The Double Edged Sword That Capitalism Is

It is only smart economics to take the best care of every link in the chain.

Candidates, are you listening?

{{In capitalism, the rich can always very easily get richer by operating in any number of ways that cause the poor to become poorer.}}

Like an endless war or an engineered economic crash?

donna f. - Thanks for the comment and the vote, sweetums.

Sparky L. - Yup, it certainly can... or has it already?

Maywood Bedard - Yup, it's being wielded for good and bad; and the good is good and the bad is bad and We need to re-orient some of the easy roads to make sure that even the meager cn at least have viable opportunities to pay their own way. Stop giving multi-billion dollar companies multi-million dollar tax abatements while dogging common flea marketeers to have business licenses and collect sales tax.

Olga M. - Sadly, yes. Those are two of the many. Selling un-realistic mortgage plans to the financially struggling and moving basic labor jobs overseas are just a couple of others.

This posting was a ten and then some...I believe that there was a place for Capitalism at one time....and that time is no longer here I fear.....between our own personal growth here in the states, we have welcomed in millions and millions of other immigrants and I fear we have outgrown Capitalism...at one time it was, for the good of all...but as you so very well stated: "In capitalism, the rich can always very easily get richer by operating in any number of ways that cause the poor to become poorer. Using their resources, the rich can simply leverage the poor into losing their valuable resources, by reducing the flow of income to a targeted class, or by increasing the costs of living to a vulnerable niche. Value and property then flows out of the hands of the unfortunate and into the holdings of the fortunate."

There is no Middle Class Society anymore...there are the haves the maybes and have nots...and our society is so large at this point and we take care of so many other countries, even the wealthy will run short of supporting much longer...There are place's now in our society that require federal assistance...Health issues for one...and there is no way it will be available to all unless it becomes social and regulated by the government that is "for all the people"...

Our government is no longer for "All the People"...it is working for a selected few. We can not refer to that today when so many in our country do not have basic health coverage or place to go...and using the emergency rooms is far too costly to be used....it just makes good economic sense to me that the time for change has come...and Capitalism will only divide further, what is happening now to our society....Great article!!!!!

Donna M. -- Thank you.

The thing about basic health care coverage is that it could be totally affordable if the working classes brought home higher wages.

With a labor force numbering in the hundreds of millions, the increased withholding amounts from a double digit bump in hourly pay would supply plenty of money to support some type of program.

In our day and age, common folk have no choice but to trust in the humanity of those that are able to get elected to public office. It is unfortunate that so many good people would never consider trying to run, because of a sense of intimidation from what they perceive and know needs to be done. What we too often end up with are people who become players of one stripe of another. There are some exceptions, we have a few on our state's stage; but federally, they seem very hard to see.

Here's hoping things get better.

I believe that capitalism is the flip side of the coin from communism. The two opposed systems have more in common with each other than is generally acknowledged.

It comes down to the ownership of the means of production. In a purely capitalist society the means are entirely in the hands of the private sector, meaning of course of the wealthy. In communism the means are entirely in the hands of the public sector, meaning the government and its bureaucracy. In the first instance you get great inequality of outcomes and an unbalanced playing field. In the second instance you get a lack of initiative and productivity, a balanced playing field but rules so restrictive there is hardly any game being played at all.

A balance is what is missing in both systems.

Communism is unbalanced because it does not allow personal economic choice, it does not allow reward for initiative.

Capitalism is unbalanced because it encourages the concentration of wealth, the enslavement of the dispossessed, the brutality of the excesses of wealth.

A capitalist country must have a strong regulatory environment to control those excesses, to prevent that slavery and to redistribute the unfair concentration of wealth. Unfortunately the popular view is that government regulation is unfair, onerous and socialistic (taken to mean bad).

Yet we know that government regulation is good, so long as it is not excessive. What are criminal laws other than government regulation of our behaviour? What are standards for food safety and product safety if not government regulation? What are environmental protection laws if not government regulation? What are the traffic rules of the road if not government regulation?

Health care for all would be a form of redistribution, by taking resources in accordance with the ability to pay from private citizens in order to provide a society wide benefit that the poor cannot otherwise pay for for themselves. I can say, as a Canadian who has lived most of my 48 years with publicly funded socialized medicine that it is a very beneficial system and I would not trade it for any thing that the more robust American economy next door has to offer.

ty for sharing

I recently heard of a report that the poor receive something like (I don't remember the exact figure, but) $4 in beneifits for every $1 they pay in taxes, the middle class gets $1.8 for every $1 they pay in taxes, and the rich get $.6. Looking at that, one could argue that the rich are being unfairly taxed. Personally, I think the tax system should be more progressive, but the argument that the rich are being pampered by the government simply isn't true.

I read an interesting idea proposed by Milton Friedman called the negative tax system, where everybody receives a set amount of moey, for example $10,000, from the government, and there would be a flat tax rate, let's say 50%. You'd be receiving money from the government until, in this example, you reached $20,000 in income. For somebody making $1,000,000, the $10,000 you received from the government would be little compared to the $500,000 you'd be paying in taxes, but the $10,000 would allow those without an income to get by.

If you'd like to know more about this tax system, look up Negative Income Tax in wikipedia.

Rory M. - You've got some great thoughts and some great points there. I especially appreciate hearing your take on the Canadian health care system. I'm not sure how my country will deal with universal health care. I know that the current industry leaders seem pretty stubborn about not wanting to give up their profit models, or have them impinged.



Carol Lloyd - You're welcome. :-)

Daniel A. - I wonder, did the first report you referenced point out that the homeless and unemployed (aka; those who are paying no taxes) are reaping 100% benefit whenever they receive some help or support, or use some service that is funded from government coffers?

I think all that is moot. One of the major points of our government is to mitigate damaging unfairnesses, inequities and inequalities in our societies; and in proper instances they do and should play a role similar to that of a Robin Hood. It is not their job to sit idly by while vast segments of the population are abused, neglected, or even treated unfairly. It is their job to protect the life and liberty of the citizenry.

Be assured; to live in urban, suburban, and most kinds of rural poverty in our country is neither fun, pretty nor leisurely. Our homeless may live better than Mexico's homeless, but that is only because they have a higher grade of refuse to live off of.

I seem to recall hearing about the Negative Income Tax once before. To be honest, they should raise that ten thousand to twenty-five thousand; at least. That is unless there's a plan to provide some kind of universal health care card.

You hit the nail on the head on the second line with the word "meritocratic".

The problem is that we thing the word means having lots of money, stealing lots of money, using connections to get a lot of money, being born into having lots of money, marrying lots of money, etc ...

We also seem to think that beyond money, mere money itself is grounds for political power.

Daniel, Ronald Reagan said he favored a negative income tax system when he ran for president .. that was the last anyone heard of the idea.

Rory, I think if we put the burden of health care on the government ... ie. ourselves, we might look at pollution, destruction of the environment, fast food, unhealthy food, and some other things like smoking in a new and positive light since we would have to pay for all this madness instead of push bad habits that are almost impossible to break off onto the most already burdened people in society.

Nice article.

bruce k. - The entwining of our meritocratic attitude is deep and old. We judge people most favorably according to the number, breadth and depth of their achievements and the focus, height and acclaim of their accomplishments. I'm not saying that is bad; I'm saying that it just shouldn't be all.

Human beings are vastly more interesting than just their accomplishments. They also have unique and differing experiences, thoughts, feelings, likes and dislikes.

Some of the best accomplishments people can make in their lives are ones that gain no recognition or reward from anyone else.

It comes down to the ownership of the means of production. In a purely capitalist society the means are entirely in the hands of the private sector, meaning of course of the wealthy.

Completely untrue.

Let's all come into the 21st century to confront new realities.

The total assets of all millionaires and billionaires in the United States is $11.3 Trillion. This includes their houses, their cars, and furniture; even the underwear in their dressers.

The total assets of just the retirement funds of very ordinary people in the United States is $14.4 trillion. This does not include homes, cars or underwear. The vast majority of this retirement wealth is held by civil servant pension funds.

The owner of the largest stake in the American economy are civil servant pension funds. For instance, the largest stockholder in Exxon is the New York Teacher's Pension Fund.

If you want to find the person who oppressing you, who is outsourcing or downsizing your job, or sending your work to China - go to any school or social service agency and point to any employee.

