• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Who is more ADMIRABLE, the POLITICIAN or the BUSINESSMAN?

Who is more ADMIRABLE, the POLITICIAN or the BUSINESSMAN?

  • Total voters
    43
Ahlevah said:
But the majority of people no longer can borrow money to drive Wal-Mart's growth. In September, 2000, Wal-Mart stock sold for $52. Today it's selling for $51 and change. An investor would have done better with less risk putting the money in a bank.
Click to expand...

So people will have to spend responsibly? The horror.
 
Ahlevah said:
But the majority of people no longer can borrow money to drive Wal-Mart's growth. In September, 2000, Wal-Mart stock sold for $52. Today it's selling for $51 and change. An investor would have done better with less risk putting the money in a bank.
Click to expand...

Can you please tell me your point or elaborate a bit?
 
ElijahGalt said:
Can you please tell me your point or elaborate a bit?
Click to expand...

Sure. My point revolves around the same theme I've been trumpeting on this board for months: Society functions best when people cooperate and understand that they're all in the same boat. Wal-Mart's business model of wringing cost reductions from suppliers in a sort of brutish, Darwinian competition and paying workers sub-industry wages might have worked indefinitely if the world stood still and other companies didn't do likewise. I just find it ironic that the whole drive to impoverish workers was supposed to make companies more prosperous, but the result has been stagnation and mediocrity. And I have the feeling we ain't seen nothin' yet.
 
Ahlevah said:
Sure. My point revolves around the same theme I've been trumpeting on this board for months: Society functions best when people cooperate and understand that they're all in the same boat. Wal-Mart's business model of wringing cost reductions from suppliers in a sort of brutish, Darwinian competition and paying workers sub-industry wages might have worked indefinitely if the world stood still and other companies didn't do likewise. I just find it ironic that the whole drive to impoverish workers was supposed to make companies more prosperous, but the result has been stagnation and mediocrity. And I have the feeling we ain't seen nothin' yet.
Click to expand...
I agree, yet I am not a conservative,I think.
 
Ahlevah said:
Sure. My point revolves around the same theme I've been trumpeting on this board for months: Society functions best when people cooperate and understand that they're all in the same boat. Wal-Mart's business model of wringing cost reductions from suppliers in a sort of brutish, Darwinian competition and paying workers sub-industry wages might have worked indefinitely if the world stood still and other companies didn't do likewise. I just find it ironic that the whole drive to impoverish workers was supposed to make companies more prosperous, but the result has been stagnation and mediocrity. And I have the feeling we ain't seen nothin' yet.
Click to expand...

How much should a Walmart employee be paid? You can call it social darwinism, but when you're competiting with the largest firms on the GLOBE, Walmart's sheer size can be good for the American economy. Walmart does not impoverish workers. Individuals impoverish themselves, or simply refuse to rise out of the poverty they were born into. The only exceptions are the physically and mentally disabled. You may disagree.
 
Why are your polls always black and white choices?

There are some politicians I admire and some I despise. There are some businessman I admire and some I despise.

Do you think the businessmen who flouted safety concerns and caused the Bhopal chemical explosion that killed thousands of Indians are more admirable than, say, Kennedy or Reagan?

Why does it have to be a black and white choice?
 
UtahBill said:
I think businessman and entreupeneur (spelling?) are not always the same thing. Someone can create something new, or innovate, or invent, or build, all things related to producing a product. The average businessman is just a salesman, making a commission off the creativity of others. Not saying it is bad, just that selling isn't really something special.
Click to expand...
I just thought of a businessman who I can't find anything at all wrong with. His name is John Huntsman (a self made billionaire), not to be confused with John Huntsman the (Politician)
 
ElijahGalt said:
I'm sorry I can't write a book on the subject so that it's detailed enough for you. But I am a public history major. Can you please give an in-depth analysis of why you favor government over business?
Click to expand...

Public history? did you leave out a word? If not, what would private history be?:2razz:
 
ElijahGalt said:
How much should a Walmart employee be paid? You can call it social darwinism, but when you're competiting with the largest firms on the GLOBE, Walmart's sheer size can be good for the American economy. Walmart does not impoverish workers. Individuals impoverish themselves, or simply refuse to rise out of the poverty they were born into. The only exceptions are the physically and mentally disabled. You may disagree.
Click to expand...
agree, I was born into a poor family, dad was a security guard til he hit age 38 and it occurred to him that he cannot continue to feed a wife and 5 kids on his income. Later on my parents adopted an out of wedlock nephew, so they raised 6 kids. Only 2 of us escaped the poverty trap.
Most of us are what we make of ourselves. People who accept part time work, low wages, minimal benefits, etc. are usually the barely educated and there are plenty of employers who need just that, and nothing more. IF people want the wages of skilled labor, they should do their part to become skilled...
OTOH, business could stop exporting jobs overseas...and politicians could do more to improve education and skill training to help keep those jobs at home. Let's see, that leaves the unions......what can they do? I know, stop demanding high wages for low skill jobs, especially when the consumers are skittish and aren't buying the products the skilled labor produces...
 
