Why Jim Webb is A Man of His Times
By Repair Man Jack Posted in Economy | Spotlight Blogs — Comments (43) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Right after a year in which four million more jobs were created by Americans than lost, Jim Webb had the following commentary in his response to President Bush’s State of The Union Speech:
“The stock market is at an all-time high, and so are corporate profits. But these benefits are not being fairly shared. When I graduated from college, the average corporate CEO made 20 times what the average worker did; today, it's nearly 400 times. In other words, it takes the average worker more than a year to make the money that his or her boss makes in one day.”
I’m left wondering at this. I make a whole lot more money now than I did when George W. Bush took office. Admittedly, by Donald Trump standards, I still don’t make Jack. You can point out people who make more money in five minutes than I take in all day. That’s humbling, but it raises an important question.
So what?
Read on . . .
If I’m better off now, than I was back than, I could truly care less what “The Donald” does with whom on his yacht or on his Leer Jet. I’m pretty sure most people who have a life feel the same way. Donald Trump and Bill Gates both make 10,000 times what I do in a year; once you throw in their investments versus my TSP.
Does it really matter?
Not to me, nor my wife and certainly not to my 7-month old baby.
Therefore, is it an intelligent basis for myself or anyone else to judge the state of our nation, or more importantly, of our lives?
No way!
The 3rd Grade kickball game during recess was never really fair. That was a good thing. It taught us what to expect out of life. As long as your best efforts are rewarded and your prudent judgment is sufficient to provide for those you love and care about, screw class envy. It’s mindless brainwashing.
“Wages and salaries for our workers are at all-time lows as a percentage of national wealth, even though the productivity of American workers is the highest in the world. Medical costs have skyrocketed. College tuition rates are off the charts. Our manufacturing base is being dismantled and sent overseas. Good American jobs are being sent along with them. “
So many falsehoods and misconceptions; constrained within such a well-constructed paragraph. Jim Webb earned his best-seller status as a fiction novelist. He truly has a way with slinging the hooey and making it smell like Rosewater.
Again, if a worker’s share of our nation’s wealth is larger and sustains him at a far higher standard of living now, than it did 20 years ago, why care how it looks on a pie graph?
Our manufacturing base is not being dismantled as a result of national policy. Certain American companies and some American labor unions have made disastrously bad and short-sighted decisions in the past. Economic stupidity has always led to disastrous professional and personal failure. That proves Charles Darwin was right; not that Adam Smith was wrong.
Companies such as Microsoft, Apple Computer, Saturn Automobiles and countless large home-building firms are putting hundreds and thousands of people to work. In some cases, these firms didn’t even exist one quarter century ago. Manufacturing and opportunity are not dying.
What we build and how we work has undergone profound and rapid change. An economy hell-bent on packing its productive capacity into boxes and freighting it over to Singapore, Korea and China, could never out-create the resulting job losses by 364,000 new employment positions a month; even if all the boats were loaded by the private sector.
As for good American jobs going overseas; I welcome Senator Webb to the real world. Science Fiction author Robert Heinlein did a former US Congress a major favor when he testified before them on the state of American science in technology. He told them “There is no such thing as American ingenuity.”
He didn’t mean that Americans were not smart or capable, but simply, that the entire rest of the world was both smart and capable as well. He was warning us that Americans were not the only people alive who could develop good ideas into new scientific discoveries.
Someone needs to play Senator Webb and his economic role-model Lou Dobbs, a copy of that testimony. By extension, there is no such thing as a good American job. There are good jobs, and capable Americans – and Mexicans, and Koreans, and Japanese, and etc….
The job gets done in America when the worker, the firm and the consumers of the good, service or product all find it in their best interest to have the work performed here. Our challenge is not to repeal the laws of economics and try to force workers, producers or consumers to accept less than the best, just so a job that’s done better elsewhere stays here.
Our challenge is to do it better, faster and cheaper in America. If we can’t figure out how, we royally deserve to get our butts whipped. It’s not about whether any of it is fair or unfair.
Which brings us to the reason why people, like Jim Webb, who rampantly conflate the fair with the just, so frequently rise to positions of power and address us with falsehoods on important occasions of state. Jim Webb is a true man of our times.
