So how are things if you are poor in the US?

Those who sat around and just expected a life of mediocrity have been left behind, and with their collective lack of progress its no wonder why the gap has grown.

Mr.Kaine that is where our worldviews tend to diverge a bit when it comes to that wonderful edifice known as capitalism. Capitalism requires a source of labour to exploit. Without it, it the system would not work very well. I think we can agree on this, although as in previous discussions have illustrated we believe this to be true to different degrees.

We have different narratives about how Capitalism effects people. When I read this post on Pharyngula, I saw someone who despite working hard and doing all the right things, she was getting the short end of the stick (repeatedly). I think that perhaps because you see Capitalism in different terms, there might be a tendency sometimes to write off the poor people as ‘lazy and disaffected’ and not include the appropriate amount of blame for the system, which it deserves, in your analysis.

Blaming the poor for being poor is a common trope of the privileged classes. Let me be clear, I am not claiming that you are engaging in this particular activity, but would rather make the case that more attention should be focused on the inherent problems of capitalist society in order to moderate the negative effects what capitalism does.

LikeLike

V.R. Kaine said: “Where are the left-leaning blogs protesting outlandish wage increases within the public sector in non-essential areas, while people working in social services continue to be grossly underpaid? Where are the left-leaning blogs protesting the Welfare Bums that hog resources and prevent people like this woman from receiving help? […] My case is that both need to be attacked and addressed simultaneously if we ever want to see any sort of progress on this issue.

Vern, I’m glad you comment on my blog, you often leave gems like that quoted above which pragmatically crystallizes the issues at hand. I do not know why there exists such disparity in what social workers make and their actual value to society. I just worry that sometime when people refer to ‘cushy government jobs’ they are thinking about social workers and youth workers and others on the front lines at the bleak end of society whose job it is to help those most in need. Juxtapose the millions made by entertainers and athletes for doing next to nothing and then having the market lavishly reward them… grrr….it really bakes my biscuits somedays.

LikeLike

Capitalism is the best system in the history of Civilization for producing wealth and allowing upward mobility in one’s economic standing.

Actually, with regards to increasing ones economic standing it was the invention of the democratic state that provided for the upward mobility of people. Aristocracies and autocracies did very well under the free market, and also kept the people in their place.

Socialism destroys wealth and relies on the sin of envy.

Capitalism destroys people and nations and relies on slave labour in distant lands. Making general statements about any particular system does not lead to many favourable outcomes when it comes to fixing the problems we have. Socialism, when mixed with capitalism and democracy provides for a nation, in theory, that is egalitarian, free, and less exploitive that either of the two forms in their “pure” connotations.

but any philosophy that has as one of it’s central tenants the promotion of envy is destructive. Examples are the French and Russian Revolutions.

I notice you do not include the American revolution in your list? The Revolutions in France and Russia were against autocratic regimes that had set up the nations to benefit themselves at the expense of everyone else. The wealth concentrating tendencies of capitalism may force yet another revolution.

When you emphasize rich against poor you are seeking to promote envy, are you not ?

It has always been the rich against the poor. What I promote is a more egalitarian solution to how to run a society, there should not be in our rich societies, people who cannot feed their families and take care of themselves. If we help the people of the lower classes to achieve a reasonable state of being, then they to can join the rest of us contributing to society instead of contributing to the jail system with their lives.

LikeLike

Capitalism destroys people and nations and relies on slave labour in distant lands.

And then in the next sentence I say…

Making general statements about any particular system does not lead to many favourable outcomes when it comes to fixing the problems we have.

Juxtaposition achieved.

Entirely untrue, and short of that the statement is a sweeping generalization at best. The only thing Capitalism relies on beyond supply and demand is a government that prevents the exploitation of either the employer or the employee by force.

Umm, I think the people who enjoyed the free market miracle of the ’70s, Chile might disagree. As would the people living under dictatorships across the world that are ‘good for business’ (bad for peoples rights’)might also disagree.

I would also think the people who work in the textile sweatshops may also disagree with the statement, as well as those who have had their public resources privatized – Boliva – would also disagree.

Finally, I think that the people or Iraq have much to disagree about what you are claiming. Their county was destroyed and then their markets plundered by so called free market capitalists.