FilmFestGuy said:
Why are your polls always black and white choices?
Click to expand...

Because what's so interesting about being on the fence? Having only two choices forces you to pick one or the other, not "I don't know" or "maybe."

There are some politicians I admire and some I despise. There are some businessman I admire and some I despise.
Click to expand...

I can relate. But deep down inside, I believe we all admire certain occupations over others, even if it is the individual human that must be examined. As I stated way earlier in the post, many Americans admire the occupation of a firefighter, a police officer, a teacher, a pilot, an astronaut, a soldier, a doctor. It is often in the admiration of a certain occupation that we find our own calling. The only regret is that I used the word "who" in the title, implying a general human character to a nonhuman occupation.

Do you think the businessmen who flouted safety concerns and caused the Bhopal chemical explosion that killed thousands of Indians are more admirable than, say, Kennedy or Reagan?
Click to expand...

How often has a politician killed, maimed, or stolen from the populace? The majority of history is filled with ONLY such people (though many happened to create a lot of good things in the process of killing, maiming, and controlling a lot of human beings). They have much greater control over the daily lives of every individual as opposed to the common business. Compare the death record of the government with the death record of business.

Why does it have to be a black and white choice?
Click to expand...

Because sometimes, a binary can be useful.
 
UtahBill said:
agree, I was born into a poor family, dad was a security guard til he hit age 38 and it occurred to him that he cannot continue to feed a wife and 5 kids on his income. Later on my parents adopted an out of wedlock nephew, so they raised 6 kids. Only 2 of us escaped the poverty trap.
Most of us are what we make of ourselves. People who accept part time work, low wages, minimal benefits, etc. are usually the barely educated and there are plenty of employers who need just that, and nothing more. IF people want the wages of skilled labor, they should do their part to become skilled...
OTOH, business could stop exporting jobs overseas...and politicians could do more to improve education and skill training to help keep those jobs at home. Let's see, that leaves the unions......what can they do? I know, stop demanding high wages for low skill jobs, especially when the consumers are skittish and aren't buying the products the skilled labor produces...
Click to expand...

I agreed with you right up to the point when your argument diverts into a protectionist campaign. Protectionism is bad for the U.S. economy. It has a devastating history and the benefits of artifically preventing the exportation of jobs is far less than the costs. It is similar to the ridiculous notion that Mexicans are stealing American jobs.

There is a good side and a bad side to unions. The good side is that unions are organizations of working individuals who mutually come together to redress grievances and resolve differences. The bad side is that unions act as lobbyists for workers, and they often hurt the surrounding local economy in the same way that corporate monopolies do- by artificially reducing supply and competition. Workers don't like to compete with new workers for hours and promotions, just as corporations do not wish to compete with new, emerging competition. Both will do whatever it takes, legally, to install laws that benefit their special interest. Unions also reduce the supply of their workforce by making it harder for the management to afford new union workers. If it is expensive to cater to a union, and every worker is union, then it's tough to afford new labor.

And finally, and somewhat astonishingly, public and private sector unions are the heavy-hitting donors to political elections (sources available upon request).
 
Last edited:
ElijahGalt said:
How much should a Walmart employee be paid?
Click to expand...

It would depend on what the job entailed. Unlike a liberal, I'm not going to tell Wal-Mart it has to pay an employee anything. But if I were an executive with a company that made billionaires out of members of the founding family, I would either pay my full-time employees something above the poverty level or resign. I'd be ashamed to do otherwise:

Using Wal-Mart's figures, a “full-time” employee at 34 hours per week, making the Wal-Mart average wage of $10.86 per hour, will earn $19,200.48 per year. The federal government’s definition of poverty for a family of four in the contiguous United States is $21,200.

WAL-MART'S NEW HEALTH PLAN: MEDICAID
Click to expand...

ElijahGalt said:
Individuals impoverish themselves, or simply refuse to rise out of the poverty they were born into. The only exceptions are the physically and mentally disabled. You may disagree.
Click to expand...

I agree with that to a point. But if we as a society don't figure out a way to stop exporting high value-added jobs in industries like manufacturing and just assume we're going to support a first-world economy with cashiers and greeters we're going to be sorely disappointed.