They are the bad guys.

Hmmm...lets just break that down Greg. 11.3 trillion divided among...lets say several thousand folks, versus that 14.4 trillion divided among 50 million or so...

I'm no math whiz, but something doesn't add up in your logic.

Unfortunately, we often only realize a link has grown weak or failed once it is too late to maintain it.

Donna,

Rory's stated that "the wealthy" own the means of production. This is simply not true. The majority of corporate stock (and bonds) are owned by middle and working class people through their pension funds, an additional chunk of stock not owned by "the wealthy" is owned by charitable trusts. It does not take a mathematician to understand that, only a little research.

Hmmm...lets just break that down Greg. 11.3 trillion divided among...lets say several thousand folks, versus that 14.4 trillion divided among 50 million or so..

First of all, your numbers are incorrect.

There are 3.2 million people with liquid assets over $1 million in the United States, not "several thousand folks". On the other hand when one does a reverse innuity calculation on say, the pensions of two married school teachers, one finds that they have over $1 million is defined benefits pension wealth. This wealth is not included in the "millionaire" number because defined benefits are not listed as assets by economists. If they were, we would quickly realize that civil servants, the core of the Democratic Party and the core of the liberal left - own much of corporate America.

As for my logic, it is sound. I think the source of your problem is that you feel I am somehow attacking your impulse to be jealous and angry at "wealthy people". Feel free to do this, but let's stick to the facts.

Greg Schiller - Thanks for stopping by and saying that all our woes are the fault of school employees and civil servants. I could not possibly agree.

Since the state of Ohio's Bureau of Workman's Compensation has a $15 billion investment portfolio, and since Ohio is generally considered an average for the nation, that would imply that some $7.5 trillion is held in the various Bureau of Workman's compensation portfolios across the nation. So maybe we should also be pointing our fingers at all the injured workers in our country, eh?

But, no. The decision to move jobs overseas is made in board rooms not in classrooms; and those jobs are not being moved overseas so that the working classes can have or earn more money. It is done so that corporations can reap higher profit margins, which primarily benefits management and stock holders; people who's income is far above the national median.


donna f. - Thanks for the comment, sweetie.

a small link in the chain leaving a comment for you: I think you are right

But, no. The decision to move jobs overseas is made in board rooms not in classrooms; and those jobs are not being moved overseas so that the working classes can have or earn more money. It is done so that corporations can reap higher profit margins, which primarily benefits management and stock holders; people who's income is far above the national median.

Classrooms not boardrooms, nice sound bite, but is it really the case?

I do not see teacher's rallying to shift their investments to socially responsible mutual funds. On the other hand, I see a great deal of pressure on investment boards by civil service unions to return the highest possible rate of return on their pensions.

Highest possible rate of return on investment (ROI) is code for: downsize, outsource and off-shore.

Only a complete ideologue would disassociate one action from the other.

In state after state, civil servants especially teachers hold the most powerful stable of lobbyists. In Minnesota, Education Minnesota has more lobbyists than any other organization or group of organizations in the state. Yet you would have us believe that they have no influence on the investment board that controls the pension fund in which they have the largest stake?

Get real.

Heather W. - Better attention to the individual links would allow for more effective maintenance, less failure rates, more timely repairs and better production overall.

Greg Schiller - Stocks and bonds are not the means of production. Factories and manufacturing processes are the means of production. Stocks and bonds only fund and facilitate the means of production; and the members of those pension funds do not wield controlling or influential interests over the companies which there investment portfolios are vested in.

A pension fund member does not and cannot make the decision for a company to move it's jobs overseas, layoff workers, reduce benefits or adjust wages.

Secondly, comparing the liquid assets of 3.2 million individuals with the non-liquid assets of millions of civil servants is a misfire.

It's not as if pension holders can turn their funds into instant cash anytime they wish. Pension benefits are unrealized until retirement is reached and the pension is being drawn from. If an individual dies before reaching retirement their investment is rolled into the collective and they end up gaining nothing from their holding.

That is quite different from the 3.2 million with liquid assets at their daily fingertips.

As Pogo said "We have met the enemy and he is us"

It is about time the left came to realize the wisdom in that, and began looking for the villians and solutions among their own ranks.

Looking into the future, this trend toward what Peter Drucker called "Pension Socialism" is only going to grow. The reason is simple, rich people pay taxes on their investments, pension funds do not.

In 1975, less than 5% of all corporate assets were held by pension funds and charitable trusts - now that number is well over 50%. In 25 years, that number will be over 75% which will bring about a crisis for the concept of progressive taxation.

Stocks and bonds are not the means of production. Factories and manufacturing processes are the means of production.

A distinction without a difference since stockholders own the factories and manufacturing processes.

and the members of those pension funds do not wield controlling or influential interests over the companies which there investment portfolios are vested in.

Oh, how morally convenient!!!

What you are saying is that the core of the liberal left can financially benefit from out-sourcing, downsizing and off-shoring of work, but also enjoy the convenience of not having to take any responsibility.

Amazing how that works.

On the other hand, unions can put incredible pressure on pension funds to raise benefits and maintain expensive defined benefit plans without bothering their pretty little heads about how this is actually done.

Thank you, you have just provided us all with valuable insight into the mind, soul and spirit of a liberal.

How about taking some responsibility?

Is Bill correct when he suggests that civil service unions have no power to make investment decisions?

In 2004, CalPERS, ($800 Billion in assets) the nation's largest public pension fund took a lead role in an attempt to oust from Safeway the supermarket chain's chairman and two of its board members. At the time, CalPERS said its sole concern was to eliminate conflicts of interest and improve corporate governance.

But CalPERS had its own conflicts of interest. CalPERS' president was a union official who had personally organized and hosted rallies against Safeway during a labor dispute. In fact, 11 of CalPERS 13 board members were union members, union officials, or government officials who received or solicited contributions from unions.

Greg Schiller -

"Classrooms not boardrooms, nice sound bite, but is it really the case?"

Yes, it is a nice sound bite, isn't it; and yes, it really is the case.

Civil Service pension fund managers select which stocks they purchase. Perhaps some of those managers have actual inroads to pressure corporations for better returns, but that is not the same as dictating what methods corporations use.

Debt collectors pressure debtors to make their payments. By your rationale it would seem that we should hold the debt collector responsible if the debtor goes out and commits a crime in order to get the money to pay their debt.

That's not right. Individuals hold the responsibility for the decisions they make and the actions they take; not those who apply pressure.

I'm not sure why your are invoking "the left" but "the right" could also benefit from seeing that they are also their own worst enemy.

ALL people pay taxes on their investments and no taxes on their pension funds. It happens that way because of the way the laws are written.

One of the biggest reasons pension funds and charitable trusts have grown so significantly over the past thirty years is that they are increasingly protected from being raided by greedy malcontent or malfeasance; and they make good tax shelters.

Charitable trusts are mostly funded by the wealthy.

Greg Schiller - For the record, I am a Moderate.


"A distinction without a difference since stockholders own the factories and manufacturing processes."

There is plenty of difference. A stock holder does not "own" the factory or manufacturing process. A stock holder cannot walk into a plant and take material property equivalent to their holdings, whereas a true owner could. Nor can a stock holder show up and start ordering workers around or order a machine re-tooled; whereas an owner can.

Moral convenience?? Well, you are offering all manner of moral convenience to corporations via your statements that everything is the fault of investors.



"Is Bill correct when he suggests that civil service unions have no power to make investment decisions?"

Good God, Greg. What a spin you've put on my statements.

What I have been saying in this discussion with you is that investors in pension funds have no control over manufacturing processes, labor force selection, or employee compensation.

Is your point so weak that you have to try and stuff words into my mouth in order to validate your position?

That's freakin' lame, dude.

Yes, it is a nice sound bite, isn't it; and yes, it really is the case.

It is a rational, not a case. It is spinning away reponsiblity, and nothing more.

Debt collectors pressure debtors to make their payments. By your rationale it would seem that we should hold the debt collector responsible if the debtor goes out and commits a crime in order to get the money to pay their debt.

Again, simply a crude attempt to spin away from responsiblity.

Anyone who is a responsible person can read their pension fund statement and look at the rate of return they are getting on their investment. Both my pension fund and my deferred comp fund publish their rates of return on each fund that they invest it.

It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out how a fund is earning 14% ROI.

Taking your analogy, if a bill collector has knowledge that their pressure has indeed caused a debtor to engage in crime than YES THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE and they have the legal, social and moral responsibility to do something about it.

Only a liberal would think otherwise.

I'm not sure why your are invoking "the left"

Because civil servants and unions make up the core of the left. They are the primary core of the voting block and the primary source of funds for the Democratic Party -- and other leftwing organizations.

Charitable trusts are mostly funded by the wealthy.

Again spin. Charitable trusts are pools of money that are self-funding. The fact that "Ford" gave millions to the Ford Foundation says nothing about how the $Billions held by that organization are invested or spent.

There is plenty of difference. A stock holder does not "own" the factory or manufacturing process. A stock holder cannot walk into a plant and take material property equivalent to their holdings, whereas a true owner could. Nor can a stock holder show up and start ordering workers around or order a machine re-tooled; whereas an owner can.

Yes, stockholder do "own" the factory or manufacturing process. The stockholder owns a "share" of the factory or manufacturing process. That is why we call stocks "shares".

The stockholder also has a "share" of the decision making process, which also means that the share holder has a "share" of the responsiblity for the decisions being made.

If the shareholder does not approve of the decisions, selling the stock is always an option.

The concept that a pension fund could financially benefit from out-sourcing, downsizing, and off-shoring of labor without accepting any responsiblity for it - is morally, socially and politically repugnant.

Greg Schiller - For the record, I am a Moderate

Aren't we all moderates?

Moral convenience?? Well, you are offering all manner of moral convenience to corporations via your statements that everything is the fault of investors.

Corporate officials are responsible for their behavior. Stockholders are responsible for making sure that Corporate officials act responsibly.

You cannot pocket money, then claim that you had nothing to do with how it was raised.

I believe that MacBeth's wife tried washing her hands of sin in such a manner - it didn't end well.

Greg Schiller - It is such a challenging experience debating with you.

All your talk still amounts to the same thing: you want to blame the little individual members of investor collectives for the socially damaging actions that corporate managements decide to take.

You want to blame middle-income working folks, who only want to have a secure retirement when they retire from their lives as median wage earners, for the decisions and actions that CEOs and boards of directors with multi million dollar compensation packages make.

And that is upside down.

With power comes responsibility; the more power the more responsibility.



"The stockholder also has a "share" of the decision making process, which also means that the share holder has a "share" of the responsibility for the decisions being made."

Here you come to a wonderful point; shares of power and shares of responsibility.

Individual private investors may be able to sell off individual shares that they own if they don't approve of a company's methods, but the members of a service union pension fund do not have the power over their investments that an individual private investor has.

A service union pension fund member might be able to find out exactly what companies are invested in, but they cannot dictate where their personal representative percentages are invested.

Their only options are to lobby the union for change the investments, or withdraw their name from the fund. They do not get money if they withdraw their participation, nor can they necessarily withdraw from participation without losing their job; they would simply lose their investment rights AND retirement benefits.

Since the power of an individual investor is significantly less that the operators and managers employed by the company, their culpable responsibility is also less.

Since investor power is yet further diminished for those members of collective investment groups like pension funds, the culpable responsibility for those individuals is minuscule.

The powers for operating a company rests in the hands of CEOs and Boards of Directors. Therefore, the bulk of responsibility is also theirs.



"Aren't we all moderates?"

Ha-ha. Absolutely not. Many people take great pains and much pride to identify themselves as conservative (right) or liberal (left).

All your talk still amounts to the same thing: you want to blame the little individual members of investor collectives for the socially damaging actions that corporate managements decide to take.

With benefits goes responsiblity.

With power comes responsibility; the more power the more responsibility.

We agree.

Civil servant pension funds hold more wealth than most of the wealthy. Put simply, they hold more power and with power goes responsiblity.

A service union pension fund member might be able to find out exactly what companies are invested in, but they cannot dictate where their personal representative percentages are invested.

Not quite. Most Deferred Comp Plans allow individual investors to select which mutual funds they want to invest in. Almost all of these plans include Social Responsibility Mutural Funds. Few chose to invest in them because of their "too average" rate of return on investment.

Their only options are to lobby the union for change the investments

Imagine that.

Since the power of an individual investor is significantly less that the operators and managers employed by the company, their culpable responsibility is also less.

Since investor power is yet further diminished for those members of collective investment groups like pension funds, the culpable responsibility for those individuals is minuscule.

Dead wrong.

Just as benefits are collective, so is responsiblity.

The powers for operating a company rests in the hands of CEOs and Boards of Directors. Therefore, the bulk of responsibility is also theirs.

Not at all.

The responsibility lies with those who demand a 9%, 12% or 20% return on investment from the CEO's and Board of Directors.

Do you honestly believe for one instant that if CALPERS and CALFERS (California civil servants, a $Trillion between them) purchased a majority of the shares in Ford and told the auto company to earn a return of 3% that there would be not be a dramatic reduction in outsourcing, downsizing, and off-shoring of work?

If CALPERS and CALFERS mandated that there would be no outsourcing, downsizing, and off-shoring of work, do you honestly believe that it would continue?

Even if CALPERS and CALFERS did not own a majority of stock but threatened to dis-invest itself of Ford, do you still believe that Ford would not alter its behavior?

Let's get real about what is driving our economy.

Pension funds, charitable trusts hold the majority of corporate wealth and power -- not "wealthy people".

I enjoyed your view however you also falter with your claims. Capitalism isnt the problem, its the basic human. Human greed in any system ruins it. Socialism, Communism, Fascism, Capitalism...flaw is humans

You claim the richer are favored. Richer pay more taxes, provide more to the poor, give more to charity then other classes..why because they can and do. Poor people have nothing to give to the rich, so its an one way road. Employees expect bonuses and benefits yet when was the last time a CEO got a gift from the janitor? Do the employees of corperations thank the profit greedy CEO for keeping them employed as they also keep the investors and stock holders happy?

Capitalism allows all a chance for increase value. I do not consider success based on bank accounts or owned assets. People who do, like you said, become addicted..but that happens with most positive things, too much is bad.

I have no problem offering a hand to someone who is attempting to get up, however do not suggest to force me to assist someone who is rather wait for a handout.

Society is only as strong as the weekest link in the chain, so ever consider removing the bad links to make the society stronger?

What is poor? Poor meaning families who over extend credit cards, sign out mortgages they can not afford and drive SUVs instead of economical autos, who complain about being the working poor yet have no savings, no IRA and rather have cable tv, internet, computers and televisions instead of basic health insurance?

Poor? Maybe bad Choices.... Money doesnt make someone happy or wealthy, personal success and goals do. Often the happiest people who have no money and also no worries what to do with it.

Money is the Drug of Choice now....blame the addicted idiots who measure and label others by the assets they have.

Greg- Listen people are responsible for their own actions. You can not blame debt collectors, the government or OJ Simpson for individuals making irrational choices like to commit crimes to pay debts.

Greg: You do have a point, although I think you take the point a little to far. But you're right, for example, if you give money to a charity that supports terrorism, the government does consider you a supporter of terror.

Pension funds are some of the biggest investors in private equity funds and hedge funds, but the unions that run them denounce how much fund managers get compensated, and these are some of the same companies that break up companies, lay off workers, and cut beneifits. I don't know how much of a reflection this is on the members of the unions, but it does show very poorly on the union managers.

I have the SIMPLEST solution to taxation 'fairness'.

Eliminate the "Income Tax" (which was originally a temporary tax to support the Spanish-American War)
You would have no loopholes for the rich to pay less, no way to 'shelter your income in offshore banks' to avoid taxes, and no way to avoid paying 'into the system" if we simply went to a FLAT 10% SALES TAX!
Anyone who spends money in the USA would then be paying into 'the system', from citizens to tourists!
There would be no more argument over 'who pays the most'.
It would also stimulate the economy because the public would actually have more money to live on. We would have control over our economy becuase if we don't buy, the 'system' doesn't get money to operate on.
The concept of a FLAT 10% Sales TAX is that nobody 'escapes' paying, the total of a tax like this would give many times more to the tax base, in turn (hoping for an honest governmental response) allowing for a healthy Social Security plan, and preferably a national health program like Canada.

I would rather pay 10% and 'get it all' than to be paying about half my paycheck into not only 'income tax' but the hundreds of other taxes incorporated into being an 'American'. Currently, we are living a mirror image of what our forefathers fought to separate from...England's taxation, equal to that of being enslaved.

I would recommend taking a look at an article by Rose Williams, posted on " dtom.gather.com " regarding my Icon known as the Gadsden Flag - or the very first flag flown by America. The link is below:

http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.jsp?articleId=281474977046411

A lot can be learned from history, and we can correct 'what's wrong' simply by going back to the ground rules and rebuilding, much like restoring an old house. Just be sure you use only the best materials for the restoration!

Greg Schiller - I will concede that talking to pension fund managers to try and effect change in corporations may actually do some good. CalPERS has such a program, but it is not clear to me (as yet) if that program is run by their fund managers or by their members.

BTW - The CalPERS web site states that they maintain $246.7 billion in assets, not $800 billion as you previously stated. Additionally, the web site states that their investments are diversified across domestic and international markets, so it is currently unclear to me how much clout they could actually wield over any one company.



Donald C. - I have not blamed capitalism. As I tried to show in my writing the problems are (as you've stated) based on what people do with it.

Nor did I ask for any handouts to people who only want handouts.

The "weakest" links in our societies are the physically, mentally and emotionally challenged and the young and old. You are not suggesting removing them from society are you?

I always find it interesting when people point at "the poor" who have cable TV, Internet access, computers and television. The way it is stated leaves impressions of people living in some lap of luxury because they have such things.

The truth is that the televisions and computers these "poor" people have, are outdated affairs purchased for prices less than two hundred dollars a piece, and their cable TV and Internet connections cost them less than one hundred dollars per month. Even if they were to give up such things it would not give them enough available income to afford health insurance, which costs three to four hundred dollars per month in our country.

Believe it or not, once upon a time I was one of those people who happily had no money. I was content to live on part-time temporary jobs provided through temporary agencies.

Alas, temporary job opportunities tightened up significantly and the bitter demeaning comments of key people in my life combined with the pressures of our society and threw me off that path.

I've been mostly miserable ever since.

Money is water in our society.

The only way to live without at least some generated income in America is to live off of the compassions of others. Well, except those who are foraging in forests and sleeping in trees.

Our society provides many roads of opportunity, but eighty percent of them are geared toward eighty percent of the population. This leaves some twenty percent of society having to struggle harder to find ways to make and keep income streams and trickles.

I had to chuckle at the idea of janitors giving gifts to CEOs to show gratitude for being employed. It just seems ridiculous to me that a person making $35k per year (or less) would be expected to give gifts to a boss that makes four to one thousand times as much per year.

Eric:
The tax system you just proposed does have its advantages, but it does have a major flaw--it would mean that everybody pays an equal percentage of their income as taxes--far different from the progressive tax system we have today. That would mean we would either not be able to raise enough tax revenue, or the amount of taxes on the poor and middle class would skyrocket.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:WealthandTaxes.png
An interesting chart on taxes in the U.S. It says that the top .1% earns 9.1% of income in the U.S yet pays 17.4% of federal taxes, the top 1% earns 19% of income yet pays 36.9% of federal taxes, the top 5% earns 33.4% of income yet pays 57.1% of federal taxes, while the entire bottom 50% earns 13.4% of income yet pays only 3.3% of federal taxes. Food for thought.

Bill Spirit, Sorry American "poor" are very well off when considering the poor of the world. I have a hard time having empathy when volunteering at a local food pantry and seeing individuals in line smoking with "beer" breath.

I also have a problem when people rather take public assistance and handout then work for the money. I think public assistance should require individuals to work, in some capacity. Even if its nothing but licking envelopes for tax bills at the town office, raking leaves, or even calling people to get donations for the food pantry.

Bill, why chuckle at the idea of thanking the individuals who sign your paychecks. Janitor doesnt have to buy an expensive gift. It isnt "expected"- but its in good taste and something most American workers never do...nothing that doesnt benefit themselves.

Bill, volunteer at a food pantry and out of 100 people, count how many say thankyou. Last three months, I did exactly that. 12% over 3 months said thank you. Sad isnt it... "poor" can not even say thanks.....

When I was in the USAF assisting in dropping MREs to real "poor" and then see them fight for them with others, you get to be thankful for America.

health insurance is affordable for the poor, because honestly if they are as poor as they claim, feds and state government provides it for them. Its the people who claim they can not afford health insurance who are over the income limits. Suggestion there is to choose between health insurance and another bill. Does cable tv, and internet mean more to a family then health insurance? Yes, if a family has such items they have some luxuries. Doesnt matter how much they paid for the item.

Unlike many people, I know of the assistance available to various people with various income. My job was Overseer of the Poor, and honestly I enjoyed helping people however I also like people to help themselves.

Compassion is great, but honestly many take advantage of the social systems we have now.

The mentaly ill and emotionaly challenged are provided help. They are not the problem. The elderly are far from the weakest link also, since overall they often are some of the most secure. Wealkest link is the poor who chew up the social systems instead of working and being productive citizens. Force more of these individuals to work.

People need to learn it isnt the income level that matters, its the living within the means of any income. Takes less then most people think to provide for a family when money is not the goal. Struggle? Reward of a hards day work is more then the amount of money it generates.

When I see a kid bank over 65k for college in 3 summers by selling night crawlers he jacked off the local golf courses.....and then see healthy men who can not find a job?

Donald C. - I guess you are not really reading what I am writing; or else I'm just not being clear enough.

Cable TV and Internet access costs a little less than $100 per month, whereas health insurance costs over $300 per month. Therefore, not having those things will not provide people with enough money to pay for health insurance.

Although you say that people with low incomes who cannot afford health care coverage can receive help or assistance from the government, that is just not the case.

If you have proof otherwise, please post a link to it.

As I've said before, I am not championing handouts for people who don't want to work.

Please, hear that clearly.

It is great that a kid can earn so much money snatching earth worms off of a golf course. A grown man caught doing the same thing would be thrown in jail for trespass.

Gather up a broom or lawnmower and go door to door in a nearby neighborhood and see how many people will pay you to do those odd jobs. In most modern day American neighborhoods people already have lawn services, local teenagers or they prefer to do it themselves; not to mention the distrust people show any adult who wanders door to door.

I ask you to try this because I have.

Although some people were nice, I was shocked at how rude, judgmental and paranoid most people can be. A fair number cursed at me for trying to steal jobs from teenagers, told me I should go out and get a REAL job and then slammed and locked their doors in my face. I quit my little experiment after someone called the cops to come check me out and shoo me away.

You make it sound easy, dreamy and pastoral, but it's not.

You are right, many people abuse our systems of compassion, but I do not see that as a justification to abandon those who will not or do not abuse such systems when they need them.

People are not apples, we should not pitch them all out just because of the bad ones.

Daniel, thanks for the link to the media brainwash site. ;o)

I rate the amount of distance my money goes as to what the economy is. Often the media says the economy is 'up' or 'down' but they b.s. the public for the benefit of the businesses that support their form of media.
I would like a new car...but I DON"T NEED ONE.
I would like a new computer...BUT I DON"T NEED ONE.
If more of America thought that way, we would ALL be much wealthier...and we would also drive prices DOWN on that behavior alone! Put the credit card away.
If you canot afford it now, make payments to yourself until you have it. Often, by the time you have the money, you may find you didn't want it anyway...but NOW you have the money in your pocket instead of a lingering credit card bill gathering interest.

A FLat 10% sales tax puts US in control and levels the playing field when it comes to who pays most into taxes. If a rich guy spends $100,000 and I spend $10.00, we BOTH pay 10% into the tax base. What can be fairer?

What can be fairer is the rich payer progressively more tax.

Bill,

First, my wife who was a stay at home mother was able to create an internet based business with less then 1500 dollars, which on its first year, became not only profitable but had a net profit of over 46,000 dollars. The second year she made 62,000 in profit and sold it for 12,000 dollars. It was a mystery shopping business.

Second, Grown men can create businesses and work for themselves. Yes, its not easy but again, no one said life is. I also suggest a grown man not walk around with a broom and lawn mower. I suggest using business cards, flyers, get insured or even bonded. Register with the local BBB and Rotary, coupons for elderly, 2-1 specials... The problem often people expect immediate riches or returns..

