4 ms·

Relying on corporations to help the lower middle class, is an outdated idea. Corporations are expressly designed to create value at the lowest possible cost, wh

by whack 7y ago

Relying on corporations to help the lower middle class, is an outdated idea. Corporations are expressly designed to create value at the lowest possible cost, which necessarily means minimizing labor expenses. Relying on corporations to achieve universal healthcare and a living wage, is expressly going against what they were designed for. There is a far better way to help the lower middle class: through the government. Raise taxes on the rich, raise the capital gains tax rate, and use the revenue to subsidize college tuition, to provide universal healthcare, and to supplement the earned income tax credit. Let corporations do what they do best: provide services at the lowest possible cost. And start demanding that our government do what it's supposed to do: ensure that the wealth generated by corporations is adequately shared by all.

newshorts 7y ago
agreed. Ordoliberalism is really the only fungible path to ensuring most people in a society get a fair shake.
- stochastic_monk 7y ago
  The social market economy has been very successful, but your use of “fungible” doesn’t seem to make sense, unless this is satire.
jorblumesea 7y ago
Europe already does this, to a reasonable extent. So do most developed countries (Japan, Australia, for example). It's really the US that lags behind in almost all aspects of taking care of its citizens.
gwright 7y ago
> And start demanding that our government do what it's supposed to do: ensure that the wealth generated by corporations is adequately shared by all. On what basis do you think this is the proper role for government?
- gwright 7y ago
  Disheartening that my comment has drawn some negative reactions. A public policy of forced "sharing" of wealth has an absolutely abysmal track record. Any supporters of that idea willing to explain why they think it will work this time? Anybody want to take my question seriously and answer what philosophy of government they are using to claim that redistribution of wealth is the proper role for government?
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > A public policy of forced "sharing" of wealth has an absolutely abysmal track record. A public policy of forced sharing of wealth is what distinguishes the developed societies of the modern world from those of the late 19th and early 20th centuries (that is, it distinguished modern mixed economies from true capitalism), and it's what has made possible anything but a miserable existence for the bulk of society, the working class. Every debate over this issue in modern developed societies is mostly, in effect, a debate over fine-tuning parameters, not over whether or not to have such a policy in the first place, except where some economic reactionary is preaching a return to 19th century capitalism. So, no, your premise that it has an abysmal rack record is as wrong as it is possible to be; it (forced sharing over an otherwise capitalist property structure) has the best track record for human conditions of any broad class of economic approaches ever tried. There might be better options that haven't been properly tried, sure, but that's a bit speculative.
    - malandrew 7y ago
      20th and 21st century societies are largely better off because capitalism has drastically increased quality of life by making many goods and services faster, cheaper and better. Saying that this progress is due to government redistribution policies is a huge stretch. Many places few or no such policies have seen an massive increase in quality of life in the past 120 years that can only be attributed to something other than government intervention. Most of the 20th century’s biggest failures were due to government intervention. https://humanprogress.org/ylin https://humanprogress.org/ylin The other thing worth considering is that many of the socieities that have fared the best over the past 300-400 years are almost invariably in places with four distinct seasons. The reason for this is that seasons are a forcing function to make sure planning and long termism becomes part of the culture. If you don’t plan for surviving winter, you die. If you learn how to plan for winter, you sharpen skills that can be used to plans years ahead. Tropical climates don’t have this benefit.

by whack 7y ago

newshorts 7y ago

agreed. Ordoliberalism is really the only fungible path to ensuring most people in a society get a fair shake.

stochastic_monk 7y ago
The social market economy has been very successful, but your use of “fungible” doesn’t seem to make sense, unless this is satire.

jorblumesea 7y ago

Europe already does this, to a reasonable extent. So do most developed countries (Japan, Australia, for example). It's really the US that lags behind in almost all aspects of taking care of its citizens.

gwright 7y ago

> And start demanding that our government do what it's supposed to do: ensure that the wealth generated by corporations is adequately shared by all. On what basis do you think this is the proper role for government?

gwright 7y ago
Disheartening that my comment has drawn some negative reactions. A public policy of forced "sharing" of wealth has an absolutely abysmal track record. Any supporters of that idea willing to explain why they think it will work this time? Anybody want to take my question seriously and answer what philosophy of government they are using to claim that redistribution of wealth is the proper role for government?
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > A public policy of forced "sharing" of wealth has an absolutely abysmal track record. A public policy of forced sharing of wealth is what distinguishes the developed societies of the modern world from those of the late 19th and early 20th centuries (that is, it distinguished modern mixed economies from true capitalism), and it's what has made possible anything but a miserable existence for the bulk of society, the working class. Every debate over this issue in modern developed societies is mostly, in effect, a debate over fine-tuning parameters, not over whether or not to have such a policy in the first place, except where some economic reactionary is preaching a return to 19th century capitalism. So, no, your premise that it has an abysmal rack record is as wrong as it is possible to be; it (forced sharing over an otherwise capitalist property structure) has the best track record for human conditions of any broad class of economic approaches ever tried. There might be better options that haven't been properly tried, sure, but that's a bit speculative.
  - malandrew 7y ago
    20th and 21st century societies are largely better off because capitalism has drastically increased quality of life by making many goods and services faster, cheaper and better. Saying that this progress is due to government redistribution policies is a huge stretch. Many places few or no such policies have seen an massive increase in quality of life in the past 120 years that can only be attributed to something other than government intervention. Most of the 20th century’s biggest failures were due to government intervention. https://humanprogress.org/ylin https://humanprogress.org/ylin The other thing worth considering is that many of the socieities that have fared the best over the past 300-400 years are almost invariably in places with four distinct seasons. The reason for this is that seasons are a forcing function to make sure planning and long termism becomes part of the culture. If you don’t plan for surviving winter, you die. If you learn how to plan for winter, you sharpen skills that can be used to plans years ahead. Tropical climates don’t have this benefit.