@C40: Fine--ignore the car issue and focus on the NYC subway.
@Jacob: Great post, Jacob--I don't think there is anything I could disagree with.
I think you're right that flexibility is key--you need to realize that your worldview or strategy was wrong and adapt. I tried to do this (ERE helped a lot)--I realized an academic career in the humanities wasn't exactly profitable or giving me the lifestyle I wanted, so I tried to find a way out. I think you're right that few people are willing to admit they made huge mistakes in their past (choosing a major, marrying a person, buying a house) and adapting appropriately.
But this is a bit beside the point: the problem is that the blue-collar (and increasingly white-collar; those jobs going to India aren't just unskilled anymore) middle class now needs to adapt to a changing society that makes less and less room for them. This is a fundamental cultural issue--in the U.S. efficiency is prized before everything else and so if you have an employee or a whole class of potential employees and they don't augment your bottom line--well, fuck 'em. Other countries prize other things (social cohesion, fairness, a decent standard of living) more. Japan is another good example--if you've ever done work with the Japanese, you know how very, very inefficient their corporate structure and individual workers are. Tons of people are hired to do basically nothing--but the government puts pressure on these companies to keep employing people for the good of the society as a whole.
Of course this is wasteful, and the economic benefits of such a system are debatable. I know for sure I prefer doing business with and buying things from American over Japanese companies, partly because of that efficiency issue. And I prefer living in America over Scandinavia, where I have more control over what happens to my paycheck.
Still, that drive for efficiency has come at a cost, and in America the middle class is paying that cost with lower wages, less job stability, and higher prices. If that cost was more evenly spread, I'd say there's less of an ethical issue involved. But what is happening isn't just an engineering problem or an economic trend: it is a cultural paradigm whereby "I got mine, Jack" is the zeitgeist. It has been since Gordon Gekko said "greed is good", arguably even before that in the 1960's when Ayn Rand started convincing egomaniacal executives that their selfish tendencies to cheat on their wives, get drunk at lunch, cheat their customers, and squeeze their employees was actually virtuous. The idea is there in "Death of a Salesman" and is kind of what makes America unique.
The problem is, that kind of culture of shameless selfishness is easily sustainable when your GDP is exploding and there's plenty of wilderness to tame--look at China today. But with sub-3% GDP growth, America would need a new cultural shift for everyone to keep seeing their life quality improving like things did in the 1950s and 1960s.
The fact is, it's harder to get a risk-adjusted passive income stream today than in the past. I think we easily forget just how easy it was to get rich back then--not just by starting a business. Savings accounts had >4% returns, home values exploded. Kids these days don't even know the rule of 72 anymore--why should they when a 4% ROR is considered amazing?
Sorry, this post is probably too esoteric. But thanks to everyone for contributing--this is one of the best discussions I've ever had, on a forum or in person.
Can't Save? Here's Why
-
secretwealth
- Posts: 1948
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 3:31 am
-
Spartan_Warrior
- Posts: 1659
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:24 am
@durmin12: (welcome to the forum btw)
"I refuse to be a victim."
This always gets me. Just because you "refuse" to be one doesn't mean you aren't one. You absolutely can refuse to adopt a "victim mentality", but you can't simply refuse away a physical reality. It's like a crippled person saying "I refuse to be crippled". No, you can refuse to fall into depression because of it, and you can adapt and work around it, but it doesn't change reality. Like I said earlier, ignoring this reality just strikes me as putting your head in the sand.
@C40: In retrospect I wish I'd included both health care and college costs in my analysis. I'm sure that would've shown the cost of living to have skyrocketed.
There's also the reality of compounding interest that goes along with financing for these higher dollar figures. Even if interest rates were higher back then, they wouldn't have accrued as quickly or brutally. The interest on my house this year alone was more than the purchase price of a 1950s house.
At any rate, I can get behind what Jacob's saying now a lot more than I can get behind flat-out denials that "the season is changing" against the middle class.
(Although I do kinda disagree that "the best" are being rewarded by the new system. Hedge fund managers/wall street types, politicians, oil tycoons, and heirs/heiresses don't strike me as "the best" but to each his own. IMO, to a large extent, these ARE the non-performers. Egyptians didn't build pyramids. Egyptian slaves built pyramids.)
