Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[JAwrey]

I would say that some semblance of wealth redistribution is appropriate, but not complete and utter redistribution.  If I were to state it one way or another, I would agree with AF on this one.

J

[holmes]

cant really disagree with that AF, bang on IMO, im not a union guy, nice post....holmes*

[Sandman]

The problem with your whole premise of blaming the rich is you totally absolve the "poor" of any responsibility. There has always been rich and poor and there always will be rich and poor. The more you try and legislate a "sharing" of the wealth the more you will remove the incentive for all of society to excel. The end result is an over all poorer society. Human nature will always gravitate to the lowest common denominator.

There all all sorts of examples of this. Take a very controversial (to some) example of a union shop. Because of the "negotiated" contracts there is no incentive for an employee to excel because there is no reward for doing so. Peer pressure from the lowest producers causes the highest producers to cut back on their efforts so as to not show up the average or poor producers. Union rules usually prevent one class of employees from performing the duties of another class of employee. This creates a need for more employees and reduces efficiency of the organization. Productivity suffers and the business becomes mediocre.

We are all to a very large extent masters of our own destiny. Especially in a country like ours, everyone has a relatively equal opportunity to excel. Rather than focusing on the rich and how you can take away their hard earned and well deserved wealth to give to the poor, focus instead on why the poor are poor and the rich got rich?

Why don't the poor put the same effort into getting an education like the rich did? They have the same access. Student loans are more available to the poor than to the rich.

Why don't the poor save their money rather than spending every penny they earn. This would give them a pool of capital that they could invest and they could become rich as well.

Why don't the poor make sacrifices and invest their pool of capital into a start up business? Yes it could fail, but it could also be successful and make them rich.

There is no economic sense whatsoever to redistribute wealth!

All that does is create a poorer society by moving it closer to the lowest common denominator (poverty). It doesn't make any sense whatsoever for the rich to be taxed higher in order to give to the poor. The poor will just squander the money, they will not invest it. They won't create any jobs. Through their spending they may help the retail business sector in the short term, but over time the policy of redistributing wealth will make the rich poorer, resulting in fewer opportunities to tax them. There will be less investment, fewer jobs. etc, etc.  Society as a whole will become poorer.

As Bavarian Raven so succinctly wrote: "Basically, its a way for the less well off to steal from the more well off."  That's all we need; a society with more thieves! 

Now the truth comes out.  This is the real Liberal agenda. 

Why don't the poor make sacrifices and invest their pool of capital into a start up business? 

What "pool of capital" are you talking about.  They are poor.  There is no pool of capital to invest.  They do not have enough to feed their children properly and clothes them properly, how are they to save it, let alone invest in a business.  Their wages are so low they cannot keep up with inflation.  I am talking about the ones that have jobs. Forget the poor SOBs that cannot find work. 

The poor will just squander the money, they will not invest it.

I do not call spending every penny you have on shelter, food, and clothing "squandering", but I can see that you do.  Your true colours are shining through.

Why don't the poor put the same effort into getting an education like the rich did? They have the same access. Student loans are more available to the poor than to the rich.

There are only so many post secondary seats available and these go to the students with the highest grades, not just those with the money.  So while a student loan may give a poor but bright student a chance to get an education, they must also have the grades to get in the door. This is why the Liberals are hell bent on destroying public education in this province. After all, if everyone went out and got an education and started a business then there would be no unskilled labour to work in your shop.  The capitalist system NEEDS poor unskilled labour to function.  By destroying public education in BC, they are ensuring there are enough seats for their own children in the private schools to get that coveted education.

There all all sorts of examples of this. Take a very controversial (to some) example of a union shop. Because of the "negotiated" contracts there is no incentive for an employee to excel because there is no reward for doing so. Peer pressure from the lowest producers causes the highest producers to cut back on their efforts so as to not show up the average or poor producers. Union rules usually prevent one class of employees from performing the duties of another class of employee. This creates a need for more employees and reduces efficiency of the organization. Productivity suffers and the business becomes mediocre.

The bottom line is simple.  If the rich business owner was not so greedy and "invested" in his workforce in the way of decent wages and benefits there would be no such things as unions as there would be no need for collective bargaining. This is simple history lesson.

focus instead on why the poor are poor and the rich got rich?