We don’t want the truth. The truth can hurt like a root canal. We want to be told that all of our shortcomings are the fault of George W. Bush. It beats the heck out admitting we’re stupid some days.
So tell us George W. Bush sold all our factories and jobs to the Chinese and subcontracted all our fun and enjoyment in life out to Halliburton. This beats examining why Japanese and Chinese managers and engineers understand and apply Deming to their work, while their American counterparts seem to think he’s geekier than Bobby Fischer on an anti-semantic rant.
We want a fictionalized version of reality. We, as a once great nation, now steeped in sclerotic decline; don’t want to hear the truth. Our senators really should treat us like mushrooms. They should keep us in the dark and keep on feeding us the fertilizer. Who better to do that than a best-selling novelist with a good turn of phrase and a sound ear for his market? Senator Jim Webb is a leader for our times.
One of the smartest things Republicans ever did was to get behind IRA's, ESOP's and self directed 401-k's.
That's how you grow Republicans over the long haul.
Democrats magically transform into Republicans when they have an equity stake in business that is more meaningful to their future than their entitlement stake in Social Security.
That's what Sen. Bob Kerrey said that Pat Moynihan told him when he asked DPM why Democrats wouldn't support a Social Security system that addresses both income AND wealth. Actually, he said that Democrats feared it would turn Democratic voters into Republican voters. And I don't think he was joking.
Consider: how much does the Democratic Party and the left have invested in labor? Quite a bit. Their entire paradigm, going way back, has been to pit the interests of capital versus the interests of labor. This was a sheer political calculation. At one time, there was a very clear dividing line between the owners of the means of production and the working class. And not only was there a clear dividing line, but the workers far outnumbered the owners.
At the time of the 1929 market crash, only about 8% of American households held any direct equity in publicly-held firms. By the time Ronald Reagan took office, that number was at 20%. Today, it's around 50%. This has been spurred on by, as you say, things like 401Ks, IRAs, and ESOPs -- but also by things like online trading and a generally better financial IQ.
The problem Democrats have is that neither their platform nor their rhetoric has fully caught up with the times. They are, in many ways, still operating as if we're back in the 8% vs. 92% America. The truth is, there is no clear dividing line anymore between owners and workers. Many workers are owners, and vice versa.
As such, when issues like the dividend tax come around, they're still talking (and voting) as if basically nobody in their constituency is interested in that. And I'm not talking about the Wall Street sugardaddies, who obviously are. I'm talking about their masses.
This is the chief reason why Democrats have proven so recalcitrant on the issue of Social Security reform. They fear like the dickens the idea of "their people" (those in the $20K range or so who've never thought about, let alone been in a position to afford, buying stocks) being in the sudden position of having some found money to invest in the private sector for retirement.
They believe, probably correctly, that it dulls the effectiveness of their anti-business/pro-labor rhetoric by further blurring the line.
The problem Democrats have is that neither their platform nor their rhetoric has fully caught up with the times. They are, in many ways, still operating as if we're back in the 8% vs. 92% America.
Why is this surprising? When it comes to union issues, they pretend it's still 1948, when it comes to civil rights, they pretent it's still 1956, when it comes to women's rights they pretend it's still 1968, and when it comes to national defense they're still in 1928.
Good thing they're "progressives"!
...because their interest is now in preserving the status quo. All those New Deal & Great Society programs have to be defended from change, improvement, and reform, especially the really broken ones.
You need to keep in mind that while, yes, lots of people own stocks now, most of them own them through their tax-advantaged retirement investments.
Only 20% of families directly own stocks and/or mutual funds, and that is stongly concentrated in the top 20% of wage earners. Other than the top 20%, those that do directly own stocks/funds typically hold a pretty small amount. (Around $5-10K in stocks and/or $15-25 in funds per family.)
This is documented here:
http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/oss/oss2/2004/bull0206.pdf
For the average person, the capital gains tax rate has very little impact. The "owner/worker" is a nice idea, but it isn't here yet. And for the huge percentage of people that aren't, the Democrat's message makes a lot of sense.