"I refuse to be a victim."
This always gets me. Just because you "refuse" to be one doesn't mean you aren't one. You absolutely can refuse to adopt a "victim mentality", but you can't simply refuse away a physical reality. It's like a crippled person saying "I refuse to be crippled". No, you can refuse to fall into depression because of it, and you can adapt and work around it, but it doesn't change reality. Like I said earlier, ignoring this reality just strikes me as putting your head in the sand.
@C40: In retrospect I wish I'd included both health care and college costs in my analysis. I'm sure that would've shown the cost of living to have skyrocketed.
There's also the reality of compounding interest that goes along with financing for these higher dollar figures. Even if interest rates were higher back then, they wouldn't have accrued as quickly or brutally. The interest on my house this year alone was more than the purchase price of a 1950s house.
At any rate, I can get behind what Jacob's saying now a lot more than I can get behind flat-out denials that "the season is changing" against the middle class.
(Although I do kinda disagree that "the best" are being rewarded by the new system. Hedge fund managers/wall street types, politicians, oil tycoons, and heirs/heiresses don't strike me as "the best" but to each his own. IMO, to a large extent, these ARE the non-performers. Egyptians didn't build pyramids. Egyptian slaves built pyramids.)
@secretwealth:
I agree, this is a fantastic debate! I'm loving watching it unfold.
Regarding your statement: "...the problem is that the blue-collar... middle class now needs to adapt to a changing society that makes less and less room for them."
If that is indeed the problem, as opposed to simply the neutral environment in which we now operate, then what's the solution you're most inclined to advocate?
I agree, this is a fantastic debate! I'm loving watching it unfold.
Regarding your statement: "...the problem is that the blue-collar... middle class now needs to adapt to a changing society that makes less and less room for them."
If that is indeed the problem, as opposed to simply the neutral environment in which we now operate, then what's the solution you're most inclined to advocate?
-
Spartan_Warrior
- Posts: 1659
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:24 am
@GandK:
That's kind of a gotcha question because you've already implied earlier that any solution involving the government is "wrong". I can't argue around that ideological position. Nor can I speak for secretwealth.
If corporations and CEOs would willingly implement these measures, then government intervention wouldn't be necessary. But since that'll never happen, what I'd like to see to even the playing field again is stricter measures against outsourcing and a more progressive personal income tax with higher taxes for the wealthiest (basically more, progressively higher tax brackets beyond the new 400,000 range). Both of these would force executives to invest more money in their companies here in the U.S., rather than in China or in their own personal bank accounts. The result would be more jobs and higher paying ones to boot. There are other tangential measures that could be taken (for instance, ironically, I'd like to see the government GET OUT of housing so prices could naturally bottom--think how many new homeowners would benefit--and needless to say, no more bail outs for Wall Street ever, ever, ever) but I really think these two things would help dramatically to reverse the trends against the middle class.
That's kind of a gotcha question because you've already implied earlier that any solution involving the government is "wrong". I can't argue around that ideological position. Nor can I speak for secretwealth.
If corporations and CEOs would willingly implement these measures, then government intervention wouldn't be necessary. But since that'll never happen, what I'd like to see to even the playing field again is stricter measures against outsourcing and a more progressive personal income tax with higher taxes for the wealthiest (basically more, progressively higher tax brackets beyond the new 400,000 range). Both of these would force executives to invest more money in their companies here in the U.S., rather than in China or in their own personal bank accounts. The result would be more jobs and higher paying ones to boot. There are other tangential measures that could be taken (for instance, ironically, I'd like to see the government GET OUT of housing so prices could naturally bottom--think how many new homeowners would benefit--and needless to say, no more bail outs for Wall Street ever, ever, ever) but I really think these two things would help dramatically to reverse the trends against the middle class.
-
secretwealth
- Posts: 1948
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 3:31 am
As S_W says, it's a gotcha question--acknowledging the existence of a problem and proposing a solution are two very different things.
I'm not really here to provide an answer--what's more important for me is to get everyone to acknowledge that the social contracts of old are gone. This isn't an issue of economic or political policy--it's an issue of culture. The bonds that tied generations, social classes, sectors are all gone. You've seen it in this thread: contempt for the humanities is a common one. There's this bizarre idea that if you aren't producing computer code or doing research in a lab, your job has no value. A very odd idea from anyone who likes movies, novels, and video games, let alone other forms of art and culture.
