Socialism is evil. Tell my why I am wrong. (and let's keep it civil)

[Guest]

6 hours ago, anatess2 said:

And here's a definition...  But that's not all Socialism.

Some say that there is a sociological version of socialism, which is just a private contract between individuals.  I've never heard anyone use that as a substantive definition in debates like this because there is nothing to debate.  Who's against a private contract for mutual benefit?  Well, socialists because it doesn't have government approval.  Duh... 

Feedback loop.  -- so it makes no sense to use this as a definition for discussions like this.

6 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Socialism is separate from a political government.  Of course, one can use the society's political government to manage the system but they don't have to.  So you can pretty much have Socialism with ANY form of government, including a Theocracy.

No.  Socialism is the union of government and economy.  That is why socialism is both a form of government AND a form of economy.  It is the principle or any system of government that says government has power to control portions of the economy that are non-public goods.

Captialism, or more accurately, "Free Market" is the separation of government and economy.   Capitalism by definition is the absence of government involvement in the economy.  So, that is why it remains an economic system rather than a government system.

Edited April 13, 2016 by Guest

[NightSG]

15 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

So, they hired Peter Lynch to solve the problem and offered him $10 Million bonus if he can bring them back to black after years of being red.  Peter Lynch took the job, analyzed the situation, decided the best way to do so is to lay off a bunch of people then file for Chapter 11 to stay the creditors as he cleans up the place and reorganizes.

I've seen companies on both sides of the right-sized level.  While oversized ones are certainly more pleasant to work for, even then there's that nagging feeling that they could trim a lot of fat with very little impact on anyone's workload while freeing up a lot of money for raises and still save money overall.  Oversized at the customer service level also promotes individual laziness and incompetence since there's usually someone else there to pick up the slack.  Then something happens and only the lazy/incompetent ones are there one day, and the customers suffer.

I worked for one of those where they decided they needed a weekend shift, and it needed to be able to work with minimal supervision.  So they started with the top 10% based on performance and offered us a substantial shift differential, plus 40 hours pay for 36 hours work, (3 12 hour shifts per person) then continued down the list until they had enough staff for the new shifts.  That left them with very few really good people during the week, even though they were still overstaffed based on the raw numbers.  Those of us who took the deal burned out pretty quickly entirely due to being pretty much the only go-to people during our single remaining weekday shifts, and a lot of us left for better opportunities.  Weekday service suffered so badly that they went under about a year later. 

[NightSG]

Double post.

Edited April 13, 2016 by NightSG
Double post.

[Sadliers]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

Conservatives claim big government is bad but think big business is good???  Big business and big government is just the different sides of a coin in the pocket of very evil men.

Actually, you're relying on the definition of "conservative" that was created by liberals. Liberals do not know what makes a conservative a conservative so they tried their best at guessing and got it wrong. 

You've also used another definition from liberals and that is that Democrats stand for the little guys. But that really isn't true and that certainly is not a correct definition for liberals.

Simply put, a conservative is one that lives by principles. For them the definition of "morals" is how well one adheres to the principles.

A liberal is one that is primarily looking out for their self aka self centered but not being stated in a negative connotation.

That's the base distinction between the two and that's how two totally different perspectives are formed. Take the conservative, for example. The basic principle is the golden rule: "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". They don't want their freedoms taken away so they don't take others' away. They don't like being financially destitute so they don't entertain the idea of making others destitute. They don't like it when others are irresponsible so they act responsibly. For them it is fairness across the board, even for their enemies.

Liberals, though, cannot live by principles because principles don't always support one's self interests. Simce there are no principles then every situation must be examined on a case-by-case basis.

Next comes the definition of "right" and "wrong". A conservative defines "right" as that which is in line with good principles or as stayed from God. "Wrong" is that which opposes good principles or as stated by God.

Liberals define "right" as that which supports their ideas and "wrong" is that which opposes them.

It would take a book to go in to the details of how this plays out between the two ideologies, but for one avenue consider freedom. And even at that only one avenue within freedom will be mentioned due to time and space constraints. 

A conservative only needs laws that lay out principles and then from there the principles are applied to all aspects. Take the principle of "don't steal". The conservative needs just that one principle to know how to act. What if the neighbor has two and they have one? Don't steal. What if they really could use it? Don't steal. What if they really need it? Don't steal. One principle is all it takes.

