3 ms·

I tend to disagree when someone speaks of the 1% as being money driven. After a certain point, you can buy basically anything and more money won't change that.

I tend to disagree when someone speaks of the 1% as being money driven. After a certain point, you can buy basically anything and more money won't change that. Influence may be the next level for these people. The article mentions Scott Walker(I'm from Wisconsin. My grandfather was a union worker, I am not). I am largely against anyone bank rolling a political candidate. By eliminating the collective bargaining rights, Wisconsin became a prime competitor for manufacturing in the midwest. Free market competition allows for greater which in where one works. In the same way that we saw ping pong tables at software companies, we are seeing more attractive manufacturers pull ahead based on higher salaries that collective bargaining attempted to offer. The class-ist mindset of this article is not a good thing for anyone. Elevating the 1% to the status of enemy will only sew further instability in an already precarious time.

ardy42 8y ago
> I tend to disagree when someone speaks of the 1% as being money driven. After a certain point, you can buy basically anything and more money won't change that. Influence may be the next level for these people. Money's still useful to the rich for "keeping score," even after they can buy "basically everything." If they're competitive (any they probably are), they gain satisfaction knowing they're richer than the other guy, or the most successful businessperson in their field, etc.
dredmorbius 8y ago
"Wealth, as Mr Hobbes says, is power." - A. Smith, 1776
arcticbull 8y ago
You’re conflating two things that just happened to occur at the same time: elimination of unions and tightening of the labor market. Unions provide consistency for when the market sours, and I guarantee you those salaries and perks are going away as soon as the market for labor sours. Unions are the only way labor can push back against capital. It may not seem that way because times are good but they won’t aways be especially because: Either way wanting humans involved in the manufacturing chain is backwards and inefficient, and flies in the face of the inevitable automated future of manufacture. We desperately need to stop trying to recreate the jobs of 50 years ago and retrain people for the jobs we want moving forward. Manufacturing jobs just aren’t good jobs. If we can get people elsewhere to do them, my god, what an opportunity to get ahead for everyone here.

ardy42 8y ago

> I tend to disagree when someone speaks of the 1% as being money driven. After a certain point, you can buy basically anything and more money won't change that. Influence may be the next level for these people. Money's still useful to the rich for "keeping score," even after they can buy "basically everything." If they're competitive (any they probably are), they gain satisfaction knowing they're richer than the other guy, or the most successful businessperson in their field, etc.

dredmorbius 8y ago

"Wealth, as Mr Hobbes says, is power." - A. Smith, 1776

arcticbull 8y ago

You’re conflating two things that just happened to occur at the same time: elimination of unions and tightening of the labor market. Unions provide consistency for when the market sours, and I guarantee you those salaries and perks are going away as soon as the market for labor sours. Unions are the only way labor can push back against capital. It may not seem that way because times are good but they won’t aways be especially because: Either way wanting humans involved in the manufacturing chain is backwards and inefficient, and flies in the face of the inevitable automated future of manufacture. We desperately need to stop trying to recreate the jobs of 50 years ago and retrain people for the jobs we want moving forward. Manufacturing jobs just aren’t good jobs. If we can get people elsewhere to do them, my god, what an opportunity to get ahead for everyone here.