Or the contempt you have for the low wage earners--well, they should adapt. It's their fault for having the wrong degree or no degree, etc. There was a time when it was assumed that those who could work and wanted to work should have access to a decent job that pays for a lower middle class existence. Now this is considered a radical idea.
Then there's the generational gap--I've got SSI and Medicare and don't you dare take it away from me, but my grandchildren--well, they'll just have to adapt. We can't afford it for them. In the 1950s it would have been unthinkable that a sizable portion of the elderly population would openly advocate for declining living standards for their descendants. It still boggles my mind.
But there you have it--decades of "greed is good" has developed this mentality, where if you aren't an engineer or you don't make enough money or you weren't born at the right time, you're going to get less and--well, that's just how it is. There's nothing we can do about it, or maybe there's nothing we should do about it. Such ideas really point to a breakdown of the social contract--and I wish people could think about it in those terms instead of as economic or political issues.
The problem isn't that we have less resources than in the past--we have many, many more--it's that we aren't working together to find a system that will rise the tide of all boats. Rather, it's every man for himself. That's a shame.
I'm not really here to provide an answer--what's more important for me is to get everyone to acknowledge that the social contracts of old are gone. This isn't an issue of economic or political policy--it's an issue of culture. The bonds that tied generations, social classes, sectors are all gone. You've seen it in this thread: contempt for the humanities is a common one. There's this bizarre idea that if you aren't producing computer code or doing research in a lab, your job has no value. A very odd idea from anyone who likes movies, novels, and video games, let alone other forms of art and culture.
Or the contempt you have for the low wage earners--well, they should adapt. It's their fault for having the wrong degree or no degree, etc. There was a time when it was assumed that those who could work and wanted to work should have access to a decent job that pays for a lower middle class existence. Now this is considered a radical idea.
Then there's the generational gap--I've got SSI and Medicare and don't you dare take it away from me, but my grandchildren--well, they'll just have to adapt. We can't afford it for them. In the 1950s it would have been unthinkable that a sizable portion of the elderly population would openly advocate for declining living standards for their descendants. It still boggles my mind.
But there you have it--decades of "greed is good" has developed this mentality, where if you aren't an engineer or you don't make enough money or you weren't born at the right time, you're going to get less and--well, that's just how it is. There's nothing we can do about it, or maybe there's nothing we should do about it. Such ideas really point to a breakdown of the social contract--and I wish people could think about it in those terms instead of as economic or political issues.
The problem isn't that we have less resources than in the past--we have many, many more--it's that we aren't working together to find a system that will rise the tide of all boats. Rather, it's every man for himself. That's a shame.
-
jennypenny
- Posts: 6910
- Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm
>>Rather, it's every man for himself. That's a shame.
Ah, now I understand the difference in how we view things. You see that as a negative. I turn it over and see it as a positive. In my mind, it's sounds more like "except under incredible circumstances like war, disaster, poverty, or disability, I'll take care of myself so I don't have to rely on you, and you do the same."
I don't know how you reconcile those two views.
Ah, now I understand the difference in how we view things. You see that as a negative. I turn it over and see it as a positive. In my mind, it's sounds more like "except under incredible circumstances like war, disaster, poverty, or disability, I'll take care of myself so I don't have to rely on you, and you do the same."
I don't know how you reconcile those two views.
-
secretwealth
- Posts: 1948
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 3:31 am
"I turn it over and see it as a positive."
Then forego your SSI and Medicare payments!
"I'll take care of myself so I don't have to rely on you, and you do the same."
That's a non sequitur--just because a person takes care of him or herself doesn't mean he or she doesn't have to rely on others. And I suppose this ideology would be more palatable if it were applied equally to the rich, the middle class, and the poor--but it's not, as the trillions of bailouts and tax benefits have demonstrated.
So let me explain a bit more clearly: it's every man for himself, unless you're rich or powerful, then you get support.
Then forego your SSI and Medicare payments!
"I'll take care of myself so I don't have to rely on you, and you do the same."
That's a non sequitur--just because a person takes care of him or herself doesn't mean he or she doesn't have to rely on others. And I suppose this ideology would be more palatable if it were applied equally to the rich, the middle class, and the poor--but it's not, as the trillions of bailouts and tax benefits have demonstrated.