Capitalism relies on beyond supply and demand is a government that prevents the exploitation of either the employer or the employee by force.

Capitalism ethos mixed with the taint of libertarian ‘teh crazy’ is even worse. Capitalism is based on exploitation of one class by another. We as western nations do not practice the free market prescriptions we impose on other countries, so we know it is not all peaches n’ cream when you are looking down the short end of the capitalist stick.

Probably more than needed to be said, but… :)

LikeLike

For leaders in all three sectors there is a new appreciation that when we build the healthy community, it is for the greater good. And even for a leader with little concern about the greater good, there is the reality that a sick and ailing community cannot produce the healthy, energetic, productive workforce our enterprises demand if indeed they are to be viable and even present at the end of this turbulent decade.

So how do we change the paradigm from its current slash and burn prescription to something more resembling this? I hate to bring this particular red cape to the table, but Unions are one way that another set of interests can be forced to the table to be discussed and integrated into how the company works. Workforces like other stakeholders are almost always underrepresented on the board.

LikeLike

It’s a human failing before it’s a corporate one, and that’s what I think must first be addressed.

Corporations are human constructs, we make them and, like all things, we make are a reflection of us. It is difficult to say that one is somehow divorced from the other.

I think we’re in a society that thrives on passing off accountability and avoiding guilt at every turn.

Much of the malaise can be traced back to the capitalist ethos that permeates American society. False constructs such as the ‘American Dream’ and ‘Making it Big’ have replaced altruism, social responsibility and community. Now Vern, I can see you warming up the charity stats to rebut my point here, but in the larger picture if all this generosity was effective then the US would have one of the lowest rates of (‘western’)poverty in the world. That is not the case, and I would argue that people actually believe as rule, rather than the exception, that one can make significant changes to social economic strata in the US contrary to the limited social mobility that exists. (We’ve been over some of this ground before, and I can recobble togethere the various stats and related figures if you’d like, it is a lazy Sunday and well, I’m feeling lazy.)

Leaders and companies don’t pick shareholders, and they don’t pick customers. Shareholders and customers pick them and vote on their direction and actions with their dollar.

Would people make more responsible choices if the society they lived within provided a more stable foundation of old age pensions, universal healthcare and welfare, so they could take their eyes off the bottom line (their savings) and invest in more responsible businesses? How could anyone dream of a lower return on their investments when their investments are the only bulwark that keeps them out of poverty?

Shareholders and customers pick them and vote on their direction and actions with their dollar

This sort of freedom needs to be balanced with legislation and social programs that do not vote with the dollar, because the market is inherently unstable and not a good vehicle for promoting all of what societies need to function. I had to double quote that one because it comes close to the free-market = freedom meme that has been egregiously abused in the media. The free-market does not exist outside of textbooks and that fact needs to be repeated far and wide, any state that adopts a genuinely free market policy quickly goes down the crapper. Every advanced Western country has a formidable wall of tariffs and protectionist legislation to keep their markets ‘safe’ from foreign competition. So unless you are at the short end of the IMF structural readjustment stick, rational states will never choose the “free-market” as an economic paradigm.

and it’s always their savings that they’ll protect first.

It is the state’s responsibility to at least meet the minimum requirements of a modest standard of living. If a bill in Canada came up giving everyone a guaranteed income, I would vote and campaign vigorously for it. Would I pay higher taxes, hell ya. Would I have less crime and social turmoil to deal with, hell ya. Would it be a more egalitarian society, you betcha. Would people invest more responsibly and take less on their investments for the return of knowing a company was actually being socially responsible? I would hazard to say, yes.

LikeLike

Instead, a company should have policies and procedures in place to capture the non-financial factors of success in their company. Through an effective middle-management team and competent HR department, those factors get identified and then brought to senior management to be valuated. Once valuated, the company can decide how much budget to allocate to these factors, and the company proceeds to fine-tune from there.

The big operative word, in my opinion is the word should. I would speculate that most companies would engage in pretty most any sort of practice as long as the bottom line is good and investors are making money. Without union representation, workers needs are not given a high enough priority or “valuated” in a reasonable way that would adversely effect the bottom line.

LikeLike

Those are my thoughts on more union representation.

Appreciated Mr.Kaine, however wrong they might be.

Unions are necessary for balance Mr.Kaine. Unions have won for the worker: Paid Vacations, holidays, sick leave, seniority rights, wage increases, health and insurance plans, safety laws, workers compensation laws, Canada Pension, time and half for hours worked in excess of 8 hours in any one day or 44 hours in a week, unemployment benefits and job security.

Unions protect and fight for my rights as an employee to be treated equitably and fairly. I will not go back to the good old days where capital ruthlessly exploited people for profit. Mining in my very own province was a dirty, underpaid and dangerous affair back in the day. The people who worked in mine organized for safety concerns, better conditions and pay that reflected the hazardous nature of what they were tasked with doing.

They were set upon not only by the police, but by the army as well. Beaten bloody for the idea that it was a right to work in safe conditions and make a reasonable wage. You make the assumption that companies are reasonable here is what people unionized for back then:

” We have founded the United Mine Workers of America fo the purpose of…educating all mine workers in America to realize the necessity of unity of action and purpose, in demanding and securing by lawful means the just fruits of our toil.[2]

The UMWA constitution listed eleven points as the union’s goals:

* The first point was a salary commensurate with the dangerous work conditions. This was one of the most important points of the constitution.
* The second point, related to the first, was that the workers wanted to be paid fairly in legal tender, not with company scrip.
* The third point was to provide safety for the miners, necessitating that all operators use the latest technologies so that they could preserve lives and keep the workers as healthy as possible.
* The fourth point also had to do with advancing the technologies of the mine by providing better ventilation systems to decrease black lung disease, and better drainage systems.
* The fifth point was to enforce safety laws and make it illegal for mines to have inadequate roof supports or contaminated air and water in the mines.
* The sixth point stated that the workers wanted an eight-hour work day.
* The seventh point demanded an end to child labor, and strict enforcement of the child labor law.
* The eighth point demanded that the scales used to weigh the coal work correctly, so that miners would be paid the correct amount. This was a big problem for miners because many times operators would try to underpay workers by having the scales show a lighter weight than what was produced. Miners were paid per pound of coal that they produced.
* The ninth point was linked to both the eighth and second points, that demanded that wages be paid in legal tender.
* The tenth point wanted an unbiased police force for the mining community. Many operators of the mine would hire police to harass the mine workers. In company towns the operators owned all the houses and controlled the police force, the operators could evict workers and arrest them unjustly. The tenth point was to eliminate this problem by having an impartial local police force that was not employed by the operators.
* The eleventh point was a statement from the workers to the operators claiming that they would try to come to a reasonable conclusion but that if they thought that they were being treated unfairly, the workers would strike to protect their rights.[2]”

Being paid in legal tender, having mines that don’t collapse. Little things like that. Is anything on that list unreasonable? What is unreasonable is that things would not have changed without collective representation because conditions were profitable ‘as is’ (or at the rate they did, but conditions improved with union intervention than simply relying on the companies largess.). Unions are necessary because employers have and will exploit the worker if he does take action and organize to defend himself.

The same battles fought here in North American are being replicated in the Second and Third World as companies exploit people until they organize and protect themselves from the ravages of the capitalist system (and more power to them).

LikeLike

Arb: Without union representation, workers needs are not given a high enough priority or “valuated” in a reasonable way that would adversely effect the bottom line.
V.R. Kaine: Pure union b.s.. They like you to believe that, but it’s not true.

This is one of those points that we are not going to see eye to eye on. I’m quite convinced that Unions are necessary part of the workplace to maintain the safety and rights of workers. I think the need to profit, if left unfettered leads to exploitation of those who have very little to say about what the company is doing and whose livelyhood depends on the benevolence of said company.

I’ll say it again – there’s been no PRIVATE industry situation where I found that unions were either a) helpful, or b) necessary. They drown out the best performers and cater to the worst performers, and allow for zero individual exceptionalism which would benefit both the employee and the company.

So would that be a vote for having safety regulations and child labour in the coal mines? I’m not trying to pull a ‘gotcha’ here, but seriously without the union movements how many more people would we have lost to the safe, yet still eminently profitable, conditions that existed in the mines?

LikeLike