5 ms·

This article is pretty good, really close to something I would agree with. My only problem is with the conclusion. > If reforms are not enacted — as is likely

This article is pretty good, really close to something I would agree with. My only problem is with the conclusion. > If reforms are not enacted — as is likely with President Trump and congressional Republicans in charge — Americans should blame policy makers, not robots. I think blaming policy makers is as productive as blaming the robots. Both fail to ask the question of who really is in control. Policy makers are hardly in control any more than the robots in the factories are in control of the layoffs. We elect policy makers, sure, but they are in the pockets of the factory owners and other capitalists as much as the robots. We need to understand that the real enemies here are the owners, those who the unions stood up to back when we had them. The battle for jobs and standards of living aren't waged against policy makers, they are waged against the people who actually have control over what we get paid and what benefits we earn. But of course, the New York Times can't actually call out who the real enemy is. Instead, they will set the target on the same circular enemy that got us to where we are now.

e40 10y ago
I disagree. Business owners will sidle right up to the line drawn in the sand by lawmakers. The lawmakers are the ones who are ultimately responsible. They need to move that line to be more fair to the 99%.
- LesZedCB 10y ago
  Business owners are the ones who pay for lobbying to put the line as far as they can. and they are also bankrolling campaigns.
  - yardie 10y ago
    So what are they getting for their money? If the business owners had it their way the US Presidential election would be a race between Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton. Both were given huge sums of corporate donations and neither one has anything to show for it.
mindcrime 10y ago
We need to understand that the real enemies here are the owners But of course, the New York Times can't actually call out who the real enemy is. I own two shares of GM stock, so I am one of the enemy? And that's a key element that these kind of analyses almost always ignore: there is no bright line distinction between "the capitalists" and "the non capitalists." Everybody is eligible to own a share of any publicly traded company, and a large segment of the population do choose to participate as part owners of various enterprises. We're all capitalists. One big thing we're missing though, is education and awareness for large chunks of the population. With things like fractional shares (ala Sharebuilder), almost everybody who has any income at all, can start building an ownership stake in the various capitalist enterprises out there, and reap the dividends (in either the literal sense of a dividend paid our, or capital gains, whatever). But how many people don't understand how this works, or aren't aware of what their options are? Or how many are but just choose to spend their entire paycheck every week instead of investing in anything?
- JoeAltmaier 10y ago
  Aren't there classes of stock? Essentially what a joe shmoe can (afford to) buy isn't going to benefit him much at all. The $100M CEO and his cronies are skimming all the fat. No sensible company profits much at all - because you'd have to share that with stockholders. Just my cynical view
- LesZedCB 10y ago
  > I own two shares of GM stock, so I am one of the enemy? If the amount of ownership gives you a controlling vote, yes. You should give up that level of ownership unless you work there. Control of the company should be directed solely by the workers affected by the decisions made (and possibly a government allowing greater long term control, such as reducing non-renewable energy consumption). One worker, one vote. http://www.democracyatwork.info/ http://www.democracyatwork.info/ is a good resource for more info on how I think enterprises should organize themselves.
  - ue_ 10y ago
    Are you proposing a Socialist system of the workers taking control of the means of production, or merely the idea that companies (i.e entities that exist to provide profit for a bourgeois owner) ought to be democratically controlled?

e40 10y ago

I disagree. Business owners will sidle right up to the line drawn in the sand by lawmakers. The lawmakers are the ones who are ultimately responsible. They need to move that line to be more fair to the 99%.

LesZedCB 10y ago
Business owners are the ones who pay for lobbying to put the line as far as they can. and they are also bankrolling campaigns.
- yardie 10y ago
  So what are they getting for their money? If the business owners had it their way the US Presidential election would be a race between Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton. Both were given huge sums of corporate donations and neither one has anything to show for it.

mindcrime 10y ago

We need to understand that the real enemies here are the owners But of course, the New York Times can't actually call out who the real enemy is. I own two shares of GM stock, so I am one of the enemy? And that's a key element that these kind of analyses almost always ignore: there is no bright line distinction between "the capitalists" and "the non capitalists." Everybody is eligible to own a share of any publicly traded company, and a large segment of the population do choose to participate as part owners of various enterprises. We're all capitalists. One big thing we're missing though, is education and awareness for large chunks of the population. With things like fractional shares (ala Sharebuilder), almost everybody who has any income at all, can start building an ownership stake in the various capitalist enterprises out there, and reap the dividends (in either the literal sense of a dividend paid our, or capital gains, whatever). But how many people don't understand how this works, or aren't aware of what their options are? Or how many are but just choose to spend their entire paycheck every week instead of investing in anything?

JoeAltmaier 10y ago
Aren't there classes of stock? Essentially what a joe shmoe can (afford to) buy isn't going to benefit him much at all. The $100M CEO and his cronies are skimming all the fat. No sensible company profits much at all - because you'd have to share that with stockholders. Just my cynical view
LesZedCB 10y ago
> I own two shares of GM stock, so I am one of the enemy? If the amount of ownership gives you a controlling vote, yes. You should give up that level of ownership unless you work there. Control of the company should be directed solely by the workers affected by the decisions made (and possibly a government allowing greater long term control, such as reducing non-renewable energy consumption). One worker, one vote. http://www.democracyatwork.info/ http://www.democracyatwork.info/ is a good resource for more info on how I think enterprises should organize themselves.
- ue_ 10y ago
  Are you proposing a Socialist system of the workers taking control of the means of production, or merely the idea that companies (i.e entities that exist to provide profit for a bourgeois owner) ought to be democratically controlled?