So let me explain a bit more clearly: it's every man for himself, unless you're rich or powerful, then you get support.
-
jennypenny
- Posts: 6910
- Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:20 pm
-
Spartan_Warrior
- Posts: 1659
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:24 am
I don't want to turn this into a political debate (if that's even avoidable at this point) but whenever I hear things like "self made man" or "I take care of myself" it reminds me of this charming story:
Joe gets up at 6:00am to prepare his morning coffee. He fills his pot full of good clean drinking water because someone fought for minimum water quality standards. He takes his daily medication with his first swallow of coffee. His medications are safe to take because someone fought to insure their safety and work as advertised.
All but $10.00 of his medications are paid for by his employers medical plan because some union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance, now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs this day. Joe’s bacon is safe to eat because someone fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.
Joe takes his morning shower reaching for his shampoo; his bottle is properly labeled with every ingredient and the amount of its contents because someone fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained. Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because someone fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his government subsidized ride to work; it saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees. You see, someone else fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.
Joe begins his work day; he has a good job with excellent pay, medicals benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe’s employer pays these standards because Joe’s employer doesn’t want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed he’ll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because someone didn’t think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.
Its noon time, Joe needs to make a Bank Deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe’s deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because someone wanted to protect Joe’s money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the depression.
Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae underwritten Mortgage and his below market federal student loan because someone decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his life-time.
Joe is home from work, he plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive to Dad's; his car is among the safest in the world because someone fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. He was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers Home Administration because bankers didn’t want to make rural loans. The house didn’t have electric until the government stuck its nose where it didn’t belong and demanded rural electrification. (Otherwise they'd still be sitting in the dark.)
He is happy to see his dad who is now retired. His dad lives on Social Security and his union pension because someone made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn’t have to. After his visit with Dad he gets back in his car for the ride home.
He turns on a radio talk show, the host’s keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. (He doesn’t tell Joe that his beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day) Joe agrees, “We don’t need those big government liberals ruining our lives; after all, I’m a self made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have”.
----
(I don't agree with all of this but I do agree with the moral that the "self made man" concept is fallacious.)
Joe gets up at 6:00am to prepare his morning coffee. He fills his pot full of good clean drinking water because someone fought for minimum water quality standards. He takes his daily medication with his first swallow of coffee. His medications are safe to take because someone fought to insure their safety and work as advertised.
All but $10.00 of his medications are paid for by his employers medical plan because some union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance, now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs this day. Joe’s bacon is safe to eat because someone fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.
Joe takes his morning shower reaching for his shampoo; his bottle is properly labeled with every ingredient and the amount of its contents because someone fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained. Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because someone fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his government subsidized ride to work; it saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees. You see, someone else fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.
Joe begins his work day; he has a good job with excellent pay, medicals benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe’s employer pays these standards because Joe’s employer doesn’t want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed he’ll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because someone didn’t think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.
Its noon time, Joe needs to make a Bank Deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe’s deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because someone wanted to protect Joe’s money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the depression.
Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae underwritten Mortgage and his below market federal student loan because someone decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his life-time.
Joe is home from work, he plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive to Dad's; his car is among the safest in the world because someone fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. He was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers Home Administration because bankers didn’t want to make rural loans. The house didn’t have electric until the government stuck its nose where it didn’t belong and demanded rural electrification. (Otherwise they'd still be sitting in the dark.)
He is happy to see his dad who is now retired. His dad lives on Social Security and his union pension because someone made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn’t have to. After his visit with Dad he gets back in his car for the ride home.
He turns on a radio talk show, the host’s keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. (He doesn’t tell Joe that his beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day) Joe agrees, “We don’t need those big government liberals ruining our lives; after all, I’m a self made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have”.
----
(I don't agree with all of this but I do agree with the moral that the "self made man" concept is fallacious.)
Secret wealth - You know I'm not just talking about horsepower. I'm saying that transportation (one of the biggest spending categories) is cheaper now than it was in the 50s. It's actually MUCH cheaper when you also include fuel milage and reliability improvements. I'll put some #'s to it tonight along with a housing cost per sq foot update and recalculation of Spartan's analysis.
