Religious Liberty?

[Brian37]

I don't think anyone is saying businesses should pay higher wages regardless of their bottom line. The argument is against large companies who employ a number of people and instead of reinvesting that money back into it's workers, profits go to top executives and shareholders. If corporate America invested in it's workers, it would create an economic boost for small businesses who in turn would be able to pay better.

BINGO!

Let me add, I've had bosses I love, even ones who wanted to pay me better but couldn't and those guys were in the trenches with me. But if you are going to be one of those bosses who sits in an office and simply spends 12 hours a day dreaming up ways to franchise your name, and please shareholders, but do nothing but blame the poor, then no, fuck you.

This is what it amounts to right here. Big business has made it hard on everyone including small businesses. Our society would be better off if more families could survive off of one income, two at best, without both parents having to work two jobs just to pay bills. What corporate America has been doing is blackmail, if they can hide their taxes, if they cant cut labor first, if they cant make everything part time to save money on labor, they threaten to leave the state and or the country all together.

I've seen what caring bosses do, and what selfish asshole bosses do. I've worked under both. But right now the big guys are more concerned with the competition between the top, not whom they hurt in the middle, not even small businesses, much less the poor.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Benny, I found your story very inspiring. Meeting payroll is a heavy responsibility that few appreciate. For now I cannot bear that level of risk, which is why I rely on consultants and independent contractors. By mentioning that strategy I seem to have pissed off some members. It doesn't seem to matter to them that I do almost all my product design myself (after hours and on weekends), research suppliers (after hours and on weekends), order materials (after hours and on weekends), do my own graphic design (after hours and on weekends), collect market data (after hours and on weekends), fill out and submit government paperwork (after hours and on weekends). That's what small business owners do. We agonize over the details and flirt with disaster. And I've had more failures than successes. I have one product that won't return a profit for at least 10 more years if it does at all. I've lost money on inventory that didn't sell and had to be given away. But a couple products have found good niches and make up for the other losses. When people look at the high profit margin of a single product they don't see are all the failed research, unsuccessful launches and near misses that preceded it.

It saddens me to think some people's self-righteous anger prevents them from honoring the time and effort it takes to run even a marginally successful enterprise. It would certainly be much easier to play Minecraft and watch reruns of Always Sunny in Philadelphia. But regardless of whether it makes money or not, nothing compares to the sense of achievement and satisfaction that comes from taking an idea that once existed only in my head and seeing it in the hand of an appreciative customer.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Big business has made it hard on everyone including small businesses.

Then please explain why you have insulted and demonized my one-man business as responsible for ruining the world economy.

[Brian37]

Big business has made it hard on everyone including small businesses.

Then please explain why you have insulted and demonized my one-man business as responsible for ruining the world economy.

Holy fucking gap jumping batman! I said his attitude was bullshit, I didn't say he personally ruined the entire economy. You love reading things into my words that are not there.

You also missed the part where not only I, but others have stated over and over that we don't hate business in and of itself. But yea, if you are voting for the economic right, and you have done so long term, you your vote does add up in that context. But no, one person does not sink an entire ship, which is ironic you'd accuse me of accusing him of that when the GOP has acted like Obama is the Anti Christ. 

Selection bias and sample rate error. There is big business and how they vote, and small business and how they vote. And in both cases not all of them vote for the GOP, no. But the big business at the top has lead a majority of  business owners to have the same attitude. NOT ALL, but alot.

Now again, we can point to good business practices and economists who agree with the left not the right. We can point to rich people who agree with the left and not the right. Now, considering that we've done it the economic right's way for 30 years and the best liberal politicians can do is to be far too compromising, the data is in. Trickle up does not work. If it did, nobody would be bitching.

Benny didn't wreck the economy all by himself, of course not. But the way people vote long term collectively does have an impact on everyone. CLIMATE NOT rights, ATTITUDE, not rights. Just like paranoid theists, you jump childishly at the mere mention of anyone saying "we cant keep going like this".

[Neo-Scholastic]

Would you not agree that in at least some instances, the advantages enjoyed by big businesses are because of their partnership with big government. Don't you wonder why moderately wealthy freshmen Senators retire as multi-millionaires? The question is whether a bigger more actively involved state is easier and more tempting for large enterprises to corrupt than a smaller less influential state. Unethical large companies need a big government to enforce invasive regulations to keep them safe from upstart challengers and protect them because they are "too big to fail?. During the crash of 2008 the free market was working just fine to weed out corrupt over extended companies that made piss-poor decisions, until they got big massive bailouts from the government protecting them from the market they created for themselves.That's why grassroots Republicans and Democrats are in revolt against the donor classes that have lied to them for years.

[Mr.wizard]

Would you not agree that in at least some instances, the advantages enjoyed by big businesses are because of their partnership with big government. Don't you wonder why moderately wealthy freshmen Senators retire as multi-millionaires? The question is whether the solution is a bigger more actively involved state is easier and more desirable for large enterprises to corrupt than a smaller less influential state. Unethical large companies need a big government to enforce invasive regulations to keep them safe from upstart challengers. That's why grassroots Republicans and Democrats are in revolt against the donor classes that have lied to them for years.

They do not need big government, they just need to influence whatever government we have. I don't care if government is small, medium, or big as long as it works in the best interest of the people. Regulations are not what keeps upstart businesses from challenging big businesses, most upstarts fail because of undercapitalization, which limits their ability to grow.

I owned a small business for many years and the greatest challenge was growing the business. It wasn't just a matter of having clients or good ideas, it was a matter of having the cash to do so. You get stuck, you need more employees and equipment to earn more money, but you cant get more employees and equipment until you get more money. So you try and get a loan but few banks will give you the loan you need because you aren't yet producing the profits to warrant it.

[bennyboy]

I feel like we should probably have a new thread, because this discussion is mostly beyond religious influence now, but let me say this: I agree with Brian37 about excessive greed, exactly BECAUSE that seems to be people's religion. The belief is that money is God, and nothing else matters, and that is pretty sick.

Given this view, then let's get back to the OP, and ask about liberty. Does a very rich person have a moral obligation to pay more than he needs to? If he can talk someone into working for pennies a day, why shouldn't he? Isn't the blame on all the members of a society who allow themselves to be manipulated into a situation where they can't fight back?

Let's look at the US elections as an example. If it was clear that NOBODY would vote for a money-is-God capitalist, then I can guarantee that every politician in the US would be all about fairness. But then there's Trump. How can you have a population of fucking idiots like that, and then feel sorry when they get fucked time after time? Maybe they should stop bending over.

I agree that changes should be made. But isn't demonizing the powers that be really more about scape-goating than making change? People will engage in hours of typing to participate in a forum thread like this one. . . but they aren't willing to spend that same amount of time standing in front of the White House with a sign, or working in a soup kitchen, or volunteering in places that need help. Brian37, I've decided to make my little stamp on the world IN my company. I let employees go home early more often than not, I offer to pay for training courses if they want them, I pay for gym memberships, and I give them performance bonuses that are not stipulated in their contracts, just 'cuz. What, other than complaining on an internet forum, are you actually DOING to improve the inequalities you gripe about?

One more thing. Who's rich, and who isn't? I'm pretty sure that the regions where big companies outsource are poorer per capita than the American cities which they leave behind. If you are such a champion of fairness, doesn't that mean that ALL companies are obliged to relocate to the place where their wages will achieve the maximum possible good? Shouldn't little M'buku's family in Africa complain that you are trying to prevent business from sharing North American or European wealth by insisting those companies stay at home?

I'd also like to suggest that the wealthy should have other ways to win the game: public adoration for those who donate money to good causes, for example. I'd even be in favor of bought ranks. How much would a guy like Trump be paid to be called: Grand Vizier of the Lands of Las Vegas and Dominant Duke of New York City, and to make everyone call him that all the time? Make every who meets him bound by law to bow and say nice things about his hair or something, and start paying off that national debt.

[Mr.wizard]

It's not really a question of morality, it makes economic sense to pay people adequate wages (if you can afford) because people spend and if your a small business they spend in your community. If every business looked at its employees as investments instead of losses our economy would be in much better shape. Brian is right, we can not continue like this, to much of the income and wealth is being horded by a small percentage of people who can not possibly spend enough to fuel the economy. I don't think its wrong for business owners to get rich, in fact I applaud it, but if your getting rich off the backs of workers who can barley eat lunch, then I think there is something wrong with your business model. We are not even really talking about small businesses, what we are really talking about is corporate America.

[bennyboy]

Okay, we all agree, and even some billionaires agree, that the inequality must change. But who bears the onus of making the change? The government which is owned by big businesses? The individual worker, who can barely afford not to work?

Unless these issues can be decided by elections, there's really nobody who can reasonably be expected to bring together what has been torn asunder.

[Brian37]

I feel like we should probably have a new thread, because this discussion is mostly beyond religious influence now, but let me say this: I agree with Brian37 about excessive greed, exactly BECAUSE that seems to be people's religion.  The belief is that money is God, and nothing else matters, and that is pretty sick.  

Given this view, then let's get back to the OP, and ask about liberty.  Does a very rich person have a moral obligation to pay more than he needs to?  If he can talk someone into working for pennies a day, why shouldn't he?  Isn't the blame on all the members of a society who allow themselves to be manipulated into a situation where they can't fight back?

Let's look at the US elections as an example.  If it was clear that NOBODY would vote for a money-is-God capitalist, then I can guarantee that every politician in the US would be all about fairness.  But then there's Trump.  How can you have a population of fucking idiots like that, and then feel sorry when they get fucked time after time?  Maybe they should stop bending over.

I agree that changes should be made.  But isn't demonizing the powers that be really more about scape-goating than making change?  People will engage in hours of typing to participate in a forum thread like this one. . . but they aren't willing to spend that same amount of time standing in front of the White House with a sign, or working in a soup kitchen, or volunteering in places that need help.  Brian37, I've decided to make my little stamp on the world IN my company.  I let employees go home early more often than not, I offer to pay for training courses if they want them, I pay for gym memberships, and I give them performance bonuses that are not stipulated in their contracts, just 'cuz.  What, other than complaining on an internet forum, are you actually DOING to improve the inequalities you gripe about?

One more thing.  Who's rich, and who isn't?  I'm pretty sure that the regions where big companies outsource are poorer per capita than the American cities which they leave behind.  If you are such a champion of fairness, doesn't that mean that ALL companies are obliged to relocate to the place where their wages will achieve the maximum possible good?  Shouldn't little M'buku's family in Africa complain that you are trying to prevent business from sharing North American or European wealth by insisting those companies stay at home?

I'd also like to suggest that the wealthy should have other ways to win the game: public adoration for those who donate money to good causes, for example.  I'd even be in favor of bought ranks.  How much would a guy like Trump be paid to be called: Grand Vizier of the Lands of Las Vegas and Dominant Duke of New York City, and to make everyone call him that all the time?  Make every who meets him bound by law to bow and say nice things about his hair or something, and start paying off that national debt.

That's it Benny, that first paragraph sums it up. My only problem is climate and attitude. I have been low wage all my life and still get help from my mom. But what I hate isn't our differences, what I hate is looking down on others. I really am happy for those who get to do what they want in life. But the truth is, for most, they are lucky if they can manage to pay their bills and keep food on the table, but in our current climate, even that is becoming harder for more. I am lucky because I have support, but most people don't. Most workers aren't out to overthrow government and create Cuba. The west is so far separated from closed markets like Stalin's Russia not even poor liberal voters want to become that.

Benny, there is also nothing wrong with charity, in and of itself. But again, big business does that for PR and tax breaks. The best charity is direct investment in workers. The less they have to worry about paying their bills, the less they will turn to government for help. 

I had a job I loved for 7 years, the owners were awesome, gave me two raises without asking. But what I loved about them the most which made me want to lick the floor with my tongue to mop it, was that they treated me like a human and they didn't treat me like a tool or a number on a page. I never thought because of that I was free to do whatever I wanted. But having a pleasant work environment where even fights are more considered a stress issue, rather than a roll issue, and tomorrow is another day, it really goes a long way in feeling like you matter. And when people feel like they matter they want to stay there longer. And keeping employees longer reduces turnover rate which when higher causes your product to suffer.

Point is collectively, not just you, not just me, because we are just two people, that it still remains that a chain is only as strong as it's weakest link, so the better workers do, the better everyone does.