Each state has a healthcare program, each with guidelines. Here is Maines http://www.maine.gov/dhhs/OIAS/services/cubcare/CubCare.htm

You mentioned the costs, what is a $100? Sacrafice them luxeries and pay premiums for the best health care you can buy.

How much does it cost?
There is no cost for most families. Some families must pay a small monthly premium for their children's coverage. Premiums are between $8 and $64.00 a month. Some parents must pay a small co-payment for services.

Bill, before you say it.. here is a link for Ohio http://jfs.ohio.gov/ohp/bcps/hshf/index.stm

I mentioned once before I have experience linking individuals with assistance, and have proven my point, the true poor in society have insurance.

Eric, I disagree on a National Sales Tax. Here is one problem, what if I simply buy the item outside the US. 10% tax on food? What about states that already have sales tax and income tax? What about someone who buys Stocks for an IRA, which isnt suppose to be taxed, gets nailed with 10% Sales tax? Guess the stock market would crash since all sales would be annexed a 10% sales tax.

Eric, ever consider how you will tax small business? Corperations? Sales tax by no means could generate enough revenues. You would also slow spending which hurts the economy. Disagree with a national sales tax and although income taxes are not perfect, they do stimulate the economy by providing a shot of cash flow to the "poor"

Eric:

Because that would be a flat tax as compared to our progressive tax, which would mean it's becoming less progressive, meaning more of the burden is shifted to the poor/middle class. What Bush's tax cuts did is make the tax system less progressive, meaning the poor and middle class take more of a portion of the tax burden, but is far from a flat tax.

Donald,
Thanks for the link to Ohio's program. Now point me in the direction of something that will help ME. I am a nurse. I had been employed steadily for the past 23 years...21 years at one job, and two, at the last. I was laid off in July, as the business was sold.
I turned down a nice job, as I was asked to stay at my former employer's till after the closing, as one of my duties was discharging the patients financials. I was promised a severance package, which they reneged on, citing a lack of money(this is a North Coast 99 company)..I am now having a difficult time getting hired, as I have too much experience, and I can't even get a second interview because companies think I will ask too much in salary, but I'm not even given the chance.
As for health insurance, I have already made more this year than the state allows, and my COBRA coverage was half of my unemployment benefits, so I couldn't take it.

So, my question is...while the truly poor do have the opportunity for coverage, how about the rest of us, either newly unemployed or what we call "the working poor", who are above the guidelines, and can't find affordable coverage?

BTW - The CalPERS web site states that they maintain $246.7 billion in assets, not $800 billion as you previously stated. Additionally, the web site states that their investments are diversified across domestic and international markets, so it is currently unclear to me how much clout they could actually wield over any one company..

I stand corrected.

Even at a paltry $246.7 Billion CalPERS (only one of the many civil service pension funds in California) packs a considerable punch.

Yes, they have diversified their investment to diffuse their risk, and their responsibility.

That is exactly my point.

I find it odd that activists hold board members and CEO's responsible for corporate ills but seem quite content to ignore those who put constant pressure on them to return the greatest possible rate on investment – which is why they do what they do.

Instead the activists blame "the wealthy" because it is intellectually comfortable to do so.

Could it be that a wealthy person, with a paltry $1 Billion or $2 Billion, who diversifies their investments "across domestic and international markets" is no more responsible for corporate ills than is a pension fund with many times more wealth?

This question was explored over a century ago by the writer Emile Zola in the novel Germinal. Zola spent most of the novel exploring the deplorable conditions in the French coal mining industry. In the end, after climactic riots, with scenes of angry miners rushing about the country-side torching the mines - we discover who is ultimately responsible.

It is the trust fund of two elderly widow pensioners who garden and raise cats. Zola pointed the finger 100 years ago and no one has followed it --- because it is intellectually uncomfortable to blame such ills on "old women who raise cats".

Like retired school teachers.

Pension funds are some of the biggest investors in private equity funds and hedge funds, but the unions that run them denounce how much fund managers get compensated, and these are some of the same companies that break up companies, lay off workers, and cut beneifits. I don't know how much of a reflection this is on the members of the unions, but it does show very poorly on the union managers.

Daniel, you are quite correct.

What we have here is a colossal sin of omission, or shall we say "the sin of being morally and intellectually lazy".

It is easy, and quite satisfying to point the finger of blame at "wealthy people" but it is quite another to endure derision and scorn at a union meeting by suggesting the membership reduce their pensions by 30% "to do the right thing".

This is a social justice quandary that will become more and more of an issue with each passing year. As wealth pools up into trusts and funds managed on behalf of countless, nameless people, the entire process becomes more and more unaccountable, and more and more self-consuming.

It is like a game of "crack the whip" where a central mass of relatively simple and good people make tiny selfish moves and others out on the periphery of power and influence, bear the lash.

Donna F, I do not have your exact income nor do I wish to be an Overseer of the Poor for Gather. I do know that the health care industry is in need of qualified and experienced nurses. Hospitals often provide 100% coverage at the first day of employment. Honestly, and you may not like this, but someone with your skills should have no problem finding employment if they sell themselves. Interview skills or resume assistance might increase your chances, both available with unemployment benefits. Not sure of family size or age but you should check into your states health care system. COBRA is almost never a good deal because it bites like its name.

Another option is often schools are willing to hire nurses, pay is lower then most but the benefit packages are often rewarding and the pay can be spread out over 12 months if desired, allowing summer for a different employer if desired.

Not sure on your age but might consider a National Guard Commission, which last time I checked accepted individuals to age 45. Medical background they might even waive that.
Donna, here is my answer..People are responsible for the choices they make in life. The "working poor" is just that because either they over extend and desire higher then affordable living conditions and lifestyle, which means earn more or spend less. Health Insurance is optional, thus most rather not pay monthly or quarterly prems and spend it on maybe cable tv, a trip to the movies, or simply paying for real butter instead of margine. Families are responsible for not only the amount of income but also the expenditures.

Rough as it sounds, its back to choices....I know families who are not insured and feel its a gamble they are willing to take, others are paying for plans that are basicly raping them of money, some choose employers based not on pay but the benefit packages.

Greg, you do not need a union to have pension funds and 401Ks.

Eric, the Bush tax cut assisted who? Earned Income Credit changes made huge differences for the military and lower income families to capture monies not even paid in, not to mention the child credits. The poor are not taxed on the federal level when you do the math.... Might want to look at the revenues paid in and paid out ratios.

Mr. Spirit,
I like your position but you are going against indepth indoctrination. We in this country are told from the moment we can watch TV or go into public schools how great our system is where hard work will reward you with riches. However if your family is not one of the legacy of the wealthy who mingle at the country club it is not that easy. We are inheritors of a viking culture that admires the warriors who can hoard the most wealth by whatever means they can. Our country is in the later stages of the game of Monoply when the wealth is concentrating and we are told it is normal. thats the way human beings are and should be. But that is because we use our values as the norm and we have run over or conquored most of the cooperative cultures on our path. By the way I sent you a message did you get it. Capitalism is not viturous it is based on selfishness. We need to rise above the extremes of it that we see these days. Like attacking countries to privatize their resources and utilities.

Greg Schiller -

"Could it be that a wealthy person, with a paltry $1 Billion or $2 Billion, who diversifies their investments "across domestic and international markets" is no more responsible for corporate ills than is a pension fund with many times more wealth?"

Here again we come to a divergence between what I am saying and what you are saying.

You now seem to be defending "the wealthy" who own stock in large corporations while I am chastising "the wealthy" that hold positions of management in large corporations.

You really reached me with your information about pension funds and the clout they may wield over corporate activities, but you still seem adamant about pushing the responsibility of management's decisions on to stock holders.

I can't seem to find it within myself to feel sorry or be very forgiving of people who receive salaries in the millions of dollar ranges for making decisions and executing actions that un-employ, under-employ or refuse to employ American workers because company profits can be increased by placing manufacturing in the cheaper labor markets outside our borders.

Thank you for the interesting article. And I might add all the comments were very good as well.

Bill, you complain about how much CEOs make. Yes, they are highly rewarded, but they are also the elite in the business world. The elites, in most professions make huge amounts of money. Professional ball players, actors, race car drivers, singers and so on.

Bill, you complain because these CEOs make choices to outsource outside the USA, however the consider the CEO job is to do what is best for the corperation.