-
Spartan_Warrior
- Posts: 1659
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:24 am
-
George the original one
- Posts: 5406
- Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 3:28 am
- Location: Wettest corner of Orygun
Early on, I disagreed with the general concept that it's harder for individuals to save.
There are, however, some very specific traps that do make it harder to save in the USA. Traps that didn't exist in former years.
The one that stands out for me: If you do screw-up and need to hit the reset button on your financial life (declare bankruptcy), there are significantly more debts that cannot be discharged through bankruptcy.
You can't dismiss revolving unsecured debt (credit cards) in bankruptcy. You can't dismiss most student loans. You may be liable for taxes on the "income" of your abandoned mortgage.
I think it's important that people coming into adulthood understand how this can affect their lives so that they will not be tempted to stick their necks into the traps.
There are, however, some very specific traps that do make it harder to save in the USA. Traps that didn't exist in former years.
The one that stands out for me: If you do screw-up and need to hit the reset button on your financial life (declare bankruptcy), there are significantly more debts that cannot be discharged through bankruptcy.
You can't dismiss revolving unsecured debt (credit cards) in bankruptcy. You can't dismiss most student loans. You may be liable for taxes on the "income" of your abandoned mortgage.
I think it's important that people coming into adulthood understand how this can affect their lives so that they will not be tempted to stick their necks into the traps.
@secretwealth:
Now... you didn't seriously think you were going to waltz into a forum full of INTJs, programmers, engineers, and other assorted cybernetic life forms, jump straight up and down and insist that a problem exists, and then waltz back out again without discussing solutions.
No, no, no! If you play the music, you have to get up and dance.
@Spartan_Warrior:
I admit it: politically, I'm conservative in the most literal sense of the word. I think we should be conserving ALL of our resources (financial, ecological, human, et. al.) and I'm very much in favor of smaller government. I don't see how anyone of sound mind could NOT be. Who in the world could take a good long look at Washington and say to himself, "Wow, that's great! I want me some more of THAT!"
That said, there are no easy solutions - political or otherwise - to the "problems" secretwealth has raised. If we accept that something is a problem (I'm not there yet), rather than simply a change of default position, to me that implies the need for a solution. I wasn't trying to be passive-aggressive by asking what that solution should be. I don't have an answer myself (at least not one that I find palatable), and would love to hear everyone's thoughts.
Now... you didn't seriously think you were going to waltz into a forum full of INTJs, programmers, engineers, and other assorted cybernetic life forms, jump straight up and down and insist that a problem exists, and then waltz back out again without discussing solutions.
No, no, no! If you play the music, you have to get up and dance.@Spartan_Warrior:
I admit it: politically, I'm conservative in the most literal sense of the word. I think we should be conserving ALL of our resources (financial, ecological, human, et. al.) and I'm very much in favor of smaller government. I don't see how anyone of sound mind could NOT be. Who in the world could take a good long look at Washington and say to himself, "Wow, that's great! I want me some more of THAT!"
That said, there are no easy solutions - political or otherwise - to the "problems" secretwealth has raised. If we accept that something is a problem (I'm not there yet), rather than simply a change of default position, to me that implies the need for a solution. I wasn't trying to be passive-aggressive by asking what that solution should be. I don't have an answer myself (at least not one that I find palatable), and would love to hear everyone's thoughts.
-
Spartan_Warrior
- Posts: 1659
- Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2011 1:24 am
@GandK: "Who in the world could take a good long look at Washington and say to himself, "Wow, that's great! I want me some more of THAT!""
Someone who's taken a good long look at Wall Street?
Your point is well taken. The government we have is largely corrupt and inefficient. I don't know that that necessarily speaks to ALL government or the concept of government itself. More importantly, though, our government is the only one we've got. And as long as it has a monopoly on law, it is the only thing that stands a chance of reigning in predatory corporations and individuals. Like I said, these entities aren't going to reign themselves in voluntarily, nor have they shown themselves capable of regulating themselves.
I'm in favor of smaller government as well. However, taxation and international trade policy (the things I mentioned) just happen to be some of the duties that actually, rightfully, belong to the government.
Someone who's taken a good long look at Wall Street?
