near term not the far term.

Somthing will give, and the entire thing will crash down around those at the top.

As they will be the recipients of the wrath of the many many many poor they used and abused for too often, and far too badly.

The fast food strikes were only the opening salvo, there will be many many more, and they will grow in scale as desperation begins to take over.

They will only demand more so they can live for so long, eventually they will begin to take it when it isnt forthcoming.

reply to post by oblvion

The cycle your seeing is self defeating, it is going to all come crashing down, as the customer base shrinks more and more every day, as all sectors of the economy continue to cut hours and pay in the misguided attempt to maintain their profit margins, in a ever shrinking pool of customers.

I think I have been pretty clear here but, I will restate my position as unequivocally as possible.

I believe that the damage to the economy we are observing is due to the economic policies of the government, fed and their pseudo-private sector beneficiaries.

It has been the implementation of policies like those which you are advocating which have brought this about.

Your solution requires more of the same until we get a completely planned economy.

Am I misunderstanding you?

reply to post by greencmp


A huge percentage of people will always vote by thinking 'what is best for me'.

The theory of Democracy requires everyone to think 'what is best for the country'.

This is the fallacy of democracy!

P

reply to post by greencmp

Your posts are still right on the money IMO, Greencmp.

There is one fiscal-political frame the state should help to set (as designed by Wilhelm Röpke), and that is to oblige the employer associations and worker representatives to negotiate (autonomous of the state), as it is enshrined in the institutionalized settlement of conflicts in Germany.
Thus securing good working conditions, solid wages, and in return a highly trained and intrinsically motivated workforce.
That's what does the trick here... and it's about all the state interference we need.

Ditch fiscal centralizm, state subsidies, punitive duties, and minimize taxation (to uphold a minimal state) and witness the reinvigoration of true capitalism for the good for all.

reply to post by ColCurious

Precisely, unions are the happy medium for defending worker's rights but, only when they are in the private sector and only when there is a secret ballot for their implementation.

The beauty is, when they erode a company too much and the overhead exceeds the capacity of the organization to endure, the company folds. It is self correcting unless you use tax dollars to prop it up and postpone the inevitable demise as is the case with GM.

There is NO reason to have public sector unions, they are destroying the fabric of our public infrastructure and must be dissolved.

All subsidies always have the effect of lowering quality and increasing cost and that isn't hyperbole, I meant all and always.