The fundamental flaw in the Western business system

Making people work as much as possible for the lowest wages possible will produce a booming economy

Lets examine this logic for a moment. Your economy will grow if you make everyone work long hours for low pay. The problem is, the workers wont enjoy a high quality of life, they will live in a small home with the bare necessities due to their low pay, their air will be highly polluted because of all the manufacturing plants, they wont have time to simply enjoy life because they will be working so much.

Have you ever wandered down the street on a week day and thought to yourself "where are all the people?", only to realize they're probably all at work? Almost all of us work at the exact same time, typically from Monday to Friday, 9 till 5. Then comes the weekend and suddenly the streets are full of people during the middle of the day. Everyone is out and about, spending their money.

People are down at the coffee shop having lunch with friends. The parents are doing the weekly grocery shopping and the kids are up at the arcade playing games. Those who didn't have enough time after work are down getting their vehicle registration renewed. If we are all working at the same time, no one has the time to go out and buy things from another business.

That is the paradox of trying to make everyone work constantly. The amount of economic activity that I see happen on the weekend is much higher than anything I see during the weekday because people actually have time to spend their money. I think this is a major reason why many businesses die because they cannot attract enough customers, all their customers are at work.

The Solution

Clearly the solution to this problem is to make people work less and make their work times overlap less. Instead of making them work 5 days a week, make them work 3 or 4 days a week and pay them as if they worked 5 days a week, and allow them to decide which days of the week they will work. I know at this point many of you are probably thinking that would never work.

What you have to keep in mind is that many jobs are now automated, we don't need everyone to be constantly working because much of the manual work force has now been replaced with machines that do a better and cheaper job. That is one reason it's becoming harder and harder to find a job. If most people worked less, there would be more work for those people who don't have a job.

The other thing you're probably wondering, is how could businesses afford to pay people the same amount for doing less work. Well for a start most businesses are focused on maximizing profits for the shareholders, and most of them could easily afford to pay their employees more if they were willing to sacrifice a little bit of that profit and focus more on the wellbeing of their employees.

More importantly however, if all businesses were to pay their employees more fairly, then people would have more cash to spend at other businesses. And having that extra time will allow them to go out and spend their extra money. Therefore most businesses would receive more customers and make more sales, giving them the extra money needed to pay their employees more.

How many times have you been strapped for cash and went on a very strict budget, preventing you from buying all those things you really want or need? Imagine how much the economy could boom if people actually had money to spend! Of course this depends on all businesses making these changes at virtually the same time to see immediate benefits so it's very unlikely to happen.

The businesses who take those first steps before anyone else will obviously lose out, so no one wants to do it first. In my opinion the single biggest obstacle facing modern society is the short sightedness which is fueled by greed. Our greed is what really keeps us impoverished, we focus on the quickest possible method of enriching ourselves and fail to see how helping others will help ourself.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Nice OP!

I don't think greed is just an issue with big companies.

Take a simple 9W LED lamp.

I can buy them direct from Hong Kong for around $5.00. On the 'Green' websites, they try and get as much as $55.00 each. That is one hell of a profit margin.

In decades past, everyone was willing to do a good days work for a days pay.

Now, everyone seems to want to be a millionaire and yesterday is when it should have happened.

If they can't be a millionaire, they want to sit on benefits and loudly complain about how life sucks.

Not everyone is like this, but there are enough in both camps to tear our societies down.

I can see Capitalism going the same way as did Communism. Both systems are equally flawed.

I wonder what system will rise out of the ashes.

At a fundamental level, too many people simply don't give a flying kick about their fellow man.

P

Yep trickle up economics.

Couple this with lowering the retirement age to 60, to open up more higher paying jobs so everyone moves up the ladder. Encourage retirees to mentor apprentice programs for 5 years, part time, with a partial retirement incentive.

I don't think economy it sustainable with more and more low income households. There are too few wealthy to buy enough goods and services to keep us all employed.

Even Walmart has suffered in recent years. The income bracket they cater to ( majority of their employee income brackets) has lost buying power, is a perfect example.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

I see a different problem, although yours is certainly at the forefront.

We have international markets, international trade relations, international banking.

No international workers rights. No rules that govern companies across the board when they step out of 'home plate' so to speak.

But the main issue is productivity and profit vs wages paid for those. Currently we have a system where our productivity increases exponentially, yet wages stagnate. The only reason this happens is because we've allowed it to.

Or should I say the government has allowed multi-nationals to create the rules for themselves.

Some European nations have toyed with the idea of a shorter work week, which also allows more employment, but they already have things like mandatory 6 weeks paid vacation and maternity leave etc.

~Tenth

So the solution then is work less, get payed more?