A liberal, though, examines everything on a case-by-case basis to determine what is in their best interest. So the same law is in place: "Don't steal". But what if they really want it? Gotta make a law to cover that scenario. What if they need it to go make money? Gotta make a law for that scenario. What if they are distitute and the neighbor has two loaves of bread? Gotta make a law for that scenario. What if they are destitute, the neighbor has two loaves of bread, but the neighbor is also destitute and it takes 3 loaves to feed their family? Gotta make a law for that. In the end the liberal will have to have dozens of laws to cover the different scenarios when the conservative needed just the one.

It is from that scenario that we see the 'big government vs small government' playing out. Each year the liberals have a myriad of new laws to introduce to cover different scenarios and each year the conservatives are saying there's already too many laws. Both are right depending on perspective. 

But now here's another given: each law brings reduced freedom. The liberals are willing to waive their freedoms to have clarity since there's no principles for their guidance. The conservatives don't need the clarity because they are already living responsibly and should be rewarded accordingly. But in the society it will simply boil down to less freedoms as society abandons principles. Thus, in reality, the liberals are injuring those that are principled and moral - there is no such thing as living in a vacuum. When I have a neighbor living without principles or morals then it IS my business because my freedoms are effected by it (contrary to the claims of liberals). 

One thing conservatives can do to regain their freedom is to teach the rising generation the good principles and to be moral. 

That was just one avenue in the differences in thought and the results. Every avenue leads to the same destination: liberalism will result in tyranny and death while conservatism will result in more freedom.

[tesuji]

28 minutes ago, Sadliers said:

Simply put, a conservative is one that lives by principles. For them the definition of "morals" is how well one adheres to the principles.

A liberal is one that is primarily looking out for their self aka self centered but not being stated in a negative connotation.

No, this is not even close to a definition of liberals. "Liberal" is a broad general term, but one of the main things most of them believe is that the status quo needs to be reformed and improved. They usually want change, for the better. In my experience, they tend to be more idealist and maybe less practical.

But there is a place for dreamers in this world - most historical progress and improvement has come because of them. You could even say that according to this definition, that Jesus was in some ways a liberal. He rejected the status quo and wanted a better way.

Edited April 13, 2016 by tesuji

[mordorbund]

12 hours ago, Str8Shooter said:

I look at capitalism as the law of people with morals.  It works perfectly when you have God fearing people with high morals.  When you have people that are ruthless, cold-blooded, etc, then yes, it is a jungle.  The lack of God, the lack of morals, is the root of the problem.  Capitalism cannot work without real charity.  It simply will not work, and then socialism begins to ooze in like The Nothing.

I look at socialism as the law of people with morals. It works perfectly when you have God fearing people with high morals. When you have people that are ruthless, cold-blooded, etc, then yes, it is abused. The lack of God, the lack of morals, is the root of the problem. Socialism cannot work without real charity. It simply will not work, and then capitalism begins to ooze in like The Nothing.

I mean, if you have a society of idealized people, you can have whatever economic system you want and they'll make it work. We don't live in such a world so the systems we live under need to reflect that.

[Vort]

45 minutes ago, tesuji said:

No, this is not even close to a definition of liberals.

I agree that Sadlier's is not an accurate definition of the word "liberal". But it is a reasonably accurate observation on American "liberalism".

[tesuji]

18 minutes ago, Vort said:

I agree that Sadlier's is not an accurate definition of the word "liberal". But it is a reasonably accurate observation on American "liberalism".

I good definition of "liberal" would be one that liberals read and say, OK that's pretty accurate. I don't think many liberals would say that here. 

I don't think you all understand the way liberals view the world. That's OK. Many liberals don't understand how conservatives see things either.

By the way, there are many liberals who believe in God. Including Mormons who are liberals and in good standing with the church.

I see real problems with both liberal and conservative worldviews. They each emphasis some things at the expense of other crucial factors. I think the ideal political solutions are reached when they work out a compromise that accounts for both worldviews.

Edited April 13, 2016 by tesuji

[Vort]

13 minutes ago, tesuji said:

I good definition of "liberal" would be one that liberals read and say, OK that's pretty accurate.

Wait a minute. Weren't you the one calling for a more precise definition of the word "liberal"? And now you are claiming that the best definition would be a self-definition by those who (often very wrongly) claim the title? That is not even closed to an accurate or (needless to say) unbiased way to define the word.

Note that I did not say that his explanation was a good definition; I said it was a pretty accurate observation. The fact that the so-called "liberals" call themselves "liberal" does not mean that they actually are liberal in any historic sense. On the contrary, most "liberals" (or "progressives", or whatever self-designation they want to claim for themselves these days) are hidebound and blinkered, seeing only what they want to see and considering the opinions only of those who think like themselves.

I would be very happy to agree upon an accurate definition of the word "liberal" and then use that. But be forewarned: Few modern American "liberals" will qualify for the word.

[tesuji]

29 minutes ago, Vort said:

... most "liberals" (or "progressives", or whatever self-designation they want to claim for themselves these days) are hidebound and blinkered, seeing only what they want to see and considering the opinions only of those who think like themselves.

Most liberals I know would say this also applies perfectly to conservatives. It shows how little each side understands the other.

My point is that you appear to be so conservative that you do not understand what liberal means. It's a different worldview. I think it might even be largely genetic, for both sides. I think conservative and liberal brains might work differently, at least partially. Neither is wrong, in my opinion. Just different. 

"Seek first to understand, then to be understood" is one of Covey's principles. Ideally, you would understand the liberal worldview well enough to tell a liberal how he/she sees the world, and they would say "Yes, that's pretty close." I don't think you're close yet.

[added]

Neither "liberal" nor "conservative" has much to do with being a disciple of Christ, in my opinion. Politics and the gospel are not the same thing.

Edited April 13, 2016 by tesuji

[Traveler]

3 hours ago, unixknight said:

Who fires him?  The Government?  The owners?  What if the owners don't want to fire the CEO?  What if it isn't the CEO's fault?  

 

The courts.  I have no problem with layoff but I do have a problem with layoff for profit and to get gain.  What if a CEO violates the law and the owners think it was wonderful?  I assume that you think they should then be above the law?

 

Quote

And how do you tax something beyond 100%?

The bonus is taxed by 110% which means that the entire bonus is lost and an additional tax against regular salary is required.  It is my opinion that no one should ever profit from putting someone out of work and the means to support their family.   Unfortunately, in our political climate, layoff are necessary for companies that cannot fire dead wood that are not performing and doing the job they were hired to do. 

 

[Vort]

52 minutes ago, tesuji said:

Ideally, you would understand the liberal worldview well enough to tell a liberal how he/she sees the world, and they would say "Yes, that's pretty close." I don't think you're close yet.

I don't understand how you would know this, since you have never heard or read me try to describe how leftists think. So how do you arrive at this conclusion?

[Traveler]

3 hours ago, anatess2 said:

And here's another one.  Painting all CEOs as a cardboard box character.  This is just another flavor of wealth envy.

I'll give you a real-life example:

Winn-Dixie Grocery Stores hired Peter Lynch as the CEO and a few years later filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy.  Peter Lynch got millions of dollars for bonus.

The Florida newspapers excoriated Lynch, employees - especially the ones that got laid off - went screaming to the press, etc. etc.

Well, guess what.  Winn-Dixie got in the mess they were in from years and years of not being able to adjust to the demographics of their customer base.  This is not just a CEO thing... This is a Board of Directors thing and a market competition thing.  Publix takes the niche of the upper crust and Walmart SuperCenters took the lower crust.  Winn-Dixie was squeezed in the middle - not quite good enough to be Publix but not quite big enough to get Chinese products to compete with the price guarantees of Walmart.

So, they hired Peter Lynch to solve the problem and offered him $10 Million bonus if he can bring them back to black after years of being red.  Peter Lynch took the job, analyzed the situation, decided the best way to do so is to lay off a bunch of people then file for Chapter 11 to stay the creditors as he cleans up the place and reorganizes.  It took 3 years but Winn-Dixie remained in business even as they closed some stores and opened others.  They went in the black while still in bankruptcy and Lynch got his bonus per contract.  The press screamed and Lynch told Winn-Dixie they can keep his bonus until he gets them completely through the bankruptcy.  They got out of bankruptcy with a leaner and profitable profile, the Davis' who owned the place lost a bunch of money, Lynch got his bonus which he took a bunch of and invested in Winn-Dixie stocks as he believed in its profitability in the future.  The Davis' then decided to sell Winn-Dixie to Bi-Lo which crashed their stocks.

Peter Lynch earned every singly penny of that bonus and deserves a whole bunch more and it is so sad that his good name and character got skewered by a sensationalized media who has no desire to understand what it takes to run a business... or a bunch of liberals who like to skewer CEOs because they're rich.

I thought you might be interested to know that in Japan - for many years, if the CEO of a company had a layoff they would be expected to take their own life and would be considered a failure and a disgrace.  It is nice to know that there are places that respect their workers.  But western influences are changing Japan and money is starting to rule more than in the past.  I am not sure that the world is better off because Winn-Dixie laid off a bunch of their employees thinking it to fix what the management and board of directors had screwed up.  I am not sure that I would give the CEO a standing ovation – let alone a casket full of money for firing those that had nothing to do with screwing up the company.

In America some company owners seldom value their employees more than money – I personally know and honor a friend that a while back was offered a billion dollars for his company.  Yah you saw that right – a billion dollars.  He turned it down because he felt he owed his employees the opportunity to remain a part of the company success.  He is highly criticized for not taking the money.  This is the one company that I offer my consulting for free – but he insists to pay.

I have no objection for anyone making all the money they can - with the exception caveat that they do not profit from the suffering and loss of others. 

 

The Traveler

[tesuji]

17 minutes ago, Vort said:

I don't understand how you would know this, since you have never heard or read me try to describe how leftists think. So how do you arrive at this conclusion?

I apologize if I was wrong. I'm new to this site and, no, I don't know you. I was just going by what you said. In my circles I'm used to hearing conservatives bash liberals without any clue of what they're are talking about. Most of my relatives are what I would consider "very conservative," pretty far right of center. So I get tired of it.

Again, I apologize and I did not mean to offend you. I jumped to conclusions. 

Politics sucks. Please remind me to stay out of it. I'm sick of it...

[anatess2]

23 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I thought you might be interested to know that in Japan - for many years, if the CEO of a company had a layoff they would be expected to take their own life and would be considered a failure and a disgrace.  It is nice to know that there are places that respect their workers.  But western influences are changing Japan and money is starting to rule more than in the past.  I am not sure that the world is better off because Winn-Dixie laid off a bunch of their employees thinking it to fix what the management and board of directors had screwed up.  I am not sure that I would give the CEO a standing ovation – let alone a casket full of money for firing those that had nothing to do with screwing up the company.

 

In America some company owners seldom value their employees more than money – I personally know and honor a friend that a while back was offered a billion dollars for his company.  Yah you saw that right – a billion dollars.  He turned it down because he felt he owed his employees the opportunity to remain a part of the company success.  He is highly criticized for not taking the money.  This is the one company that I offer my consulting for free – but he insists to pay.

 

I have no objection for anyone making all the money they can - with the exception caveat that they do not profit from the suffering and loss of others. 

 

The Traveler

Read the story again.

Think on this.  Who is at fault when a cassette tape manufacturing company loses money because some wise guy invented CDs?  Is it greed that makes a cassette tape manufacturing company hire the CD-manufacturing-expert CEO whose talent has a market demand of $10Million?  Is it greed that makes the CD-manufactuing-expert CEO lay off the cassette-tape makers who can't transition to CDs?

You, my man, has this crazy idea that Businesses exist for the purpose of giving people jobs.  Not so.  Businesses exist for the sole purpose of making profit.  And that, my friend, is capitalism.

 

 

P.S.  Your friend is dumb.  The smart guy would sell the business for a billion dollars, give the employees a share in the profit and  then open up 10 more businesses with the rest of the money and hire more people who will be a part of more success.

Edited April 13, 2016 by anatess2

[Traveler]

18 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Read the story again.

Think on this.  Who is at fault when a cassette tape manufacturing company loses money because some wise guy invented CDs?  Is it greed that makes a cassette tape manufacturing company hire the CD-manufacturing-expert CEO whose talent has a market demand of $10Million?  Is it greed that makes the CD-manufactuing-expert CEO lay off the cassette-tape makers who can't transition to CDs?

You, my man, has this crazy idea that Businesses exist for the purpose of giving people jobs.  Not so.  Businesses exist for the sole purpose of making profit.  And that, my friend, is capitalism.

·       

  Do you believe that capitalism is a divine eternal principle of the kingdom you intend to reside in for eternity and of the G-d you worship?  I am asking why you worship and champion something you do not want for eternity.  If you want it for eternity then you should worship it and champion it - I am just saying I don't worship or believe in such things.

The Traveler

Edited April 13, 2016 by Traveler

[NightSG]

33 minutes ago, Traveler said:

·         Do you believe that capitalism is a divine eternal principle of the kingdom you intend to reside in for eternity and of the G-d you worship?  I am asking why you worship and champion something you do not want for eternity.  If you want it for eternity then you should worship it and champion it - I am just saying I don't worship or believe in such things.

 

I'm pretty sure one of the things we keep being told about it is that scarcity won't be an issue there, so nobody's going to be working an 8-5 down at the mill to participate in any economic system.

Besides, I support democracy, but I don't expect it to exist on the other side.  (For that matter, I wouldn't see the need for term limits or separation of powers here if we could simply elect a perfect leader.)

[NightSG]

33 minutes ago, Traveler said:

·         Do you believe that capitalism is a divine eternal principle of the kingdom you intend to reside in for eternity and of the G-d you worship?  I am asking why you worship and champion something you do not want for eternity.  If you want it for eternity then you should worship it and champion it - I am just saying I don't worship or believe in such things.

 

I'm pretty sure one of the things we keep being told about it is that scarcity won't be an issue there, so nobody's going to be working an 8-5 down at the mill to participate in any economic system.

Besides, I support democracy, but I don't expect it to exist on the other side.  (For that matter, I wouldn't see the need for term limits or separation of powers here if we could simply elect a perfect leader.)

[unixknight]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

The courts.  I have no problem with layoff but I do have a problem with layoff for profit and to get gain.  What if a CEO violates the law and the owners think it was wonderful?  I assume that you think they should then be above the law?

The courts.... So you're okay with allowing the Government to make decisions about how to run a private company.  As was presented in an earlier example, it's disingenuous to characterize layoffs as as being merely a tool for profit and gain.  If they're necessary for keeping a company from goingout of business do you really think it's more moral for ALL of the employees to be out of work, instead of a few?

If the CEO breaks the law, he gets prosecuted for it just like everyone else.  Why should this be a special case, and why would you make an assumption like that about what I think?

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

The bonus is taxed by 110% which means that the entire bonus is lost and an additional tax against regular salary is required.  It is my opinion that no one should ever profit from putting someone out of work and the means to support their family.   Unfortunately, in our political climate, layoff are necessary for companies that cannot fire dead wood that are not performing and doing the job they were hired to do. 

I see.  So you want the Government to be able to take, at will, earnings legally paid to an employee by a company.  Where does that power end?

I think you've made another statement that's too broad to mean anything:  that people shouldn't profit for putting someone out of a job.  Isn't that exactly what managers are supposed to do if an employee isn't good for the company, for whatever reason?  People lose their jobs every day and not necessarily from layoffs.  Where do you draw the line?  Have you ever been a manager?  I have, and I've fired people.  Should the Government come and take my paycheck?

And layoffs are only necessary because someone isn't doing their job right?  That seems like an awfully broad and unsupported assertion.  

[unixknight]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

The courts.  I have no problem with layoff but I do have a problem with layoff for profit and to get gain.  What if a CEO violates the law and the owners think it was wonderful?  I assume that you think they should then be above the law?

The courts.... So you're okay with allowing the Government to make decisions about how to run a private company.  As was presented in an earlier example, it's disingenuous to characterize layoffs as as being merely a tool for profit and gain.  If they're necessary for keeping a company from goingout of business do you really think it's more moral for ALL of the employees to be out of work, instead of a few?

If the CEO breaks the law, he gets prosecuted for it just like everyone else.  Why should this be a special case, and why would you make an assumption like that about what I think?

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

The bonus is taxed by 110% which means that the entire bonus is lost and an additional tax against regular salary is required.  It is my opinion that no one should ever profit from putting someone out of work and the means to support their family.   Unfortunately, in our political climate, layoff are necessary for companies that cannot fire dead wood that are not performing and doing the job they were hired to do. 

I see.  So you want the Government to be able to take, at will, earnings legally paid to an employee by a company.  Where does that power end?

I think you've made another statement that's too broad to mean anything:  that people shouldn't profit for putting someone out of a job.  Isn't that exactly what managers are supposed to do if an employee isn't good for the company, for whatever reason?  People lose their jobs every day and not necessarily from layoffs.  Where do you draw the line?  Have you ever been a manager?  I have, and I've fired people.  Should the Government come and take my paycheck?

And layoffs are only necessary because someone isn't doing their job right?  That seems like an awfully broad and unsupported assertion.  

[Sadliers]

6 hours ago, tesuji said:

No, this is not even close to a definition of liberals. "Liberal" is a broad general term, but one of the main things most of them believe is that the status quo needs to be reformed and improved. They usually want change, for the better. In my experience, they tend to be more idealist and maybe less practical.

But there is a place for dreamers in this world - most historical progress and improvement has come because of them. You could even say that according to this definition, that Jesus was in some ways a liberal. He rejected the status quo and wanted a better way.

Just ask "why" enough times and see where it leads. For example, why are they attempting to reform the status quo? Go back to the earlier days of liberalism with the hippie movement - what was one motto? "If it feels good, do it" - that is self centeredness. Why did they break away from traditional values? Because they wanted to do what pleases themselves and to do it without conscience. The answer is not incorrect - just ask why enough times to get to the bottleneck of why they think the way they do.

Edited April 14, 2016 by Sadliers

[anatess2]

5 hours ago, Traveler said:

·       

  Do you believe that capitalism is a divine eternal principle of the kingdom you intend to reside in for eternity and of the G-d you worship?  I am asking why you worship and champion something you do not want for eternity.  If you want it for eternity then you should worship it and champion it - I am just saying I don't worship or believe in such things.

 

 

The Traveler

There's only one object of our worship and that is God.  So I have no idea how you got worship on this discussion.

And no.  The objective of an economic principle is to be able to live in mortality in service of our God.  The service is the eternal stuff, not the economy.

The fact remains that when you have vast resources in your storehouse, you have a greater capacity to serve.  So that, a billion dollars can do a heck of a lot more service than a couple thousand.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

8 hours ago, tesuji said:

No, this is not even close to a definition of liberals. "Liberal" is a broad general term, but one of the main things most of them believe is that the status quo needs to be reformed and improved. They usually want change, for the better. In my experience, they tend to be more idealist and maybe less practical.

But there is a place for dreamers in this world - most historical progress and improvement has come because of them. You could even say that according to this definition, that Jesus was in some ways a liberal. He rejected the status quo and wanted a better way.

Ha ha, I love this because I'm a Liberal and yes, I'm an Idealist too. I'm happy to own both titles.

[Str8Shooter]

8 hours ago, mordorbund said:

I look at socialism as the law of people with morals. It works perfectly when you have God fearing people with high morals. When you have people that are ruthless, cold-blooded, etc, then yes, it is abused. The lack of God, the lack of morals, is the root of the problem. Socialism cannot work without real charity. It simply will not work, and then capitalism begins to ooze in like The Nothing.

I mean, if you have a society of idealized people, you can have whatever economic system you want and they'll make it work. We don't live in such a world so the systems we live under need to reflect that.

Socialism involves the taking of things against the will of others.  Theft is major sin.  If people had high morals, socialism would not exist.  There would be no need for it.

 

[Guest]

14 hours ago, anatess2 said:

You, my man, has this crazy idea that Businesses exist for the purpose of giving people jobs.  Not so.  Businesses exist for the sole purpose of making profit.  And that, my friend, is capitalism.

This isn't just to Anatess.  But it is about these ideas -- which many people believe (both sides of it).  This goes back to my comparison between Objectivism vs. Christian Libertarianism.

In the movie Meet Joe Black, the character Bill Parish says,"Of course I want to make a profit, you can't exist in business without one.  But <the unseen villain in the story> is ALL profit."  Consider that money is NOT the root of all evil.  The LOVE of money is.  There is nothing wrong with making a profit.  But if that is all you're doing in business, then there is something wrong with you.

Part of the culture of early America was that we are all put on this earth for a purpose to serve mankind.  We each have our own mission in life.  And that mission is not just in Church service projects or in neighborhood activities.  For many of us our career is a method of serving mankind.  I don't just come to work to earn a paycheck.  I pursue this career because it is a way that I have of contributing to society.  Businesses are no different.  They do need to make money to survive.

Thomas Sowell said,"Wal-Mart has done more for the poor than any 10 liberals, 8 of whom want to put it out of business."  The Walton Family are somewhat neutral politically.  They don't make many public statements.  But they tend to pay more than minimum wage for many of their entry level positions.  They are concerned about keeping their employees employed.  Not only that, but they've done wonders with the retail market that none have done previously (including K-mart).  They have brought goods and services to the public such that even poor people will feel like they have luxuries.

Even so, if the company is in danger of losing money that year, it simply makes good sense to cut costs where you can.  And one of those costs is employees.  I'd also submit that a major cost issue is government -- taxes, regulations, filings, reports, Obamacare (another tax).  If we didn't have as much government involvement, I'd say that ANY downturn in the economy would either be shorter, or not as severe.

Edited April 14, 2016 by Guest