I see pitchforks.
But the problem isn’t that we have inequality. Some inequality is intrinsic to any high-functioning capitalist economy. The problem is that inequality is at historically high levels and getting worse every day. Our country is rapidly becoming less a capitalist society and more a feudal society. Unless our policies change dramatically, the middle class will disappear, and we will be back to late 18th-century France. Before the revolution.
A great quote. A friend of mine that consults for large corporations said to me the other day that it's strange that the first employees of a business consider their share of revenue as profit, but as the company gets larger, the employees' share becomes seen as a cost.The thing about us businesspeople is that we love our customers rich and our employees poor.
For what it's worth, Piketty argues that high inequality is actually the norm, and that the periods of relative equality we've enjoyed since the dawn of modern economics are due to wholesale wealth and inheritance destruction due to two world wars. He further argues that the reason things really start getting pear-shaped in 1980 is because the world had enough time to recoup from the shocks of 1914 and 1945. And, for what it's worth, he does pretty much make the argument that a good economy is a capitalist economy run by socialists. Dunno. Curious to see how this develops. I remember raising the minimum wage discussion to Jay Inslee in 2004 and he looked at me like a deer in headlights. It wasn't even on his radar. Now he's governor of Washington and Occupy happened. We'll see what we see.
Before the revolution, but sans the efficacy. EDIT: yeah. I read this. It's ridiculous for a number of reasons (the first page, not the min wage stuff).Unless our policies change dramatically, the middle class will disappear, and we will be back to late 18th-century France. Before the revolution.
If he really feels this way, why doesn't he just give poor people his money? Billionaires are always giving away their fortunes. Ford didn't increase pay so their workers could afford cars. He increased it to avoid turnover. > Ford figured that if he raised their wages, to a then-exorbitant $5 a day, they’d be able to afford his Model Ts. People already give $316 B to charity each year. https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=42 > Total giving to charitable organizations was $316.23 billion in 2012 (about 2% of GDP). This is an increase of 3.5% from 2011.
I don't think just throwing money at the masses will solve the problem. His point is that capitalism works best from the middle out. The more you pay your workers, the more they buy from you. This benefits everyone and is the cornerstone of a thriving economy. It reminds me of Silicon Valley's "tip-to-tip" brainstorm. It's a nice thought but I'll be keeping my pitchfork sharp just in case.
Because that wouldn't a be a structural change. Nick Hanauer's net worth / American population below the poverty line = 22 bucks each Remember when Bush gave everybody $200 on their tax return back in '03 or '04 or whatever? Remember how that accomplished exactly fuckall? When you're saying "give 1.45 million Walmart workers an additional $10k a year" you're saying "Walmart alone is on the hook for 14.5 billion dollars." $10k a year at 45 million people is 450 billion dollars. Per year. That's the sort of thing that requires legislation.
No legislation required. People already give $316 B to charity each year. https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=42 > Total giving to charitable organizations was $316.23 billion in 2012 (about 2% of GDP). This is an increase of 3.5% from 2011. Divided by 45 million people is $7k per year. Good enough. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%24316.23billion%2F45+million
No, never take anything from people by force. Didn't your mother tell you that? Charities can give money where they choose.