Why does the elite want to weaken the family unit?

a reply to: funbobby

Without the investors investing in things would the workers have jobs? Does the investors making money prevent the workers from making money or enable it?

This reminds me of the run up to the 2012 election and the common rhetorical question: Have you ever gotten a job from a poor man? The presumption answer of course being "no." As if folks are incapable of giving themselves a "job" by marketing their own skills, services, products, etc. As if nature itself precludes people from doing for and by themselves to make a living.

Quite the brainwashing there. Or perhaps conditioning is a better word. Either way, the underlying premise was that we NEED the rich for our very existence, rather than recognizing and understanding that it's only the crony capitalist overreach which has CREATED an economy which gives the rich that power over everyone else.... rather than recognizing and understanding it is exactly the crony capitalist regulations and legislation that increasingly FORCES people to depend on others -- mostly those legal fictional entities created out of whole cloth called "corporations".

Everyone has an absolute and inalienable Natural Right to make a living for themselves and their families. No one has an absolute and inalienable Natural Right to make money -- because "money" is manmade. Nor does anyone have an absolute and inalienable Natural Right to "incorporate" or "profit" or otherwise elevate that which is of man over that which is of nature.

So, to answer your question, the investor might allow for workers to make money, but only to the extent that the workers make the investor MORE money than the worker makes for themselves (while investors pretend they are doing the workers a favor... sheesh). If anything, the investor does not enable anyone, especially the worker. Rather, the investor limits and restricts and controls what the workers may earn from the sweat of their brow.

a reply to: Boadicea

That was a strawman rant. I never made any of the arguments you were arguing against. To sell products or acquire skills or the wherewithal to provide services one must invest capital, at that point you are not an employee. Then you are an evil money grubbing capitalist.

" Rather, the investor limits and restricts and controls what the workers may earn from the sweat of their brow."

Nope, because people are free to choose to work for who they want or to not work for someone else do the other things you said, they can do that which they feel will maximize their return. People contract with each other to because both parties feel it is beneficial.

originally posted by: funbobby
a reply to: Boadicea

That was a strawman rant.

Strawman? Nope. Not even close. Digging down to the fundamental nitty gritty of an issue is exactly the opposite of a strawman argument, which essentially addresses an entirely different issue.

I never made any of the arguments you were arguing against.

Nor did I in any way imply or infer that you did. In fact, I very clearly prefaced my comment by noting that I was speaking to the rhetoric in the run-up to the 2012 election. Only that your comment reminded me of that rhetoric.

To sell products or acquire skills or the wherewithal to provide services one must invest capital...

Strawman indeed...

But no, not necessarily. I don't have to supply the baby to babysit, and more often than not the parents provide any and all supplies necessary for the child... I don't have to supply the home to clean it, and quite often the homeowner provides their preferred cleaning supplies (though not always)... I don't have to supply any product to dance in the streets for money, except perhaps for a tin can or a hat for folks to throw their money into...

Further, what one supplies or "invests" into one's own business -- into one's self is a very different matter than others investing in a business and/or hiring others to perform the labor. I can clean houses and use the fruits of my own labor to invest in tools or other equipment for a business all by my lonesome with neither outside investors nor employees involved.

...at that point you are not an employee. Then you are an evil money grubbing capitalist.

Again, not necessarily. An owner-operator is neither an "employee" nor an "investor" in these terms. A sole proprietor is not an "employee" nor an "investor" in these terms. And the fruits of one's own labor is not "profit" but earned income. There is a difference. A BIG difference. Hence the difference in how the tax code addresses and taxes each.

...people are free to choose to work for who they want or to not work for someone else do the other things you said, they can do that which they feel will maximize their return. People contract with each other to because both parties feel it is beneficial.

Hmmmm.... not exactly the whole picture, eh? Especially when crony capitalism clearly limits -- if not excludes -- the option for someone to work for themselves due to such added costs as licensing, registration, permits, inspections, tax rates, etc. In fact and in deed, quite often those government imposed regulations effectively eliminate competition due to sweetheart deals for big multi-national corporations that increase their profits while reducing their costs and liabilities, placing an overwhelming burden upon the small business owner.

And that doesn't even account for the corporate welfare written into the tax codes...

All of which effectively creates an unlevel playing field which allows the big players to hire workers for a pittance because it's the only game left in town.

Beneficial? That's a relative term. Is it better to have a crappy job than no job at all? Sure. It's beneficial to that extent. But it certainly isn't the best one could do...