Where the Jobs Are: A First Look at Private Industry Job Growth and Wages in 2010
 
Ahlevah said:
It would depend on what the job entailed. Unlike a liberal, I'm not going to tell Wal-Mart it has to pay an employee anything. But if I were an executive with a company that made billionaires out of members of the founding family, I would either pay my full-time employees something above the poverty level or resign. I'd be ashamed to do otherwise:
Click to expand...

Well, at least you're not willing to go the extra route to force employers to pay more than they do. I still think your expectations may be a little bit high. I've brought up (I think it was this thread) that I work at In-N-Out Burger, a California fast food restaurant. In-N-Out has a great cult following, known for their delicious burgers, great customer service, and their employee-friendly atmosphere. They have been praised by many Americans. I've been working part-time there for four years. Their starting wage is $10 an hour (as opposed to minimum wage for all other fast food restaurants). I make twelve. Despite showing my dedication and loyalty to the company, they have not given me full-time status, which would make me eligible for their healthcare package. In that way, they are like other fast food joints (keeping most everyone at a part-time status). They do cover their part-timers with dental and vision packages, something I've never seen before.

So here we are. I work for a company RENOWNED for their generous wages and employee-centered environment, and I'm STILL making below the poverty line and without health insurance (just like the example you gave of a Walmart employee). And the owners are riding jets to work. Is that "fair?" Is it "just?" Is it "ethical?" I feel there is nothing wrong with it, but you may completely disagree. I just think your standards may be a bit too high. Contrary to the Kingfish, we are not all kings.





I agree with that to a point. But if we as a society don't figure out a way to stop exporting high value-added jobs in industries like manufacturing and just assume we're going to support a first-world economy with cashiers and greeters we're going to be sorely disappointed.
Click to expand...

Here we go again with the protectionist argument. Nothing is wrong with free trade and lower prices. We're not working in factories anymore, but we are working in more offices and labs. Our healthcare industry, despite its many flaws, is actually one of our biggest economic generators. We are flourishing in other, service areas which is not horrible. Isn't an office job with reasonable perks (nearly every nonunion American agrees that union perks are excessive) and a reasonable salary better than a unionist manufacturing job, with dangerous work conditions, and a pension that will bankrupt the country? Only 1% of Americans work on farms, and I hear the same romanticizing of the farmers as I've heard with the manufacturers. Yet, the life of a farmer is extremely hard work. Why can't we accept the fact that things have gotten better, and so have our jobs. Just because certain job markets remain viable even during a recession, doesn't mean we've wasted our entire economy researching, developing, and building jobs that only include cashiers, greeters, etc. There is actually an easy way for someone who is poor to rise up out of poverty. Have you ever heard of all the thriving employment markets in massage therapy, medical coding and billing, surgercial technician, etc.? The list of new, and emerging careers is neverending. And many of these technical programs are very affordable, last anywhere from 6 months-2 years, and have very favorable job placement rates.

Where the Jobs Are: A First Look at Private Industry Job Growth and Wages in 2010
Click to expand...

Again, these are recession times and certain low-paying jobs will always be open. But the real agony is the massive waste by politicians who attempt to "fix" these things. Take the stimulus plan. Since the Recovery Act, there have been 416,000 new federal government jobs. But the private sector has lost 2,554,000 jobs, according to the BLS. This is despite the fact that the Obama administration promised otherwise. The wasted capital is a private loss.
 
I meant to say "bankrupt the company" not "bankrupt the country."
 
ElijahGalt said:
We're not working in factories anymore, but we are working in more offices and labs.
Click to expand...

You mean some of us are. Most of us aren't:

Among industries that grew in 2010, the top three occupations are retail sales persons, cashiers, and food preparation workers; combined, these three occupations numbered almost 10 million jobs in July 2010, with median wages below $10 an hour.

Where the Jobs Are: A First Look at Private Industry Job Growth and Wages in 2010
Click to expand...

ElijahGalt said:
Again, these are recession times and certain low-paying jobs will always be open.
Click to expand...

This is no run-of-the-mill recession. This economy began shedding higher-paying blue-collar jobs in manufacturing and even white collar jobs in engineering and design decades ago. Much of the "job creation" in recent years took place in areas of the economy goosed with cheap money, like construction and mortgage lending. Those jobs will not be easily replaced.
 
Last edited:
Ahlevah said:
You mean some of us are. Most of us aren't:





This is no run-of-the-mill recession. This economy began shedding higher-paying blue-collar jobs in manufacturing and even white collar jobs in engineering and design decades ago. Much of the "job creation" in recent years took place in areas of the economy goosed with cheap money, like construction and mortgage lending. Those jobs will not be easily replaced.
Click to expand...