Both LibertarianHawk and I see broad stock ownership to be a good thing. That seems to me to be a progressive point of view. In fact, I'd like to see tax policy encourage broader stock ownership. How about you?
And what does it matter if a lot of people own stock in tax-advantaged retirement investments? What, those aren't financial assets?
But here's the part that gets me: "For the average person, the capital gains tax rate has very little impact. The "owner/worker" is a nice idea, but it isn't here yet. And for the huge percentage of people that aren't, the Democrat's message makes a lot of sense."
Kinda sounds like, if I'm right, and broad stock ownership benefits Republicans, then Democrats have a vested interest in keeping a broad divide between "owner" and "worker".
My point was that LH's assertion that Democrats aren't keeping up with the times is wrong. He wants Democrats to act like most people are "owners" now, and that simply isn't the case. Most people still care way more about their salaries than they do about their portfolios.
And what does it matter if a lot of people own stock in tax-advantaged retirement investments? What, those aren't financial assets?
It matters because the things that you care about, like "double taxation" and capital gains rates, don't have any impact on them.
Kinda sounds like, if I'm right, and broad stock ownership benefits Republicans, then Democrats have a vested interest in keeping a broad divide between "owner" and "worker".
When a majority of the population makes more from their investments than they do from their salaries, you could probably argue that a "capitalist" agenda would be more popular than a "populist" agenda. It will be a long, long time before we get there, though (if ever).
...matter even to an IRA-holder because they make stock investments more attractive to all investors. A rising tide lifts all boats.
And double taxation matters, because IRAs escape only one layer of the taxation.
The fact is, all this stuff matters more than you suggest because the more prosperous people are, the more they feel engaged in the society, and the more they vote.
Uncle Sam can and should encourage wealth creation by reducing obstacles for entrepreneurship and by facilitating stock ownership among the working class. Initiatives like this would do more to create general prosperity than raising the minimum wage ever will.
Yes, I agree that this is a good idea. But not at the expense of the social safety net, which is the only idea that conservatives have put forward so far. What else would you suggest?
Things like opt-out 401ks would help, but ultimately, the answer to increasing stock ownership is to improve workers salaries so that people have more money to save and invest.
...something that would move most peoples' retirement planning away from Social Security and toward private investment accounts.
Of course, Democrats want to protect people from themselves. Stocks are scary! Remember Enron?! You're much better off with the safe and secure 0% return that Uncle Sam offers.
Wouldn't that be interesting?
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Does Jim Webb share his book royalty checks with the neighbors? I mean, is he fair about it?
Harry Reid is to ethics reform what HIV was to free love!
has exploded. They do NOTHING productive.
Given that they are all either wealthy in their own right or have access to funds in their freezer, serving in Congress should have two pay alternatives. One, get a salary, twice what the comparable legislative position in their home state gets - but they have to donate 100% of their net worth, all assets except their personal residence (which can be worth no more than the average home in their district), to a private charity. Two, keep their estate and work for nothing.
Lord knows none of these idiots would last a full month in my business.
___________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"...
Senior Writer
Someone needs to pick him up by his ankles, oops sorry wrong forum.
Democrats are socialist. Raise taxes, fund their brand of socialism and gun control is all they know. New Democrats, same as old Democrats.
And what are Republicans going to do about it ??
Watching the election returns last Fall was like watching Carthaginians turn into Libyans.
Harry Reid is to ethics reform what HIV was to free love!
The Tenth Commandment: "Thou shalt not covet...any thing that is thy neighbor's." Exodus 20:17
Jim Webb's response reveals him to not just be a deeply sinful man who needs to go to confession - but an arrogantly sinful man, which is when you start to really incur divine wrath.
While he's there, maybe he can find a priest at confession to play out one of his disgusting pedophilic homoerotica scenes from his novels with.
it's the Tenth Amendment and the Tenth Commandment.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Why not investigate high-tech knowledge transfers to the Chinese under the Clinton Admin?
True, it might take time away from writing those sex scenes in your novels, but it could be illuminating. And anyway, noblesse oblige, you know.
