5 ms·

I am no sociologist, but I think it would be rather safe to say that to it is going to take a lot for this to change. We've clearly adapted to the divide betwee

I am no sociologist, but I think it would be rather safe to say that to it is going to take a lot for this to change. We've clearly adapted to the divide between the mega-rich and the "middle" class, so I am not sure it is a matter of survival so much as a matter of principle. I think it would take a lot of people collectively thinking and acting differently than we do now. I am just one person, but it is my goal to live my life with the intent of turning this situation around. I believe the spirit of entrepreneurship, which is generally well-supported on HN, is a piece of this - designing and building the next generation of companies who choose to conduct business in ways that support (rather than exploit) the middle class. Hence, I am an entrepreneur.

mhurron 13y ago
> Hence, I am an entrepreneur. Petite bourgeoisie. How wonderful, everything that was old is new again.
- devilshaircut 13y ago
  I suppose that is a derogatory remark, but I never claimed that to be an entrepreneur is a new thing. It is demonstrably not. What I did try to suggest is that it is perhaps a good way to deconstruct this problem.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    He didn't say that being an entrepreneur is a new thing. He made a reference to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petite_bourgeoisie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petite_bourgeoisie ("Petite bourgeoisie ... is a French term (sometimes derogatory) referring to a social class comprising semi-autonomous peasantry and small-scale merchants whose politico-economic ideological stance is determined by reflecting that of a haute (high) bourgeoisie, with which the petite bourgeoisie seeks to identify itself, and whose bourgeois morality it strives to imitate.") Ultimately, I think business, whether you're talking about small ones or big ones, socially responsible ones or irresponsible ones, are neither the problem nor the solution. In a market economy, the health of the middle class is function of the supply versus the demand for labor. Being a well-intentioned entrepreneur isn't going to have any impact on the equilibrium. The minute you become big enough to have a non-zero impact, you'll be big enough to feel the heat of competition from China, India, etc, and will be forced to adopt whatever labor-saving measures they adopt.
    - devilshaircut 13y ago
      I understand the term. I was trying to underscore (unsuccessfully, apparently) that my original point was to be an entrepreneur whose principles depart from that of the current establishment. In other words, what I was suggesting was the exact opposite. I could only interpret the response as a glib remark that to be an entrepreneur in any sense necessarily makes you an imitator of this establishment. My view on this, however, is slightly less cynical.
    - oscargrouch 13y ago
      >Being a well-intentioned entrepreneur isn't going to have any impact on the equilibrium. The minute you become big enough to have a non-zero impact, you'll be big enough to feel the heat of competition from China, India, etc, and will be forced to adopt whatever labor-saving measures they adopt. Well said. Is there a game going on already.. once you get in, you are just another player that must play by the rules.. so how you could change the rules? The way i see it, you need to create new games, with distinct rules, in a way this alternative game could get so big as the other one to make a stand against it in the first place.. Some ideas that can subvert the current rules for instance, are the ones like the social entrepreneurship.. companies that do profit, with a proper working economical engine; but are not for-profit..
bmelton 13y ago
The progressive left would solve this problem with increased taxation on the rich, which would ostensibly be used to fund more social programs for the poor. Take from the Belmonts, give to the Fishtowners. Raise the minimum wage, increase regulation, enforce stricter laws that encourage equity for all. Perhaps some form of guaranteed income. The libertarians would solve this problem by eliminating barriers to success. Lessen business owner regulatory burdens, eliminate federal income taxes, eliminate the minimum wage, and impose as few hurdles as possible to whomever wants to hang their own shingle and provide a service. I'm not sure what the Republicans would want, really, or at least not specifically enough to enunciate it here on their behalf, but let's say it's somewhere in the middle. If you're able to succeed as an entrepreneur enough to be able to have some degree of influence on the problem, then you'd be a spokesperson for either the democrats or the libertarians. By your success, you'll be advocating the possibility of one to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, hang their own shingle, and become financially stable in the process, but by having attained that success, you would similarly be the target of progressive taxation, and would now be a sympathetic Belmont, from whom riches will be collected and distributed to Fishtown.
- devilshaircut 13y ago
  I think your assessment is more or less accurate. I see it this way: What practices have resulted in things being the way they are now? These practices are largely attributable to businesses whose policies are endorsed and enacted through government. Government politics are a complete morass and you've done an excellent job of painting how various parties might try and solve the problem. So if government is a morass, how do you approach the problem? Certainly a career in politics is out of the question based on this presupposition. One might consider simply adapting how they act in their daily interactions with others. Personally I think this idea is too small-scale. In my opinion, one strategy would be through the business side. Create a business whose policies create the type of change necessary for closing the gap between the mega-rich and "middle" class. The argument has been made in this thread that in order to compete, it is impossible to instate these types of policies. However, I believe this to be a false assumption. Certainly companies, even large ones, fall into a spectrum of "good" and "bad" practices. There appears to be no bound to either side. I take the David Deutschian view that any problem can be solved with the right knowledge¹. So the question is, can we think creatively, critically, and intelligently enough to solve this problem in business? I believe the answer is yes. ¹ EDIT: Any problem whose solution is not explicitly prohibited by the nature of reality.
troglodie 13y ago
Model it after the Mondragon Corporation[0], meritocratic and lets workers profit the most from their work. Anything less than this just furthers the problem, and arguably, even this model is a band aid on a much larger festering wound. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation

mhurron 13y ago

> Hence, I am an entrepreneur. Petite bourgeoisie. How wonderful, everything that was old is new again.

