# The Pitchforks are coming



## buaya (Jan 7, 2011)

http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...ng-for-us-plutocrats-108014.html#.U68sgUC4OHN

Fixed


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

I think you need to fix your link, mate.


----------



## mrPPincer (Nov 21, 2011)

Fix your chain link fences & put extra broken glass on the walls brothers & sisters, the siege is coming

... 

oh,

wait,

... pitchforks.. those, tools I use ...

useful for more than just spreading straw?

...jk... 
yeah, yeah, us the .01%...


----------



## mrPPincer (Nov 21, 2011)

I take the point however, the top is unsustainable without a base, true..


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

A great read!


----------



## jtc (Oct 1, 2011)

Why would anyone go after the top?

Teacher salaries are the real issue.


----------



## mrPPincer (Nov 21, 2011)

Very good point indeed jtc, the pitchforks won't be much use at all without a little more ignorance will they? :hopelessness:


----------



## PoolAndRapid (Dec 3, 2013)

..


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

The American pitchforks are semi-automatic with 30 round clips from WalMart. They also have more pitchforks per capita than Iraq, Syria, Libya, Ukraine, or any other country for that matter.


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

Interesting article. 

I've been talking about this same thing for a while amongst those that know me well.


----------



## buaya (Jan 7, 2011)

One comment I read on another forum where this article was posted was that whenever there was a proposal to raise taxes on any income above $150,000 there was strong protest even though for more then 90% of the population, the chances of them earning $150,000 per year is almost slim and none. It just seems that, especially in the US, everyone feels that if they work really hard, one day they will be part of the group earning $150,000 and this tax will affect them.
Me, being a small business owner for almost all of my adult life has never and will never declare an income of more then $100,000 per year. Most of business owners have so many legal deductions that we can be declaring an income of $50,000 a year and yet living a life style more like a wage earner making $200,000.
As a foot note, I have always found that paying my employees a fair wage makes them appreciate that they have a job and they became good and loyal employees. Most of my key employees have stayed with me from the day they started. Many years ago, one employee left and after 2 months came and ask for her job back.


----------



## Synergy (Mar 18, 2013)

buaya said:


> Most of business owners have so many legal deductions that we can be declaring an income of $50,000 a year and yet living a life style more like a wage earner making $200,000..


This is so true. Income splitting, health insurance, home office, auto expenses, travel, education, etc.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

My son spent the last couple of weeks installing 3000 feet of double razor wire on top of a 12 foot fence...........to stop the theft of copper from machinery in the yard of a big construction company. The thieves have been very persistent and some have already been caught and arrested.......but they just keep coming.

Not an exact example, but if the wealth gap continues and the 1% own most everything of value......they will be the target of an increasing number of people.

There isn't much sense stealing from those who have nothing..........and I doubt the wealthy want to live in Fortress America.

It truly would be in their own self interest to encourage governments to spread the wealth around a little bit.

Business has to stop thinking of it's employees as a drain on profits...........but a valuable asset.

Henry Ford had the right idea...........Walmart has the wrong idea.

It is hard to feel sorry for huge corporations like Walmart.........who pay the lowest wages possible and then direct their employees to the nearest welfare office and local food banks.

Profits...........yes, but they also need to be "sustainable" profits, and average workers with no money don't provide that.


----------



## fraser (May 15, 2010)

It is only the dullest of the dull that are stealing copper in those quantities or robbing 7-11's. They get to do some time from their crime.

The smart ones are into Ponzi's and other white collar crime. You can steal 'big' money and be out in four years of less even after a $50m swindle. 

Where I live the RCMP are running around trying to catch the former while they publicly refuse to investigate many of the latter because of their lack or resources and lack of experience in this type of crime.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

I think it is never made clear enough that the regular upper class is not raking the lower class over the coals. It is the top, ultra rich, the BILLIONAIRES, that have business and political influence that is causing capital to not flow freely via open competition and capitalism. 

Alternatively, I don't think it's really anyone's "fault" that this is happening.

With more and more technology and efficiency progress, more and more resources will flow to capital instead of labour. There is no getting around it. Just wait until technology replaces 3/4 of the doctors, lawyers, accountants and engineers. Then **** is going to hit the fan. Unfortunately I think the proposed solution is going to be to continue raising taxes on the high wage earners, and continue to allow the ultra wealthy to accumulate the resources gained from increased efficiency while leaving the general population with only the fruits of their own labour (and the labour of high wage earners) and none of the fruits of technology.

As a regular high income wage earner, I can't help feel I will continue to pay an ever increasing share of government's bills, from which I will see only a small fraction of the benefits myself, while corporations and ultra wealthy continue to reap the benefits of technology and productivity and the lower class descends into squalor.

I resent being lumped into "the problem" category just because I am in the $100k-1m/year category of wage earners. We are really much more similar to middle and low wage earners than we are to elite billionaires who are receiving a disproportionate amount of the benefits of technology and productivity.


----------



## gimme_divies (Feb 12, 2011)

Interesting article and it addressess the issue of inequality that is fundamental to almost every problem the world faces. Crime, mental health and addictions, war, and poverty, are all directly related to stress caused by inequality and the constant funnelling of wealth from the bottom to the top. As the author points out, Revolutions have always started because of extreme inequality, and currently the nations with the highest quality of living and the healthiest societies are the ones that have the lowest inequality.

Unfortunately, aided by technology, vast wealth, and incredible knowledge, the ultra-rich who are in control are untouchable and will continue to drive society into the ground until all that is left is scraps for those who bow down in defeat, and riches for eternity for the chosen ones.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

There was recent discussion on talk radio about new studies that show how wealth accumulation affects the brain.

The more wealth a person collects.............the less empathy they feel for others. The findings are in contrast to the popular belief that wealthy people are interested in sharing their wealth to help those less fortunate. In fact, the wealthy most often choose to support the charities, organizations or events that provide them with a visible reminder of their gift...............such as naming a University building after them.

The recent studies have similar findings to an experiment of a few years ago.

Several US college students were gathered to play the monopoly board game. All the players had to follow the normal rules, except for one person.

That person was allowed to use 2 dice instead of 1........which enabled them to move around the board faster, buying up properties faster and collecting more "GO" money. The "GO' money for them was doubled.

A bowl of snacks was left on the table.

As the game progressed, the advantaged student's behavior began to change. He started to dominate the conversation and gloated at his accomplishments. He moved the snack bowl slightly closer over time and helped himself to a greater share of the snacks.

Before the game was over..............and he had all the expensive properties and cash...........he had also moved the snack bowl to right beside him.

The wealthy don't understand and won't see a revolution coming, until it is too late.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

US wealth distribution:


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Global wealth distribution:


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

I disagree that there will be a revolution at all... The corporate owned government and government owned media have got the general population in such a state of consumerism, equalism, obesity and victimization that we will continue to text and tweet about non-existent perceived slights until our minds are gone to complete mush and everyone just accepts whatever it is that the government, media and universities commands us to think.

You think us young adults are bad (22-32)? Just wait until the 10 year olds who were BORN with a cell phone in hand and no attention span grow up. Taught in school and university to reject the works of all great historical writers/thinkers as bigoted and sexist, and that the defining struggles of the modern generations are that of equality, glass ceilings, and bullying. All the while their future opportunities are slipping away without their awareness as resources continue to float to the top.

Don't worry though. There will be no revolution. Everyone will get enough from the government through welfare transfers from the upper middle class to the lower that we'll all have a roof over our heads, GMO corn in our bellies and an iphone in hand to tweet and mentally masturbate with into docility.

Expect more likely, an invasion. Our populations will decline. People will get fatter and dumber and more malaised. And eventually there won't be enough upper middle class workers to pay for it all; the military and the welfare programs will collapse. We'll be forcefully invaded by China and India for our oil.

The only ones that _will_ make it out alive or with their dignity are the ultra rich, like the author of the article.


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

A lot of good points there Peterk. :encouragement:


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

peterk said:


> I disagree that there will be a revolution at all... The corporate owned government and government owned media have got the general population in such a state of consumerism, equalism, obesity and victimization that we will continue to text and tweet about non-existent perceived slights until our minds are gone to complete mush and everyone just accepts whatever it is that the government, media and universities commands us to think.


That is certainly the current state of affairs but I'm not sure about the upcoming generations. The world wide web is far less dominated or controlled by corporate owned media and younger generations are online more and more. Kids learn to google all the bs their parents try to pass off on them at a young age and continue to google anything fishy they are told as they grow up. I think we will see less and less _irrational rituals_ in the upcoming generations as well as many cultural changes around the world as more young people get online. The upcoming generation will always have a much smaller stake in the current system, yet far more to lose in the future. The knowledge slowly spreads like fumes and at some point it only takes a natural leader or drastic event to ignite it all.


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

PeterK, interesting that I'm a generation ahead of you but see things pretty much how you describe.

I would also say people have gotten lazy- physically and mentally, letting their fingers do the work and often the thinking for them.


----------



## uptoolate (Oct 9, 2011)

Good article and discussion. I think that I had posted the TED talk that Nick Nanauer gave a couple of years ago. It was subsequently taken down from the TED talk site. Too controversial. Sadly, if the pitchforks come out, the 0.01% will be fine, they'll be hit hard but at that level of wealth one has diversified to Sweden, Switzerland, Singapore and so what if you go from 10 billion to 1 billion... boo hoo. Everyone else will be creamed, probably most notably the top 10 to 0.1%, doing well in stable times but unable to diversify widely enough to survive well.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

peterk said:


> 1. You think us young adults are bad (22-32)?
> 2. We'll be forcefully invaded by China and India for our oil.


*1.* Certainly not all. It's refreshing to read such comments from members of the millennial generation! Who says they are all self-indulgers, lazy & restless complainers? 

*2.* So have you started learning Hindi/Mandarin yet? Don't worry, you/we still have time.  

I enjoy your posts [except for the one that has been forgotten/forgiven by now]. :wink:

*Speaking of oil:* indeed the overtake has been even faster than expected....
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2012/11/121112-iea-us-saudi-oil/
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...gest-oil-producer-after-overtaking-saudi.html


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

Nelson Rockefeller was under the gun for being too rich. His reply was that if his wealth was distributed equally among all Americans each person would get 0.25 cents. 
It seems to me that the person who first started such discussions was Karl Marx. He thought the way to make people happy was equal distribution of goods and services. We can see his thinking concretely in Canada with universal heath care. To see Marxism taken to its extreme, one can look at Communist China, and USSR. Although equal distribution of health care is popular, and justified, the extreme versions of Marxism didn't make Chinese and Russians wealthy and happy. Both collapsed back into a version of capitalism. I think that when the Berlin wall came down, the world saw that East 
Germany was poor, and not particularly filled with happy people. Too, the government then went through a process of returning property to families that had been previously taken by the state. And why was it taken in the first place? So no one could be richer than every one else. Why? Because they thought it would make people happy. 

Getting to The Pitchforks are coming, and Nelson Rockefeller's point, what is the dollar amount of the wealth of the top .1%? And if it was equally distributed to everyone else, what amount would each person get? Enough for a can of beans? And if that's the case, they aren't depriving the rest of the world of food, for example.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

Pluto said:


> It seems to me that the person who first started such discussions was Karl Marx. He thought the way to make people happy was equal distribution of goods and services.


Pluto, this is complete balderdash.
Marx never said or even implied equal distribution of wealth.
Have you actually ever read any Marx?

In fact, on the contrary, Marx & Engels were from the very beginning clear about distribution of wealth according to productivity and contribution to society.
They were big on productivity & skill development.

He lays this out clearly when he echoes _from each according to his ability, to each according to his need_ - a phrase he did not create (although often credited with it), but something he popularized fairly early.

This idea was further echoed by Lenin when he wrote in _*The State and Revolution*_ that _"He who does not work shall not eat"_.

The Marxist/Leninist concept of socialism is nothing like the present day welfare state based "social democracy" that we see in countries like France, Canada, and even the United States to a large extent.
Marx's communism was all about egalitarianism, but not the neo-classical distributive egalitarianism.
His egalitarianism was based on equal opportunity.

That is the reason classical Marxism abolishes inheritance and estates.

On the other hand, modern social democracy and welfare statism is firmly rooted in private property, protection of estate & inheritance.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

HaroldCrump said:


> Pluto, this is complete balderdash.
> Marx never said or even implied equal distribution of wealth.... from each according to his ability, to each according to his need


OK. He never said "equal distribution of wealth". 

If a guy was a coal miner, and he had six kids, he was supposed to get more than they guy who did the same work but had one child. Why? Equal distribution of wealth, even though he never said, "equal distribution of wealth". 

"He who does not work shall not eat". I suspect he was not directing that at the proletariat, for by definition they were the workers. Isn't that aimed at the capitalists? And surely he advocated the rule of the proletariat. 

Anyway, it seems to be generally accepted that Marx thought the ideal society was one where the means of production was owned by the state, and wealth was distributed equally, even if in reality, there was some tension between the meaning of equal and "to each according to his ability".

Thanks for pointing out some of the finer details. 

In the meantime, I'm still wondering what's the dollar amount of the wealth of the top 0.1%, and how much is that per person for the other 99.9%? 
With out knowing that, the subject is too abstract. If the wealth of the top 0.1% was distributed according to ability and need, how much would it be per person? It seems to me, that discussing the issue in the abstract, that is, in percentages, it leaves the door open for revolutionary, misguided anger...The Pitchforks are Coming...


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

^

Seems to be about 110 Trillion in assets for the top 1% globally.

That's 15k/person around the world. So enough for a used car, an Iphone, some Air Jordans and a nice little vacation. Then the world collapses...

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/01/20/davos-2014-oxfam-85-richest-people-half-world/4655337/


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Pluto, your examples are from eons ago and you're going from one extreme to the other with flat equal distribution. After the fall of the USSR, the gates were blown open for capitalism around the world. Since then the wealth distribution has continually shifted over time and shows no sign of slowing down. Do you think there should be a line at some point? Or in the other extreme, should the 1% be able to amass more and more wealth as time goes on? I think there is always a balance with these things and getting too far off kilter is detrimental. Just because one system defeated another a few decades ago doesn't mean it is the end all be all. That would be a first in history.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

peterk said:


> ^
> 
> Seems to be about 110 Trillion in assets for the top 1% globally.
> 
> ...


That's interesting. So possibly the top 0.1% is around 1500.00 per person.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

m3s said:


> Pluto, your examples are from eons ago and you're going from one extreme to the other with flat equal distribution. After the fall of the USSR, the gates were blown open for capitalism around the world. Since then the wealth distribution has continually shifted over time and shows no sign of slowing down. Do you think there should be a line at some point? Or in the other extreme, should the 1% be able to amass more and more wealth as time goes on? I think there is always a balance with these things and getting too far off kilter is detrimental. Just because one system defeated another a few decades ago doesn't mean it is the end all be all. That would be a first in history.


Do I think there should be a line at some point? Not an absolute line, but more or less what is already done: marginal tax rates. The rich pay a higher rate on their top dollars. That's based on the assumption that the government uses the money appropriately. But that's another topic. 

Apparently, the top 1% is, as a rule, not the same people from generation to generation. There is turnover. They don't get richer and richer from generation to generation, as a rule.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The "fine line" probably exists when people can't earn enough to support themselves working for someone else.

Time is limited and valuable, and working for someone else is an exchange of time for money. At some point people would come to the conclusion it would be a better use of their time to toil in their garden for food.......rather than work for money to buy food.

At that point..........society starts to unravel. People don't work in hydro plants, drive transit, pick up garbage, or do any of the other multitude of tasks that bind society together..........and provide goods and services for the wealthy as well as everyone else.

Bottom line.........there has to be enough distribution of wealth to make it worthwhile for people to work.

The combination of past wealth being accumulated among the few wealthy elite............and the high % of new wealth accumulating to the same small group............virtually guarantees that at some point governments must intervene to provide for redistribution of the wealth or face the consequences of a society in turmoil.

The biggest current concern is that the wealth gap is growing at an accelerated rate.

Such things may not be on the minds of the ultra wealthy...........but it is certainly on the minds of central bankers.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

Pluto said:


> The rich pay a higher rate on their top dollars.


The writer of the article in the OP claims this is not true. According to him, and others such as Warren Buffet, the rich have many ways to reduce their taxes to much lower rates. Who pays income tax anyways when you can have stock options? Why put all the wealth on your name when you can spread to shell corporations around the world? A lot of these numbers on the world's wealthiest are just estimates. How can you trace it all?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

We are currently well into a phase of a "quasi-welfare" state for too many people......who although working full time at a job......still have to rely on social benefits.

Employers like Walmart and fast food companies have hastened the arrival of the new category for low income workers.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

sags said:


> Bottom line.........there has to be enough distribution of wealth to make it worthwhile for people to work.


I agree. 

Also, the gap will shrink during the next recession. This acceleration of the gap always happens during a bull market. The rich get downsized when that bull market ends. Even so, I agree that employers should pay generously especially if they want to enjoy Republican style tax cuts.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

m3s said:


> The writer of the article in the OP claims this is not true. According to him, and others such as Warren Buffet, the rich have many ways to reduce their taxes to much lower rates. Who pays income tax anyways when you can have stock options? Why put all the wealth on your name when you can spread to shell corporations around the world? A lot of these numbers on the world's wealthiest are just estimates. How can you trace it all?


I think I see your point, however, sooner or later, the tax man cometh. It can be traced, and when the wealthy guy dies, taxes will be paid. Are you talking taxing assets while the (rich) guy is living?


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

sags said:


> We are currently well into a phase of a "quasi-welfare" state for too many people......who although working full time at a job......still have to rely on social benefits.
> 
> Employers like Walmart and fast food companies have hastened the arrival of the new category for low income workers.


Hasn't there always been low income workers? Low income was not an invention of Walmart and McDonalds. 

Incidentally, I'm not against the point of the article. Its not wise for the rich to be stingy. Ford had the right idea, and paid his workers well. On the other hand, I don't think it is immoral to be rich.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

Pluto said:


> If a guy was a coal miner, and he had six kids, he was supposed to get more than they guy who did the same work but had one child. Why? Equal distribution of wealth, even though he never said, "equal distribution of wealth".


Yes, Marxian communism is based on the premise that there is enough to meet everyone's basic needs.
It is also based on the premise that in an egalitarian society (i.e. without inheritance, estate, tithe, and charity) an individual will never try to grab more than his/her needs.
There would be no point (which is logical, if you think about it).
For instance, you can only eat so much, only need so many suits, pairs of shoes, etc.

So indeed, someone with 6 kids will require more basic needs (food, clothing, etc.) than someone with 1.
However, to clarify, under Marxian communism, raising children is the collective community responsibility, not an individual responsibility - much like in primitive, communal societies.

For reference and further understanding, you may read : _*The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State*_ by Frederick Engels (Marx's associate).

Most people's initial reaction to the statement that _there will be enough for everybody_ is a scoffing, _yeah, right_.
But it is not as outrageous and utopian as it seems.
Think about it....today, do we not have enough capacity to produce food for all the 6.5B people on the planet?
Do we not have to capacity to produce enough clothing for all the 6.5B people?

It could be argued that we are _already _at the stage where there is potentially enough for everybody.
We have simply throttled and constrained our productive capacity by artificial means - such as division of the world into nation states, trade blocks, trade agreements, price controls, supply management, etc. to prevent the full utilization of all productive capacity.



> Anyway, it seems to be generally accepted that Marx thought the ideal society was one where the means of production was owned by the state


Correct.



> I suspect he was not directing that at the proletariat, for by definition they were the workers.
> Isn't that aimed at the capitalists?


Yes, under communism, there is social ownership of capital (i.e. means of production).
What we consider investment income (such as profits, interest, rent, dividends) does not accrue to individuals, but to society as a whole.

Anyhow, I am simply pointing out that Marx and Engels are often wrongly blamed for the modern welfare state style societies (France, Spain, Italy, etc.).
Nothing could be further from the truth.
These social welfare driven pseudo democracies were never envisioned by Marx & Engels.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

HaroldCrump said:


> Yes, Marxian communism is based on the premise that there is enough to meet everyone's basic needs.
> It is also based on the premise that in an egalitarian society (i.e. without inheritance, estate, tithe, and charity) an individual will never try to grab more than his/her needs.
> There would be no point (which is logical, if you think about it).
> For instance, you can only eat so much, only need so many suits, pairs of shoes, etc.


I agree, to some extent. In China I'm led to believe that they couldn't grow enough food to feed themselves, and had to import food until they, around 1980, permitted farmers to sell some produce for a profit. Then a boom in food production occurred. It wasn't long before they grew enough for themselves and to export food. Although I believe there is enough to meet everyones needs, it looks like under communist rules, they didn't have the motivation. 

[/QUOTE]
We have simply throttled and constrained our productive capacity by artificial means - such as division of the world into nation states, trade blocks, trade agreements, price controls, supply management, etc. to prevent the full utilization of all productive capacity.[/QUOTE]

Communism seemed to throttle production very well. 



[/QUOTE]Anyhow, I am simply pointing out that Marx and Engels are often wrongly blamed for the modern welfare state style societies (France, Spain, Italy, etc.).
Nothing could be further from the truth.
These social welfare driven pseudo democracies were never envisioned by Marx & Engels.[/QUOTE]

That's interesting. I won't blame Marx and Engels for that. 

Marx was outraged at the poverty of many workers, and I can't say I blame him, especially considering the wealth of owners. I don't have much of a problem with his analysis of the problem, I'm just not to keen on how his solution played out. It was a disaster. Not only an economic disaster, but an assault on liberty.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Pluto said:


> Hasn't there always been low income workers? Low income was not an invention of Walmart and McDonalds.
> 
> Incidentally, I'm not against the point of the article. Its not wise for the rich to be stingy. Ford had the right idea, and paid his workers well. On the other hand, I don't think it is immoral to be rich.


Yes there have always been low income workers, but there wasn't the network of social programs sponsored by tax payers that exist today, for low wage employers to direct their employees towards.

In most cases a person who earned low income, earned enough to sustain themselves and their families. The cost of living was far different than it is today. People lived close to their work and there were shops on every street block. People didn't have to invest in all the costs of a vehicle to secure a job. In our city.........as an example........the "east end" had many factories (Kelloggs, Coca Cola, Kelvinator, McCormicks, CPR railroad, and others) within a few city blocks of each other and blue collar workers lived in the surrounding areas. Those factories and tens of thousands of jobs are all gone now and new factories are built in industrial parks at the outskirts of the city. 

If you look at Detroit as an example of "local economies" the Big Three auto manufacturers built their assembly plants in the city and neighborhoods sprang up and thrived around them. The "cost of living" in those neighborhoods reflected the local wages.

Home prices reflected the local economy, and a one wage employee could raise a family with a "stay at home" spouse. Their expenses were primarily.......housing, food, utilities, and if money was left over........clothes. 

The Walmarts and McDonalds of today are multi-billion dollar corporations expecting the tax payer to educate, provide and subsidize their employees....as well as providing the necessary infrastructure for their business.

I can't imagine in the past........Kelloggs or Coca Cola........advising their employees on how to secure welfare benefits. They would have been too embarassed publicly to even suggest that should occur.

A "fair days pay for a fair day's work" was the standard in those days.

Corporations have become greedy............as was predicted years ago would happen.

I recall an interview years ago (I can't recall who it was with) who said the accumulation of massive pools of capital (mutual funds and private hedge funds) would affect and change corporate policies...........and not for the better. The corporations would no longer "think" in terms of years going ahead, make the investments necessary to sustain their business, make the investment needed to train and educate their employees,......but would be driven to raise "quarterly" profits consistently.......regardless of the long term affect on the business.

A recent example of the change in action.........the CPR cutting employees (trains and engineers) to increase short term profits. The decision raised the value of the stock short term......but left our western farmers with no means to transport a record bumper crop of wheat and grains. 

Farmers are still left with grain in their bins from last year's harvest. The railroad switched to shipping oil.........because it is more profitable.

Free market capitalism (the disbanding of the Canadian Wheat Board) meet free market capitalism (the cost restructuring of the railroad).

We have entered an area where we have no experience or past history to gain lessons from. The results will manifest in future years.

It seems to me that we are on a march towards self destruction.

We shall see how it all turns out...........


----------



## Nemo2 (Mar 1, 2012)

Ah, if only humans were bees or ants......it'd all work out. :biggrin:


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

You are right.....

My grandparents were like ants..........sort of.

Grandpa worked for the city all his life........didn't have much or do much.....but retired with a small paid off home, small monthly pension, OAS and some CSBs.

Sit on the porch, drink their tea, watch the National news, go to bed...............that's life.


----------



## uptoolate (Oct 9, 2011)

sags said:


> Sit on the porch, drink their tea, watch the National news, go to bed...............that's life.


Sounds like a good life... I'm still at the point in retirement where I feel like I'll never get all of that work done that I had put off for so long because of the job. As I have heard said, 'Now that I am retired, I wake up each day with nothing to do but by bedtime, I still only have half of it done.'


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

sags said:


> Yes there have always been low income workers, but there wasn't the network of social programs sponsored by tax payers that exist today, for low wage employers to direct their employees towards.
> 
> In most cases a person who earned low income, earned enough to sustain themselves and their families. The cost of living was far different than it is today. People lived close to their work and there were shops on every street block. People didn't have to invest in all the costs of a vehicle to secure a job. In our city.........as an example........the "east end" had many factories (Kelloggs, Coca Cola, Kelvinator, McCormicks, CPR railroad, and others) within a few city blocks of each other and blue collar workers lived in the surrounding areas. Those factories and tens of thousands of jobs are all gone now and new factories are built in industrial parks at the outskirts of the city.
> 
> ...


Prior to governments getting involved in welfare, the churches did it. That was approximate preindustrial revolution. Post industrial revolution, people moved to cities for work. Labour was mobilized, whereas previously, people tended to live and work near where they were born. If one needed welfare, apparently they had to go back to their home church, because, I'm told, one could only get welfare from the church where they were born and baptized. Very inconvenient for a post industrial revolution worker who had to move to find work. At some point the government got involved in welfare and basically took it over from the churches. I suspect this had something to do with the mobility of labour, and the churches did not want to be responsible for strangers/transients. 

So I agree with you that there was a time when welfare was not taxpayer funded, because the churches did it. I think you might be idealizing the past, and wishing for days gone by.

Comparing Walmart wages with factory jobs seems invalid. maybe comparing Walmart wages to an Eatons, Bay, or Penny's clerk might be more valid. And McDonald's. think of the good old days before franchises. Ma and Pa restaurants who need a little help at the counter and waiting tables. How much did Ma And Pa pay the help? My guess is it would be comparable to McDonalds workers. No one made factory wages working for Ma and Pa at the local diner. And I suspect that people who made it their life long job, had to avail themselves of welfare from time to time, as Ma and Pa might have had to lay them off during bad economic times. 

Corporations are not any more greedy today that they were in the past. And corporations still pay a fair days pay for a fair days work. But obviously, a store clerk does not get as much as a tradesman, or an engineer, and never did. 

Your underlying point seems to be we are on the path to destruction. To support that you cite that taxpayers are supposed to educate Walmart and McDonalds employees. I don't get it. Generally those employees were educated at some high schools where everyone else was educated. And the taxpayers provide the infrastructure for their business. Perhaps you could give more detail for that. The part I do get is that the lowest paid workers are more likely to avail themselves of welfare. It's always been that way. 

A one wage family still happens at a median wage. It all depends on the will to do it. Look up Real Women of Canada, and Real Women of America. These are parallel organizations that resist feminist ideals, and promote the traditional family. It still happens, contrary to what you assume. 

Anyway, I don't buy one of your your basic assumptions, which seems to be that even an unskilled job such as handing out coffee and a burger at the drive through should pay enough to support a family.


----------

