Income Disparity Series

[Just_A_Guy]

The problem, as you mention later, isn't the balance sheet. It's real living conditions.

If you can honestly say that the guy with the actual income of $0, if he walked up to you and said 'Brother JAG? I have seen you are in dire straights. Please - I will let you have my home and I will take yours. I will let you have my car and I will take yours. I will let you have my furniture and I will take yours.' - If you can honestly say that your answer to that would be, 'Heck, yeah!', then I will agree that your adjusted balance sheet is a fair representation.

Then what, exactly, are we trying to equalize here? If we want to equalize income, you're still going to have inequality--Those who spend less than they earn will have lots of money; those who spend what they earn will have nothing; those who spend more than they earn will have lots of nice stuff and a lot of debt. There's still going to be jealousy; you're still running the risk of an angry mob with an entitlement complex re-enacting 1917.

Now, as to your hypothetical: Yeah, my living standard's probably a bit higher than your hypothetical individual. But, leaving aside the fact that I (hope I) would be unwilling to accept that kind of handout, then--assuming that the kid is also offering to assume my debt--yes, my answer would be "heck, yeah!" Because sooner or later, debt does become a factor in your "real living conditions". If tomorrow I lost all my material goods and also eliminated my debt, I would be eligible to borrow enough money to bring myself back to my current living standard and still be far, far ahead of where I am today.

I grew up with my Grandfather. He was the chief plant engineer at Imperial Oil in Sarnia. In the 70s, he was earning $50, 000/year. That was pretty spectacular at the time. He retired just as Sarnia, most of which was employed by the oil companies in a place called 'Chemical Valley', went from one of the most prosperous cities in Canada to a ghost town. The companies kept a skeletal staff on their vast concrete jungles because it was cheaper to hire people forever then it would be to have to clean up. . . .

Hard work didn't save those people, who were some of the hardest working, company-loyal men I know. And with the sudden glut of skilled labour, it was impossible to get good paying jobs. They had to take their hard working selves and take positions that paid less than half of what they were earning, and most had to move to get that. This was not a hurricane that caused this. This was not an earthquake. It was not an act of God. It was the act of an executive who took a pen and, with a single stroke of that pen, sent tens of thousands of people to the unemployment line and shattered most of their hopes for a better future.

But what would have opened had the plant remained open? There's only one logical reason for a company to close a facility, and that is because the facility isn't profitable. Do you really think executives like closing facilities? Whoever made that "penstroke" had to choose between letting that factory stay open and keep hemorrhaging money until the entire company shut down (thus putting everyone out of work), or cut off the diseased branch and hope the rest of the company would recover.

From what I can gather on Wikipedia, later "corporate penstrokes" led to TransAlta and First Solar/Enbridge opening facilities in Sarnia; and Sarnia's per capita income is now slightly above the provincial average.

Income inequality isn't the frustration of the working class, though it's part of it. power inequality is the issue, and that power is decided upon by who has the most money. This is causing a lot of frustration in those who realize how tenuous their hold on their life is.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Example:

http://taxprof.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c4eab53ef0120a5be3381970b-500wi

A lot of fabulously rich people contributed money to McCain.

Edited September 13, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[MarginOfError]

(source here)

Well, since I opened this can of worms I suppose I ought to make some comments. On this issue, I'm kind of in Funky's camp. An increase of $5,000 in your annual salary may only translate to a real increase of $2,500, but it's still $2,500 ahead of where you were before.

The craziness at the left side of the graph is a little concerning, but seeing as it's right around the poverty line, I'm not surprised. In biomedical sciences, that'd be the area where we have a hard time distinguishing what is and isn't poverty and we're mostly likely to get it wrong there.

[MarginOfError]

Today's installment about the decline of labor unions has mixed feelings from me. Then again, labor unions have mixed feelings from me.

On the one hand, the decline of labor unions makes sense as a correlating factor to wage disparity. On the other hand, I don't know that I want to strengthen unions.

Truth be told, I'm a huge union fan, but I think they've become monsters that I don't want to feed. They've gotten to the point that they scream and rant and rave about unfair working conditions, but I'm not convinced that they're really committed to providing the best products. (Kind of like the NAACP throwing a fit last week that white police officers beat up two "black business students" outside a strip club and demanded the officers' termination only to find out over the weekend that the "black assailants" were pushing and hitting the police before they got creamed--and yes, as the story progressed it really did change from "business students" to "assailants." The NAACP has yet to apologize, and likely won't).