Does NOBODY ever look around and note the high amounts of divorced, serial marriage Boomers? Nobody pays attention to this? They have the highest rate of divorce out of the gen groups.

Instead of burying heads in sand and blaming the oogity boogity government, recognize that there's your source of piss-poor marriage & family morals right there. If Boomer mom and dad raised the kids through divorce & remarriage, showing it's a-ok to dump the disposable spouse and marry a new one ad nauseam, then how is that the government's fault again? That's the predecessor generation's fault and you full well know it because they taught/passed on what is emulated & built open/expanded on by the offspring later in their own lives. Money see, monkey do applies here.

Just pointing that out with my own twice divorced Boomer mother and twice divorced and thrice married Silent Gen father. If I were to follow their lead, I'd be viewing my own husband is a disposable commodity easily replaced when I tire of him. Oh, sorry, the going excuse for people is "Grow apart".

The difference is, unlike them, I believe marriage is for life (outside of abuse or death) rather than someone you just settle for, for a while. AND is something that requires keen work and priority in the relationships order (kids come second, period. No solid marriage works for the long term in the reverse)

I also don't buy into the farce that is dual working parent households. There's a big difference between me and Boomer woman already -- this ain't the 70's, and I don't NEED to toil on the clock somewhere to feel fulfilled.

I'm also a strong supporter of once you have kids, you damn well better hammer out who's staying home, because the kids and home will not raise & mind themselves, and you cannot adequately juggle that, the marriage AND a job -- adequate attention for either/or is a finite resource, and you will burn out on all of the above when overstretched.

So in other words, IMO, the Boomers were flat wrong-- you cannot have it all (the family, career, and the stuff) and spouses aren't disposable. I think the Younger generations are figuring this out. Again, IMO, I think we're poised to see a drastic shift in family importance and family role importance with the current Gen Z's kids down the road -- I think they're going to be going back to the way the Silents were raised -- one works, one stays at home, and the spouses stick s# out til death. Right now, most Millennials and barely adult Z's are laying that groundwork through their own take on priorities by waiting a little longer for marriage and kids, and sussing out whether or not that career is really worth the trouble now and later in life.

a reply to: Boadicea

"I don't have to supply the baby to babysit,"

But you do have to have some sort of relevant experience with children and you have to somehow advertise your services and you probably need to pay for your own transportation. All of those things are investments of your personal capital that you risk with the hope of getting a return from babysitting.

Gaining experience doing something is an investment, if you want to dance in the streets and actually make money you are probably going to have to be pretty good at dancing and that takes practice which takes time which is an expense. You might want to get a stereo or something if you actually want to make money dancing in the streets right?

I can clean houses and use the fruits of my own labor to invest in tools or other equipment for a business all by my lonesome with neither outside investors nor employees involved.

No one said you couldn't, but the problem with being a one person company is it does not scale well, one person can only sit on so many babies or clean so many houses, if you want to make any real money then you need to start a babysitting service or house cleaning service and have employees or contractors that perform the work.

The term "owner operator" of course means that you are both an investor "owner" and a worker an "operator", that's how words work.
Who makes more money, the wealthiest street dancer working for themselves or Michael Flatley working for a producer?


" Especially when crony capitalism clearly limits -- if not excludes -- the option for someone to work for themselves due to such added costs as licensing, registration, permits, inspections, tax rates, etc. In fact and in deed, quite often those government imposed regulations effectively eliminate competition due to sweetheart deals for big multi-national corporations that increase their profits while reducing their costs and liabilities, placing an overwhelming burden upon the small business owner. "

That's not crony capitalism, that's protectionism and everyone does it. If you are an electrician then you want there to be lots of rules to become an electrician, so you don't have as much competition. It's not big corporations doing that. And the proof that it does not exclude the option for people to work for themselves is the fact that so many people do in fact work for themselves.

If anyone can do something and there are no barriers to entry guess what? The compensation will be commensurate!

If anyone could be an electrician, like your street dancer or babysitter (but of course anyone can't be babysitter or street dancer can they?) then electricians would make as much money as babysitters or street dancers, right?

originally posted by: funbobby
a reply to: Boadicea

But you do have to have some sort of relevant experience with children and you have to somehow advertise your services and you probably need to pay for your own transportation. All of those things are investments of your personal capital that you risk with the hope of getting a return from babysitting.

Gaining experience doing something is an investment, if you want to dance in the streets and actually make money you are probably going to have to be pretty good at dancing and that takes practice which takes time which is an expense. You might want to get a stereo or something if you actually want to make money dancing in the streets right?

All of which has absolutely nothing to do with corporate investors providing jobs for employees, which was your comment that I was responding to. Further, investing in one's self is very different than investing in a corporation which has employees. So while true, it has no relevance to the greater issue of corporate investors providing jobs for employees. Two different animals -- both in theory and in practice -- as evidenced by the tax code.

...but the problem with being a one person company is it does not scale well, one person can only sit on so many babies or clean so many houses...

Not a problem for everyone. We all have our own wants, needs, priorities and goals. There is no one-size-fits-all. And there is more than one way to make a life for ourselves.

...if you want to make any real money...

Well, unless we're talking about counterfeiting money, it's all "real" money.

...then you need to start a babysitting service or house cleaning service and have employees or contractors that perform the work.

So what you really mean is to make "more" money or the "most" money. That's not your choice. Nor does everyone want to manage a business or manage employees. Some people prefer to do the job themselves because they enjoy doing it. And the best of the best can make very good money -- sometimes fantastic money -- for one job because their skill and/or talent is that awesome.

The term "owner operator" of course means that you are both an investor "owner" and a worker an "operator", that's how words work.
Who makes more money, the wealthiest street dancer working for themselves or Michael Flatley working for a producer?

And? So? For some people, myself included, personal autonomy is far more valuable. Money makes a wonderful servant and a terrible master. But that's the difference between knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing.

That's not crony capitalism, that's protectionism...

Protectionism requires the heavy hand of government regulation, therefore it is in fact crony capitalism.

... and everyone does it.

Nope, not everyone. Only those able to influence government bureaucrats to pass/implement unjust and unfair regulations giving some an advantage over others. AKA crony capitalism.

If you are an electrician then you want there to be lots of rules to become an electrician, so you don't have as much competition.

In pretty much any and all industries, there is more than enough work to go around. Only greedy bullies want to eliminate competition. Those worth their salt attract customers due to the quality of their work and/or product, and take great pride in that. Of course, the mediocre and lazy have no such pride or self-worth. Hence their need for "protection" and corporate welfare and crony capitalism.

It's not big corporations doing that. And the proof that it does not exclude the option for people to work for themselves is the fact that so many people do in fact work for themselves.

No. The decreasing numbers of small businesses and sole proprietors and owner-operators is proof that crony capitalism has created an un-level playing field which is pushing out the little guy and creating corporate monsters.

If anyone can do something and there are no barriers to entry guess what? The compensation will be commensurate!

Yup. That's typically known as supply and demand, eh?

If anyone could be an electrician, like your street dancer or babysitter (but of course anyone can't be babysitter or street dancer can they?) then electricians would make as much money as babysitters or street dancers, right?

So, in other words, you are not promoting FREE MARKET capitalism... just protectionism and crony capitalism.

And there it is.

a reply to: Boadicea

wow, that was a lot of noise, almost too long to read. Crony capitalism and protectionism are not the same thing and the things you are calling crony capitalism are not that. There are no cronies involved.
Protectionism is good for everyone, it is a benefit for everyone to not have lots of houses burning down or random people being electrocuted by bad wiring.
It is a benefit for anyone who wants to be an electrician because they can get a very good paying job and be self employed, work for a big company or start their own company and make good money.
It is a benefit for anyone who needs to hire an electrician because then they can be sure the electrician won't burn their house and maybe their whole neighborhood down.
It is a benefit for the state because they can charge various fees and collect taxes on profitable individuals and businesses.

Who is it bad for? People who want to become electricians but don't want to do all that training to learn how to do it safely? People who want to take a risk of burning down their whole neighborhood to save a few bucks hiring a sketchy electrician?

a reply to: CmdrShep2154

The more the average citizen depends on their government, the more beholden they are to that government, and the less likely they will be to resist anything that government tells them is needed to ensure their provisions continue.

Self reliance is the antithesis of socialism and Kept Voter systems.

a reply to: funbobby

LOL!!!

Now it's about safety? Now it's about protecting the consumer? Now it's about the oh-so-noble benevolence of government and big business?

REALLY???

This is virtue signalling on a whole new level. Pathetic.

I'm done with you.

a reply to: Boadicea

Safety is on the list of benefits although I didn't use that word, did I?
The consumer was on the list of people who benefit, along with "everyone else". I did not say anything about "oh-so-noble benevolence of government and big business?"

No virtue signaling involved, sorry I tried to explain how reality works to you and that reality conflicts with your "no one can succeed" narrative. I really am disappointed though, I was hoping you would at least try to come up with someone who was harmed in some way but I guess you couldn't manage that.