The rich are rich because they are greedy and have gotten rich by gouging their employees.  If they had reinvested the profits of the company into their employees  then they would not be as rich and the poor would not be as poor and there would be no unions and we would not need to tax them more than anyone else.

I am not advocating the Revolution.  I am simply expecting it.

[JAwrey]

Now the truth comes out.  This is the real Liberal agenda. 

What "pool of capital" are you talking about.  They are poor.  There is no pool of capital to invest.  They do not have enough to feed their children properly and clothes them properly, how are they to save it, let alone invest in a business.  Their wages are so low they cannot keep up with inflation.  I am talking about the ones that have jobs. Forget the poor SOBs that cannot find work. 

I do not call spending every penny you have on shelter, food, and clothing "squandering", but I can see that you do.  Your true colours are shining through.

There are only so many post secondary seats available and these go to the students with the highest grades, not just those with the money.  So while a student loan may give a poor but bright student a chance to get an education, they must also have the grades to get in the door. This is why the Liberals are hell bent on destroying public education in this province. After all, if everyone went out and got an education and started a business then there would be no unskilled labour to work in your shop.  The capitalist system NEEDS poor unskilled labour to function.  By destroying public education in BC, they are ensuring there are enough seats for their own children in the private schools to get that coveted education.

The bottom line is simple.  If the rich business owner was not so greedy and "invested" in his workforce in the way of decent wages and benefits there would be no such things as unions as there would be no need for collective bargaining. This is simple history lesson.

The rich are rich because they are greedy and have gotten rich by gouging their employees.  If they had reinvested the profits of the company into their employees  then they would not be as rich and the poor would not be as poor and there would be no unions and we would not need to tax them more than anyone else.

I am not advocating the Revolution.  I am simply expecting it.

I'm not too sure why you say this - take a good hard look at the way that Google operates itself, and I think you'll see a phenomenally profitable company that treats its employees like gold!  This seems to reflect more your experiences rather than the reality - the days of the industrial revolution are over.  If you treat your employees poorly, they will leave.  Some may find it more difficult, some may not, but the vast majority will.  In some such organizations, the pros outweigh the cons for the poorly-treated employee, but this tends to lead towards a rotating workforce.

[alwaysfishn]

I am not advocating the Revolution.  I am simply expecting it.

I can't imagine how hopeless you must feel looking at things from your perspective.

We are so totally far apart that I wouldn't even attempt to debate the points you've made. I would be curious to hear about some examples of a society that has applied your fixes and the results.

[alwaysfishn]

I'm not too sure why you say this - take a good hard look at the way that Google operates itself, and I think you'll see a phenomenally profitable company that treats its employees like gold!  This seems to reflect more your experiences rather than the reality - the days of the industrial revolution are over.  If you treat your employees poorly, they will leave.  Some may find it more difficult, some may not, but the vast majority will.  In some such organizations, the pros outweigh the cons for the poorly-treated employee, but this tends to lead towards a rotating workforce.

Intelligent comments!  I can't believe you are only 17.

[Sandman]

I'm not too sure why you say this - take a good hard look at the way that Google operates itself, and I think you'll see a phenomenally profitable company that treats its employees like gold!  This seems to reflect more your experiences rather than the reality - the days of the industrial revolution are over.  If you treat your employees poorly, they will leave.  Some may find it more difficult, some may not, but the vast majority will.  In some such organizations, the pros outweigh the cons for the poorly-treated employee, but this tends to lead towards a rotating workforce.

Google is precisely the way a business SHOULD be run.  I say that because, unfortunately, they are the exception not the rule.  While I would normally shy from such blatant generalizations, you need only consider with whom I am discoursing, and you will see why.  Happily, when the rest of the business world begins to act socially responsible, then ours will be that country that AF wants to see.

I can't imagine how hopeless you must feel looking at things from your perspective.

I feel totally hopeless as I see this government passing illegal (read unconstitutional) legislation that strips workers collective bargaining rights of workers and when the courts upholds the rights of workers (BC Supreme Court 13 April 2011), this government proceeds to further erode collective agreements. This is being done at the same time they are voting themselves hefty pay raises. This is the same draconian use of legislation happening all over North America and the rest of the world.  It is clear with whom this government has aligned itself, so you will have to forgive people if they refuse to trust what this government has "promised". 

You keep talking about a 10% HST, and yet it is still 12% and many people simply do not trust that it will ever be lowered.  This government has broken too many promises to be trusted.  It does not matter how bad the previous NDP government was (I have no love for that government).  It only matters how bad the current government is.

I would be curious to hear about some examples of a society that has applied your fixes and the results.

Sweden seems to have come the closest. They have one of the strongest economies in the world and they have the most even distribution of wealth of any industrialized country (and 70% of their workforce is unionized...imagine that).  They seem to have found a balance between economic imperatives and social responsibility.  Why is it so hard for us to do so?

[JAwrey]

The reality of the world of business is, in my mind, this: There are so many different organizations offering nearly identical products and services that the key to being successful is A) Brand identity B) Exceptional customer service, and C) treatment of employees and customers in a similarly commendable manner. 

If you cannot provide a product that is superior, or at least is perceived in such a way, and do it while providing the best of treatment for your staff and your customers, you will not prosper, perhaps survive.

J

Also, AF: Thank you!  Just trying to keep my ears open

[alwaysfishn]

Google IS a great model, but it can afford to be because it has nearly a monopoly in online advertising. It is one of the most profitable large companies in the US, has no debt and over $36 billion cash in their bank account. No other company can afford to do for it's employees what Google does! Most companies are in very competitive environments and must manage their businesses differently.

I agree that Sweden seems to have a good model. The reasons are not what you think.

Swedes have a fantastic work ethic, matched by few other cultures. The reason there appears to be a "fairer" distribution of wealth is that the "poor" have the drive to get educated, work hard, and as a result there are fewer that fall into the "poor" category.  Their unions are a cooperative group that care about the long term welfare of their employers, not just their own demands.  All of these things contribute to a perceived better distribution of wealth as well as a strong economy.

China and Taiwan have some of the lowest poverty rates in the world but if you asked any of the "poor" in Canada if they would want to move there, I am quite certain what their answer would be. Probably because they would have to work hard.

I haven't met many "poor" Canadian Swedes, Chinese or Taiwanese. Given their culture I wonder if it has something to do with how they embrace our free enterprise system.

Too bad more Canadians didn't do the same.

[JAwrey]

Google IS a great model, but it can afford to be because it has nearly a monopoly in online advertising. It is one of the most profitable large companies in the US, has no debt and over $36 billion cash in their bank account. No other company can afford to do for it's employees what Google does! Most companies are in very competitive environments and must manage their businesses differently.

This is completely accurate, but one must consider which came first - their rise to power, or their treatment of their employee, top to bottom? 

[Sandman]

I agree that Sweden seems to have a good model. The reasons are not what you think.

Swedes have a fantastic work ethic, matched by few other cultures. The reason there appears to be a "fairer" distribution of wealth is that the "poor" have the drive to get educated, work hard, and as a result there are fewer that fall into the "poor" category. 

...or perhaps it is because the Swedes benefit from an extensive social welfare system, which provides universal childcare and maternity and paternity leave, a ceiling on health care costs, old-age pensions, and sick leave, among other benefits.  Perhaps the reason why their "poor" have "the drive to get educated" is the fact their education system, including post secondary and vocational training, is free and completely subsidized by taxes.  It is not just their unions that "are a cooperative group that care about the long term welfare of their employers, not just their own demands" it seems this CAN be a two way street.  The sooner Canadian businessmen see this the better.

You talk about Human nature "always gravitat[ing] to the lowest common denominator" but that is precisely what drives our market economy.  Your need to compete with multinational companies that exploit workers in third world developing countries is what drives the poor treatment of western workers.  This laisez-faire approach is what allows the justification that "no other company can afford to do for it's employees what Google does... [because] Most companies are in very competitive environments and must manage their businesses differently."  Our economy is all about the lowest common denominator...do not blame the "poor" for this.  This is all due to the greed of the richest among us.

[Bavarian Raven]

Perhaps the reason why their "poor" have "the drive to get educated" is the fact their education system, including post secondary and vocational training, is free and completely subsidized by taxes.

Seeing as i am in my final year of university, I would have loved free education. But, imo, too many people would take advantage of that here and not appreciate it properly. Many canadians (not saying all, there are a lot of hard working people here), but many canadians just dont have the work ethics you see in Swedish or German or Chinese or Japanese families. Therego, I could easily see the system being abused. Sadly. That being said, the system we have right now is not bad... it could be better, but it works imo.

[Novabonker]

Why don't the poor put the same effort into getting an education like the rich did? They have the same access. Student loans are more available to the poor than to the rich.

Maybe they want to sleep inside, eat and wear clothing.Have you seen how much post secondary education costs have increased since the Liberals came to power? Inconvenient facts always get in the way of a good spin.

Why don't the poor save their money rather than spending every penny they earn. This would give them a pool of capital that they could invest and they could become rich as well.

Because we all know there's so much money left over from 8 buck an hour jobs - Here's a challenge AF - try living one month on that princely sum of minimum wage and see how much is left at the end.

Why don't the poor make sacrifices and invest their pool of capital into a start up business? Yes it could fail, but it could also be successful and make them rich.

Yep - don't eat and save your money! There isn't anything to sacrifice Marie Antoinette


All that does is create a poorer society by moving it closer to the lowest common denominator (poverty).

 The poor will just squander the money, they will not invest it. They won't create any jobs.

Your prejudice comes festering to the top like a giant boil. The mantra- keep the poor, well, poor. I'm sure the working poor appreciate your benevolence.

Again AF - IF we've made such wonderful strides under the Liberals as a society- WHY do we have the highest child and senior's poverty rates teamed up with the lowest minimum wage in the country? I'll continue to ask this every time I see a post with your name on it because I can't understand how that helps our society and think you might enlighten us peasants

[JAwrey]

Well it is impossible to say that one system might work here, or we should adopt so-and-so's system, etc. because we live in an entirely different country.  Everybody's been happy to hop on the Sweden-wagon (say that five times, try not to grin!) but what you probably don't realize is that Sweden has one of the highest rates of race-crime in the world.  A good friend of mine who was Chinese, left his trip on the fourth day out of twenty-one because, in three different cities, he was assailed by racist remarks, seemingly by all classes, ages and beliefs - by his account, the racism was unavoidable.  Not completely relevant, but it is necessary to realize the differences in societies in order to truly theorize the effects.  Moving on...

I have to agree with BR, as somebody who has saved his entire life for my education, that a lot of those who are granted a free education don't seem to really appreciate it.  Case in point - there was a pair of twins at my high school who had their Metis status, and as a result were not only guaranteed a post-secondary education, but they did not have to pay for it.  Now, I would like to honestly say that I am not a racist person, but I cannot lie.  It did make me frustrated to see the way that they conducted themselves.  Did it make me angry to see this?  No, just...frustrated, I suppose.  I took a year off between high school and university, and I worked six days a week all year, and practiced for ~1600 hours for my audition.  I am proud of what I did, but also frustrated/disappointed that some don't need to study or save to get into the exact institution as I.

Regarding the redistribution of wealth, I think that it is important to look at both sides.  AF, NB I applaud your passion and clear investigation of your beliefs, but I feel that a happy medium must be struck. 

Student loans: crippling, but possible. 

The poor, saving their money: difficult, indeed...perhaps if we established programs to help those who are less fortunate pool their wealth for the betterment of their financial situation? 

The poor, blowing the redistributed wealth: Well, I feel this is the trickiest water of them all (intentional fishing pun).  I believe that if we were to redistribute some wealth, I think we would see a wide variety of results.  Some would undoubtedly bank it, use it as a nest egg to ensure their fiscal security.  On the other hand, there would likely be cases in which those who were given sums went out and blew them.  Indeed, we would see cases all along the scale.  Furthermore, we could discuss whether X results would be attributed to a certain type of poverty, i.e. financial immaturity etc. 

That being said, it's tricky to determine any of those as truths and definite items, so let's just not!

J

[Bavarian Raven]

very well said AJ