Arnoxthe1 said:
You seem to be really hung up on the wrong things. For one, Walmart pays minimum wage for entry-level jobs. It doesn't just pay $5/hr. Just like a ton of other businesses. Are they all just as bad as Walmart?
Given that so many of them live on food stamps (taxpayer funded, by the by) inspite of their efforts? Yeah. You'd need to ask those who suffer it, of course... but I would say being a wage slave is pretty awful.
Hence why I did everything to stop working and never have to worry about being thrown on the street, or getting a bad case of the flu, or struggling to feed myself. Been there, done that. Once was enough. Fortune, not skill, allowed me to crawl myself up the social ladder.
When you have people for whom only luck can save them from eminently avoidable hardship you have to question whether the system isn't rotten to the core.
Secondly, you seem to have a problem with the very idea of investing. This is honestly kind of silly. Business is mostly about investment after all. You invest money into something you think will profit you and hope for nice returns. And finally, you got this idea that even though you start a business and put your hard work into it to make it hugely profitable for you, that money still doesn't belong to you. Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?
I have no problems with enterprise. But the fact remains no one buys liberty with
only sweat. They do so with blood, money, or another's bent back. Pick one. That's observed in any culture on this planet, observable throughout history.
Enterprise is not merely money. That's idiotic.
Corporations do not often pay taxes because they don't leave money made just sitting there. If they did, they would pay taxes... instead they spend as much as possible back into the firm and giving out more generous div yields, or expanding their public presence to generate further interest of their growth. Either that or they pull out the 'depreciation clause' in Australia, writing off gains to historical losses (even if responsible for said losses) when they also, back then, axed thousands of jobs. Like Qantas...
By the by, Alan Joyce still kept his pay cheque...
Your vaguely alien idea of the value of sweat withstanding, if one's sweat was truly cherished those who sweat wouldn't need welfare.
It's also not something you're supposed to stick with. You're expected to move on to... Something. Something that will earn you more money at least as you gain more experience and/or education. You are paid according to your economic value. And if you sit at the bottom your whole life, you can't expect to live like an executive. That's just how it is. Demonizing the upper class just because they're upper class is childish. And I get that some executives these days are total douches, but we're talking about a properly functioning capitalist society. Not a poorly functioning one that we're living in now.
So all those people who can't move on?
Taking care of a sick family member? Left with a bad debt? A criminal record? Mental health problems? Disabled or psychologically damaged from a war without end in the Middle East or beyond that you can't function in civil society?
Can happen to anyone.
And finally, but just as importantly, employment is AT WILL. You're not forced to work at Walmart.
Yeah... they can be homeless, go without medicine ... seriously, "freedom". Just like all those POWs ... I mean they could go to the camps, or they could have picked up a brick, taken out a guard, tried to get their gun, and be shot in the attempt.
Technically no one is *forced* to do anything. Any type of labour requires some degree of at least complicity.
It's merely a question of how much you actually ransom to coerce and how stupid people are to believe that simply being able to starve your pride or that magically life problems won't ever chain people to a job where they still need welfare to survive and give them little other ways to excel or achieve more somehow represents one's acceptable liberty.
To flip it around ... there are better ways. No one should feel compelled to give of themselves and receive less than their productivity *without* the option of profitting directly through control over what that labour should look like.
Hence why workers should receive shares AND a pay cheque so that they can collectively vote for change at AGMs. Seems far more "freedom" and "democratic" to me. If you're going to rip off people's productivity, give them a reward based on how well the company is ripping them off, at least.
Should make capitalists happy, surely? After all... everybody starts looking like a
real one this way. Yay capitalism, right? Who could object to more capitalists? Can't possibly see what might happen to a capitalist system where workers get an equal volume of shares as to any other interests...