Bill, you have a budget. You have a choice to make purchases, do you always buy American made items, or like all of us, buy items based on affordablity. Quality might matter on a hammer if you make a living with it, but like most Americans who use it every once and awhile, the China Steel Walmart special works great.

Bill, when you are employed by someone I hope you do what is best for the employer, CEOs also try to do what they are suppose to do, make the most profits they can for the shareholders.

Bill, Americans have in basicly over valued themselves in the workplace. Supply of workers is higher now, jobs are fewer, and businesses are not stupid. To survive you either learn to market your work skill better to give yourself more value or find yourself in the unemployment lines.

There is plenty of work available, just often people are unwilling to "lower" themselves to labor jobs.

Bill's Spirit: CEO's do what's best for the corporation because it's their job--if a CEO is loosing a company money, the investors will get a new CEO. It's not that complicated. If CalPERS is investing in a company that is underperforming because the CEO won't, for example, lean up a bloated company (i.e lay off workers) which will improve the profitibility of a company, CalPERS, for one, will try to get the management changed to somebody who will. That's in essence why private equity companies exist--to buy up companies that are poorly run, put new management in (who often get paid significantly more than any public management), and will do what the company as a public company wouldn't do, such as lay off workers and cut the company up. Private equity companies, I might add, which are often funded by such things as pension funds.

Donald - I would not complain about how much CEOs make if they did not dis-employ or reduce wages for those under them without taking any kind of pay or benefit cut themselves. In the arenas of music, acting and professional sports the "stars" who make million dollar salaries do not make or maintain those salaries by reducing the wages of those who work under them or by hiring the cheapest labor available. In the arenas of music, acting and professional sports EVERY person who works on a project (movie, performance, race, game) are paid quite well. It is only in the corporate worlds where the highest paid have control over the wages of other workers.

Donald - Yes, you are right. It is the CEOs job to do what is best for the company. Do you think Mattel's CEO made the right decision? Have the product recalls been best for the company?

Donald - The current trend in CEO layoffs and firings indicate that if Mattel lets go of their CEO (or if they resign) they will leave with a multi-million dollar severance package AND go on to a new high-level, high paying position with another company. Had a lower tier functionary been the source of Mattel's problems they would most likely have fired that person on the spot with no severance and a crippling black mark placed on their employment record (if not sent to jail).

Donald - I try to buy American made in every purchase I make. In many cases I have proven myself as abnormal because I do not buy only what is cheapest; and I quite often go without something because I don't want to buy only what I can afford. Nine years ago when I needed a socket wrench I went to a NAPA(R) auto parts store and bought one from their top of the line wrenches. It is stamped USA. It cost me $35.00 and it has outlasted two "cheapies" and one Craftsman(R) wrench. Although peers ridiculed me for spending so much for that top of the line tool, I have saved money in the long run because I have not had to replace it because of breakage. I have also not had to deal with tool failure while in the midst of a job or project; and that alone made the purchase worth it, to me.

Donald - When I have been employed I have always done what the company asked me to do to the best of my ability. When I have been asked to do something that I thought was bad for the company I have spoken up; when I have been asked to do something that I thought was wrong, I resigned.

Donald - One of the biggest reasons the supply of workers is currently high in our country is because jobs have been exported overseas, because we have made it easier for foreign workers to come and work in our country and because we have a high level of illegal immigrant workers. None of those three major contributing factors is the fault of the American worker. These three contributors are so high because of corporate and government actions. Actions taken so that companies can have the cheapest possible labor, so that costs can be lower and profits can be higher.

Donald - Plenty of work is not available everywhere; and the additional problem is not that people won't lower themselves to do labor, it's that the wages and benefits being offered for what labor jobs are available will not support them and, or, their families.

Daniel A - I will confess that I have little to no pity for a CEO that has had a multi-million dollar compensation package throughout their employment when or if they lose their jobs.

If they have to sell off their Jaguar and only drive their BMW, or if they have to sell off their vacation home(s), fly regular class in commercial airlines, or give up extravagant vacations I'm not motivated to tears for them. Most CEOs have savings, retirement plans and stock portfolios that could support a dozen working families for several years.

I have no interest in arguing about private equity companies that buy up businesses only to shake them up or sell them off. Private equity companies, although possibly funded by the retirement savings of regular folk, are generally managed by corporate sharks who are also part of the wealthier classes.

I'm here to talk about the plights of working folk.

Bill's Spirit: (1) The Mattel example is one of poor quality control, and in turn poor management, and that CEO will likely get the boot if investors loose confidence. And if you want to go into product recalls, how about Ford cars that were lighting on fire and burning down people's houses, often when they were in it. And I think ford knew there might have been a problem for a long time before they did anything. Those cars--made in the US of A. There's counterpoints to anything you can throw out in that direction.

(2) The U.S doesn't have a high supply of labor--I don't know where you got that information, since the unemployment rate is 4.6%, which is historically low. I know you're going to say "well that doesn't include discouraged workers", but job growth has been healthy for several years (excluding last month's jobs report), and unemployment claims have been pretty low.

Bill's Spirit: I wasn't saying that I give a rats ass if these multimilionairs loose their jobs, I'm just saying these people wouldn't have their jobs if they didn't do what was in the best interest of the company, which can be laying off people, cutting their wages/beneifits, outsourcing, etc. If they won't, the investors will find somebody who will. It happens to be that a lot of these investors are funds such as pension funds run by unions. I just think it's hypocritical for the unions management to bitch about how much hedge fund managers make and outsourcing and all the other "weapons against the prolitariate" that big business has, and at the same time funds these same organizations.

And going with what you were saying about not caring if rich CEO's loose their jobs, if you take it a step furthur, how can you feel bad about somebody loosing their job to china when the person in china's life is much more improved by that job than the person who had it in the U.S? How could you not care if the people in china's lives suck. Don't you care about anybody other than Americans? A middle income person in the U.S' wage could feed entire African villages. And yet you worry about those rich Americans but couldn't care less about the less fortunate people in the world (a middle income American on a world standard is very rich indeed).

There's more than two sides to everything, you know......

Bill, I know of no CEO who was born into the job. Even the golden spoon kids grew up in an the business realm learning how to do the job.

Bill, when I made the tool remark, YOU MISSED THE POINT! If you work with the tool then yes, buy the high quality Snap On, Craftman, which is good for life of the tool and replaced when worn out. However, like a hammer, I use on rare occasions, I paid 2.99 at Walmart for. Be stupid to pay 30.00 for it since it would not be worth it for me.

Bill, what scares me is someone who honestly thinks they buy American....funny, our "American Made Autos" are often assembled in Canada or Mexico, and many of the parts are also made outside the USA.

Bill, the "plight" of the working folk or the complaints of an unemployed, underskilled, under educated, over valued worker that is unable to market themselves in the current job market?

Bill, rewards of success to some is money, and to some the goal in life is more income. Stop dwelling on what you do not have and learn to be thankful for what you do have. Honestly the "working poor" should be thanking their employers for the available jobs.

Bill, I have to say if you spent as much effort on the job as you defending your views on Gather, you be a great assets to the company.

Bill, suggestion, if there is no available jobs where you live, MOVE> There is no restriction on moving to an area where work is more available. Also employers are not hiring an entire family, they are providing wages and benefits they can afford. Your choice to either work or not. Marines have a great saying, if they wanted you to have a family they issue you one...same goes for McDonalds. Americans can afford to support families if the family lives within means...

I can't seem to find it within myself to feel sorry or be very forgiving of people who receive salaries in the millions of dollar ranges for making decisions and executing actions that un-employ, under-employ or refuse to employ American workers because company profits can be increased by placing manufacturing in the cheaper labor markets outside our borders.

First of all, I am utterly disinterested in either the salary or lifestyle of CEO's, nor am I interested in their $Billion stock backdating capers. These things are merely cultural static. This is the stuff of tabloid journalism.

Rather I am guided by the old adage: "Follow the money".

The decision to "execute actions that un-employ, under-employ or refuse to employ American workers because company profits can be increased by placing manufacturing in the cheaper labor markets outside our borders" are not made by CEO's.

These decisions are made by investors. CEO's merely implement the strategies that investors expect.

You cannot get blood from a turnip, and if by chance you demand that blood does flow from a turnip and you create a situation that forces blood to come from a turnip -- do not fain horror when you find out where the blood actually came from.

