The true extent of wealth disparity in the USA

Post Reply New Topic

Did you read my post? Because I did not mention accumulation of capital I was talking about corporate structures. Raising capital is one of the most important components of starting a high tech business but it has pretty much nothing to do with my post about the corporate structures inherent to the distribution of industrial era products being challenged by changes in technology. Democratization of corporate structure =/= democratization of capital.

Democratic structures lower barriers to entry. Most of the angel investing structures that are used to fund the development of tech products involve highly flexible capital and workplace environments where innovation and results are necessary components of development. The corporate structure of the multinational conglomerate simply is not needed in many of those structures.

One of the more interesting examples I have encountered was 12 biotech companies who cooperated to build a single large incubator. None could raise the capital necessary to finance it alone, nor satisfied the risk for that level of capitalization from outside investors, but by working together they were able to achieve great innovation and capitalization. Angel investors who engage with these sorts of companies know the risk rate is quite high and as a result attempt to spread their investment over a large range of companies. It works for them to support cooperative development because one idea, given access to single piece of decisive infrastructure can meet the needs of multiple companies. Even if only one makes it to the point of being economical independent, the structures are there waiting for them when they grow and the less successful ideas recede. The development of new systems of distribution and innovation will challenge corporate structures and force new norms in new industries.

As for the wages of 'ordinary workers', in a modern high tech enterprises, there are very few such people. As such many companies find themselves competing for a very small number of high expertise workers. New fields require specialized knowledge and at the leading edge of industry, if you don't pay well, you are not even in the labor market. The idea of preparing people for low-skill high productivity jobs simply will not really cut it in a modern business. New companies, will have to compete for employees of high skill sets and those people can be the decisive edge in a high risk enterprise and as a result paying employees is a vital consideration. Such businesses also have a different corporate atmosphere, walk around a GM plant then visit Google and you will see the difference instantly.

I *did* read your post. You made the following claim: " the democratization of the corporate model will probably happen on its own accord due to changes in technology." And I pointed out that this was an invalid argument, since the corporate model is better suited to compete in a high-tech global economy.

I don't think that you understand the concept of "angel investing", and you are confusing ownership structures with job design. Multinational conglomerates can easily design highly flexible workplace environments, if they choose to do so. And successful angel investors need to be extremely profit orientated because of the risks associated with funding start-up businesses at a very early stage. Angel investors are also minor players compared to venture capitalists.

If so, then why would there be a need to shift corporate control to employees? If the value of labour goes up, so does wages. Problem solved. Textbook capitalism wins again.

Umm. Well lets start with the term 'invalid'. Even if my argument was not true (we will get to why it was, again, in a moment), it would still be valid. There was no logical fallacy involved, your argument is that the corporate model is better suited to a high tech economy than some other formulation, it is not a matter of validity. Now moving forward, to the definition of corporate model. I said that 'the gigantic corporate entity, born of the industrial era, that owns the methods of production and then seeks to control distribution will face fundamental challenges from entrepreneurs who develop products and then contract out distribution', nowhere within that statement was there a claim that the corporate model was invalid, that it would disappear. Rather, I claimed that certain structures would not be challenged going forward. The corporate firm will continue, I never suggested otherwise, thus you are STILL not reading my posts. Instead you are trying to setup a false straw man of my own position to knock down, rather than apprehending the valuable point that I am trying to make about how technology and its distribution challenges traditional structures in corporate governance.

You made an explicit claim about democratization of the corporate model happening on its own accord, and I pointed out the unlikeness of this scenario due to the adverse effects of democratization on the ability to raise capital. The fact that you omitted to take into account the crucial concept of capital accumulation is not my fault. It is not a straw man to point out glaring omissions in an argument.

And your subsequent arguments are not about the ownership structure of companies, but about governance structures in existing textbook capitalist firms. Feel free to move the goalposts if you want, but please don't invoke a straw man if someone believes that the goalposts look just fine where they are standing right now.

The first sentence takes one of my sentences in isolation and ignores the one that follows it, in which I speicifcally stated I was referring to governance structures.

"While not to come down too heavily on the side of the worker cooperative, the democratization of the corporate model will probably happen on its own accord due to changes in technology. The gigantic corporate entity, born of the industrial era, that owns the methods of production and then seeks to control distribution will face fundamental challenges from entrepreneurs who develop products and then contract out distribution."