devilshaircut 13y ago
I suppose that is a derogatory remark, but I never claimed that to be an entrepreneur is a new thing. It is demonstrably not. What I did try to suggest is that it is perhaps a good way to deconstruct this problem.
- rayiner 13y ago
  He didn't say that being an entrepreneur is a new thing. He made a reference to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petite_bourgeoisie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petite_bourgeoisie ("Petite bourgeoisie ... is a French term (sometimes derogatory) referring to a social class comprising semi-autonomous peasantry and small-scale merchants whose politico-economic ideological stance is determined by reflecting that of a haute (high) bourgeoisie, with which the petite bourgeoisie seeks to identify itself, and whose bourgeois morality it strives to imitate.") Ultimately, I think business, whether you're talking about small ones or big ones, socially responsible ones or irresponsible ones, are neither the problem nor the solution. In a market economy, the health of the middle class is function of the supply versus the demand for labor. Being a well-intentioned entrepreneur isn't going to have any impact on the equilibrium. The minute you become big enough to have a non-zero impact, you'll be big enough to feel the heat of competition from China, India, etc, and will be forced to adopt whatever labor-saving measures they adopt.
  - devilshaircut 13y ago
    I understand the term. I was trying to underscore (unsuccessfully, apparently) that my original point was to be an entrepreneur whose principles depart from that of the current establishment. In other words, what I was suggesting was the exact opposite. I could only interpret the response as a glib remark that to be an entrepreneur in any sense necessarily makes you an imitator of this establishment. My view on this, however, is slightly less cynical.
  - oscargrouch 13y ago
    >Being a well-intentioned entrepreneur isn't going to have any impact on the equilibrium. The minute you become big enough to have a non-zero impact, you'll be big enough to feel the heat of competition from China, India, etc, and will be forced to adopt whatever labor-saving measures they adopt. Well said. Is there a game going on already.. once you get in, you are just another player that must play by the rules.. so how you could change the rules? The way i see it, you need to create new games, with distinct rules, in a way this alternative game could get so big as the other one to make a stand against it in the first place.. Some ideas that can subvert the current rules for instance, are the ones like the social entrepreneurship.. companies that do profit, with a proper working economical engine; but are not for-profit..

bmelton 13y ago

The progressive left would solve this problem with increased taxation on the rich, which would ostensibly be used to fund more social programs for the poor. Take from the Belmonts, give to the Fishtowners. Raise the minimum wage, increase regulation, enforce stricter laws that encourage equity for all. Perhaps some form of guaranteed income. The libertarians would solve this problem by eliminating barriers to success. Lessen business owner regulatory burdens, eliminate federal income taxes, eliminate the minimum wage, and impose as few hurdles as possible to whomever wants to hang their own shingle and provide a service. I'm not sure what the Republicans would want, really, or at least not specifically enough to enunciate it here on their behalf, but let's say it's somewhere in the middle. If you're able to succeed as an entrepreneur enough to be able to have some degree of influence on the problem, then you'd be a spokesperson for either the democrats or the libertarians. By your success, you'll be advocating the possibility of one to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, hang their own shingle, and become financially stable in the process, but by having attained that success, you would similarly be the target of progressive taxation, and would now be a sympathetic Belmont, from whom riches will be collected and distributed to Fishtown.

devilshaircut 13y ago
I think your assessment is more or less accurate. I see it this way: What practices have resulted in things being the way they are now? These practices are largely attributable to businesses whose policies are endorsed and enacted through government. Government politics are a complete morass and you've done an excellent job of painting how various parties might try and solve the problem. So if government is a morass, how do you approach the problem? Certainly a career in politics is out of the question based on this presupposition. One might consider simply adapting how they act in their daily interactions with others. Personally I think this idea is too small-scale. In my opinion, one strategy would be through the business side. Create a business whose policies create the type of change necessary for closing the gap between the mega-rich and "middle" class. The argument has been made in this thread that in order to compete, it is impossible to instate these types of policies. However, I believe this to be a false assumption. Certainly companies, even large ones, fall into a spectrum of "good" and "bad" practices. There appears to be no bound to either side. I take the David Deutschian view that any problem can be solved with the right knowledge¹. So the question is, can we think creatively, critically, and intelligently enough to solve this problem in business? I believe the answer is yes. ¹ EDIT: Any problem whose solution is not explicitly prohibited by the nature of reality.

troglodie 13y ago

Model it after the Mondragon Corporation[0], meritocratic and lets workers profit the most from their work. Anything less than this just furthers the problem, and arguably, even this model is a band aid on a much larger festering wound. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation