And yet those with more responsibility gets paid more....wonder why that is...hmm...
Who makes that decision? Yeah the CEO ... also did CEOs suddenly get 300% more responsible? And workers -something%
The power is in your work. I've had plenty of jobs where all I did was talk to the correct person, ask for a raise told him/her why I thought I deserved it and got it. Not once have I needed someone else to advocate for me. So sorry but experiance and reality show that a union is not absolutely necessary. And I have NEVER been in a union. Nor would I want to be.
No. I am saying that honesty and hard work are the best policy. Stand out from other grunts and you will advance. Thats the way it has been for quite some time now.
We are talking economics, not personal experience, and the fact is OVERALL, less union strength less wages, of coarse its better to be honest and hard working, but its also better to have collective action, but I'm glad you want to just give everything up to the boss.
Thank you for admitting that mental activity is a nessecity and is used. .
Never claimed otherwise, and honestly its irrelevant
Instiutional frameworks is available to everyone...not just the rich and CEO's. You can make just as much use of it as anyone else.
As for "institutional advantages" I can only assume that you are talking about inheritance in that. But the thing is that doesn't mean crap for anyone else. Mr. Walton himself shows that. Along with lots of other billionaires.
No, its strict property laws, its corporate policy, its capital gains tax rates, its tons and tons of other institutional frameworks, its limited liability and so on, these things are for buisiness owners.
Wait....what happened to Germany? Are you no longer touting them as the best example? :shrug: Oh well. I would still bet that the US is still richer than "Emilia-Romagna"...Never even heard of that place before so obviously it isn't that famous.
No, not when you compare living standards, also jstu because you've never heard of it doesn't change anything, I'm not touting Germany as my best example I'm using it as one example. Either way, the evidence is in, in the US poverty is growing.
That's not arguing that at all. If you want an example of how morals affects how people are affected then would you say that blacks are better off economically now than they were when they were slaves? Or when they were segregated and racism was far worse than now? In both cases morality shifted. And they got better off economically than they were before.
What shifted was institutions, its not like in the 60s white people suddenly became unracist and stopped being douches, no, black people FOUGHT for institutional changes, and overtime those effect the morals.
No actually they weren't. Most people would actually turn down jobs that they thought were immoral to do. Yes there were plenty of people that were greedy. Thats just the nature of Man. But morals DO change. The very fact that slavery is outlawed in the US should be ample evidence of that.
What changed slavery was a civil war, not a sudden change of morality.
The change was not sudden by any means. If you want an example of the difference in morals then take a look at underwear commercials 50 years ago vs today's. And before you get in a tizzy that is JUST an example of the change in morality.
What changed is the religiosity, power of the church and so on. Look are you really saying that the US economy sucks because people are not moral? And in Northern europe people are simply MORE moral? And its not the institutional framework?
While tribal they were NOT a democracy. You're thinking "tribal" in the sense of the Native Americans. I'm thinking tribal as in Neandrathals. But if you want to go strictly by what is considered "capitalistic" and "socialism" as they are understood today then you are still wrong. Capitalism as it is understood today can be traced back to the Middle Ages. Socialism on the other hand traces its roots to The French Revolution in 1789.
Wiki ~ History of Capitalism
Wiki ~ History of Socialism
I'm talking tribal as in germanic tribes, native american tribes, nomad tribes and so on. Socialism goes way before the French Revolution, the French revolution just called it socialism, just like ideas of liberty go way way beyond the enlightenment. As far as the history of Capitalism, yeah it existed small scale in the middle ages, but not as a ruling system, hell socialism exists small scale now.
Socialism is not what makes Germany successfull. Hard work does.
Yeah ... Germans are just somehow genetically better than Americans ... or just have better morals .... honestly that the dumbest argument.
Why not? If socialism is so great then why hasn't it been implemented? There are plenty of socialistic parties, both past and present.
You could make that same argument about democracy 300 years ago.
Either way you are advocating the use of something that is used by capitalism. The very thing that you are railing against.
I wasn't advocating ANYTHING ... do you know the difference between positive and normative economics??? I WAS EXPLAINING HOW CAPITALISM WORKS ... pay attention.
No it is not. Socialism is where no one but the government owns property and everyone works to take care of everyone else.
Not according to 90% of socialists ... who I think would have a better say than you do.
And what value do they produce? What product does a stocker produce in order to show thier value? How do you figure this number?
The stocker produces a system in which products can be sold, I think a better way to figure out value is democratically, rather than dictatorially, i.e. not the CEO chooses (it jst so happens he's worth millions and millions).
Did you really just say this? Wow. No company would allow the CEO of another company on thier board. Thats a sure way to get your ideas stolen. And those idea's make them money. A CEO may move from one company to another but they sure as hell are not on multiple boards in multiple companies.
As for not investing in the company...your kidding right? IIRC one of Hostess's CEO's invested a little over 100 million dollars in Hostess to keep it from going bankrupt. Yeah, those CEO's may have a "golden parachute" but how do you think they got those parachute's? They educated themselves, worked to make themselves worth the CEO position and negotiated themselves with the right people to get that parachute. They did not need a union to do it either.
Except for the fact that it happens all the time. Also You're example about Hostess is just one example, most CEO's are not as invested as the workers, without the jobs the workers are in desperate poverty, the CEOs are generally fine.
They god those parachutes by extracting wealth from workers ....
Compared to some yes. I am. To others, nope. See I'm quite comfortable with not making millions. I want enough to pay my bills and pay for a few wants. Beyond that I'm content. I don't want millions for the simple fact that its got more trouble than it is worth. See, I'm not greedy.
I see, so you COULD be rich you just don't want to be.
Thier job didn't get more easier, it just got more efficient. Indeed the job actually has gotten more complicated. Mostly due to more complicated laws and a more complicated market. Something which workers don't have to worry about.
If it became more efficient for one person then its necessarily less work, also what new complicated laws? workers have to worry about changes in markets all the time because their ass is on the line, but so you honestly think that CEOs are working 300% harder than 10 years ago? Or producing 300% more value .... or in whatever way you think Capitalism is a meritocracy
Yes it did. But not more complicated.
yes it did ...
Dictatorships don't allow for freedoms. So no, I am not for them.
Seamed like you are in favor of them ... Capitalism doesn't really allow freedoms either, unless you can afford them.
Wrong. Germany is less greedy than those in the US. Though admittedly its possible that thier form of socialistic capitalism could have something to do with it.
American Phsycholigical Association ~ How greed outstripped need
Yeah institutions change attitudes.
I never stated that morality was the ONLY factor. But it IS a HUGE factor. So your analogy does not fit.
And morality is shaped by the institutional framework.
It is this very social institution which allows you to speak what you want and do what you want with your body...though that last there is debateable...after all you cannot legally kill yourself or take narcotics. But either way your statement does nothing to address my statement that the owner ship of property is a protected right in the Constitution.
Ah so you're now moving the goal posts because you've been shown that your original ideaology messed with your things. Funny that... So basically it is perfectly OK to demand things from others so long as your things are not among those demands.
The constitution is not cannon .. nor is it natural law.
Also property rights are not self autonomy rights, you don't own yourself you ARE yourself, ownership is a relation.
I'm not moving goal posts AT ALL ... you're just unable to understand arguments.