I'm just rambling now. And I forgot what my point was....I blame Gwen...she's been distracting me in chat.

[FunkyTown]

Then what, exactly, are we trying to equalize here? If we want to equalize income, you're still going to have inequality--Those who spend less than they earn will have lots of money; those who spend what they earn will have nothing; those who spend more than they earn will have lots of nice stuff and a lot of debt. There's still going to be jealousy; you're still running the risk of an angry mob with an entitlement complex re-enacting 1917.

Now, as to your hypothetical: Yeah, my living standard's probably a bit higher than your hypothetical individual. But, leaving aside the fact that I (hope I) would be unwilling to accept that kind of handout, then--assuming that the kid is also offering to assume my debt--yes, my answer would be "heck, yeah!" Because sooner or later, debt does become a factor in your "real living conditions". If tomorrow I lost all my material goods and also eliminated my debt, I would be eligible to borrow enough money to bring myself back to my current living standard and still be far, far ahead of where I am today.

But don't you see that you're accepting, not his lifestyle, but his acceptance of your debt? Your plan in that circumstance wouldn't be to raise yourself up to his non-debt ridden life, but to get back to your own lifestyle minus the debt.

But what would have opened had the plant remained open? There's only one logical reason for a company to close a facility, and that is because the facility isn't profitable. Do you really think executives like closing facilities? Whoever made that "penstroke" had to choose between letting that factory stay open and keep hemorrhaging money until the entire company shut down (thus putting everyone out of work), or cut off the diseased branch and hope the rest of the company would recover.

This is a simple, palatable lie we tell ourselves. Having been in a town on the receiving end of that, I can say it's not true.

The reason the oil processing plant was closed was not because it was losing money, but because it was making less money. Instead of earning $60 billion dollars in 1982, they'd have earned $51 billion. They didn't close the plants. They laid off over 90% of the labour force, didn't hire any in their Alberta plants and ramped up production there where transport was less. Sarnia's position on the St. Lawrence allowed exports, which Imperial Oil wasn't doing when the Canadian Dollar was strong.

From what I can gather on Wikipedia, later "corporate penstrokes" led to TransAlta and First Solar/Enbridge opening facilities in Sarnia; and Sarnia's per capita income is now slightly above the provincial average.

Yep. And it only took 20 years. Jag - 20 years is the child-rearing years for an entire generation. Don't you see that, even if things even out eventually, that lives are destroyed? I fear that you aren't seeing the trees for the forest. These are families and people whose lives have been destroyed. If you can't see that, then you aren't going to understand the real issue.

I understand where you're coming from, JAG. I do. It's the same spot that the landowners in Athens came from right before class warfare came to their doorstep.

[Just_A_Guy]

The craziness at the left side of the graph is a little concerning, but seeing as it's right around the poverty line, I'm not surprised.

I agree, except that I think it goes too far. $40,000 per annum can't possibly be "poverty line".

Haven't read the newest installment yet, but thanks for noting it--will go over and take a look momentarily.

[Guest]

Well, since I opened this can of worms I suppose I ought to make some comments. On this issue, I'm kind of in Funky's camp. An increase of $5,000 in your annual salary may only translate to a real increase of $2,500, but it's still $2,500 ahead of where you were before.

Not quite. Because it takes EFFORT to make $5,000. If you're just sitting there doing nothing and you have a choice to increase $2,500 or nothing, then sure, it makes sense. But, to bust your butt for $2,500 is a waste of time. But busting your butt for $5,000 is well worth the effort.

Because, to make the effort, you have to give up something else - time and energy are finite. Should I sleep in a hammock all afternoon long fishing for a meager fish for supper, or should I burn the candles at both ends, risking heart failure, to get a shot at that steak?

[prisonchaplain]

I imagine there are those posters who see this widening gap between the rich and poor as a good thing. Could any of you make a one paragraph answer as to why this widening gap is good?