Now, if only we can get the oligarchs to buy in…

The biggest problem I see is the value we put on inanimate objects instead of placing our value on our fellow humans and their quality of life. Life should be measured by happiness, not some monetary index. If we lived our lives in service to others no one would want for anything material or emotional.

The aboriginal people valued social standing, which was gained by how much you could do for others in the tribe. Maybe your value was as a warrior and you kept the people safe or you were a hunter who provided extra meat for widows and orphans. Or maybe you were a healer, or a great weaver of baskets or made the best leather. What guided us was our inner vision, to choose our vocation and in so doing provide something of value to our people. You could only be marginalized for betraying your people, being lazy and indolent or breaking some taboo.

We treated each other as family and extended the same to the plants and animals we share the planet with. We took only what was needed and did so with both respect for it's sacrifice but also an eye towards ensuring it's continuity. We never took the last patch of a certain plant or last pair of a species of animal. Our survival was mutually bound to theirs. It still is but we fail to recognize that critical fact.

a reply to: tothetenthpower

But the main issue is productivity and profit vs wages paid for those. Currently we have a system where our productivity increases exponentially, yet wages stagnate. The only reason this happens is because we've allowed it to.

I agree that is certainly a major issue, maybe even more important than what I have covered in this thread, and I have written about that issue in the past. Like I said, many businesses can easily afford to sacrifice some of their profit to pay their employees more fairly. The employees are the people who do all the hard work and keep the heart of the business pumping after all, they deserve to be paid fairly and not slave wages. Once again it is short-sightedness caused by greed. If the middle and lower classes were paid more fairly then most people would have more money to inject back into those business, but instead we are creating a stagnating economy which relies on Wall Street and War to keep it liquid.

Some European nations have toyed with the idea of a shorter work week, which also allows more employment, but they already have things like mandatory 6 weeks paid vacation and maternity leave etc.

Good point, however my understanding is that these long paid vacations are often scheduled at the same time around Christmas, so it leads to the same sort of problem as making everyone work at the same time, the problem then becomes that not many people are working and not many businesses are open. Just like on the weekend, when everyone has time to spend their money, but a lot of the stores they want to visit are closed on the weekend. I think it would work much better if they spread out those 6 weeks, or better yet let people pick when they want to use those days off, of course they would have to schedule it before hand so the business had enough workers on hand.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

I like your ideas Chaotic, it makes a lot of sense to me.

Another thing to do would be to make it easier for people to start small businesses and help the small business owners that may be struggling. The government, local, state and national, should let up on the laws and ordinances that stifle the growth and creation of small businesses.

Personally, I believe that many of these prohibitive laws were made on behalf of the big businesses that want to limit competition. Also, the government is always trying to take advantage of every possible revenue source and the small businesses are the easiest to target compared to big businesses.

The same could be said for the average struggling working class citizen. Ease up on on the little guy and the economy should get better because more people will have the extra cash to afford something more than the monthly bills and other costs of living.

originally posted by: intrptr
So the solution then is work less, get payed more?

In a nutshell, yes.

a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

Yessir, us small businesses are the easiest to target and the regulations we face are crippling.

Pretty soon there wont be anything left but big business and we will reap what we sewed.

a reply to: Wetpaint72

Retirement pensions, government and private can't keep up with the growing number of retirees as it is. The providers want a longer wait to retire. Lowering the age would be disastrous, unsustainable for government and business.

a reply to: Asktheanimals

The biggest problem I see is the value we put on inanimate objects instead of placing our value on our fellow humans and their quality of life. Life should be measured by happiness, not some monetary index. If we lived our lives in service to others no one would want for anything material or emotional.

While I agree to a certain extent, I think that human nature in this modern world prevents us from living our lives in service of others. That is the reason why I don't think we'll ever live in a world where money is non-existent and all resources are free. Many people in this world just cannot see things the way you see them and they care too much about their own enrichment. Even I have to admit that I am not totally selfless or free of my ego. The way I try to approach these problems is in the most realistic way possible, I'm not saying we should all burn our money, I'm presenting things that I think society could eventually comes to terms with and accept, ideas that can merged into our current system to make it better, instead of trying to scrap the entire system. Society at large is often repulsed by radical ideas which involve dramatic changes to the way they live. Overly optimistic ideas of utopia are never received well, nor do I think they should be because they often have no basis in reality.

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder

originally posted by: intrptr
So the solution then is work less, get payed more?

In a nutshell, yes.

The problem from the corporations viewpoint is they will always see to maximize profits, paying employees more is a cut to their bottom line. Cutting employees, cutting jobs (for automation), moving overseas to exploit cheaper labor is all part of the solution to reduce "costs".

In a mega corporations eyes, employees are "costs". People that rise to the top see it that way or they don't get promoted. From the top down corporations reduce spending and maximize profits. The bigger the business, the less they see individuals and only costs.

a reply to: MichiganSwampBuck

Another thing to do would be to make it easier for people to start small businesses and help the small business owners that may be struggling. The government, local, state and national, should let up on the laws and ordinances that stifle the growth and creation of small businesses.

Personally, I believe that many of these prohibitive laws were made on behalf of the big businesses that want to limit competition. Also, the government is always trying to take advantage of every possible revenue source and the small businesses are the easiest to target compared to big businesses.

I agree with your thoughts on small businesses, and on top of that large corporations often get all the sweet deals with the government, all the lucrative contracts, and huge bail outs when they start to fail, and huge tax cuts, some even get money back from the government. People try to argue that we're in this situation due to not having enough regulations, but I think these huge monopolies are a result of unfair regulations coupled with corporate-government intermingling that leads to unfair trade practices. I don't think these monopolies are a natural result of a free market, because the system we live in is anything but a free market.

a reply to: tothetenthpower

No international workers rights

That is a biggie.
First world employees can't compete with the cost of living or cost of doing business of a third world employee.

In order to globally compete the third world quality, cost of doing business and cost of living has to go up or first world quality and cost of living has to come down.

I think its easy to see which route the world is heading.

Sadly its also a cookie cutter approach that can be applied in a cycle: Crash one economy build another.

I didn't mention social security.
I mean if I have more money to contribute to my own retirement, under current system I have to be penalized to even access that money.
You are speaking from the view of the current system, not the ideas being explored and the advantages a different system might offer.
a reply to: Aliensun

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

I see a different problem, although yours is certainly at the forefront.

We have international markets, international trade relations, international banking.

No international workers rights. No rules that govern companies across the board when they step out of 'home plate' so to speak.

But the main issue is productivity and profit vs wages paid for those. Currently we have a system where our productivity increases exponentially, yet wages stagnate. The only reason this happens is because we've allowed it to.

Or should I say the government has allowed multi-nationals to create the rules for themselves.

Some European nations have toyed with the idea of a shorter work week, which also allows more employment, but they already have things like mandatory 6 weeks paid vacation and maternity leave etc.

~Tenth

If we had real money, productivity could not increase without an increase in the value of the wages.

Everyone's productivity would make everyone else's money worth more.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
The biggest problem I see is the value we put on inanimate objects instead of placing our value on our fellow humans and their quality of life. Life should be measured by happiness, not some monetary index. If we lived our lives in service to others no one would want for anything material or emotional.

The aboriginal people valued social standing, which was gained by how much you could do for others in the tribe. Maybe your value was as a warrior and you kept the people safe or you were a hunter who provided extra meat for widows and orphans. Or maybe you were a healer, or a great weaver of baskets or made the best leather. What guided us was our inner vision, to choose our vocation and in so doing provide something of value to our people. You could only be marginalized for betraying your people, being lazy and indolent or breaking some taboo.

We treated each other as family and extended the same to the plants and animals we share the planet with. We took only what was needed and did so with both respect for it's sacrifice but also an eye towards ensuring it's continuity. We never took the last patch of a certain plant or last pair of a species of animal. Our survival was mutually bound to theirs. It still is but we fail to recognize that critical fact.

This was true for all nomadic groups of people. Only agriculture enabled sedentarization, accumulation of wealth, division of labor, patriarchate, etc.. And for most of its existence, the human species has lived in the nomadic way, so anyone who comes talking about "human nature" and "greed"(like if it was some kind of magical words, or a curse) doesn't know what he is talking about. Sedentarization is also what separated us from nature because we started to modify the environment around us and made it less and less natural(concrete..).

What we should do today is correct civilization and invent something new, by making a synthesis between nomadic way of life and 'civilized' sedentary way of life.

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: tothetenthpower

No international workers rights

That is a biggie.
First world employees can't compete with the cost of living or cost of doing business of a third world employee.

In order to globally compete the third world quality, cost of doing business and cost of living has to go up or first world quality and cost of living has to come down.

I think its easy to see which route the world is heading.

Sadly its also a cookie cutter approach that can be applied in a cycle: Crash one economy build another.

Weighted currency, heavier on one side? Can that be done? Can it be balanced? Maybe a second column for country rating? Based on cost of living, environmental protections, etc.? Idk, just throwing out some thoughts,

STM

a reply to: Wetpaint72

Even Walmart has suffered in recent years. The income bracket they cater to ( majority of their employee income brackets) has lost buying power, is a perfect example.

Yea----- No. Not really.
Walmart is not suffering in the least. A new report reveals their scurrilous "business model"....they aren't suffering at all. And the whole western world is showing them plenty of 'hospitality'....I just made a new thread about it, if anyone's interested.

S/F, ChaoticOrder !
We need to bring these bastards down to earth.