"But if you say that, then you have already accepted a premise that the piece is calling into question, namely: why should that be the choice that everyone faces?"
Do you have an alternative? Humans have tried many different methods over many thousands of years and our current system is the result of trying and failing many, many times. It's the most fair and allows pretty much anyone to be successful.
Life is difficult because we have more freedoms. We don't have someone making all of the decisions for us (which might be easier), but the result is more choice. If you don't make the right choices, you could end up living on the street or in poverty. Buy you could also end up with lots of money and a nice life.
I suppose an alternative would be no choice. You are forced to work for the government.
I'd like to see a list of these 'many' different systems that have been tried.
It seems to me as though we've tried 'kings/dictators' lots of times, and we've watched communism devolve into 'kings/dictators', and we may very well be in the process of watching capitalism devolve into 'kings/dictators' as wealth and political power seem to being concentrated more and more in the hands of a small group.
I personally agree that blaming others doesn't help. Each individual makes their own decision in the end.
Except that most people are forced to go through more than a decade of training to accept employment by others and do as they are told. That puts people at a disadvantage when it comes to learning how to act independently.
The solution may be for each person to make their own choices, but it doesn't help to pretend that there are no forces working against that.
"It seems to me as though we've tried 'kings/dictators' lots of times, and we've watched communism devolve into 'kings/dictators', and we may very well be in the process of watching capitalism devolve into 'kings/dictators' as wealth and political power seem to being concentrated more and more in the hands of a small group."
Why is it concentrated into a small group? Everyone seems to think the answer is to take the money by force from the people that earned it and give it to the people that "need" it.
"Except that most people are forced to go through more than a decade of training to accept employment by others and do as they are told. That puts people at a disadvantage when it comes to learning how to act independently."
They aren't forced, they choose to make this decision. Anybody can start a company and make money (and not work for anyone), but much fewer choose to go down this path. It's because it takes too much work. Sacrificing your free time for something that may or may not succeed isn't easy. I've been doing it for the past 5 years and I'm only now actually making a profit.
Another problem I've noticed is that many people give up too easily. They want success right now..and if it doesn't happen, they deem it as a failure.
"The solution may be for each person to make their own choices, but it doesn't help to pretend that there are no forces working against that."
"Why is it concentrated into a small group? Everyone seems to think the answer is to take the money by force from the people that earned it and give it to the people that "need" it."
Not 'everyone' thinks this. It's good to be cognizant of Marx and Smith et al., but sooner or later you have to stop thinking in dichotomies and take off the training wheels.
"Anybody can start a company and make money (and not work for anyone), but much fewer choose to go down this path. It's because it takes too much work. Sacrificing your free time for something that may or may not succeed isn't easy. I've been doing it for the past 5 years and I'm only now actually making a profit."
You do realize that you're contradicting yourself here? How can anyone start a company and make money, and yet it's hard work and may fail? How can anyone start a company when many people barely have the free time you talk of sacrificing?
I assume you think that the bailouts of the financial system were earned, and that school is optional for kids who don't like following silly or time-wasting instructions.
"I assume you think that the bailouts of the financial system were earned"
Of course they weren't earned.
"that school is optional for kids who don't like following silly or time-wasting instructions."
No, but I do have a problem with the teacher's unions. It's the reason shitty teachers continue to stay employed in our school systems.
I actually wish that parents had the option of taking their tax dollars and using it toward a private school. It might force school systems to actually improve, or lose funding. People sure hate monopolies, but don't mind when the government essentially does the same exact thing.
I'm not the parent poster, but I suggest that co-ops have led to greater employee satisfaction. There are also non-co-op companies where employees all have a say in business decisions, and they have done well and have great employee satisfaction and retention.
The current (big) business climate dictates that the sole purpose of a company is to maximize shareholder value at all times, at all costs. I suggest that the purpose of a company is to provide value to all stakeholders, and find a healthy balance.
The quick, easy, and non-communist way to do this is to have the opportunity for employees to become shareholders through purchase of premium stock and bonds.
I don't agree that this addresses the problem of employees not having a say in the management of the company they work for, unless you are talking about early-stage employees who are actually likely to be able to obtain enough stock to have influence.
"There are also non-co-op companies where employees all have a say in business decisions, and they have done well and have great employee satisfaction and retention."
I have a feeling that all of these ideas that you and many others want to try have already been tried. It's resulted in the type of company structures we have today.
Personally, I've been involved in enough groups and organizations to know that not everyone should have a say in business decisions. Lots of people have ridiculous ideas and it would result in the downfall of the group/company (I've seen it happen). Other people just aren't interested. They want to collect their paycheck and go home.
"The current (big) business climate dictates that the sole purpose of a company is to maximize shareholder value at all times, at all costs. I suggest that the purpose of a company is to provide value to all stakeholders, and find a healthy balance."
You can start a company right now that does this. Why not try your theories out? That's the beauty of our current free system (at least in the US). You can try out ideas that may or may not work without having to force everyone to abide by your rules.
"I suggest that the purpose of a company is to provide value to all stakeholders, and find a healthy balance."
This should be up to the person that owns the company. I don't like the idea of forcing others to my ideals.
> I have a feeling that all of these ideas that you and many others want to try have already been tried
Yes, of course. They're all around us. We focus on Googles, Facebooks, Chevrons, and so on, but there are examples to be found of more diverse ways of conducting business.
I would like to provide you an example I read about, perhaps a year ago, of a Midwest company where all of the employees gather with the directors to discuss and vote on important decisions. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to dig it up.
In Germany, as an another sort of example, it's (sometimes?) legally required to have employee representation on the supervisory board (http://www.biscayneconsulting.net/images/laborfuerst.pdf). Compare this with the common US system of the staff elite, conducting business decisions behind closed doors, leaving the employees wholly unaware of their own future.
> I don't like the idea of forcing others to my ideals.
It's not like I'm suggesting some sort of government mandate. Creating awareness and subsequent social pressure can cause tremendous change. While the definition of a corporation is generally static, trends in corporate behavior and general concepts of priorities change over time. Look at 'shareholder value' in Wikipedia, for example.
I do agree that this is up to the corporate founder(s). However, I think that Americans are generally unaware that there are other systems which may be perfectly viable, and yield a greater quality of life for everyone involved. I also think that current interpretation of laws has led to a rather odd system, where corporate directors make decisions which are distinctly bad for long-term business, for the sake of satisfying shareholders and securing short-term, personal gain.
As for starting a company to embody my beliefs, I have. Even if successful, though, I won't have enough capital and momentum to demonstrate any of this for some number of years. Until then, it's just small-business-as-usual. :-)
Do you have an alternative? Humans have tried many different methods over many thousands of years and our current system is the result of trying and failing many, many times. It's the most fair and allows pretty much anyone to be successful.
Life is difficult because we have more freedoms. We don't have someone making all of the decisions for us (which might be easier), but the result is more choice. If you don't make the right choices, you could end up living on the street or in poverty. Buy you could also end up with lots of money and a nice life.
I suppose an alternative would be no choice. You are forced to work for the government.