Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Time for a "Maximum," Not Just A "Minimum" Wage
Our current Darwinian system has not and will not work for the millions who are one or two paychecks from the street. It's time to "talk turkey" and institute a national maximum income as a model for the world to follow.
OK, here's the deal: economic theory need not be formulated and postulated by some MBA, or some "pencil cruncher". In David Kennedy's fantastic look back at the Great Depression, Freedom From Fear: the American People in Depression and War, he states the bold innovative theories that FDR and his advisors submitted. FDR felt that this country had enough production: what we as a nation lacked was consumption. If the American public had enough money to consume properly, business would have the necessary demand to produce more, and so on and so on. Simply put, what was needed was a fairer redistribution of money that would "lift" America up economically. Makes sense, no?
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize the more that money is equally spread out, the more consumption we will have. the more savings we will have, and so on and so on. Being essentially a simple man, allow an analogy. Company A has 1000 employees. Let's say the CEO earns his or her $10 million a year (not uncommon in these times, as the top 10 U.S. CEO's average well over $100 million each a year). The top management tier just below earn their few million a year each. Suppose we took the FDR scenario to heart and "redistributed" some of those top heavy incomes a bit. Suppose we had the CEO cut his or her package from $10 million to $5 million, and the tier below follow suit as well. Let's say we put about 10 million big ones into the pot, to now be spread out amongst the 1000 employees, in equal shares. We divide that 10 million smackeroos by the 1000 and we get $10,000 a year more per employee. Now, I don't know about you, but $10,000 extra a year could buy lots and lots of appliances, clothing, cars, vacations, home improvements, even the down payment for a new house. Think of all the jobs that would be created by this added consumption. Think of all the money banks and mutual funds and money funds would receive. Think of how many families would advance from renting to now owning that home sweet home.
The irony is that no one in the mainstream media will even attempt to address such a simple and workable economic ideal. They say it's not the American Way. Well tell me, what is the "American Way"? What, for that matter is the "Christian Way"? I recall gospels telling about the man from Nazareth taking a few fish and loaves and creating enough for all. No, methinks that our current Darwinian system has not and will not work for the millions who are one or two paychecks from the street. It's time to "talk turkey" and institute a national maximum income as a model for the world to follow.
Philip Farruggio, son of a longshoreman, is "Blue Collar Brooklyn" born, raised and educated (Brooklyn College, Class of '74). A former progressive talk show host, Philip runs a mfg. rep. business and writes for many publications. He lives in Port Orange, FL. You can contact him at: brooklynphilly [at] aol.com
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize the more that money is equally spread out, the more consumption we will have. the more savings we will have, and so on and so on. Being essentially a simple man, allow an analogy. Company A has 1000 employees. Let's say the CEO earns his or her $10 million a year (not uncommon in these times, as the top 10 U.S. CEO's average well over $100 million each a year). The top management tier just below earn their few million a year each. Suppose we took the FDR scenario to heart and "redistributed" some of those top heavy incomes a bit. Suppose we had the CEO cut his or her package from $10 million to $5 million, and the tier below follow suit as well. Let's say we put about 10 million big ones into the pot, to now be spread out amongst the 1000 employees, in equal shares. We divide that 10 million smackeroos by the 1000 and we get $10,000 a year more per employee. Now, I don't know about you, but $10,000 extra a year could buy lots and lots of appliances, clothing, cars, vacations, home improvements, even the down payment for a new house. Think of all the jobs that would be created by this added consumption. Think of all the money banks and mutual funds and money funds would receive. Think of how many families would advance from renting to now owning that home sweet home.
The irony is that no one in the mainstream media will even attempt to address such a simple and workable economic ideal. They say it's not the American Way. Well tell me, what is the "American Way"? What, for that matter is the "Christian Way"? I recall gospels telling about the man from Nazareth taking a few fish and loaves and creating enough for all. No, methinks that our current Darwinian system has not and will not work for the millions who are one or two paychecks from the street. It's time to "talk turkey" and institute a national maximum income as a model for the world to follow.
Philip Farruggio, son of a longshoreman, is "Blue Collar Brooklyn" born, raised and educated (Brooklyn College, Class of '74). A former progressive talk show host, Philip runs a mfg. rep. business and writes for many publications. He lives in Port Orange, FL. You can contact him at: brooklynphilly [at] aol.com
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$230.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network
But let’s use a real life example, my personal favorite person of hypocrisy, Bono of U2. How often has Bono gotten on his soapbox and asked for money to help the poor? Seems like every week, but yet Bono and U2 still tours, still make records, and still sells T-shirts, posters, and other stuff. In I think the last U2 tours was one of the top 10 money making tour of that year and they are a top grossing band too but despite Bono’s plead to help the impoverished, I haven’t seen him give away free CD’s to the masses or do free concerts or even benefit tours. And why not? I would guess it’s because of Bono’s own need to acquire things, despite his soapbox speeches, is what motivates him.
So while in theory, yes it sounds great, but when you have one of the loudest mouthpiece of the growing difference between the rich and the poor making and keeping as much of his money as he can, do you really think it will work Mr. CEO? Me thinks Not!
Your assumption based on the historical info on FDR, doesn't necessarily lead you to the assumption that that form of redistribution is the answer. Yes, FDR proved himself a Socialist, but I'm sure he would dismiss even your fiscal concept as radical and ill concieved.
The whole notion that we have a Darwinian Economic System is a bit of a canard. I think Darwinian principles apply to the evolution of life, not the evolution of a nations economy. Yes, the strong will survive the best, but capitalism will lift everyone who wants to, out of destitution. It is altruistically true that any living thing which is helplessly weak, cannot survive on it's own. This is not a Darwinian Principle, it is just part of what I prefer to call Earth Logic. You seem to be using another form of logic in you analysis.
The Real Charles Darwin (quote):
"If the plight of the poor be caused not by their own behavior but by the arrangement of our institutions, great is our sin."
Capitalism helps Stephen Hawking because of technology and medical science. All of our great progress in these human sciences can be attributed to capitalism.
Capitalism allows those with wealth to donate mass amounts of money to homoeless shelters, through public humanitarian services and church relief groups. The American people donated almost a billion dollars to the injured famillies of the 9-11. That was all due to capitalism, and you'll notice the distinct lack of greed which all good Leftist equat with capitalism.
Capitalism is the answer.
Let's see: US and the UK vs former USSR and communist china (North Korea, and Cuba for the record).
1. how many starving people are there in each.
2. how many scientific inventions.
3. how much capital in each.
4. where would you rather have medical treatment?
5. where would you rather live?
6. where would you rather your children live?
7. can you get work and education if you wanted too?
8. are people trying to get in or out of the country?
9. are people forced to stay in that country?
... etc, etc
Is there really a need to debate??
<1. how many starving people are there in each.>
way more people are starving in capitalist countries, especially in Third World. The U.S. has at least 20% poverty, unacceptable in a country this wealthy.
<2. how many scientific inventions.>
U.S. and Western democracies, you're right; however, the Soviet Union in the 20s and 30s, for example, although it was a wretched and brutal dictatorship, made many technological advances in heavy industry and its military buildup and military technological innovations in 30s helped greatly to thwart Nazism.>
<3. how much capital in each.>
Don't understand the question.
<
4. where would you rather have medical treatment?>
Cuba has an awesome medical system, despite the fact that it is a wretched and brutal dictatorship, the system's medical excellence evidenced by the worldwide demand for Cuban doctors and expertise.
In addition, I've been sick in Canada (single payer) and I've been sick in the U.S., and I'll take Canada. If the U.S. system is so great, why isn't everyone in Canada (or anywhere else) clamoring for it? Socialized medicine, despite its underfunded status owing to capitalist dictates, is wildly popular in every country that has it. The complaint in these countries is that the gov't doesn't spend enough to cut down on waiting lists and to expand covered conditions.
<5. where would you rather live?>
The U.S., of course, owing to the great work the left social movements have done (for 8 hour day, wealth redistribution from income tax, minimum wage, voting rights [absent from original Constitution], civil rights, social security, medicare, environmental protection, enriched free speech, separation of church and state, defeat of creationism in schools, universal education, once but no longer rigorous regulation (because of Reagan) of capital markets, saving the world from Nazism (the war that FDR supported and conservatives initially opposed, until it was almost too late), relaxation of cultural mores owing to hippie and counterculture movements of the 60s, greatly improved food safety because of socialist-led regulation of industry, greatly improved food quality because of organic food movements of the sixties, etc.).
It'll be an even greater country once the left finishes the job with single payer or Cuban style system, worker led collectivization (different from nationalization or government ownership), dismantling of military terrorist complex that gets us into messes like the original war in Afghanistan which gave rise to al Quada, etc.)
<6. where would you rather your children live?>
Here, for the reasons above.
<7. can you get work and education if you wanted too?>
Not as readily as we will once we collectivize education.
<8. are people trying to get in or out of the country?>
Trying to get in, for reasons above;
OWEVER, many are fleeing U.S. sponsored oppression in Latin America and elsewhere; in addition, of all these illegal immigrants coming in from Mexico, what system are they fleeing? They are fleeing capitalism, thank you, and going to U.S. because we're hoarding the world's wealth
9. are people forced to stay in that country?
Leninist Communism is dead, thank God, but it was a fraud.
Then come back and tell us the market system is the best of all possible worlds.
If the former soviet union, north Korea and the people republic of china aren't good examples of what the lack of free market does, what is? Face it - there will always be poor people, you just have to decide wether it's 5% or 50% of the population.
btw: mike seems to be on the right path, if i got him right, he says that the US is worth living in because it is a capitalist country with some socialist (maybe not enough) benefits.
got any proof?
Perhaps that particular taxation rate is too low, but why not just implement our taxation system properly so that if Microsoft believes Ballmer is worth 100 million dollars, that's fine by us so long as A: he still makes more money than someone who only makes 90 million dollars and B: 95 million of those dollars goes to education and social welfare programs.