The Rich Get Richer

The American Conservative ^ | September 25, 2006 Issue | James Kurth

[A Longer Name]

And why the wealth is to be preserved while political power/position not? What is the difference?

Do I really have to explain it?

Well, all right. Political power = license for violence, a very dangerous thing. While wealthy people are at worst (according to your argument) merely useless.

[Nowhere Man]

Too many people when it comes to economics simpily repeat what either the WSJ or Limbaugh says, and nothing else, Free Market "uber alles" so to speak, without any notion of responsibility, a large contrast to the almost paternal corporate behavior that existed into the 70s and even 80s.

John Paul II said it best, Freedom without responsibility is tyrany.

I agree, there is a lot of Rush Limbaugh and Ayn Rand parroting here. There is talk of freedom but not the responsibility to go with it. I'm a firm believe in what Peter Parker's Uncle Ben from the Spiderman comic books always said, "with great power comes great responsibility." There are those that want o have their cake an eat it too and you cannot have that. If things do get out of whack then society will come in and control it.

[RFT1]

The problem is it seems too many people want to be Norman Osbournes rather than being a Tony Stark.

[TheLion]

Bttt!

[AHerald]

...learned conservative writer Kevin Phillips

Thanks. I haven't laughed so hard since the first time I saw a metrosexual caveman order the roast duck with the mango salsa.

[Fledermaus]

Yep. Plenty of super rich Dems that made out like bandits in the 90's.

The problem with the "rich vs. poor gap" is that these socialist would rather have the poor make less as long as the rich also make less to lower "the gap" because that's more important to them.

If a so-called poor household makes $25K and the rich one makes $100K these commie-lovers would prefer that to the poor one making $50K while the rich one makes $125K because the gap is smaller.

Their idea is to tear down the rich instead of making it easier for the pretend poor to get richer.

[nicollo]

I should like to rid popular history of this falsehood:

In 1914, Henry Ford paid his factory workers $5 a day, twice the going rate, with the aim of creating a broad middle class able to buy the cars they were building.

The "aim" of the "Five Dollar Day" was to lower cost of production by inciting higher worker efficiency and, especially, to lower employee turnover which had been plaguing the new Ford assembly lines. That the goal was to create a consumer class of workers is utter tripe -- and the product of a deliberate revisionist history that Ford and his company and their willing biographers formulated long after the 1914 wage hike.

The Five Dollar Day has been used, as here, to justify so many "enlightened" policies, but never was it intended to create a buying class of worker-consumers. In fact, Ford deliberately couched the pay raise as a "profit-sharing" plan as a hedge against it not working. Also, he excluded unmarried men under 22 and all women from the wage hike.

Enlightened: hardly. Good business: you bet.

[Stegall Tx]

Does anyone know off hand how much Mr. Ford earned in 1914? I often hear the stat about how much CEOs make vs the average pay for their employees, but how does this compare to the big industrialists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries?

[1rudeboy]

While at the same time industrial employment continues its multi-year decline.

Yeah, since the 1950's. Ever here of automation, productivity, etc.?

[1rudeboy]

"Twenty-five years ago you were more likely to find households with one wage earner, now for most people in most areas, its commonly accepted that it takes two wage earners to support a family [at a higher standard of living]."

[1rudeboy]

Suppose I want to build myself a house but I don't own the tool to do so. Suppose you have the tools and rent them to me. Did you contibute to the building of the house?

No, you merely provided a service. Everyone knows that only manufacturing adds to wealth, so unless you actually pounded some nails, you're as poor as dirt. [chuckle]

[Nowhere Man]

The problem is it seems too many people want to be Norman Osbournes rather than being a Tony Stark.

Interesting way of putting it but true. Or worse, be like The Kingpin.

[Clemenza]

LOL!

Yeah, we need a "protected" economy where the "workers" rule supreme.

Its worked SO WELL in France and Belgium, hasn't it?

[Nowhere Man]

Yes, rising production with fewer workers is called higher productivity. In 1900, half the workforce were farmers. Now, only 2% are farmers and we produce more food than ever. I guess you'll explain how that's a bad thing?

I know in India, it is preferred to keeping 100 men employed, even if they have to use shovels instead of using 2 men and a steam shovel and leaving 98 unemployed. I know to some, it may not be the best thing but I do remember my grandmother saying, "idle hands are the Devil's work," so I do see the good that come from employing 100 men. I know you might not agree with me but I'd rather take that route and have as many hands working instead of them falling to the influences of the Devil.

[lucysmom]

...at a higher standard of living

Its true, 25 years ago we wouldn't be having this discussion on the internet, or making calls on a cell phone, but we did have color TV, cable TV (programming choices are greater, but quality is not), telephones and even answering machines, antibiotics, vaccinations, hot and cold running water, heat and air conditioners, most families I knew had two cars, we traveled by jet to places like Europe and Asia, and we ate well and healthy.

I don't think our standard of living has improved all that much, though prices have. For instance a friend and her husband purchased a very nice house for $100,000 in a prestigious area, its now worth $6 million (same house). I believe that's called inflation, not improved standard of living

[A. Pole]

Political power = license for violence, a very dangerous thing.

That is all? It is not much.

[Toddsterpatriot]

I know you might not agree with me but I'd rather take that route and have as many hands working instead of them falling to the influences of the Devil.

Good idea, because we wouldn't want a rising standard of living. Better to be poor and virtuous with a high infant mortality rate.

[Nowhere Man]

Its true, 25 years ago we wouldn't be having this discussion on the internet, or making calls on a cell phone, but we did have color TV, cable TV (programming choices are greater, but quality is not), telephones and even answering machines, antibiotics, vaccinations, hot and cold running water, heat and air conditioners, most families I knew had two cars, we traveled by jet to places like Europe and Asia, and we ate well and healthy.

I don't think our standard of living has improved all that much, though prices have. For instance a friend and her husband purchased a very nice house for $100,000 in a prestigious area, its now worth $6 million (same house). I believe that's called inflation, not improved standard of living

True, I think with the exception of computers (and perhaps cable TV, although we got it in 1971), I'm living much the same as I remember from 1980 or even 1970. When I was little, we had two cars, the house I lived in then, as I do now, has A/C. Heck, I still watch the same color TV that we bought in 1983. Trouble is, it might take two incomes to accompish that as it took one in 1970.

[nicollo]

Does anyone know off hand how much Mr. Ford earned in 1914?

Great question! In 1914, it was said that Ford would to divide $10 million in profits amongst 26,000 workmen -- women excluded. That "profit sharing" is what constituted the "Five Dollar Day" -- with the low-scale $2.60 daily rate doubled by the sharing of profits. Estimated profits for Ford in 1913 were $25-$30 million.

I don't know how much Henry paid himself in salary, but I do know that a good manager would make $50K+ in the auto industry. After the pofit sharing scheme, the annual wage for Ford line workers came to $600-1200, give or take how the "profit sharing" was distributed. A basic Model T in 1914 cost around $600. These workers were not automobile consumers, and noone at the time expected them to be.

Be aware that daily pay in the auto and other industries count for little in terms of annual wages, b/c work was seasonal.

[1rudeboy]

Let stick to TV's. 25 years ago, how many did you own? How big was their screen? How many channels did you get? How much did it cost? What percentage of your income did that represent?