From: stvjas@meteor.wisc.edu (Stephen Jascourt)
Newsgroups: alt.activism,talk.politics.misc,misc.headlines
Subject: Re: Socialism, again
Date: 26 Aug 92 04:28:03 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Meteorology and Space Science

In article <NELSON.92Aug25231653@sun.clarkson.edu> nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) writes:
> Stephen Jascourt writes:
>   Most people in this country are employees in some larger company in
>   which the power and company earnings are disporportionately
>   concentrated at the top, disproportionate to the economic value of
>   the contributions of those disenfranchised employees.  There are
>   many exceptions, but this is true for the majority.
>
>But also consider that companies have to bid for the labor of skilled
>employees.  The historical trend in the West and Japan is toward
>higher and higher pay for workers.

That has not been the case in the U.S. recently, nor in a number of other
countries. Salaries have not kept pace with inflation in the 1980's for many
professional and industrial positions despite the low inflation rates in
recent years. Many labor workers have had actual reductions in pay or benefits
and the faculty and staff at the University of Wisconsin were given a 0.5% pay
raise this year and have fallen way behind in the past 5 years by comparable
increases not keeping up with the increased cost of living. 

>   But a more general word on regulations: most broad
>   categories of regulations were created to deal with problems that resulted
>   from an absence of there being rules-- people were being taken advantage of
>   by profit-minded capitalists in every imagineable way and rules were created
>   to protect the consumer and the worker. Nowadays, many of the rules have
>   become very twisted, some to the point that they no longer server their
>   purpose or are counterproductive, but to do away with them altogether would
>   bring back the original problem. Instead, they need to be reworked.
>
>Again, you propose to fix something which has become broken over time.  Why
>do think it will fail to break again?

The original regulations had a purpose. To eliminate regulations altogether
rather than remake them would bring back the problem that created the
regulations in the first place. On the other hand, maybe there are other
non-regulatory methods to avoid the problem, but I sure haven't seen any.

>   And a hell of a life that capitalism gives the majority! Capitalism by its
>   very nature concentrates the wealth at the top.
>
>Oh yes?  Multiply the net worth of the top 5% wealthiest people times the size
>of their population.  Then multiply the net worth of everybody else times
>their numbers.

I have some statistics which were previously posted on alt.activism:
Poorest fifth of American households: fell to 3.8%, the lowest since the 1950's
Richest fifth of American households: rose to 46.3%, the highest ever"

[From: The Nation, week of April 2, 1990; "Passing On the Legacy of
Shame," by Mark Green and Ralph Nader]

National income: percent of total after-tax income for:
			1980:           1990:
Richest 5%:             19.6%             25%
Poorest 20%:             5.4%            4.3%

[From: In These Times, Oct 10-16, 1990]

>--russ <nelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu> I'm proud to be a humble Quaker.

Stephen Jascourt    stvjas@meteor.wisc.edu
Xref: sparky alt.activism:15437 soc.culture.latin-america:3217 talk.politics.misc:41912