Further, I did not 'omit' capital accumulation in my discussion, I simply believe that shift relates more towards governance structure than it does towards capital. As I clarified in my second post, Democratization of corporate structure =/= democratization of capital. Both models are capital intensive and I pointed out a trend in the market and capital accumulation is not the prime mover in that change, as the sources I gave you indicate. So all that has happened is that you have completely failed to read my position and respond to what I have been actually saying. There is no grand conspiracy to move the goalposts just an effort to put a very confused individual on the same playing field.

Does anyone have GINI indices for the major industrial nations. If so please post.

ruveyn

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy

It is deceptively easy to criticize the current state of affairs by invoking an idealized alternative (in this case, worker cooperatives). But as I have already demonstrated, such an alternative is not realistic.

Whether or not I have started a multi-national conglomeration based on the classical model of capitalistic firms is irrelevant, because some people have.
Whether or not wittgenstein has started a multi-national conglomeration based on the model of worker cooperatives is relevant, because no one else has.

It turns out that what's happening in Lincoln is happening in so many towns and communities across the country: As we recover from the Great Recession, jobs are coming back. But they are not middle-wage jobs — they are either high-wage jobs or low-wage

...

"The drug use has skyrocketed. The unemployment rate has skyrocketed. And just the general attitude — just no hope," he said. "I don't know really when it changed, but it seemed to be overnight."

Brown has seen that change up close. While the crime rate in Lincoln is steady, it's drug-related offenses that are going up. And the drug of choice these days?

Heroin.

So much heroin, Brown says, there's an overdose every week. And that's in a town of just 14,000 people. A handful of people have even died.

State authorities say in towns like Lincoln, people get addicted to prescription drugs then turn to heroin when they can no longer afford the pills. They say the supply of heroin from Mexico has increased, and that's why it's cheap and available.

...

He shows me the "new" part of town. It's just off Interstate 55, which connects Lincoln to Chicago, just a few hours north. Hotels, fast food restaurants, an assisted living facility and a warehouse for storing documents have all opened in recent years.

The city council has increased the sales tax on businesses like these to renovate schools. And Lincoln recently got a grant to refurbish its downtown.

But like in so many towns across the Midwest, the population is shrinking and getting older. Factories have been closing since the '80s and '90s. One of the best government jobs in town, the state-run home for people with mental disabilities, was closed in 2002. Thousands of people lost their jobs.

Then came the Great Recession. Since then, the few factories that have managed to hang on in Lincoln have tended to hire temporary workers at lower wages with no benefits.

...

The next day I meet Joe Plummer, one of my high school classmates, at the Steak 'n Shake out by the interstate.

Joe and his wife, Josie, have three teenage girls between them. They say they worry about the drugs and the crime in Lincoln.

I ask them how they try to keep their kids safe.

"We teach 'em how to shoot," Josie said.

"I have 35 guns in my house. Every one of my daughters, and my wife, know how to handle a weapon as well as anybody could handle one," Joe said.

Joe takes me to the firing range where he teaches his girls to shoot rifles like an AR-15 and an AK-47 that he keeps locked in a safe at home — and a handgun he keeps in his bedside table.

...

Richard Longworth, a fellow at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, wrote a book about the struggling Midwest called Caught in the Middle: America's Heartland in the Age of Globalism. He says America's declining middle class means small towns are starting to have a lot more in common with crime-prone neighborhoods in big cities.

...

Longworth says for communities to survive in this new reality, they'll have to reinvent themselves — try to keep the factory alive, attract people who are willing to work the lower-wage jobs.

Otherwise, what happens to towns like Lincoln will be just another episode in what he says is a major societal upheaval.

"I grew up in a middle-class America where we pretty much knew life was an escalator," he said. "You got on the bottom step, and if you behaved yourself, paid your dues, went to work, worked hard — you'd end up at the top of the escalator. And I think that escalator's broken now. It's a tougher scramble."

How to cover that upheaval, I ask?

"You've covered revolutions before," he said. "Treat it like just another damn revolution."

Either way, money cannot stay pooled at the top in a workable, sustainable system.

Either way, money cannot stay pooled at the top in a workable, sustainable system.