As Daniel articulated so well, you cannot invest in a company that is returning 1% and demand a yield of 8%, then blame the CEO for the way this was done -- after the fact.

Conversely, I do not see mutual funds and pension funds refusing to invest in Wal-Mart or Exxon because of some alleged corporate behavior; their only concern is ROI.

CEO's come and go, often quickly; investment strategies are constants.

Daniel A. - (1) The Ford recall may not be one of the best examples. Ford has plants all over the world and they buy or contract many parts of which some may certainly come from foreign labor markets.

But I get your point that America's history is not spot free. We did manage to remove the use of lead from all manner of product manufacturing in our country. So it is fair to say that had Mattel not outsourced or contracted with overseas markets for the production of these products we would not be having the current problem.

(2) I will not point to "discouraged" workers, but I will point out that the official unemployment rate is culled from some very limited statistical sources and that it does not reflect the actual number of Americans that do not have jobs. Experienced experts in the humanitarian fields all agree that official unemployment rates fail to count more than a million Americans who are unemployed; and does not count Americans that are debilitatingly under-employed, at all.

Please be aware, just because someone is not on unemployment does not mean that they have a job. They may have failed to qualify for one reason or another or they may have exhausted the amount of benefits they are allowed to have.

You make a good point about the relationship between union pension funds and big business. Greg Schiller has brought me quite a bit up to speed on that issue. I suspect if there were other secure investments that provided good returns the unions would move their funds; but, from what I understand, these funds are run by the managers and not by the members. I'm still learning about all of this.

About workers in China...

At my core I am a humanitarian, so I do care about those people. You are right that the average American middle income could support an entire African village, but the reason for that is found in the economic disparity in the cost of living and the cost of goods in our country and there's. Consider this, if one American worker could support one African village on their salary, how many African villages could one CEO support on their salary?

I'll give you a hint; One CEO that receives ten million per year in compensations per year could support over 300 middle income Americans.

I was just using the african village example, I wasn't accusing you of anything. I just always found it hypocritical when people complained about outsourcing when the people who received the jobs would have a far larger increase in quality of life than the American would have with the job. Even the poor in the U.S don't have it that bad compared to a significant portion of the world.

The issue of unions isn't really suprising (talking about the pension funds and such). A union is in essence a special interest group that works for it's workers--sometimes to the detrimant for the rest of the country. If they aren't representing somebody's job, they couldn't give a rats ass about them. Hence, you get the situation where they bitch and moan about people loosing their jobs to ousourcing, wage/beneifits cuts, and bloated CEO pay, and yet fund the people who do this--as long, of course, as it doesn't directly effect the people they reperesent. It's the flaw of any special interest group.

Donald C. - I have no idea why you are saying that no CEO was born into the job. Sons of CEOs are sometimes groomed to be CEOs and some of them do take over Daddy's company. What's you point?

As far as your tool remark goes; no I did not miss your point I made a different one. I saved up my money with budgeting and bought the best tool available. I am not employed as an auto mechanic; yet cheaper tools still failed when I used them on my domestic projects. I could have saved twenty dollars at the time of my initial purchase by buying cheaper, but then I would have spent more and experienced more frustration by having to replace the cheapies every time they broke. I'm trying to point out that quality is worth the expenditure.

You do make a good point when you talk about how many people THINK they are buying made in America auto mobiles, but actually aren't. One of the most truly American made autos is currently the Honda.

Donald - The following sentence is incomplete and makes no clear statement;

"Bill, the "plight" of the working folk or the complaints of an unemployed, underskilled, under educated, over valued worker that is unable to market themselves in the current job market?"

Would you care to finish it?

"Stop dwelling on what you do not have and learn to be thankful for what you do have."

In this article I am not dwelling on what I do not have. In this article I am dwelling on the point that capitalism is a double edged sword. Capitalism provides opportunities for advancement to many, but not to all; no matter how hard they may try.

"Honestly the "working poor" should be thanking their employers for the available jobs."

Thank you for not paying me enough to support my family. I know that a fancier car for you is more important than food for my family.

"Bill, I have to say if you spent as much effort on the job as you defending your views on Gather, you be a great assets to the company."

Yes; I would be, could be and have been a great asset to a company.

"..employers are not hiring an entire family, they are providing wages and benefits they can afford."

Let's be clear about this; part of the reason a company can only afford low wages is because they are paying CEOs in multiple millions of dollars. Wages could be raised if CEOs were paid less.

As for that last bit about the Marines; Are you trying to whip me back into line? Are you implying that I should only want or accept what the government or businesses decide I need or deserve?

That is exactly the same attitude that the Russian bureaucrats foisted upon their populace. That, my friend, is socialism, communism, fascism and tyranny. The military gets by with it because a service member HAS given up the individual liberties accorded to them by our Constitution in order to best serve the national security needs of the military.

It is not the way our citizenry is supposed to live. If it becomes the way that All Americans are expected to live then our great experiment in Freedom and Liberty for all has failed.

Greg Schiller -

"I am utterly disinterested in either the salary or lifestyle of CEO's, nor am I interested in their $Billion stock backdating capers. These things are merely cultural static. This is the stuff of tabloid journalism."

Well, this discussion does discuss, and has been discussing those very things. Whether you care or not, a paltry one billion dollars can effect the lives of hundreds of thousands of people.

As for pension fund members; thanks to you, I will soon be yammering at fund members to go and see if they have power that can be wielded for change. I will be pleasantly surprised I find that they do wield such power, but I suspect that the legal arrangements keep decision making power localized in the hands of the fund managers. We'll see.

Daniel A. - Your African Village example was a good one. It really helped illustrate what I am talking about.

"Even the poor in the U.S don't have it that bad compared to a significant portion of the world.

Yes, you are right. For example; in comparison with all the people in the world who scramble out their existence by scrounging in garbage dumps, Americans have the best garbage to pick over. Lucky them.

You sound anti-union. I suppose I might not support the ideals that unions stand for if our history were not filled with examples of business owners deliberately endangering their employees lives so that the owner could pocket more and more money.

You've made me wonder, did the UAW have their pension funds invested in the auto makers back in the 1970s and 1980s when so many Michigan plants were shut-down and moved to Mexico?

For the record, I do not now belong, nor have I ever belonged to a union.

Bill:

I'm not anti-union so much as I am anti interest group. Interest groups put the interest of those they represent ahead of everybody else. For example, in NY, when Eliot Spitzer tried to shut down some unnecessary hospitals, the health care union brought out old women on TV commericals saying "Eliot Spitzer, why are you trying to take away my health care", even though these excess hospitals which were costing the NY medicare system billions of dollars. They were trying to keep the status quo because it was in their members' interest, even though they did it at the expense of the NY taxpayer--in essence legal extortion.

On the same thread, lawyers, for one, piss me off.

Daniel A. - Unnecessary hospitals?? I've never heard of such a thing.

How is it that these hospitals were costing the NY Medicare system billions of dollars?

It's my understanding that hospitals can only bill Medicare for services provided to Medicare enrollees or perhaps the indigent. Are you saying that Medicare in NY was expanded to cover the operational costs of keeping hospitals open? That would be news to me.

Bill:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/02092007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/eliots_next_fight_opedcolumnists_nicole_gelinas.htm

As I understand it (I learned quite a bit more from that article, to tell you the truth) Spitzer was making a lot of different reforms which the unions were against. The one I talked about before was that they were trying to consolidate some hospitals in order to bring costs down, but that would have been contrary to the interest of the various healthcare unions. That particular union was working to keep a disfunctional system together because it served their interests at the expense of New York taxpayers.

It doesn't look like the link copied very well, so here's another shot at it:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/02092007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/eliots_next_fight_opedcolumnists_nicole_gelinas.htm

Or I'll split it into two peices (third time's the charm)

http://www.nypost.com/seven/02092007/postopinion/
opedcolumnists/eliots_next_fight_opedcolumnists_nicole_gelinas.htm

Bill, Does your family work for the same boss as you? If not then the employer does not get any benefit out of paying a person with a family more then a single person. If you can not support your family from the pay at a job then problem isnt anyones except YOURS.

Bill, No one forces you to work for a large corperation with a rich CEO. Heck, go to work for a small businessman instead.

Bill, REMARK about the Marines is VALID...No one forced you to make a family you can not afford. Family is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY not that of your employer.

