Support NeoGAF

[ronito]

More and more I have a feeling that capitalism has changed into a form of oligarchy. Gone are the days when anyone with talent and drive can go and make it big. Sure it still happens, but it's so much harder. There's a glass ceiling the middle class are kept that way to support the upper class. For example my company's CEO makes $1.25 Million a year, last year he got a bonus of $1.09 million and a 19% raise.

Now the company has been doing well but not all that great. We've had several government citings and investigations, lost several important lawsuits. Because of this the average employee bonus for the company was about 2k (for upper level jobs and keep in mind that bonus is part of overall compensastion) and the average employee raise was 3.2%. They are getting ready for a round of layoffs and outsourcing large departments, even though the company's still making good profit, they just want more money.

All this from a company that maintains a vision of being a "good corporate citizen". How is the CEO making much more that 10 times the average wage good for us? What about getting 6 times the raise everyone else got? Now I'm no communist, I believe in incentives for people that work hard and are inventive. However, I have a good education and work hard too, but I will never anywhere close to that much money. I can't help but feel that capitalism has gone horribly awry.

 

[Instigator]

Short answer: yes.

Long Answer: No, it never had its way to begin with.

 

[Xenon]

You suck @ capitalism!

 

[ToxicAdam]

I know it's ridiculous. Corporate heads NEVER used to milk thier companies like they do now.



(Carnegie and Rockefeller say hello by the way)

 

[ronito]

I know it's ridiculous. Corporate heads NEVER used to milk thier companies like they do now.



(Carnegie and Rockefeller say hello by the way)

Thank you Captain Obvious! I'm not saying that it's always been great. However, it seems like the glass ceiling has gotten nigh imperneable. Sam Walton, for example, in this day and age would've been crushed by big box stores. Rockefeller and Carnegie would be bought out by GE. As cheesy as I think it is I still think of Ben Franklin walking in with only 4 rolls and his clothes and coming out a wealthy man because of his hard work. I fear that in this day and age you'd be lucky to still have 4 rolls when you leave.

 

[ToxicAdam]

The difference is that it is a global economy. You just aren't competing against Smith's Widget Store down the street .. you are competing against Smith's Widget Store (that sells cheaper, Chinese-made products), a few corporate stores that can absorb losses, and a 100 websites that have zero overhead.


That's why its so damn hard now a days. Not because some corporate fat cat is skimming profits.

 

[Incognito]

Recently, the NYTimes ran a great, great article on Costco, the "anti-Wal-Mart" and how Wall St. is upset with them for their overly FAVORABLE treatment to employees. Some stats about Costco:

- Employees paid an average of $17/hour.

- CEO's salary only 350k; feels that a large gap between CEO pay and employee wage is wrong.

- Employees had only 4% of their paycheck diverted to healthcare. Wall St fumed over that exceptionally low rate, so Costco bumped it up to 8%. By contrast, Wal-Mart forces employees to pay upwards of 25% of their paycheck to healthcare.

- 3% added to 401k with the percentage rising to 9% by 20 years.

- Average shopper nets $75k a year, with 30% averaging more than 100k.

- Retention high and theft low, of course. A happy employee is a loyal employee.

 

[EmSeta]

Well yeah. That's always been the risk of supporting capitalism, and now it's, understandably, starting to spin out of control. Ideally, capitalism is free trade, but if you let it run rampant for too long, you basically get an oligopoly situation. We're definately heading there, as there aren't enough measures being taken to prevent it.

 

[Zaptruder]

The difference is that it is a global economy. You just aren't competing against Smith's Widget Store down the street .. you are competing against Smith's Widget Store (that sells cheaper, Chinese-made products), a few corporate stores that can absorb losses, and a 100 websites that have zero overhead.


That's why its so damn hard now a days. Not because some corporate fat cat is skimming profits.

... no.

Just. No.

 

[ronito]

The difference is that it is a global economy. You just aren't competing against Smith's Widget Store down the street .. you are competing against Smith's Widget Store (that sells cheaper, Chinese-made products), a few corporate stores that can absorb losses, and a 100 websites that have zero overhead.


That's why its so damn hard now a days. Not because some corporate fat cat is skimming profits.

I have to politely disagree. Look at the biggest corporations in the country. By and large the executives are made up of Ivy League grads and this network of people who know people who know people. I was always brought up to believe that if you work hard you could work up through a company and there was no limit. A few years ago you could work up to VP without being in the "in group". Now that limit is set to about director, and it's hard to get even there. Before you say it's a corporate culture thing let me say that I was a consultant and worked for a ton of companies and this trend is everywhere. It's harder and harder for a normal hard working person to make it in this economy, and I don't buy the whole globalization excuse, because there are people making it in this economy. They just all happen to be a certain group.

 

[Zaptruder]

Well yeah. That's always been the risk of supporting capitalism, and now it's, understandably, starting to spin out of control. Ideally, capitalism is free trade, but if you let it run rampant for too long, you basically get an oligopoly situation. We're definately heading there, as there aren't enough measures being taken to prevent it.

Ultimately, capitalism, like evolution is just a shadow to meritocracy. Both of them are beneficial for been akin to meritocracy, but both of them are ultimately shallow and inefficient meritocracies.

 

[Nerevar]

I know it's ridiculous. Corporate heads NEVER used to milk thier companies like they do now.



(Carnegie and Rockefeller say hello by the way)

While that's cute and all, the gap between the average wage of a worker and the average wage of the CEO has increased dramatically over the past few years. In fact, during our most recent economic upswing, the average worker's wage has increased the least of any economic upturn in history. There are a lot of factors that play into this (most importantly the decline of unionized labor as we move towards a service-based economy, IMO), but frankly the trend America is moving towards is pretty sickening.

 

[ronito]

Ultimately, capitalism, like evolution is just a shadow to meritocracy. Both of them are beneficial for been akin to meritocracy, but both of them are ultimately shallow and inefficient meritocracies.

You say meritocracies. I say oligarchy.

 

[Diablos]

I do not like corporate america. Plain and simple. I already got a (small) taste of it and it makes me sick.

Costco is doing the right thing. I've worked retail before and there is no reason why I should be getting only $6-7/hr. Quite often you find yourself doing lots of pyhsical labor, long hours, random projects, etc. in the wonderful world of retail. Dare I say you're actually working harder than some lazyass in a corporate office making phone calls all day and taking a two hour lunch break. $17/hr is quite understandable and Wal-Mart can shove it up their dirty vagina if they can't understand that.

 

[Mandark]

No, it never had a way to lose. Laissez faire capitalism always screwed over way more people than it helped. Just think of the Gilded Age, like ToxicAdam cited. A handful of tycoons, a smallish, comfortable professional class, and tons of laborers working long, hard, unsafe days.

However, he's wrong on another count. The size of corporate profits this cycle has taken up a very large chunk of the economic growth, a lot more than is typical.

As for our "global economy," I have one simple question: Why should people accept that it's reasonable for advances in technology to make their lives harder, rather than easier?

 

[Zaptruder]

You say meritocracies. I say oligarchy.

I think you misunderstand me.

I'm saying the meritocracy is what we want/need capitalism to be. But it's not, and that its changing into an oligarchy according to you... and I agree.

 

[Diablos]

As for our "global economy," I have one simple question: Why should people accept that it's reasonable for advances in technology to make their lives harder, rather than easier?

Because we can "DO MORE!" We can "take advantage" of the situation because we have our super-l33t technology and software programs. But corporate America has dug it's own hole really; it is setting a new standard for work, and you just can't go back to the way things used to be or you lose money, people lose jobs, etc. It's an ugly situation. Bush's "make the pie higher" mentality that he has brainwashed on rich folks doesn't help either.

Remember the cartoons when we were kids that said everyone would be working from their house on a computer for a few hours a day? :lol Yeah right...

 

[Zaptruder]

Because we can "DO MORE!" We can "take advantage" of the situation because we have our super-l33t technology and software programs. But corporate America has dug it's own hole really; it is setting a new standard for work, and you just can't go back to the way things used to be or you lose money, people lose jobs, etc. It's an ugly situation. Bush's "make the pie higher" mentality that he has brainwashed on rich folks doesn't help either.

Remember the cartoons when we were kids that said everyone would be working from their house on a computer for a few hours a day? :lol Yeah right...

What cartoon were you watching?

 

[HokieJoe]

Ultimately, capitalism, like evolution is just a shadow to meritocracy. Both of them are beneficial for been akin to meritocracy, but both of them are ultimately shallow and inefficient meritocracies.

At least they're meritocracies though. I think it's similar to a quote made by Winston Churchill: "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."

BTW, I'm not saying there isn't room for improvement.

 

[TheOMan]

I've been thinking about this off and on for the past couple of years and I would have to agree that capitalism is a bit of a sham. Yeah, there were companies, in the good old days, where if you worked hard and did the right things you could work your way up the ladder. Still, even then, you had to know the right people. It's only become worse and more blatant.

I've come to the conclusion that if you want to make real money, make decisions that actually affect the company in a material fashion, etc. you have to a.) Come up with a unique, marketable, business idea and b.) Start your own company. Unfortunately, that takes money too, but if you're succesful, you get the fulfillment of building something from the ground up. Easier said than done of course.

I've moved up pretty quickly at my place of employment, but I'm already beginning to feel the virtual ceiling. I can't see myself retiring here, and I don't really want to be working much longer - I'd like to enjoy life. Oh, this company btw laid off 14000 employees and announced the hiring of 15000 offshore resources within a day of each other and blamed it on 1st quarter softness which set up a beautiful turnaround for 2nd quarter strength, which of course amounted in the stock shooting up and promotions all around for high level executives (disguised as reorg). Entirely manufactured. Allowed for the reduction of all sorts of "niceties" which is really crappy. Sigh.

Hopefully the business plan I'm working on is well accepted, my business is successful and in a few years time, hand the reigns off to one of the employees that works their way up with the expressed condition that he/she must do the same when they're ready to leave.

 

[Zaptruder]

At least they're meritocracies though. I think it's similar to a quote made by Winston Churchill: "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."

BTW, I'm not saying there isn't room for improvement.

I'm familiar with that quote and I agree.

At this point, it seems democracy has a handy way of boxing itself in making its people think that its the be all and end all...

but then the competition is pretty shocking; a completely flawed socialist system called communism, monarchies, which is only a stones throw away from despotism.

But as far as I know, the world has never seen a real meritocratic government... and part of the trouble would be the difficulty of setting it up and defining the merits that must be protected... but this is only really true on the surface level; once you get down to the nitty gritty of the details, all fair systems of government, even the ones that wish to maintain the solution of such becomes quite complex labirynthe things to devise.
The other problem has been, up until recent history, people haven't been recognised to be really equal in potential... with arbitrary things like lineage, gender and what not been large deciding factors of power, position and responsibility. The cultural realisation of people been malleable assets on the basis of their skills has only been a recent thing... indeed, it's kinda very much still in the process of occuring.

 

[FINALFANTASYDOG]

All my fellow friends here, let's take a purdy step back and look at the corporate Big-wig: Oh! look he just got a one millon dollar bonus, he has more then enough! money doesn’t matter to him. He also has tons of other ways he can make it. The only difference between 1.25 million and 2 million is the marketplace setting a price for them, and the company going towards the one that has the highest value.

If you want a problem with the marketplace Let’s sit around and complain about actors/athletes getting 20 millon a movie. At least ceo’s are helpful to the overall world.

Most of them are just going and re-investing this money anyway/ creating new companies that will hire new employees and more benefits to society, and unless they are using it to fund evil , do the econ 101 thing and follow the money to the CIRCLE OF ECONOMIC GROWTH!

 

[Shig]

most of them are just going and re-investing this money anyway, and unless they are using it to fund evil it's just going to re-route itself.

That would work only if they quit their jobs right after putting all that money back into the marketplace. Which they don't.

 

[Zaptruder]

You guys need to take a step back and really relize most of these corporate bigwigs, MONEY DOES NOT MATTER, they can make it easily anyway. the only difference between 1.25 millon and 2 million is the marketplace setting a price for them, and the company going towards the one that has the highest price.

most of them are just going and re-investing this money anyway, and unless they are using it to fund evil it's just going to re-route itself.

The flow of money is I'd imagine one of the major pursuits of studies for economists...

but I think it's a little more than naieve to think that all the money of rich people would just flow back into the system via investments and what not. Moreover, the money of the rich while it may flow, circulates from rich to rich, rather than flowing from rich to poor to middle class to rich and all over again.

 

[cubanb]

...So you see, the puppy was the industry, in that they were both lost in the woods, and nobody, especially the little boy (society) knew where to find him, except that the puppy was a dog, but the industry my friends, that was a revolution. Knibb high football rules!

 

[=W=]

That was exactly what I was thinking :lol

 

[ronito]

Most of them are just going and re-investing this money anyway/ creating new companies that will hire new employees and more benefits to society, and unless they are using it to fund evil , do the econ 101 thing and follow the money to the CIRCLE OF ECONOMIC GROWTH!

:lol :lol :lol

Yeah high school econ disillusioned me for a while too, I even thought Neitsche was the bee's knees then too. Ah those were the days my friend. The fact is it's called "Trickle down economics" for a reason, it really does trickle down. Rich people like to stay rich, and giving them more money only slightly motivates them to re-invest. This was evidenced by a study last week that showed that the economy got better, however it got a whole lot better for the upper class and just a little better for everyone else. You obviously didn't read most of the first post. Not only does the CEO make a disproportionate amount of money, he's also laying off and outsourcing people. Circle of economic growth indeed, tell that to someone that's been laid off or outsourced from a profitable company.