Your point is well taken. The government we have is largely corrupt and inefficient. I don't know that that necessarily speaks to ALL government or the concept of government itself. More importantly, though, our government is the only one we've got. And as long as it has a monopoly on law, it is the only thing that stands a chance of reigning in predatory corporations and individuals. Like I said, these entities aren't going to reign themselves in voluntarily, nor have they shown themselves capable of regulating themselves.
I'm in favor of smaller government as well. However, taxation and international trade policy (the things I mentioned) just happen to be some of the duties that actually, rightfully, belong to the government.
-
secretwealth
- Posts: 1948
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 3:31 am
@C40: I look forward to your numbers; I seriously doubt you can prove expenses haven't outpaced income since just about every economic study on the U.S. has said otherwise, but I'll try to be as openminded as I can.
@Geroge: Good point about the bankruptcy issue. What's even more disturbing is companies have greater leeway about what they can do in bankruptcy than individuals.
@GandK: Alright, first step would be to teach engineers how to be more analytical.
Now, to take the discussion to a higher level of abstraction instead of making it more personal: this isn't an issue of public policy or economic policy. As I have stressed, it is a fundamentally cultural shift that privileges the individual over the group. While in many ways this is a superior perspective (especially when it comes to human rights), in other ways it isn't.
Libertarians quite often forget the fact that just about every successful human venture has been the result of a collaborative process. I know there is a quasisexual fetish of the John Galt figure amongst the radical right, but it has little basis in reality.
If you don't want to acknowledge the constructive energy of government-level collaborations--if you think the Internet, the Space Shuttle, the U.S. Constitution, and Social Security are unimpressive feats, fine. We can ignore that. However, every single successful capitalist accomplishment has been the result of a communal exchange.
Corporations themselves are perhaps the pinnacle of humanity's communalist impulse. Did you know the word "corporation" comes from the Latin word for guild? (In late vulgar Latin, corporatio = "guild"). The word "company" comes from the word "companionship"--the company is really just a brotherhood of people working towards a single goal.
If you want to think that private companies are more successful than government companies, fine--I'm not going to argue ideology. But to suggest that the cult of the individual should be taken to its extreme and every man should fend for himself is to go not only against the so-called socialist ethos but ALSO the capitalist ethos. Capitalism has as its foundation the idea of people working together, yes in mutual self-interest, but nonetheless working together.
So in what societies does everyone fend for himself? Somalia, Ethiopia, parts of the Middle East work that way. It's not pretty.
@Geroge: Good point about the bankruptcy issue. What's even more disturbing is companies have greater leeway about what they can do in bankruptcy than individuals.
@GandK: Alright, first step would be to teach engineers how to be more analytical.
Now, to take the discussion to a higher level of abstraction instead of making it more personal: this isn't an issue of public policy or economic policy. As I have stressed, it is a fundamentally cultural shift that privileges the individual over the group. While in many ways this is a superior perspective (especially when it comes to human rights), in other ways it isn't.
Libertarians quite often forget the fact that just about every successful human venture has been the result of a collaborative process. I know there is a quasisexual fetish of the John Galt figure amongst the radical right, but it has little basis in reality.
If you don't want to acknowledge the constructive energy of government-level collaborations--if you think the Internet, the Space Shuttle, the U.S. Constitution, and Social Security are unimpressive feats, fine. We can ignore that. However, every single successful capitalist accomplishment has been the result of a communal exchange.
Corporations themselves are perhaps the pinnacle of humanity's communalist impulse. Did you know the word "corporation" comes from the Latin word for guild? (In late vulgar Latin, corporatio = "guild"). The word "company" comes from the word "companionship"--the company is really just a brotherhood of people working towards a single goal.
If you want to think that private companies are more successful than government companies, fine--I'm not going to argue ideology. But to suggest that the cult of the individual should be taken to its extreme and every man should fend for himself is to go not only against the so-called socialist ethos but ALSO the capitalist ethos. Capitalism has as its foundation the idea of people working together, yes in mutual self-interest, but nonetheless working together.
So in what societies does everyone fend for himself? Somalia, Ethiopia, parts of the Middle East work that way. It's not pretty.
-
zarathustra
- Posts: 172
- Joined: Sat Apr 14, 2012 11:15 pm
- Location: VEGAS, BABY
-
secretwealth
- Posts: 1948
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2011 3:31 am