Bill, you complain about how much the owner gets in a business? Why not make your own company and see how hard it is to build a company and then employ some low skilled workers who want the world handed to them.

Bill, I will honestly say your the worst type of an employee...you want quick fast money and benefits and think the company owes you. Your the type who I would weed out quickly in an interview.

Bill, America was built on being rewarded for hard work, and at times that doesnt mean a paycheck. We still have a volunteer service because it isnt about the pay. You have airmen who are paid under the poverty level, able to get food stamps, working on multimillion dollar aircraft, away from family for months on end ..... Yet you complain about not able to find a job?

Bill, ever considered the US Armed Forces? Yeh, didnt think so....
Bill, what is your education level? Maybe get a degree?

The choice is yours Bill, either grab the bull by the horns and control your life, or by the tail and be shit on all your life...(Old Farmer told me that once right before he hired me to shovel chicken crap)

Donald C. - Well, you certainly are filled with condemnation and knowledge about my life. It's amazing that you've learned so much about me just from this one discussion.

But, a little correction is needed.

First off, I volunteered for service in our Armed Forces straight out of high school. I had this crazy idea about serving my country and doing some patriotic duty; not that you seem to expect such from someone like me.

I served two years in the USAF, successfully completed basic training, technical school, survival training and was doing a tour of duty in Germany when I was diagnosed with a congenital back disorder that I had no previous knowledge of. I was handed $1,000, an honorable discharge and a plane ticket back to the states.

Secondly, I have dipped my toe into the waters of starting a business. The headaches were profound and I ended up with numerous debts. I learned from others that the way most business owners manage successfully is by hiring lots of people to take care of books, taxes and legal issues. Since that required more capital then I had at my disposal, I had to abandon that pursuit.

Third, at various times in my life I have been quite active in volunteer work. It may surprise you to know that volunteer work does not pay my bills or put food in my belly. It only benefits my soul, the community and the individual well being of others.

Fourth, since you seem to be convinced that I am the type of person looking for handouts and easy ways to get through life, I'd like you to be aware that I have never sought nor taken those paths, even though I probably could have.

From the impressions doctors have left with me, the back defect I was diagnosed with when I was twenty years old is the type that would have qualified me for a life on the public dole.

I say probably, because I've never pursued that avenue. I've chosen instead to try and muddle on through life, hoping that I could find a way to make my own money and pay my own way. The result is that I've spent my entire life moving from one job to another, because as soon as my back condition was revealed, I was let go.

I guess we are both glad that I don't work for you. As you have pointed out, you would weed me out simply because your impression of me is not to your liking, not because I am an incompetent worker. I am not after quick fast money only; although I'd take some if it came to me honestly. I would like to have benefits, but it has never been something I've insisted on. I do believe that a company owes me something if I am doing something for them.

I appreciate all this lively chat; even though you've taken to attacking my personal life (which you know very little about, but have plenty of assumptions about) instead of talking about the issues I've raised.

Your attitude is clear, I am on my own. Here is some news for you... I know it. Nothing has ever been clearer to me then the fact that I am on my own. I have been more on my own than most people have been, since I was three years old.

Bill, thanks for providing information which might change your life. Have you filed for VA benefits? I can assist you or point you in the direction. VA was set up to take care of the veterans after the service. I have assist many online and in person with this.

I have also assist several people in start up businesses and none need huge amounts of capital. Problem with most small businesses is they over extend credit and are stuck attempting to pay loans when cash flow is young. Rome wasnt built in a day and you do not make a million overnight (unless your Gates)

The social programs in America are abused over and over, however if you are truely in need and qualify, then file for assistance. Public dole, listen you paid into Social Security and if you need to start withdrawing, do it.

If you have a family, you owe it to them to support them. You also owe it to yourself to comprehend your limits. Need food on the table, nothing wrong with a visit to the foodbank and unlike many, you could assist them..sort of the old fashion barter system.

I would weed you out in an interview because how you are unable to sell yourself and also do what is best for your family. If you have a back problem, hiding it from employers is dishonest and could cause the employer huge amounts of lawsuits.

Bill, sorry I am from the old school of we are what we make of ourselves. Yes, I was blessed, with my life, and my wife, and kids..and to me as long as we have each other thats all we need.

It is one thing to need help.. its another to put people down who have done well in the capital world.. Email me via Gather and I will assist in filing for SSDI, SSI and VA if you need it. Might consider assistance to get you back on your feet. Then you can kick ass..

Donald C. - Thank you for the offer to help me find assistance through the VA or SSA.

Although I most likely qualify, the fact that I certainly could use some help, and the fact that I have been paying into social security for the past thirty-plus years, I still prefer to continue trying to find a way to earn money rather than turn to those public moneys that I might be entitled to. When or if my condition progresses to wheelchair confinement, then I probably will have to look into it.

People who know me tell me that I am articulate, intelligent and a good person with much to offer. Somehow, somewhere there should be some way that I can earn my own living; regardless of the fact that I am not employable.

With continued effort, the feedback of knowledgeable others (and perhaps some luck) I hope to soon be making enough money to support myself as a writer/artist.

As far as your perception that I have been putting people down who have done well in the capital world... it is my constitutional right to do so.

But, to be quite fair about it, my article does not put them down. This article simply recites recorded history of humanity's experiences with capitalism and cites what often happens within the dynamics of capitalist systems.

I made no attacks, I called no one names, I did not say that anyone was Evil, hateful or my enemy. I reported known established trends and suggested some different attitudes for actions that could be pursued.

You are not the only one who interpreted this article as an attack on the rich. My perception is that many people have a knee-jerk reaction of defensiveness, while others just automatically adopt an offensive stance to any criticism of our American capitalist systems and how they function.

Such is life.

Bill- One of the benefits the VA provides is REHAB, which can consist of education assistance, and also set you up with a career to match your skills. You have pride, I understand, however, I suggest you consider what is best for you and your family.

Bill, here is something I want you to honestly ponder. Ever consider you might have missed them life changing events because you are not using the tools available? Bill, consider what if you had a Masters in English..which may have been paid by say the VA with jog coaching and also providing cash, px, and deca benefits?

My reaction was not knee-jerk but it was valid. People often attempt to blame a system when they happen to be at the bottom rung. The system is not perfect but overall it is the most fair of any system I have seen for humans.

I highly suggest you rethink your stuborn stance against using the tools made available not by the public but by YOU. You created the SS credits on file for you, you served the United States and the VA is set up to assist veterans..

VA has comp-pension, healthcare, meds, and if your rates 100% perm-disabled, education assistance for the spouse and kids. I honestly think if you qualify for these benefits and decide not to use them...you are the blame not the system.

Yes, you have rights to put down the rich...but you are also basing and judging people by money alone...should we judge all poor the same? Wealth is far from a cash account.

Best of Luck

Donald S. - Thanks for your comment.

I had a bad experience with the VA back in the mid 1980s that left a disturbing mark on my psyche. About five years after being discharged -- and after five years of being turned away from jobs and experiencing back pain from some of the jobs that I managed to get into by not disclosing my condition -- I called the VA to see if I could talk to someone about my situation and see if the VA had any tools, programs or opportunities that might help me get some feet under me.

There was no conversation in the appointment they set for me. They gave me a freakin' proctology exam and told me that was all I would get.

That system's message was clear.

I may yet make inquiries with Social Security, but I will first see if the various Art and writing organizations can help.

About my article, again I ask you to read it with clear eyes. I portrayed the actions and outcomes and judged the results; not the people or the fact that they have money.

Bill-

Sorry you had a bad experience. The system has changed and has gotten far better. First, apply for benefits. Honestly, this allows the system to start churning the wheels. You will get an appointment and from there they will rate your disabilities. Prior medical form and especialy where it was found in the USAF will grant you service connected rating. I would also suggest a mental examination. Do not take this as an attack but level of depression is clearly there and understandable. Most likely you will be rated 30% or more, which allows for rehab.. This takes time I know, but they will also backpay from time filed.
VA also has what they call a pension, something you should qualify for. It is based on your current income.
Social Security honestly is harder to get for some. All depends on who does the review. It also takes time.

If you need assistance in filing for the VA benefits, they have people to help and also encourage you to check the local American Legion.

You might also want to check into VA Loan program for business,