Why not instead simply acknowledge that you're in favor of democratizing the workplace? (As anyone who professes to care about democracy should.) And if you're not in favor of it, then be brave enough to say so. — Xtrix

I've already explained my position on this one, Xtrix.

All I believe is that businesses should be free to structure themselves however they like, with co-op included. In the US you're already free to do this, although things change when you want to bring your company public because you're now issuing securities and you're playing with the SEC.

As long as there's personal choice in this matter people are going to have different governance structures and I guess I "support" the ones that best fit the business.

Yeah, that's what I thought. Then why did you ask me to actually engage what you said initially? Was it just to waste the time of the right-wing enemy?

Are you even interested in any sort of honest political/philosophical conversation with me? We've had this conversation before - in the absence of genuine political/philosophical conversation it makes sense to comment on other features of a post, such as the types of language/the use of certain terms like "parasite."

What point do you even want me to address? Your initial reply to me was literally just an insult, as usual. Unfortunately, insults don't really leave you much to respond to.

No, it was an invitation to address what I said. — StreetlightX

Ok, this is what you said:

Wealth is an indicator, a symptom. What matters more are both the means of production and the social and political systems which constrain and enable the use of wealth. Quality, not quantity. — StreetlightX

That sounds like an invitation to a full-on discussion about political or philosophical systems.

Address what you're saying? Is that an invitation to a genuine political/philosophical discussion about our differences? How far do we get on that one, I wonder. If we're going to do that I'd be down to hear some of your core beliefs and maybe we can go from there, but right now I'm not even aware of what exactly you're advocating for.

I do give a shit about my previous point though about the language. I think it's an important one.

I was putting on my leftist hat in this instance when talking with Streetlight. Sometimes when you engage your political opposition it can help to try to step into their world a little bit and navigate those straits together - see what makes sense when you change your starting assumptions. That's actually one of my favorite methods of engaging people who are politically different from me.

I don't think the analogy is lazy. I think it brings up an important point about how two supposedly very different groups use similar dehumanizing and inflammatory language towards certain segments of society and then get defensive after getting called out about it.

So how much wealth should individuals or families be allowed to have at any given time? How do we decide that limit? What happens if they exceed that limit? Do we arrest them? Does everyone just start with the same amount?

Nice, do I get one of those green caps with the red star?

In any case, I wonder if you'd extend the same line of thinking to organs: Plenty of people need organs, for example a kidney, and you don't need two kidneys to live. Could we forcibly harvest them from people if we can't find volunteers?

And if you're counting the US only, Bernie's not 1% although definitely in the top 10%. — StreetlightX

Top 1% starts at around $10mm-$11mm net worth, of which Bernie is a part of. But doesn't $10mm seem excessive? Why should anyone be allowed to have $10MM? Maybe 5 or even 1mm is excessive when you have homeless people living on the streets.

Wealth, defined as having above and beyond what is for all intents and purposes needed, is by its very nature "excessive."

What is "extreme wealth?" What do you think about Bernie Sanders, he's a 1% last time I checked. Where is the cut off point in wealth where it becomes "excessive."

Well in all fairness you weren't exactly my target audience here. I wouldn't have expected you to be entertained.

The 1% are parasites. — StreetlightX

I had kind of a funny thought today: What if you were to make one of those overlapping pie charts with "nazi" on one end and "radical far left" on the other: Don't you think calling certain segments of the population "parasites" would go in the overlapping middle portion? What else would go in that portion? Maybe dressing in all black? Wishing death and suffering upon those whom you disagree with politically? Assaulting journalists? In any case, labeling certain segments of the population "parasites" would certain fit the bill. At this point you might as well just move on to referring to them as "life undeserving of life."

I believe the point is that the present system is forcing the people who actually run the companies -- the workers -- to accept the management preferences of a small group of people who may or may not actually be doing any of the work of running the company. — Pfhorrest

The board of directors are voted on by the shareholders, who certainly have a stake in the success of the company because they're funding it. There could also be workers on the board itself. The composition of the board will vary from company to company with some certainly better run than others. Ideally there'd be both workers and investors who can work cooperatively to make the company run well. Even if a worker isn't an in official high position they can still often be influential in how the company is run.

Are the owners of a local maintenance company not "on the hook" for bankruptcy? What happened to those "on the hook" for bankruptcy over at GM in 2009? Would the result had made much of a difference if it were worker-owned? Why not first ask that question. — Xtrix

The reason I brought this issue up is because I'm trying to save the workers, especially the low level workers, in the case that a bankruptcy occurs. During a bankruptcy you can have your personal property/assets seized. There absolutely are advantages in certain cases to not being the owner, not the least of which is that you aren't responsible to attend board meetings or attend to administrative work.

No one is saying "higher level" employees aren't workers. They are. And they have their own set of responsibilities based on their capacities, interests, talent, etc. Just as every state has state representatives and state senators that the people vote to send to the capital, the employees should vote for their leadership -- from the CEO on down. Their compensation should be appropriately adjusted, with certain limits (at Mondragon, I think it's no more than 8 or 10X higher than the lowest compensation). There are plenty of good supervisors, administrators, etc. Why should they be chosen based on a handful of major shareholders rather than the people who actually produce for and (essentially) run the company? — Xtrix

If that's just your preference in terms of a corporate governance model that's fine. We all have our own preferences for how things ought to be ran. I personally don't believe in any one, universal perfect corporate governance model and in any case we're free to discuss the pluses and minuses of various models. As long as no one is forcing people to structure their companies this way then I'm fine with you having this preference.

The "owners" (if you want to call them that) are the workers themselves. — Xtrix

Back to my original question then: Wouldn't all workers then be on the hook for debts in the case of bankruptcy then? Also, lets say there's 10 workers and 7 of them vote to take out a loan, do the other 3 have to chip in?

The workers are the businesses. — Xtrix

Sure, and the CEO just sits up in his gold suite all day with his top hat and goes swimming in piles of gold coins while the workers do all the hard work. Apparently higher level employees like the founders and CFO or CTO just don't do anything all day.

I am talking about all employees, yes. All employees run the company. How they choose to structure it, who they assign various responsibilities or leadership roles to, etc., are their business. Votes are conducted for various positions, and everything is decided democratically. — Xtrix

Ok, I think I understand you better now. I'll say if an owner wants to structure his corporation like that I don't have any problem with that, it's the owner's choice. I believe the socialist vision involves actual ownership by the proletariat, so all you seem to be doing here is recommending a certain corporate governance model, right? That's fine by me, when you have your own company you're free to tell your employees that they can vote whoever they want to be in charge.

Chapter 11 bankruptcy is a long and expensive process and all debts still need to be paid. You aren't off the hook for the debts just by declaring chapter 11. Even in an LLC owners can still be responsible for paying debts depending on specific actions that they take. An LLC doesn't 100% absolve the owners from any personal debts.

Who said anything about "new, inexperienced employees"? The fact that your mind goes immediately to a scenario like this, where "workers control the business" equates somehow to "inexperienced employees" is very revealing, and pretty standard. — Xtrix

Ok, I might have misunderstood you. When you say something like 'all workers should have ownership in the company' then yeah, obviously my mind goes to all the employees having that privilege. If that's not what you're saying then feel free to clarify.

I don't have anything against co-ops either. If a company wants to do that, that's fine. If you were to force every company to be structured like that that's where I'd take issue.

What are you talking about? It's not some "skin in the game," it's a business that the workers control outright. Businesses make profits and declare bankruptcy all the time, regardless of who's running it. What's the difference? — Xtrix

When they declare bankruptcy the owners are on the hook for that. New, inexperienced employees could be permanently damaging their financial future.

One needs to look no further than the structure and operation of corporations to see how undemocratic and exploitative it is. This is the nature of the game. A few people (the major shareholders, the board of directors, and the CEO/executives) are the people making the decisions about what to produce, how to produce it, where to produce it, and what to do with the profits from all of this work. — Xtrix

Yep, and these guys make $$$ when business goes well. If only the everyday employee could get some skin in the game.

But what happens when things go poorly? You don't just lose your pay and get fired; the company collapses and you could be on the hook for insane amounts of money - those debts don't just disappear into thin air when the company declares bankruptcy. Now you've got 18 year old employees dealing with bankruptcy lawyers.

That is to say your pessimism will only make me and the rest of the world a better place, as it will inform all who may stumble upon you of the misery that befalls the pessimist and they will therefore adopt a more optimistic outlook. — Hanover

:100:

I am 100% a more optimistic person since engaging with Schop and pessimistic philosophy.

I've talked with schopenhauer1 about this topic a bit, and I think his position is more accurately categorized as one that is anti-being than anti-suffering. I remember I asked schopenhauer if he'd still be a pessimist even if the world was basically perfect, and he said that he would be. Even in a perfect world you'd have to deal with the deaths of your grandparents or parents - otherwise you're the tragedy. If life inevitably involves some tragedy, which it always will to some degree or another, then according to schopenhauer we should do away with it. Even if the vast majority of one's life is amazing, no one can consent pre-birth to being born into a world where tragedy inevitably lives.

For the record I don't agree with schop. I just wanted to sketch out the position here.

When discussing concentrations of wealth and power (.001%), there's very probably an interaction. Once you're part of the club, you've had to have internalized certain beliefs and values - mainly about capitalism and politics. That's what the scholarship seems to suggest.

So perhaps more emphasis can be placed on your second point. — Xtrix

Lets see the scholarship then. I'd be interested.

$100MM net worth seems a fair cut off level here. At this level you have people from entertainment, some professional athletes, but I'd imagine the majority comes from business. While I wouldn't expect them to be Marxists, I would still expect a decent chunk of them to be Democrats, but who knows - lets bring in the studies if you have them.

As a general rule I'd expect the elite of any society to be on balance a little more interested in preserving the status quo. There are still a number of individuals at this level of wealth who'd be described as Democrats. But yeah, obviously not too many of them are talking about "abolishing billionaires" but you do see supporters of higher taxes, stronger safety nets and strong environmental regulation.

Where's the scholarship on this? I'd like to see some evidence. Because it's often claimed, and of course there are examples and thousands of anecdotes, but I have a hunch it's complete nonsense -- at least when talking about what we're discussing here, which is the 1%.

It's a lot like talk about voter fraud -- yes, it happens, but so rarely as to be imperceptible. — Xtrix

I was just talking about people advancing classes, not necessarily into the 1%. If someone who's lower middle makes it into the middle class I would count that as class mobility, as well as those who jumps from poor to lower middle. I'm definitely not talking about the poor jumping into the 1%. It is feasible to go from upper middle to 1% though.

I think the mobility issue now is less that people cannot move upwards from middle class, but that you're more likely to move down than up and, once down from middle class, you're unlikely to get up again. — Echarmion

Where are the stats that people are more likely to move from middle to lower class than middle to upper middle? I feel like if this were true we'd be seeing an increasingly large lower class which I don't think we're seeing. Keep in mind the "bottom 20%" of income earners is not the bottom 20% population-wise. It's actually a significantly smaller percentage.

I agree with the first part you wrote about risk: Someone with more wealth is generally speaking in better place to take on risk even if this risk doesn't always work out.

Also, on the topic of ambition, and your conversation with apokrisis: society should be structured such that an unambitious person who just wants to stay at home and tend to their little garden can do so. — Pfhorrest

See, to me this isn't really a question of "shoulds." Lets say we're both 18 and we graduate HS together and I tell you "Hey Forrest, all I want to do now is live in an apartment or some sort of home and tend to be garden all day." Now the question is: Do I have the means or am I going to have to rely on the taxpayer - you, that is - for support? If I have the means to sit home all day and watch my garden, then that's fine; I'm not hurting you. But if I'm going to need support to that and I'm going to need you to chip in to support my habit that's a different issue.

So with great pain and reluctance I resigned myself to an "ordinary" life. Instead of trying to achieve great things, I would aim low, just try to secure my basic necessities like a house, just the minimal level of financial security, so I wouldn't be poor and on the verge of homelessness like my parents by the time my kids (that I then expected to have some day) were adults. — Pfhorrest

I honestly think this is a fine, reasonable goal. This goal is quite doable on the median US income, but not in expensive areas. In much of the country you can find decent homes for around $250k or even lower.

Thomas J. Stanley's The Millionaire Next Door. I think they're just asking who inherited that sum, and if you didn't you were "self-made." I know, it's not perfect but I don't know how you get perfect stats on that given how difficult the notion of "self-made" is. After all, is anyone really self-made? In any case, you'll see this 80/20 number on numerous online sources as well.

I will say though that it's certainly possible for middle class people earning a stable salary, investing in retirement funds and living frugally to become millionaires. Class mobility is still certainly a thing in this country.

That’s a general thing I like to point out when taking risk is argued to be what makes the rich deserve their rewards. — Pfhorrest

For me personally, I try to avoid using the term "deserve" in this context. I think "deserving" in this context is a very tricky notion.

The more you have beyond your basic needs, the more you can afford to gamble smartly, accepting some short term losses as you play the odds to long term victory. E.g where I am
now in life, my investments can fluctuate up or down by hundreds or sometimes even thousands of dollars a day and I can afford to just ignore that so long as overall they trend upwards, because it’s not like I’m going to need to spend that money tomorrow. (Even now that I’m without a job, because I didn’t start investing until I already had a sufficient cash safety net set aside too, for exactly that reason). — Pfhorrest

You're talking about investing here, right? Yeah, I understand. I understand that the rich are able to invest more, and in turn take more advantage of market upturns, but at the end of the day a bullish stock market is good for you too. I mean sure we can point and laugh at the billionaires when the market tanks, but your own portfolio is liking taking a hit there too. Even if most of the benefit goes directly to the mega-rich, I'd rather see the stock market rise.

But where I was a decade ago, a downward fluctuation of a thousand dollars would immediately knock me out of the game — I wouldn’t survive to make up for it over the long term. And that’s the kind of situation that most people are always in. — Pfhorrest

It's good to hear that your portfolio is able to withstand those drops.

It’s just a way of speaking in terms of statistics, exactly like distribution of ability. A uniform distribution means the quantity in question is equal for everyone, a normal distribution means the quantity in question follows a gaussian curve across the population, etc. — Pfhorrest

I guess I just don't see opportunity as something that is "distributed." I guess in some sense it is though.

On balance, the rich have more opportunity than the poor. I'm comfortable saying that. However, when you look at the self, or any other individual, that individual is a billion different things - he may be physically gifted or not, mentally gifted or not, emotionally gifted or not, humorous, charismatic or not, etc. Also how sensitive that person is to failure plays a role in opportunity. Emotional resilience is huge.

These are all things I believe: 1) The rich, on balance, have more opportunity than the poor. 2) Even in a completely economically equal society, there would be no equality of opportunity. 3) The notion of "equality of opportunity" is a dubious one.

The way that poverty affected my opportunity was creating an unstable home life and leaving me nowhere to fall back on, forcing me to work close to full time to support myself while going through school, handling al my own crisis expenses like car breakdowns, living in shitty crowded shared housing (which is what got me that one B: housemates kept me awake all night right before a final) while being terrific of eviction or rate increases because I would just be homeless since I didn’t have family housing to fall back on, etc. Which in turn made me extremely risk-averse, kept me in shitty jobs because they were stable instead of trying for better jobs that might fall through, which kept me from learning further on the job and so has made finding better work increasingly more difficult even as I’ve gotten more stability with age that could allow me to risk trying out possibly better jobs, etc.

I can think of a few decisions I could have made differently in my early adulthood that would have made a dramatic difference in my life today, despite the poverty of my family, but not having a stable family to guide me through those decisions meant the only reason I now know I should have chosen differently is because of hindsight. — Pfhorrest

Thanks for sharing that. You mentioned something really important in the last paragraph - the importance of a stable family that could have guided you and given you help. I'll definitely agree that family is huge: Imagine if you had the support structure. It's definitely got to be tough without it. I'm very thankful that I have had a supportive, functional family throughout the years. If I fail, I would be able to fall back on them.

But yeah, I certainly don't like seeing anyone struggle, especially someone who is willing to work and has a desire to advance his economic position. I'm not claiming my advice is flawless here, but maybe you should reconsider the risk-averse attitude. I do think it would help considerably if you could find a better job, and sure there's some risk in that, but I've worked low wage jobs and it's just not something someone should be doing long term. If you don't take risks you're going to stay in relatively the same spot you are now.

Oh and also, having to pay rent instead of just living in my family’s second or third home for free, or getting help with a big enough down payment that interest on a mortgage wouldn’t exceed rent, etc. — Pfhorrest

Oh I would love to be able to do that too but unfortunately my family doesn't have 3 or even 2 homes. I am actually living at home now I separated from the military around 3 months ago and I'm looking to going back to school.

I see what you mean. If perfection is impossible, just give up. In fact even to try can be equated to fanatical Nazi euthanasia. Sounds legit. — apokrisis

What is perfection? Complete equality of opportunity? I want you to really think on this one: Even if the US was a completely equal society, would every child have equal opportunity? Would everyone be equally capable of being an NFL football player? How about nuclear scientist? Is everyone capable of being a Picasso or a Michelangelo? How about a chess master? This isn't about "giving up" this is about acknowledging reality.

Hey, that's me. That's any normal person. That's who society ought to be built around ... in my selfish view. — apokrisis

Do you honestly believe that society should specifically cater to those who are less ambitious? IMO, society shouldn't really "cater" to anyone - if you want to work long hours and make your job your life, that's an acceptable decision and if you prefer more time off that's acceptable too. The trade-off there is that while you get more free time you'll likely be earning less. The high-earners on the other hand often have a lot less free time. It's about the trade-offs. I do strongly reject the view that society ought to be built around the less ambitious though. Society should largely not pass judgment except in extreme cases.

If we had equal distribution of opportunity, we would expect a normal distribution of outcome, to match the normal distribution of abilities. — Pfhorrest

Talking about a "distribution of opportunity" honestly confuses me.

But in the world we have today, someone like me — who is, according to all the aptitude tests of every kind I’ve ever taken, in the top 0.1% of ability — can just barely manage to keep up with the average (mean, not median) of financing outcomes, if they’re born into poverty like I was. — Pfhorrest

Did you get straight As in school? Any college scholarships? I'm not going to doubt you here, if I could remember I think we've already delved into your personal situation a bit and I recommended getting out of California. We've already had this talk, I know. In some cities someone could be pulling 6 figures and still struggling. This isn't just a "you" thing - plenty of people are moving out of California because the state is ridiculously expensive and moving over to Texas where they can buy a house at a 1/4 the cost.

I know the American system isn't perfect and there's plenty of changes that I would make to it if given the opportunity. I don't just blindly endorse the status quo.

so if you’re not rich then you simply must not actually be so smart or hard-working etc, because if you were then you would be rich. — Pfhorrest

I would certainly never argue this.

Sure. With another reasonable person. :up: — apokrisis

Just to add to what I was saying earlier: Even in an absolutely perfect society there wouldn't be equality of opportunity. I mean what are we suppose to do, get rid of all the children with learning disabilities? What about the people who are naturally less ambitious and prefer to live a more relaxed lifestyle? Are we just suppose to expect everyone to be type-A perfectionists who strive to maximize income at virtually any cost? Even if society were perfectly fair and generous we could be seeing vast inequality.

Social mobility is a tough topic. I prefer studies which track individuals over, say, a 30 year period rather than just taking a snap-shot in time. I think when you look to these types of studies the picture is a little less bleak.

Many Americans strongly believe the U.S. is a "Land of Opportunity" that offers every child an equal chance at social and economic mobility. That Americans rise from humble origins to riches, has been called a "civil religion", "the bedrock upon which the American story has been anchored",[14] and part of the American identity (the American Dream.

I've long felt that this view of the American dream is kind of a straw-man. I don't know anyone in their right mind who'd believe that every child has an equal chance of economic and social mobility. I mean maybe in the abstract everyone has some chance, but an equal chance? In any case it's easy to argue against such fantastical positions.

tergenerational immobility versus economic inequality in 2012. (Countries closest to the axis in the left bottom have the highest levels of socio-economic equality and socio-

That's an interesting chart, but honestly comparing America to Denmark is a little silly. Denmark is a largely homogenous country of around 5 million. I live in one of the smallest states in the country and our population is 6 million.

Net worth for the top 1% starts at around $10MM while it's around $1MM for the top 10%. Plenty of them are self-made, I think most millionaires in the US are self-made (if i could recall that figure is around 80%.)

In the 1% you certainly have successful people but I'd hardly call someone with a net worth of $10MM one of the "masters of the universe." IMO there's no a huge difference between someone with a net worth of like $3-5MM and one with a net worth of like $10MM. 1%ers often have like 3 homes across the country.

At 9 figures I'd imagine things get pretty insane.

I grew up in the top 10%. I know some 1%ers. I certainly don't know anyone beyond that.

I actually think that those possible types of answers to questions about reality and morality stem from applications of the analogous answers to the personal emotional question: — Pfhorrest

:100:

You have encountered a challenge. Maybe things are not going to work out as you expected. What do you do?

- Give up?
- Indulge in a happy fantasy about how it must definitely all be okay?
- Acknowledge the difficulty and keep trying anyway?

When the challenge is in figuring out what is real or moral, the last option is exactly the kind of criticism universalism that I advocate on those topics. — Pfhorrest

I get it where you're coming from. I'll add though, and maybe this is me just playing devil's advocate, but I'll add that some problems in life don't really appear to be solvable. In those cases, it might honestly be better to either approach the problem from a different angle or reframe it in some way... or just honestly try to think about something else. We all have limited mental energy and numerous problems that we would like to address so often sacrifices have to be made. Nothing wrong with jsut kicking back and wanting some time off from your problems either.

By all means you're free to philosophize and I would never tell you otherwise. For me, personally, at this point it's less about finding absolute truths or perfect systems than using philosophy as a tool to understand someone else's worldview and maybe kick around some ideas.

Something like this is, I think, the main error underlying pretty much all philosophical error: that the only alternatives are either abject nihilism or religious faith. Cynical relativism or dogmatic transcendentalism, pick your poison... or so they'd have you think. — Pfhorrest

Personally I think the question of finding meaning or value in the universe is largely a personal/emotional one. Atheists are certainly capable of living subjectively meaningful lives, but I do often find these people, like Carl Sagan, have a connection to the numinous (something that "wows" them, for Sagan is was the wonders of the physical universe.)

I'm a pretty strict agnostic: No firm opinion on God's existence, and I'm fine exploring many different lines of thought whether theistic or atheistic. If one has a healthy mindset and a positive disposition they'll probably be fine as an atheist, but I do think anyone should be concerned with attempts to utterly disassemble the Judeo-Christian philosophical remnants of today's society.

Personally I'd like there to be something out there. It doesn't have to be the Judeo-Christian God. Maybe it could be an Earth-spirit of Gaia type deal, or who knows. I have not yet heard a compelling atheistic moral system, though I'm open to it. I'm sure there are reasonable moral systems under atheism but I think they'd be fundamentally different from a theistic model, or how we naturally think about morality today.

Hope Peterson has recovered but he's had his 15 minutes. I don't think anyone cares much about his ideas any more. — Baden

Peterson still has a ton of adoring fans. That book is gonna sell out instantly.

Marxists will describe the outgrowth of capitalism as a form of imperialism.

If I was violent, and there was a place where violence was not punished (or rarely/lightly punished), I would prefer to be there. So would everyone else like me. — Pinprick

Cool, so violent people must love Caracas, Venezuela or Detroit because they can be around other violent people who are like them. Maybe all the violent people can become friends after hanging out together. They could throw violent-themed parties, maybe grab some violent-themed decorations.