As I said earlier, these growing job markets have always been growing, with or without a recession. But I think you're trying to claim that we've lost our economic stronghold because we've sacrificed many manufacturing jobs. Then, why are we still number one? Why do so many of the latest technological advances still come from American entrepreneurs? I don't see how we can still be number one if the majority of our employment sector has been relegated to cashiers, greeters, and food servers.
 
ElijahGalt said:
But I think you're trying to claim that we've lost our economic stronghold because we've sacrificed many manufacturing jobs. Then, why are we still number one? Why do so many of the latest technological advances still come from American entrepreneurs? I don't see how we can still be number one if the majority of our employment sector has been relegated to cashiers, greeters, and food servers.
Click to expand...

We still have entrepreneurs and people willing to take risks. But I think the large, vibrant middle class we saw in the Post War Years is shrinking and giving rise to a larger underclass. While incomes stagnated, households tried to maintain living standards by borrowing from banks and Wall Street, which were happy to oblige.
 
Last edited:
Ahlevah said:
We still have entrepreneurs and people willing to take risks. But I think the large, vibrant middle class we saw in the Post War Years is shrinking and giving rise to a larger underclass. While incomes stagnated, households tried to maintain living standards by borrowing from banks and Wall Street, which were happy to oblige.
Click to expand...

You're forgetting the easy credit and loan guarantees financed by government.

I also think you're just being overly pessimistic. We're not all sweating in a factory somewhere making generous salaries and union pensions, but we are doing other, great things. We're certainly not restricted to the benign jobs that you've brought up. Industries are changing, and so should we.
 
Someone said, "if Bernie Madoff had been in congress" what he did is considered ok for them to do so he would still be a free man.
 
I'm not so sure why Businessman are so revered .. I suppose it is all the wealth they have. From ripping off employees.. on wages.. and then customers that pay more for the service or whatever the salesman is selling then the buisnessman paid. Basically I see them as swindlers.. rip off artists. Politicans are at least subject to public scrutiny and assesment every so many years. Politicans are the peoples paid servents.
 
Gabriel said:
I'm not so sure why Businessman are so revered .. I suppose it is all the wealth they have. From ripping off employees.. on wages.. and then customers that pay more for the service or whatever the salesman is selling then the buisnessman paid. Basically I see them as swindlers.. rip off artists. Politicans are at least subject to public scrutiny and assesment every so many years. Politicans are the peoples paid servents.
Click to expand...
Perhaps because of that public scrutiny, we hear much more about politicians failings?

Personally, however, I think it's because most people consider Businessmen to be actually doing something, while they consider politicians to just be trying to get re-elected...At least, that's how I see it.

Further, I think your examples of "how they got wealth" are not the examples of businessmen I (or most who voted for that poll option) considered "ADMIRABLE" (or at the least, more so than the other option).

In short, I consider it more likely that one would encounter an admirable businessman than an admirable politician - thus, my choice.
 
The Mark said:
Perhaps because of that public scrutiny, we hear much more about politicians failings?

Personally, however, I think it's because most people consider Businessmen to be actually doing something, while they consider politicians to just be trying to get re-elected...At least, that's how I see it.

Further, I think your examples of "how they got wealth" are not the examples of businessmen I (or most who voted for that poll option) considered "ADMIRABLE" (or at the least, more so than the other option).

In short, I consider it more likely that one would encounter an admirable businessman than an admirable politician - thus, my choice.
Click to expand...

Yeah well most certainly politicians have a much more difficult time with media etc.. and considering the endless scandals in government it is no wonder people distrust them. However I do know for a fact that in the vast majority of cases and work they do they are trying to help constituents in one manner or other.

Businessmen.. they do all sorts of white collar crime that isn't focused on by the media. The obvious reason is of course .. they aren’t public servants.

I trust businessmen less then politicians personally simply because their motives are clearly more self serving then the politician. This isn't to say they wouldn't lie or whatever the negative behaviour in question might be.

There is a clear disparity in the motivations of each group. Getting re elected doesn't mean you have the largest contributions from lobby groups necessarily but in the US that clearly has an effect. Getting re elected might mean you have allocated money for a public facility to be used by everyone or fixing infrastructure. I don't see a politician wanting to be re-elected as a negative thing if they are doing their job and serving the public properly.

I do think that business is deserving of far more public scrutiny then it gets .. obviously they are profiting at the expense of others.. and living a privileged life in exchange for doing it. Really we have put con artists at the top of human society. Certainly a degree of smarts is needed to work within the framework of law to do it legally but… it isn’t much different then other means of pilfering, a bit washed down maybe. Look at the drug companies.. yeah they have it figured out. The crack dealer on the sidewalk is doing much the same thing as a pharmacist franchise buisnessman.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom