The Driving Force Behind America's Warp Speed Decline into an Unequal Society

a reply to: FyreByrd

There has been a deliberate policy of dumbing down our education systems in both the UK and the USA. I suspect that because the standard was so high we were able to question policies and organize strikes that Maggie Thatcher said made the country ungovernable.

The result of this dumbing down has meant that people naturally accept today arguments such as industry cannot afford to give higher wages if they do we will all be out of a job. Wrong, the CEO will make less personal money if he has to pay decent wages. The government is up to its neck is cutting services, again a tool against the ordinary people because the poorer and more worried the population is of being homeless, you can control them and by taking away the aid that keeps people in their homes and eases their lives, they are not so easiloy manipulated into slowly being turned into slaves to be exploited at every change.

Why was public money used to save the banks? - the wealth held by the ones who own the banks should have been used instead of public money which was ultimately given to their dynasties.

Its the way 'we cannot pay you more' is being accepted and not thought about that's the trouble.

Unions were fought for by our families so the worker could not be so easily exploited and we have let them fail. Its the tools of the elite to use the media to back politicians and divide the people to make strikers look like criminals but we should always back for better/fairer wages when we can see the corporations and ceo's sitting on a pile of money they in fact haven't sweated for or earned. We have all seen how bankers who run banks that suffer huge losses get the golden handshakes and their full bonuses so can see that bad management is rewarded if you are on the elite bench. Time to change it.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: FyreByrd
And that my friends is the Democrats main source of campaign financing.

I hope I don't feel too stupid for asking this, but can you explain this a little more? What is Democrats' main source of campaign financing? Wall Street? Sorry, I'd love to understand this better.

I absolutely agree with the article, I just don't really understand what "Financialization" is...

I found a good source documenting Campaign Financing and Lobbying expendatures by large corporation interests between 2007 and 2012. The Sunlight Foundation did a study of the effect of corporate spending on the amount of return on that spending though goverment spending and susidies.

While this isn't the top page of the study - it is the easist one to get to individual company's spending information:

influenceexplorer.com...-intro

Just click on the company name and you will be taken to a page that lists campaign contributions (the trackable kind) and who they went to.

Hope this helps.

originally posted by: Shiloh7
a reply to: FyreByrd

There has been a deliberate policy of dumbing down our education systems in both the UK and the USA. I suspect that because the standard was so high we were able to question policies and organize strikes that Maggie Thatcher said made the country ungovernable.

I think you are very correct. As an aside, I find it very interesting that both 'conservative' Saints, Ronnie and Maggie, suffered sever mental decline after leaving office. I believe they were figure heads and not the architects of these dreadful policies that are taken for granted today by the political class that serve only moneyed interests.

There is little that can be done as long as the politicians don’t want to deal with it through putting controls on the powerful that have undue influence on the macro-economy.

Such as Wall Street, through for example, the repeal of the Glass –Steagall act done by a dem Bill Clinton with the ardent support of the GOP.

The stopping of jobs going overseas, that the GOP stopped legislation to prevent some of this recently.

Something else people don’t understand is that for years the country’s corporations often used what unions got to pay their members through collective bargaining as a yard stick for non union members.

Since the union movement has been basically deliberately destroyed in this country, wages now depend on the whims of the corporate bosses that’s why they have gone down and the bosses wages have gone way up.

originally posted by: Willtell

There is little that can be done as long as the politicians don’t want to deal with it through putting controls on the powerful that have undue influence on the macro-economy.

Such as Wall Street, through for example, the repeal of the Glass –Steagall act done by a dem Bill Clinton with the ardent support of the GOP.

The stopping of jobs going overseas, that the GOP stopped legislation to prevent some of this recently.

Something else people don’t understand is that for years the country’s corporations often used what unions got to pay their members through collective bargaining as a yard stick for non union members.

Since the union movement has been basically deliberately destroyed in this country, wages now depend on the whims of the corporate bosses that’s why they have gone down and the bosses wages have gone way up.

You are right, the Unions brought up the wage & benefit standard for all of us. Even small firms paid a living wage and benefits were assumed.

I used to work for Hughes Aircraft, at one time the largest employer in California, and they treated us well. In fact I was there when GM brought the company from The Howard Hughes Medical Foundation. GM 'assured' us that nothing would change - yeah, right. I would say that half of managment left within the first year, I left in the second because things were getting bad and the company didn't exist (was sold off in pieces to 'pad' the quarterly bottom line) in ten.

It was a huge, orchestrated loss of Union jobs in California and they're never been replaced.

I've often thought that there needs to be a percentage based salary cap system. For example, the highest paid person shall make no more than X percent (say maybe %1000) of the amount paid to the lowest paid person.

In this way if the bosses want a raise, they have to give a raise to the lowest paid employees also. If the company is profiting so are the employees and not just the fat cats.

a reply to: Willtell

Clinton taught me that the Democrats are for corps (corporations) just like the republicans are, they just say they're creating jobs as they give the corps handouts.

a reply to: SubTruth

I know this is off topic, but I have to ask:

Back in the 1970s the PTB started instilling progressive ideals into the Black culture this was possible because of the killing of Mr. King. The following decades showed TPTB that this will indeed work. The Black culture slipped deeper and deeper into despair and poverty.

Can you expand on what those "progressive ideals" were and how they are responsible for the despair and poverty of African-Americans?

I frequently hear the term "progressive" tossed around like a dirty word. I'd just like to know a little more about what you believe.


dex

a reply to: crazyewok

sucessfull free market system

In the US we are far from a free market system. Can you help me understand what you mean by "free market" and when did the economy stray from that principle?


dex

a reply to: FyreByrd

In the 1960s the gap between CEOs and the average worker was 20 to 1. By the 1990s it was nearly 350 to 1. What happened?

It's funny how the first thing the bean counters look to cut is payroll for increased profits and share valuation, yet staring them in the face is the simplest solution, go back to the 60's formula, there are plenty of people that would work for that wage. Instead they layoff dozens of people making $12.50 an hour who are actually doing the front-line work, brilliant move.

originally posted by: DexterRiley
a reply to: crazyewok

sucessfull free market system

In the US we are far from a free market system. Can you help me understand what you mean by "free market" and when did the economy stray from that principle?


dex

I don't think there has ever been a 'free market' anywhere. It's this idealized notion or fiction that is impossible. To even define it, one has to set up a whole slew of 'awkward' assumptions first.

"The invisible hand of the free market" sounds like an old time radio drama to me.

originally posted by: AlaskanDad
a reply to: Willtell

Clinton taught me that the Democrats are for corps (corporations) just like the republicans are, they just say they're creating jobs as they give the corps handouts.

And minimum wage and/or part-time jobs at that.....

originally posted by: johnnyBgood
I've often thought that there needs to be a percentage based salary cap system. For example, the highest paid person shall make no more than X percent (say maybe %1000) of the amount paid to the lowest paid person.

In this way if the bosses want a raise, they have to give a raise to the lowest paid employees also. If the company is profiting so are the employees and not just the fat cats.

I'm not 100% sure of this but Switzerland passed just a law or at least was talking about it. It may have been another country. I think there was a thread on ATS about it but with the Search function being what it is your chances of finding it are slight.

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71
I have a question.
More than 50% of employees work for small businesses. That is companies with less than 500 employees.
Add to that government jobs (state and federal). These employers don't usually have multimillion dollar ceo's. That leaves a small amount of corporate jobs.
So my question is,
How does a CEO salary effect the pay of people that don't work for the big corporations?
I make about twice as much as my employees do. Is that to much?

What is very disheartening to me is that small businesses, the former 'backbone' of the American Dream try to run their businesses like they were fortune 500 companies and they fail sometimes very badly.

I really hate when people say "what about small businesses providing most of the jobs in the USA". FyreByrd has answered one part, that these small businesses are emulating the big corps to drive down overhead, in order to "compete" with the big corps for vanishing market-share, due to mergers and acquisitions.

However, the other part that nearly EVERYONE overlooks is that most small businesses prior to the 1990's survived off of contracting with the big corps OR resided in areas where the Big Corps employees lived. Without Big Corps feeding small businesses with either sub-contracting gigs or boosting spending in local economies THERE CAN BE NO SMALL BUSINESS, PERIOD!!! Thats why small business owners are in a world of hurt today, but not for the reason most claim, such as increased government regulations, etc. Its simple if Big Corps don't spend and invest locally, there is no economic reason for small business to exist or survive.

a reply to: Shiloh7

Why was public money used to save the banks? - the wealth held by the ones who own the banks should have been used instead of public money which was ultimately given to their dynasties.

This is the question I always ask, but never get an answer to.

If banks can afford to pay their bosses eye-watering bonuses on top of 'telephone-number' salaries, then they can afford to pay back taxpayer's cash that was handed over to save their avaricious incompetent skins.

Gov should demand the money that banks have ear-marked for bonuses be handed over every year until the bail-out money is paid back in full, with interest. Take a leaf out of their book and follow their example whenever they're owed anything, hound them for it relentlessly and start legal proceedings to get it returned and if they can't or won't pay, send in the bailiffs and bankrupt them.

I've been waiting for someone to post this! I didn't feel like coddling all the money loving members in the other wage disparity threads.

I love how democrats prefer 7:1 ratio, republicans 12:1 ratio.

Oh dang, 354:1 whaaaaaat

originally posted by: doobydoll
a reply to: Shiloh7

Why was public money used to save the banks? - the wealth held by the ones who own the banks should have been used instead of public money which was ultimately given to their dynasties.

This is the question I always ask, but never get an answer to.

If banks can afford to pay their bosses eye-watering bonuses on top of 'telephone-number' salaries, then they can afford to pay back taxpayer's cash that was handed over to save their avaricious incompetent skins.

Gov should demand the money that banks have ear-marked for bonuses be handed over every year until the bail-out money is paid back in full, with interest. Take a leaf out of their book and follow their example whenever they're owed anything, hound them for it relentlessly and start legal proceedings to get it returned and if they can't or won't pay, send in the bailiffs and bankrupt them.

Because that's how Fascism works. This is the simplest answer that nearly everyone continue to ignore because by now, it should be obvious to everyone that oligopolies are running the government behind the scenes.

Despite what the media and regular people claim, the USA is NOT socialist, NOT communist, NOT a democracy and NOT even a Republic, but in reality a Reactionary, Fascist State, enshrouded in Protestant religious dogma. Once people start accepting this fact, it will then become easier to understand why certain policy decisions are made by Big Business and Government.

a reply to: FyreByrd

I unequivocally agree with you. However I hear the terms "progressive this" and "free market that" so much that I thought I would ask some of these folks what it means.

I'm willing to listen to someone else's opinions on any matter. And, if the argument they make is a cogent one, I will take it into consideration and potentially alter my position. Since I've been on ATS, I've revised my views on a number of subjects.

However, if the individual is simply parroting what they've heard on MSNBC or FOX News, without actually understanding the application of the term, I hope my query will stimulate in them the desire to learn more about it.

I thought I'd have a go at this Socratic Method of debate practiced by the one who's name means "Alien Flesh-Eating Bacteria from the Delta Quadrant." But, I think I can do it with a bit more tact and diplomacy.



dex

I think this just proves the importance of a regulated financial industry. But of course the problem with regulation is that, like anything at that level, what is to be regulated will be based on how much lobbying goes on, and who scratches the back of someone else, when it should be about fixing the system for the benefit of the majority. And the amount of lobbying and underhanded dealing that occurs will be based upon how much specific regulations will affect a particular corporation, or even an entire industry sector when that sector is monopolized. The financing for both the left and the right comes from the same place, believe it or not. Wealth is always funneled in a specific pattern, which the article makes clear, and the left and right are simply funded from wealth that has reached different locations along the route where money is funneled. The money is basically coming from the same place, ie the corporate world, whether it be the financial industry, the genetically-modified product industry, etc...

But it is no secret that republicans are the ones pushing for deregulation, which is what got us into this mess in the first place. The article makes that quite clear in my opinion. One of the biggest problems with taking away regulations is giving too much freedom of action to those who are looking to make money at all costs. It allows them to take advantage of the system and even other people. I am reminded of Enron and the energy crisis in California, as it could easily be argued that it was the result of a lack of regulation, and there are likely thousands of other examples from recent history. The article talks about corporate raiders, who are basically like Gordon Gecko from the Wall Street movie. I think that many at the top of the financial sector are essentially that fictional character in most ways. This all started at the same time the term "yuppie" was coined in the 80's. That is when the corpoate financial sector began to move in a direction that was detrimental to the nation as a whole. If there were government regulations preventing some of the practices that allow people like this to take advantage of something or someone for a profit, then these practices would essentially cease. There have been very few cases of high-profile individuals actually being prosecuted for their financial crimes, at least when compared to the number of individuals who are likely guitly of such crimes. And the system is designed in such a way that, again because of the lack of regulation, these people do not even need to break the law to get away with obscene practices, such as those that started the most recent financial crisis, and those that will cause the next crisis.

Wealthy individuals often talk of going out and making their own money, you know "contributing to society," but these are sometimes the same people who contribute absolutely NOTHING to society at all. They do not create wealth, they do not create value, as the article stated, rather they EXTRACT value, whether it be from a corporation they've stripped or from some other means. Corporate raiding has changed considerably, and probably is not as big of a deal in the same way it once was. But it is still ALL about increasing share values, even if that means cutting wages, downsizing, etc...So in one way or another, a lot of the time, value is being extracted as opposed to reinvested or reinfused in some other manner. Rarely does the majority of this money actually go where it would benefit the economy. And the extinction of small businesses is another thing that is tied in with all this. Pushing to eliminate these smaller businesses is another practice used by the financial elite, basically in an attempt to control the industry. And they've got so much power, money, and influence in modern times that they can achieve this through essentially forcing the government to take certain actions. This is likely why even regular citizens cannot do certain things, and why the government seems to step in and put a stop to certain things when it seems absolutely ludicrous.

a reply to: SubTruth

Good morning Sub

Well I read through this reply of yours three times looking for coherency or any semblance of depth and could find none, that is other than a sketchy blame drawn together with threads of dislike of the illusive "bad things" gathered together under the conservative boogieman label of 'progressive'

If you could elucidate your understanding of PTB or TPTB, what are these progressive ideas that were funneled into black culture by these elite and how this was made possible by the assassination of MLK. And how this was responsible for the despair and poverty of that culture, rather than any number of other economic pressures applied to classes of people on the bottom rung of the economic ladder.

Granted, anything the PTB find to work on one of us or some of us, they will try to find ways of working on all of us. But how is it you label these manners of manipulation as 'progressive' is beyond me.

EDIT Opps, after having read the rest of the thread, I find that a couple of folks have already asked these questions of you so you needn't answer mine also, I can read what you have replied to those others. Thanks.