And speaking of income inequality, what kind of distributive justice is there in a system that allows authors of steamy novels to make a mint, while we poor bloggers live on crumbs?
Democrats always whine about the "disappearing" middle class in America, but never have an actual plan on how to fix this so-called problem, except going after the wealthy. You can't bring one class up by tearing down another.
Republicans want more Americans to share the wealth by encouraging investments and savings, plans such as private social security accounts, reducing capital gains taxes, creating Roth IRA's, etc. These plans are a boon to middle-class americans.
Republicans should do more to even more to court the "investment class". This is a rapidly growing constituency that should vote solidly Republican, but haven't in recent years.
"Back in the thirties we were told we must collectivize the nation because the people were so poor. Now we are told we must collectivize the nation because the people are so rich. "
William F. Buckley, Jr.
"CEO's make hundreds of millions of dollars...."
Okay, Mr. Webb, how does this effect:
1) me
2) you
3) low-income people
4) Middle Class Joe from next-door
Typical pointing fingers, instead of dissecting the real problem of poverty and offering true solutions.
CEO's make more money than when Mr. Webb graduated from college (sans taking EC 101 I suspect) because they are more vital now than ever and run corporations with increased capital, technology, and employees.
...that they look at the pie and worry about how it's being divided up. As far as they're concerned, if there's a $100 million pie sitting there to be divvied up between 10000 people, then it should be sliced up as close as possible to $10000 per piece.
They never stop to consider things like: how the pie got there, how to make it bigger, what anybody's done to earn their cut, etc.
It doesn't make a lick of difference to me how much Warren Buffett makes. But, to liberals, it's inherently unfair if he's bringing in a couple billion a year while I'm merely bringing in $75,000. And if he goes from $2 billion this year to $3 billion next year, and I only get a $4K per year raise...that means that I'm "falling behind."
It's complete and utter nonsense, of course. What matters to me is how well I'm doing compared to my ability to afford a particular lifestyle and what I have to do in order to achieve that. I have no entitlement to anybody else's stuff, no matter what I do.
Their entire economic philosophy revolves around "Keeping Up with the Joneses." They don't care where wealth comes from and they don't realize that it's not to be taken for granted. It's there and, as such, it needs to be "shared".
Where is the evidence of a "shrinking middle class"? If it's shrinking, where's it going? And how on God's green earth can things like, say, cell phone subscriptions and high-speed internet hookups be blasting through the roof in a country with a squeezed middle class?
Are there a bunch of poor people out there getting cell phones and cable modems?
They see an America that simply doesn't exist -- but they need to convince people that it does in order for populism to regain traction.
Again, if a worker’s share of our nation’s wealth is larger and sustains him at a far higher standard of living now, than it did 20 years ago, why care how it looks on a pie graph?
Our challenge is to do it better, faster and cheaper in America. If we can’t figure out how, we royally deserve to get our butts whipped. It’s not about whether any of it is fair or unfair.
I don't think America will ever be able to beat out other countries in making things cheaper and faster (though as long as we weren't so concerned about that, we could for sure make 'em better). As long as we are (all of us) striving to have a higher standard of living, which among us are going to be willing to work harder for less pay? A large part of our population would have to be willing to do that in order to beat out other countries in manufacturing. I doubt your average Republican OR Democrat is willing to consider doing this.
As far as I can tell, profit is the only thing that serves as a conscience or god to the corporate entity (not to disparage any single individual...that's just the nature of corporations). As long as poor people in less wealthy nations are willing to work for less than our own poor or middle class, then a lot of labor will continue to be outsourced. And, I don't think that this is saying anything dishonorable about American workers.
Speaking as a liberal (but not necessarily FOR liberals), I would say, I don't desire wealthy CEOs to distribute all their wealth to their workers or do their very difficult jobs for the same wages as the average Joe; however, when I consider how profit is managed by outsourcing jobs and keeping American wages down, it's hard to understand why CEO profits have risen so much. It's not about equal distribution of wealth, but equitable.
I live among a lot of poor people, but I'm fortunate to have an excellent education. Every step I make is upward and onward. Sure...in ten years, I will (hopefully) be making a lot more than I am today, regardless of where the economy goes. For a lot of people, though, just having a job is big deal. The kind of blue-collar jobs at issue here are "flat-line". My mom is an has always been a secretary. She's gone through extra schooling to improves her business skills, but once she had kids (early) she just worked. Dad is an aircraft mechanic. Plenty of work and decent money...especially if he stays self-employed...but he's not going to improve his economic status ever.
It's like being regular enlisted soldier...you're not going to become a high-ranking officer if you start out that way...and there's not a whole heck of a lot you can do about it later.
So, what are we going to do for the millions of Americans that are like this? Do we tell them, "You better be prepared to work harder and for less money, or your jobs are going overseas." Or, is there some reasonableness in expecting American business--if they are going to hire workers--to pay a living wage. Otherwise...don't open shop till you are solvent enough to pay a living wage to every employee. That simple.
The worker really is worth his wages.
Corporations, of course, obviously make enough money to pay American workers living wages. They simply find it more profitable to pay foreign workers wages that wouldn't be "livable" in America. (Personally, I'd make corporations pay the American minimum wage to all employees...even in foreign countries...yes, in American dollars. Then there'd be no benefit in having things manufactured outside the U.S....probably wouldn't work, though. But it would scare the pants off the bean-counters. HAHAH!!)
>>>>>>>>Or, is there some reasonableness in expecting American business--if they are going to hire workers--to pay a living wage. Otherwise...don't open shop till you are solvent enough to pay a living wage to every employee. That simple.
You and I can expect anything we like out of people who make things. Whether these expectations are reasonable, is
a)debateable and
b) provides no insight as to whether the person or entity providing the good will continue to do so.
I think you would surprised and depressed by the number of places that simply would never open shop if your suggestion was put into writ force via Federal legislation.
>>>>The worker really is worth his wages.
Don't make that mistake. Ever. You're worth a heck of a lot intrinsically that will never be properly accounted for via a monetary medium of exchange.
>>>>>Corporations, of course, obviously make enough money to pay American workers living wages.
Some do, some don't.
>>>>>They simply find it more profitable to pay foreign workers wages that wouldn't be "livable" in America.
If they don't reduce their labor costs, someone else from another country would. Take a look at the 30 companies in the Dow Jones Index from 1950. Look again in 1975. Look again in 2000. Every twenty-five years, more than one of those 30 Goliath companies, that proportedly could pay it's workforce what ever it felt like, has gone bankrupt. Conditions change. Corporations change or die.
Harry Reid is to ethics reform what HIV was to free love!
>>>>The worker really is worth his wages.
Don't make that mistake. Ever. You're worth a heck of a lot intrinsically that will never be properly accounted for via a monetary medium of exchange.
I'm not quite sure what mistake I made here. I absolutely agree that each person is worth far more than any sum of money. I was quoting the Bible (probably lamely...forgive me...comes second nature...born and raised Mennonite) only to say a worker deserves to be paid for a day's labor. (cf. Luke 10 and 1 Timothy 5) One would think that a day's labor should sustain a person for at least that day. Unfortunately it doesn't always. People fall behind. What do we as a compassionate society do then?
We're happy to subsidize businesses when they fall behind. We are more cautious about subsidizing individuals. We expect people to work rather than sit around receiving handouts. I'm not opposed to that. Yet, if we expect the poor to "get a job" but do not pay them enough in a day to sustain themselves, we have put them in a very tough situation. We won't give a hand out, yet they simply can't earn enough in a day to get by. What's the answer?
The issue to which Webb spoke (which resonates with this lower class, farm-born liberal) is that corporate profits are so obscenely high that all equity is mocked. A business with ten thousand employees could give a $2,000 per year raise to every worker and still not bite significantly into the salary of some CEOs. If one person is making in the hundreds of millions of dollars, twenty million given back to the workers wouldn't be a bad investment. Yeah, these are totally random figures that I'm pulling out of...well you know. hahah! My economic sense does not rise higher than the way farmers talk over coffee at the local cafe, but I think there's a kind of blue-collar, common sense to this kind of approach. I think more and more people are going to start understanding this in America.
>>>>>They simply find it more profitable to pay foreign workers wages that wouldn't be "livable" in America.
If they don't reduce their labor costs, someone else from another country would. Take a look at the 30 companies in the Dow Jones Index from 1950. Look again in 1975. Look again in 2000. Every twenty-five years, more than one of those 30 Goliath companies, that proportedly could pay it's workforce what ever it felt like, has gone bankrupt. Conditions change. Corporations change or die.
Again, I'm not sure what you intended to say with this. Sure...businesses rise and fall. So? Society does not serve the corporation. If a business is not sustainable...that is gives enough back to society in terms of jobs and products to merit a profit...it folds. Another will take its place. What endures is the need of every person to be able to provide for themselves. Why should it be that we can produce enough food, products and services for everyone, but can't find a way to let people have them (i.e. work enough to afford them). Doesn't make sense.... The jobs are removed from this country and given to other countries, and quite frankly the poverty spreads from America to the foreign countries where the people there still barely get by cuz they probably aren't being paid enough to get by either.
There's a serious problem somewhere. I'm not sure even what the problem is, much less the solution. I do think the politics of our nation's economy is held securely in the hands of corporations rather than the people our government serves, and that is frightening since corporations, as I said before, serve as their god and conscience only profit.
It's in such a context that I see Webb's references to exorbitant corporate profit.
>>>>>Sure...businesses rise and fall. So?
Excellent question. Businesses that don't remain on the jagged edge fall off it. Including those who waste too much on the CEO's Golden Parachute. My point was this. If AIRBUS can outsource and cut its labor costs by 50%, Boeing then has a decision to make.
A)It can be patriotic and continue to hire all Americans. This has nobility, but if a Boeing Dreamliner now costs an exhorbitant amount compared to the new Airbus Jumbo-Jet, they now will nobly and patriotically exit the airplane business.
B) Or, they can outsource, lose some blue-collar jobs and at least save others by keeping their costs down. It's not done to spite anyone. It's survival.
>>>Society does not serve the corporation. If a business is not sustainable...that is gives enough back to society in terms of jobs and products to merit a profit...it folds.
Samual Gompers put it a different way. A business that fails to earn a profit is a threat to the workers. They can promise the union anything they want, but if the plant goes under, those guys get paid a new minimum wage. $0.00.
>>>>Another will take its place.
You and I both hope so. There is no law of physics, however, that makes it so.
>>>>Why should it be that we can produce enough food, products and services for everyone, but can't find a way to let people have them (i.e. work enough to afford them). Doesn't make sense....
I tend to think that's because there is no such thing as a free lunch. I've been pretty hungry before and figured that this kind of sucks. Just don't let your personal frustration cloud your vision of how the world works. No one ever gets something for nothing as a longterm equilibrium. At some point we all just run out of slack.
>>>>The jobs are removed from this country and given to other countries, and quite frankly the poverty spreads from America to the foreign countries where the people there still barely get by cuz they probably aren't being paid enough to get by either.
When Nike moved a big factory to Vietnam, NBC News did an expose on it and put the woodshed beating on Nike for outsourcing and paying cheap wages. It turned out the cheap wages were 50% than state-run Vietnamese industries payed for the same work.
Harry Reid is to ethics reform what HIV was to free love!
The economy, on a macro level, is doing well (as indicators such as the Dow index and unemployment figures suggest). You and I are making more money today than we were, say, in 2000.
Hear me out on this point, though: relative wealth still matters as much as absolute wealth. So what if I'm up $100K in HHI and absolute wealth since 2000? The guy next to you now has access to 2x, 4x, 10x that amount of capital. Factors critical for continued economic expansion, such as inputs necessary for technological innovation, becomes harder and harder for someone in the middle class to develop/acquire if gaps in relative wealth continue to increase -- hence making it more difficult for new business and new wealth to be generated.
>>>>The guy next to you now has access to 2x, 4x, 10x that amount of capital.
That's what we all need to ask ourselves. The laternative to us working on our own equality by trying harder is hiring a Handicapper General out of a Kurt Vonnegut story to break the kneecaps of everyone that runs farther and faster. Do we really want to live in that sort of society?
Harry Reid is to ethics reform what HIV was to free love!
So if all Americans simply "try harder" in working towards prosperity, we'd have the panacea to our country's economic woes? I'm already working a white-collar, 9-6, 50 hour/week role... I guess I'll need to "try harder" and take on a second job or launch a Silicon Valley start-up.
Politics aside, why should hard-working Americans get the shaft and fall behind in the relative income gap, while Boards of Directors are granting stock options and golden parachutes for good-for-nothing C-level officers?
I don't mind retrieving a kneecap or two from the likes of Kozlowski, Ebbers, or Skilling.
but we Catholics are taught that envy is one of the seven deadly sins.
What corporations you don't own stock in pay their officers should really be none of your concern. What they make doesn't take a penny from your pocket and if they don't make that amount of money you don't gain a penny.
The only reason for objecting to them getting money is that you think they don't deserve it.
If you want the money, take the risk. You asked about Silicon Valley startups. The answer is: if you want to get ahead, work for yourself.
You may have to put in more than 60 hours / week -- like many of those "C-level" execs.
If doing that troubles you, you have your answer.
The Academy: researching the Illiberal Arts
...is that while you're clearly trying to be sarcastic when you say that you'd have to take a second job or start a new business if you want to get ahead, that's actually the right answer. It's either that or be really, really good at an art or sport.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
So if all Americans simply "try harder" in working towards prosperity, we'd have the panacea to our country's economic woes?
Which woes were those? The labor shortage, which drives up wages? The record highs in the stock markets? The low interest rates?
Really. Come stay on our planet some time.
The Academy: researching the Illiberal Arts
I honestly didn't come here with the intention to start a flame war or to insult anyone, but rather out of curiosity to see how the RS community saw the economic situation (or apparently, as many of you see it, the lack of economic problems). That's the truth, so I'll drop the sarcasm going forward.
I'm not a Mennonite or a Catholic, or religious at all, for that matter. However - I can't start to believe that the economic situation in America is all right when I'm walking through my city (and even the Financial District) and see poverty on the faces of our citizens. I see my family, who struggled to help put their three children through college, still clinging on to make ends meet. I'm sure my parents wish they had more hours in the day (aside from keeping the family fed and housed) to get that second job or start that Silicon Valley start-up.
I don't believe that life IS inherently fair, but I don't see any reason why things couldn't be MORE SO. This doesn't have anything to do with envy, but rather the underlying value of a common respect for mankind that we're not seeing with the way our economy is set up.
That's my two cents. Thanks for listening.
But I suspect it's just your wording that makes is so wrong:
I don't believe that life IS inherently fair, but I don't see any reason why things couldn't be MORE SO. This doesn't have anything to do with envy, but rather the underlying value of a common respect for mankind that we're not seeing with the way our economy is set up.
First, you are correct that life is unfair. It just is, and no amount of tinkering, social engineering, or massive societal upheaval will ever, ever alter that condition.
But what you are asking is for it to be just a little more fair. That, too is impossible. The harder we try to make things fair, the more unfair they become: when people accept recompense for unfairness, they begin to feel entitled to it; those who do not feel entitled to it, who refuse the wheelchair when their legs are merely wobbly, will outperform those who accept handouts they don't need. (Note that I am not speaking of the truly needy, only those who have ability but no will.)
But the thing I label 'wrong' is that our economy does not display respect for mankind. The belief that others can succeed on their own merits is as good a definition of 'respect' as there is. It is quite disrespectful to say they need our help. Perhaps you meant something else, like 'compassion' or 'liberality'?
The Academy: researching the Illiberal Arts
>>"But the thing I label 'wrong' is that our economy does not display respect for mankind. The belief that others can succeed on their own merits is as good a definition of 'respect' as there is. It is quite disrespectful to say they need our help."
I say this with true reverence: you are clearly well-spoken and very thoughtful, and I admire the way you back up your ideas. However, allow me to take a brief jump into semantics. Pulling out the Merriam-Webster...:
respect:
...
2 : an act of giving particular attention : CONSIDERATION
3 (a) : high or special regard : ESTEEM (b) : the quality or state of being esteemed (c) plural : expressions of respect or deference
Where CONSIDERATION --> "continuous and careful thought; thoughtful and sympathetic regard"; and ESTEEM --> "worth; value; opinion, judgment"
Our difference in opinion lies in what a "respectful" economic system looks like. If I'm understanding you correctly, you believe that the economic system in existence in America today is "respectful" in that people's personal merits determines whether one sinks or swim. Hence, to assume that some in our society may be "incompetent" of swimming would be patronizing and disrespectful.
--
I would ("respectfully", heh) disagree. I'll suggest an example as a test: a thirsty man is dying in the street for want of a sip of water. I encounter him and sees his pain, but notice that he has two arms, two legs, and a beating heart, just like myself. I'm carrying a flask of water in my hand but I'm not sure what to do.
Do I walk away from him and think to myself that (1) because life is inherently unfair anyway and (2) because I should not risk patronizing him, for it may disrespect his human essence, he should not receive my assistance?
Or do I help him?
It's obviously oversimplication to the Nth power, but it shows the following: even in this self-contained world, it is possible to make life a little more fair - to provide a man down with an opportunity for a hand up. And it is certainly possible to act with respect -- that is: with consideration for situtations where man may not be in a capacity to act to his full capability, and to believe in each human being's inherent worthiness to life.
That's the way I see it. So yes, I did mean "respect." Thanks.
>>>>Politics aside, why should hard-working Americans get the shaft and fall behind in the relative income gap, while Boards of Directors are granting stock options and golden parachutes for good-for-nothing C-level officers?
If you, unlike Jeff Skilling, are A++ material, send in your resume, and a reasonable salary request of less than $400M in stock options, and I know the BOD of any American company would hire a bright guy like you in a heartbeat.
Harry Reid is to ethics reform what HIV was to free love!
I agree with what you are saying .cnI redruM. I think much of America feels it has some inherent (and misguided) right to keep the jobs in house, and the edge in technology. It's our 'God given' right to be on top. Of course, there is no basis for this belief. We're told to work hard, and we will be rewarded. Unfortunately, reality works differently. We don't control many of the decisions that influence our lives, good or bad. You touched on that truth, and it seems to be a bitter pill for many Americans to swallow.
Unfortunately, I don't hear enough talk (from either side) about making America prepared for the global economy. There's plenty of talk about the current situation, which as we talk about it becomes the past. Where's the talk, and more importantly the action, to improve the future job environment for America?
From what I've been reading lately, it appears a shift to service-oriented jobs will take place in America, with the manual labor jobs moving to developing nations. Assuming those numerous writers are correct, why is there still a irrelevant focus on current employment numbers? Shouldn't the focus be on developing our citizens for the upcoming job environment? Instead, I see increasing dropout rates, and increasing costs of a secondary education. Add to that, a strain on the educating staff throughout the nation. These things concern me...
>>>>Instead, I see increasing dropout rates, and increasing costs of a secondary education. Add to that, a strain on the educating staff throughout the nation. These things concern me...
I'm afraid I don't see any good answers to them that would come out of a government program.
Harry Reid is to ethics reform what HIV was to free love!
... if a corporation could higher a quality CEO for $10 an hour, it would. That's all you need to know.
--
We would also like to know your advice for somebody like my daughter, who's going to graduate in two years, advice that you would give a young person.
SEC. RUMSFELD: Advice for a young person. Study history.
Great, great book Webb wrote. But there is not a shred of the Scots-Irish values that helped build this country left in him except a redneck. He'll still fight all right, but only for petty things like his ego. He wants an America with a huge navy it must never use, and last night's abomination, coupled with is WSJ article a few weeks ago shows that he now has a full fledged socialist world view on economics. So, the former tough guy is now a defeatist that emboldens our enemies in Iraq, a social envy sciolist, a boor at parties, a pro-abortion lib, etc.
There is a word for all the above: He's an elected democrat in DC
Mike Gamecock DeVine @
The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Is a turncoat and a flake, when you get down to it.