There's something else that's often forgotten. Let me come at this for a moment from the point of view of the businesses themselves. Let's disregard for the moment any religious or moral arguments.

I will accept the argument that companies and industries are more likely to thrive in less-regulated circumstances -- all other things being equal. However, I would also argue that companies and industries are more likely to thrive in politically and socially stable environments. And in fact, some of the very regulatory decisions that certain people decry have made the 20th century United States a very stable business environment.

Has this stability outweighed any negative aspects of regulations? Or, vice-versa? Well, I guess that's open for debate. I have an opinion on this, but my point is, it needs to be part of the debate! Hardly anyone yelling about regulation seems to recognize the stabilizing force of social programs.

That's the macro. Here's the micro:

I often hear the argument that a social safety-net will discourage hard work and risk, because people sit back and let papa government take care of them. I'd argue that that's frequently true, but I would also argue that in many cases the safety-net encourages risk and ingenuity. On a personal level, I take business risks because I feel relatively certain I won't starve to death when they don't pan out. My business risks have been successful, and have resulted in my investing back into my own community and paying more taxes. Without the safety-net, I would have stayed at my $50k a year job for the rest of my life, huddled in a corner, scared to strike out on my own. Hardly the neo-conservative small-business dream!

Do the number of people with my experience outweight the famous Reagan "welfare queens?" I don't know. But again, I never hear anyone even bring up the other side of social programs, from an economic and business point of view.

This country could use some politicians with higher IQs and a little more training in economics. But I am not holding my breath.


>Tracy;
>
>Such a topic! There have been many small business and political leaders that do not want the minimum wage to increase. The rationalization in each case is, “It would reduce the number of workers a small business could employ”. We have families living in rented garages (with full knowledge of the owners) whose husband and wife work for either minimum wage or they are exploited by their own countrymen and receive less than the minimum.
>
>From any business mans point of view, workers should receive no salary and contribute their life and soul to the organization. Then you will be a real “team player”. With so many out of work around the world employers can do as they choose. Exploitation of labor has always existed.
>
>Add to the list of CEO salaries being out of line, major league baseball players. Until a few years ago from the time baseball became “the national sport”, a major league baseball player earned about five times more than the average working person. Today a guy who does not know how to shave, cannot catch a ball with frequency and hits .220 starts out at over one million dollars a season.
>
>Another point about CEO’s is their “Golden Parachute”, which they receive for screwing up a company. Everyone can loose his/her job because of actions taken by the CEO, so they protect the CEO with a bail out package in case things go wrong. Figures of $10 million to $120 million are not uncommon, and you might be surprised how often these things occur.
>
>After screwing up a company a CEO then goes to the next company to continue their legacy.
>
>
>Without unions many would still be in the dark ages in this country. Few companies have ever considered the well being of their employees.
>
>I love the Irish song about the “Hiring Fair”. It seems a man who needed work went to a hiring fair and found a farmer who promised a nice place to live, good work, and plenty of food. After weeks of working, not eating properly, if at all, the man goes to the farmer and complains. “My bones are showing through my skin! – I need food”! The farmer replies, “That’s alright, because when you die there are plenty more like you who need work”!
>
>Thus you have the universal voice of management and labor! The idea is to survive!
>
>Andrew Carnegie was a rich man and a bastard of a man. When the Irish workers at his steel mill wanted better working conditions and pay he had the governor call in the military and shot striking workers.
>
>Pinkerton Agents employed by Carnegie hunted down those men who participated in the strike wherever they went in the United States. The Pinkerton’s threatened any employer who dared to hire a “striker”. The threats came in the form of “loosing your business or loosing your life”. These “strikers” never worked in the United States again, for more than a few weeks of their lives.
>
>In the end Carnegie spent several million dollars hunting down the “strikers” and seeing to it he had successfully destroyed their lives. Carnegie would have spent a fraction of that amount had he agreed to what the “strikers” wanted. With Carnegie the principle was more important than money – to some extent.
>
>Carnegie is said to have “repented” by contributing monies to charitable institutions. Carnegie was the “ideal American Businessman”, the epitome of a true employer!
>
>
>Tom