A widening gap between the rich and poor is good because it makes both sides feel better. When the gap is large the rich can enjoy their wealth more because the alternative is all the more apalling. The sense of accomplishment, overcoming wretchedness, and being in a place of wellness is so clear when the state of poverty is abject. On the other hand, the poor can feel more self-righteous in their ability to endure hardship, unlike the wealthy. Also, they can ease their difficult physical conditions by feeling a sense of anger and victimization at the hands of the greedy wealthy class. When the rich are conspicuous in their consumption, those who are poor can point the finger and say, "Because of them bad people I suffer--but I suffer in virtue!" Thus, for rich and poor, a clear, wide gap is good.

(Please oh please do note the protrusion of my right cheek, perhaps due to the tongue that is poking it out.)

[MarginOfError]

I agree, except that I think it goes too far. $40,000 per annum can't possibly be "poverty line".

Haven't read the newest installment yet, but thanks for noting it--will go over and take a look momentarily.

Oh wow...I hadn't paid enough attention apparently. Yeah, something is definitely way out of whack there.

[Just_A_Guy]

But don't you see that you're accepting, not his lifestyle, but his acceptance of your debt? Your plan in that circumstance wouldn't be to raise yourself up to his non-debt ridden life, but to get back to your own lifestyle minus the debt.

What I see is that lifestyle is a function of how I choose to allocate my balance sheet.

This is a simple, palatable lie we tell ourselves. Having been in a town on the receiving end of that, I can say it's not true.

The reason the oil processing plant was closed was not because it was losing money, but because it was making less money. Instead of earning $60 billion dollars in 1982, they'd have earned $51 billion. They didn't close the plants. They laid off over 90% of the labour force, didn't hire any in their Alberta plants and ramped up production there where transport was less. Sarnia's position on the St. Lawrence allowed exports, which Imperial Oil wasn't doing when the Canadian Dollar was strong.

I can't find figures going back to 1982, but as of 1993 Imperial's gross profit was "only" about 1.3 billion. Even in 2008, a banner year for oil companies globally, Imperial's profit was barely over nine billion.

So, pardon me for saying so; but I just don't find the figure of $51 billion profit for 1982 to be credible. Was your source an annual report somewhere, or was it a disgruntled ex-employee?

Even accepting the factual account you give as correct, your basic argument is that Imperial had some kind of moral obligation to accomplish less with one hundred employees in Sarnia, than it could with ten employees in Sarnia. Quite bluntly, I don't find that persuasive at all.

Yep. And it only took 20 years. Jag - 20 years is the child-rearing years for an entire generation. Don't you see that, even if things even out eventually, that lives are destroyed? I fear that you aren't seeing the trees for the forest. These are families and people whose lives have been destroyed. If you can't see that, then you aren't going to understand the real issue.

Twenty years? Really?

Here are 1985-1988 Canadian unemployment figures, broken down by region. Southern Ontario's unemployment rates (and ranking, as opposed to thirty-nine other areas in the survey), were as follows:

• 1985 - 10.1%, rank 19
• 1986 - 8.2%, rank 11
• 1987 - 7.4%, rank 11
• 1988 - 6.2%, rank 9

For comparison, Canada's overall unemployment rate for those years was 10.5%, 9.5%, 8.8%, and 7.8%

In other words, Southern Ontario is already beating the Canadian national unemployment average and doing better than half of the other areas in the survey by 1985; and it only went upwards from there. Big empty factories doubtlesscontributed to the perception of non-prosperity; but statistically--the jobs were there.

And so we're back to the issue of whether we legislate--indeed, confiscate--based on perception or reality.

Edited September 14, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[prisonchaplain]

I'm not really seeing how there's no incentive to get a higher paying job under that?

It used to be that getting off welfare initially meant a reduction in living standard. On the dole, you did not work, you had plenty of leisure time, and you never went hungry. Healthcare was provided, and though life seemed full of 2nd-rate stuff, there was never hunger, uncared for sickness, nor a lack of simple entertainment.

Take a minimum or barely-above minimum wage job from a small company, and one could lose the free healthcare, see smaller paychecks than the monthly stipend the government provided, and find it harder to maintain those simple entertainments.

With Clinton's "Welfare to Work" initiatives that problem was greatly reduced. Nevertheless, beginning entry level work as an adult often means working hard for initially little benefit. People do the math and figure "I'm working 40-hours a week, and only getting about 50-cents per hour more than when I wasn't working." To us that have worked all our lives such thinking seems lazy, but if one is used to being provided for there really does develop a certain sense of entitlement.

Now, on to 'Taking away the cause of envy' and whether they 'think' they're living hand to mouth.

Are the rich deliberately keeping people from joining their ranks? No. However, I would like you to look at the wealthiest people in North America. How many came from an impoverished background? How many people came from a 'just squeaking by' $20, 000/year home?

Perhaps more than you think. Sure, money makes money, and it's easy to stay wealthy than to become wealthy. However, the U.S. economy allows for upward mobility more than many societies.

If your argument of getting by is: "These houses don't need cars, or cell phones, or television. They can live in a rented apartment and take public transportation.", then you aren't using the argument "Let them eat cake."

You're using the argument, "Let them eat dirt."

Are you suggesting that because some are wealthy, cars, homes and cell phones should be basic human rights?

[Just_A_Guy]

Today's installment about the decline of labor unions has mixed feelings from me. Then again, labor unions have mixed feelings from me.

On the one hand, the decline of labor unions makes sense as a correlating factor to wage disparity. On the other hand, I don't know that I want to strengthen unions.

I was intrigued by the article's citing Geoghegan for the propositions that a) cracking down on unions actually destroys an industrial base, and b) a company can survive and even prosper while simply choosing not to compete on cost. But the article itself doesn't seem to explain how either of those scenarios actually play out.

As for the German recovery, the NYT article cited appears to credit the German policy of keeping workers employed, but with fewer perks. Would an American union like the UAW be willing to make a sacrifice like that? With the GM negotiations last year, it seemed the UAW was willing to make some token concessions but nothing like what would be required to keep the company viable in the long term.

[FunkyTown]

What I see is that lifestyle is a function of how I choose to allocate my balance sheet.

And your balance sheet is far better than the poor man.

Even accepting the factual account you give as correct, your basic argument is that Imperial had some kind of moral obligation to accomplish less with one hundred employees in Sarnia, than it could with ten employees in Sarnia. Quite bluntly, I don't find that persuasive at all.

You're right, JAG. Big companies have no moral obligation to keep on people who have spent their entire life with them. Are they their brother's keeper?

Of course, those people have no moral obligation not to vote in people who will bring taxes for the wealthy back up to Eisenhower-esque 70% tax brackets and begin wealth redistribution on a massive scale.

The numbers, at the time, weren't just from Imperial Oil. They were from Esso, Dow, Polysar, BASF and various other companies that all closed shop when Imperial Oil did.

It was not a case of perception, JAG. It was a case of walking out the door and seeing the main street with half the shops closed, including the Eaton Department Store(Eaton's was one of the largest department stores in Canada at the time).

You and I disagree on something fundamentally. You believe that the wealthy have no moral imperative to take care of the poor if they can gain greater profit elsewhere. I believe the wealthy have that moral imperative. If they do not have a moral imperative to protect the poor at the expense of runaway profit, then you can not logically argue that the poor have a moral imperative not to vote in people who will take that money from them.

You can say that Sarnia wasn't badly hit by the closing of its industries all you want. I was there. It was. I saw the families who were destroyed by that. There were many.

[MarginOfError]

I was intrigued by the article's citing Geoghegan for the propositions that a) cracking down on unions actually destroys an industrial base, and b) a company can survive and even prosper while simply choosing not to compete on cost. But the article itself doesn't seem to explain how either of those scenarios actually play out.

As for the German recovery, the NYT article cited appears to credit the German policy of keeping workers employed, but with fewer perks. Would an American union like the UAW be willing to make a sacrifice like that? With the GM negotiations last year, it seemed the UAW was willing to make some token concessions but nothing like what would be required to keep the company viable in the long term.

And with that you point out the thing that irritates me about modern unions. They refuse to accept that they exists as one half of a symbiotic relationship.

My dad got really serious about leaving his government job when the local government employees' union campaigned for and passed a law that required all state employees to pay union dues, even if they refused membership in the union. At the time, my dad was running the only department in the DOT that wasn't running up a deficit. He despised the union so much he literally began looking for new work. He doesn't object to being a part of a union, necessarily, but refuses to be part of a union that won't have the decency to expect its members to work.

[Just_A_Guy]

And your balance sheet is far better than the poor man.

Is he over a hundred thousand dollars in the red, then?

You're right, JAG. Big companies have no moral obligation to keep on people who have spent their entire life with them. Are they their brother's keeper?

How about an employee who has worked for a company (say, Imperial) for years. Imperial money has bought employee's house. Imperial money has bought employee's wife's wedding ring. Imperial money has fed employee's family and put his children through school. Employee has built up a vast deal of institutional knowledge about Imperial's business and procedures. Imperial has given employee valuable work experience--so much so, that Chevron comes along and offers employee twice as much.

Would you really argue that employee has a "moral obligation" to remain with Imperial? If not, then why does morality only go one-way in the employer/employee relationship?

Of course, those people have no moral obligation not to vote in people who will bring taxes for the wealthy back up to Eisenhower-esque 70% tax brackets and begin wealth redistribution on a massive scale.

I do want to back up a moment and clarify whether you're addressing the topic of whether inequality is bad per se, or whether you're making a broader policy argument.

If the former: from what I can gather, it would seem to me that you're arguing that if inequality is not inherently bad, enforced equality cannot be inherently bad either. Is that your argument?

If the latter, then responding to the above: Perhaps. I don't think my policy views are based on a foundation of morals. There's certainly an aspect of morality there, but just as we ban stealing because of its social effects rather than because it is immoral per se; my argument lies primarily in what is likely to happen if you impose policies that essentially punish success and make it very, very difficult to do business. So, with your democratic populist revolt--I personally think that they'll be cutting off their noses to spite their faces (or killing the goose that gives the golden egg--pick your metaphor ), but if they think that will make things better, vive la republicanism. They're free to nationalize industry and enforce a planned economy a' la Soviet Union or Fascist Italy and discover, ten or twenty or fifty years down the road, that--mirabile dictu--there's still a tiny, wealthy oligarchy ruling a majority for whom life still largely stinks. It's just that now the overlords are propped up by guns instead of money.

The numbers, at the time, weren't just from Imperial Oil. They were from Esso, Dow, Polysar, BASF and various other companies that all closed shop when Imperial Oil did.

But we're still in the dark as to why Imperial pulled out. I have posited the idea (supported by logic, though admittedly not by statistics) that it wasn't profitable to stay. You have asserted that it would have been profitable for Imperial to stay--but thus far have brought neither logical nor statistical evidence to support your position.

It was not a case of perception, JAG. It was a case of walking out the door and seeing the main street with half the shops closed, including the Eaton Department Store(Eaton's was one of the largest department stores in Canada at the time).

You can say that Sarnia wasn't badly hit by the closing of its industries all you want. I was there. It was. I saw the families who were destroyed by that. There were many.

Admittedly, I wasn't there. All I can go on are the statistics published by your own government. According to those, southern Ontario as a whole was doing somewhat better than the rest of the country at least as early as 1985, and much better by 1988.

You and I disagree on something fundamentally. You believe that the wealthy have no moral imperative to take care of the poor if they can gain greater profit elsewhere. I believe the wealthy have that moral imperative. If they do not have a moral imperative to protect the poor at the expense of runaway profit, then you can not logically argue that the poor have a moral imperative not to vote in people who will take that money from them.

"The wealthy", obviously, do have that kind of moral obligation--I think the Gospel makes that much clear. But I'm doubtful that a specific subset of "the wealthy" should (either morally or legally) shoulder the entire burden. At least in the US, "the wealthy" will inevitably provide the bulk of the funds that support that family while they get back on their feet--whether through government programs or charitable largesse.

So, why should a disproportionate part of the burden fall to the company itself? You speak as though, during the course of the employment relationship, the stream of benefits has been all one-way during the employee's tenure--that the employee has given the company everything he has, but has gotten nothing (or less than he deserved) in return. You ignore, in Imperial's case, the very generous salary that workers like your Grandfather received as well as the stability you yourself concede Imperial provided to the region for two generations. And while yes, Imperial ultimately was the one who terminated the relationship; the employee also was free to terminate that same relationship at any time he wished.

I don't discount the difficulty in finding a new job. But frankly, your argument sounds like the woman who, having received daily golden eggs from her goose for a period of weeks, decides that the goose must die because one day it quit giving eggs (or started leaving them in someone else's nest).

Edited September 15, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[prisonchaplain]

You're right, JAG. Big companies have no moral obligation to keep on people who have spent their entire life with them. Are they their brother's keeper?

No "they" aren't. We are. Companies produce. They are not social service agencies. There job is to do what they do for a profit. Workers jobs are to be worth more to their employers than their pay. When that ceases to be the case, or when the market provides better margins elsewhere, at some point the company moves on.

You and I disagree on something fundamentally. You believe that the wealthy have no moral imperative to take care of the poor if they can gain greater profit elsewhere. I believe the wealthy have that moral imperative. If they do not have a moral imperative to protect the poor at the expense of runaway profit, then you can not logically argue that the poor have a moral imperative not to vote in people who will take that money from them.

Why do people in one location claim a higher moral need than those in another place??? How is it more moral for a company to maintain anemic profits and forgo long-term financial health, so that workers in one area get jobs as opposed to those in another area? All humans being equal, perhaps the company will eventually hire more workers in the new area? Would that not be the greater moral good?

[FunkyTown]

No "they" aren't. We are. Companies produce. They are not social service agencies. There job is to do what they do for a profit. Workers jobs are to be worth more to their employers than their pay. When that ceases to be the case, or when the market provides better margins elsewhere, at some point the company moves on.

Companies and workers do not exist in a vacuum. Workers have families, friends, wants and desires, rent to pay and food to buy. 'Companies' don't exist. Not in any real sense. 'Companies' are conglomerates of people with families, friends, wants and desires, rent to pay and food to buy. If profit - The ability to get the most for the least - is the sole purpose of a company, then they are fundamentally flawed. They are grotesque beings of greed, beholden only to Mammon.

Take any other human need, PC. Would you accept organizations whose sole purpose was to push that need for all those within its grasp? Would you so vociferously defend an organization whose sole purpose was to push sexual congress to all its members, who hired breeding pits of human beings and left them to starve when they could no longer produce?

Would you accept an organization whose sole purpose was any human need, that pushed that need above all others and received legal status and benefits for that? Something that filled that need for those within it, then tossed those within when they were spent?

Why is greed being held above people a more sacred principle than gluttony, wrath or pride?

Why do people in one location claim a higher moral need than those in another place??? How is it more moral for a company to maintain anemic profits and forgo long-term financial health, so that workers in one area get jobs as opposed to those in another area? All humans being equal, perhaps the company will eventually hire more workers in the new area? Would that not be the greater moral good?

Because those companies were given loyalty by the people who were underneath them. If you thought of these men as soldiers for their President or King, would you be so quick to dismiss them? Would you advocate that the purpose of a soldier is to defend its country and the moment they become a burden or are unneeded, they should be discarded like the worker at a company?

Why not? Both give their lives to the organization they're part of. Both take them away from family and friends.

PC - If a company has a higher moral obligation to greed than to people and men like us are advocating that as a good thing, there is something fundamentally wrong with the system.

Or perhaps we need to make it more personal, PC: If even a single persons life is ruined by loss of home; If even a single family is torn apart and children tossed on the street by loss of income; If even a single man loses hope in society, how many Playstation 3s is that worth?

[prisonchaplain]

Companies and workers do not exist in a vacuum. Workers have families, friends, wants and desires, rent to pay and food to buy. 'Companies' don't exist. Not in any real sense. 'Companies' are conglomerates of people with families, friends, wants and desires, rent to pay and food to buy. If profit - The ability to get the most for the least - is the sole purpose of a company, then they are fundamentally flawed. They are grotesque beings of greed, beholden only to Mammon.

There are always local circumstances, special considerations, etc. However, in general, when companies operate to produce well and efficiently, they remain healthy, and offer long-term employment to many. What you call greed and mammon could perhaps be termed long-term corporate healthcare. The company must look to its long term prosperity, so that its workers may also prosper. When greed becomes predatory, beastly, and harmful, yes, it must be taimed. However, when want motivates one to work and improve, is want that type of greed scripture deems sinful? I am no Randian Objectivist, or Libertarian. On the other hand, I do admire Adam Smith. He saw the invisible hand that guided moderate capitalism. He understood that unions generally help mitigate the power of the company. But he also knew that, at the end of the day, the company that sacrifices long-term health to appease today's local favor, may provide no jobs to the next generation.

Take any other human need, PC. Would you accept organizations whose sole purpose was to push that need for all those within its grasp? Would you so vociferously defend an organization whose sole purpose was to push sexual congress to all its members, who hired breeding pits of human beings and left them to starve when they could no longer produce?

Would you accept an organization whose sole purpose was any human need, that pushed that need above all others and received legal status and benefits for that? Something that filled that need for those within it, then tossed those within when they were spent?

Why is greed being held above people a more sacred principle than gluttony, wrath or pride?

Do you really find no nuance between motivation, ambition, and the type of greed (avarice) the scriptures so roundly condemn?

Because those companies were given loyalty by the people who were underneath them. If you thought of these men as soldiers for their President or King, would you be so quick to dismiss them? Would you advocate that the purpose of a soldier is to defend its country and the moment they become a burden or are unneeded, they should be discarded like the worker at a company?

Why not? Both give their lives to the organization they're part of. Both take them away from family and friends.

We faced a similar situation in my area. A large investment company was birthed in Tacoma, WA. It remained headquartered there probably longer than it should have. The city came to view it as a cash cow. Now Tacoma is a town with many poor, some middle class, and a few rich. The investment company fit on the latter end of that spectrum, and so was seen as open game for taxes, etc. The long and short of it is that they are moving down the road to Seattle. Seattle offers them a better reputation, better accommodations for guests, and, though taxes are still high, the situation is more equitable.

Tacoma pleaded, tried to offer last minute concessions, and leveled the guilt card--Where's your hometown pride? Too little too late...no hard feelings though.

Ironically, Seattle lost the Boeing headquarters the same way. Big greedy company = huge tax base. Yum yum, says local governments. Taxes! Then, in what seems to be a sudden move (actually decades in the making), the company begins moving out. "Where are you going, babe???"

Most companies that make big moves like that which devestated your area don't do so quickly or easily. It's expensive to move. And, despite this "all or nothing greed" picture...most do feel some home town loyalty. So, when the moves do come, the people cry out (understandably), and no one wants to hear why the big greedy company did such a thing. Much easy to blame the greedy beast.

[FunkyTown]

I would like to point out something you said earlier that I found concerning:

No "they" aren't. We are. Companies produce. They are not social service agencies. There job is to do what they do for a profit. Workers jobs are to be worth more to their employers than their pay. When that ceases to be the case, or when the market provides better margins elsewhere, at some point the company moves on.

What you are referring to is what I find concerning. Not fiscal responsibility and caution, but the idea that the sole purpose of a corporation is the runaway development of profit, which I find to be predatory.

Fortune 500 2009: Top 1000 American Companies - Exxon Mobil - XOM - FORTUNE on CNNMoney.com

Exxon

Profits $45 Billion ($442 Billion in Revenue - Acquired XTO. Also owns Imperial Oil with a 70% stake)

Number of workers: 82000

Wal-Mart

Profits: $13.4 Billion($405.6 Billion in revenue - Acquired Distribucion y Servicio in Chile that year).

Number of workers: 2.1 million

Chevron

Profits: $23.9 Billion($263.1 Billion in revenue - Acquired Unocal)

Number of employees: 67000

If Exxon only pulled in $35 billion dollars in profits that year, they could have shared out $122, 000 to each employee, from the Vice President to the lowliest night janitor. They'd have been incredibly profitable and they'd have made a huge difference in everyone's life. Or they could have lowered oil prices to take the burden off of the average person.

Wal-mart, with 2.1 million employees, made an acquisition to move in to another country and could have made "only" a $10 billion dollar profit and paid every worker a $1500 bonus. Wal-mart, with their large employee base, I think we can forgive. Keeping $13.4 billion could be seen as a safety net for difficult times. Chevron could have made only $20 billion and given an extra $60, 000 to every man and woman who works for them.

The examples you gave were examples of Governmental greed, which I agree is bad. But at what point does greed become predatory on the part of companies?

At what point does the drive for profits at the expense of the common person become a drive that is not for fiscal responsibility, but simply a score card for which company is winning the battle for supremacy?

How much is enough?

There are always local circumstances, special considerations, etc. However, in general, when companies operate to produce well and efficiently, they remain healthy, and offer long-term employment to many. What you call greed and mammon could perhaps be termed long-term corporate healthcare. The company must look to its long term prosperity, so that its workers may also prosper. When greed becomes predatory, beastly, and harmful, yes, it must be taimed. However, when want motivates one to work and improve, is want that type of greed scripture deems sinful? I am no Randian Objectivist, or Libertarian. On the other hand, I do admire Adam Smith. He saw the invisible hand that guided moderate capitalism. He understood that unions generally help mitigate the power of the company. But he also knew that, at the end of the day, the company that sacrifices long-term health to appease today's local favor, may provide no jobs to the next generation.

[Just_A_Guy]

If Exxon only pulled in $35 billion dollars in profits that year, they could have shared out $122, 000 to each employee, from the Vice President to the lowliest night janitor. They'd have been incredibly profitable and they'd have made a huge difference in everyone's life. Or they could have lowered oil prices to take the burden off of the average person.

Excellent food for thought, Funky; thanks.

From what I can gather online, Exxon didn't just sit on its profits. Rather it has used them to purchase vast amounts of its own stock (about sixty billion dollars' worth between 2006 and 2009, I think--something like one sixth or one fifth of its outstanding shares have been retired in the last five to ten years). So Exxon's profits are making a difference in people's lives--it's just that the people Exxon chose to benefit were its shareholders, who had taken the bigger gamble in the first place. The employees, meanwhile, are still getting exactly what they bargained for; and if they want more they are (or should be) free to individually or collectively attempt to re-negotiate their position.

Your idea of using the profits to lower gas prices sounds appealing, but then we're back into elementary supply-and-demand issues and I'm not sure the net social effect would be positive. As far as I know there is no reliable evidence of any deliberate attempt to limit the oil supply; high prices were driven by an increase in demand from developing nations (like China) in conjunction with the oil futures market. Basic economics teaches that if you arbitrarily lower the price via a ceiling, you're going to increase demand to the point where it exceeds supply. Thus you get shortages, gas lines . . . 1970s all over again. If big oil then ramps up production to meet the increased supply, you've got an increase in the use of petroleum with all the environmental issues that creates.

[by the way: I'll respond to your PM later today.]

Edited September 16, 2010 by Just_A_Guy

[prisonchaplain]

I would like to point out something you said earlier that I found concerning: What you are referring to is what I find concerning. Not fiscal responsibility and caution, but the idea that the sole purpose of a corporation is the runaway development of profit, which I find to be predatory.

I didn't say it that way, and I clarified myself pretty well. Yet you return to my previous post, summarizing it in an exaggerated, and ultimately inaccurate way. Companies do exist to make profit. They reward their stockholders, and operate to stay operating. In the process they pay taxes, donate to their local charities, and often develop a grateful employee base, as well as loyal customers. Surely you know that companies do not exist simply to gobble up money by depriving employees of honest wages and cheating customers out of their money through trickery??? Likewise I'll readily admit that better companies give back to the community. Can we now dispense with the caricatures???

The examples you gave were examples of Governmental greed, which I agree is bad. But at what point does greed become predatory on the part of companies?

At what point does the drive for profits at the expense of the common person become a drive that is not for fiscal responsibility, but simply a score card for which company is winning the battle for supremacy?

How much is enough?

Generally liberals will be heavy-handed in determining the answer to that, through aggressive taxation and regulation. Conservatives will be much more reticent to interfere with the legal operations of companies because they are supposedly making too much, paying too little, or somehow not taking care of their local communities enough. You appear more liberal than I in this equation. Fair enough?

[Moksha]

Generally liberals will be heavy-handed in determining the answer to that, through aggressive taxation and regulation. Conservatives will be much more reticent to interfere with the legal operations of companies because they are supposedly making too much, paying too little, or somehow not taking care of their local communities enough. You appear more liberal than I in this equation. Fair enough?

By the same token Chaplain, in this widening econonic gap do you find yourself on the side of the rich or the poor? My guess is that FunkyTown would have sympathies with the poor.

[HoosierGuy]

Surely you know that companies do not exist simply to gobble up money by depriving employees of honest wages and cheating customers out of their money through trickery??? Likewise I'll readily admit that better companies give back to the community. Can we now dispense with the caricatures???

One in five kids in this country lives in poverty.

[Dravin]

One in five kids in this country lives in poverty.

This non sequitur brought to you by HoosierGuy.

[prisonchaplain]

By the same token Chaplain, in this widening econonic gap do you find yourself on the side of the rich or the poor? My guess is that FunkyTown would have sympathies with the poor.

Do you really think I would not sympathize with poor people?

[Dravin]

Do you really think I would not sympathize with poor people?

Since you are ideologically opposed to Moksha obviously your charity is suspect.