Democracy for California

My Mother provided a large portion on my families income as a waitress for almost 29 years..her hourly wage was $2.65 an hour. The main portion of her income came from her tips. So I know how hard these jobs can be to make a living on.

What do you think a fair wage would be? You say that if they paid people more than they could afford more, but the fallacy of this argument is that most businesses pay the highest rate they can in relation to what the service performed by the employee brings to the business in relation to the costs of running the business. Most restaraunts operate on about a 5% margin at best. Say that they decide that they will pay their wait staff $10. an hour...all other costs are fixed, so to maintain their profit margin they would have to raise their prices by the same rate, so that the steak meal you paid $10 for prior to the raise, you'll pay $13.25 for after, without the business making any profit at all. If they are the only eatery to pay their employees at the higher rate, they will soon be out of business, the customers will go to where they pay a lower price for their meal, all other things being equal. It's the same story for most businesses. Even the large businesses are bound by the same rules of supply/demand/costs.

It would surprise you to know what the average car manufacterer makes per vehicle sold. Lets just say that at the cost of manufacture; if you bought the separate pieces of a vehicle and assembled it yourself, that vehicle would cost you almost three times as much than if you bought it at a dealers lot, WITH their profit markup included. The only way they end up with a profit is by the immense volume they sell, and by laying people off immediatly whenever a slowdown shows signs of starting.

I have a neighbor that runs a small woodworking business from his home. I heard a prospective customer ask him why it a certain item should cost so much. My neighbor broke down the costs of operating his business (equipment,taxes, electricity, and raw materials) and the person was surprised to learn that at the "outlandish" price he was being charged, the business would only realize a 2% profit from the sale. Only a family type operation could survive at that rate of profit, and only then if they were able to sell enough items at a constant rate, which certainly isn't a sure thing. The only way he's stayed in business at all is that his wife works an extra job as a cashier to bring in a constant source of income that they budget from. Like most of us, they're in a constant balancing act of robbing Peter to pay Paul, yet an outsider looking in sees a shop with $30,000+ worth of tools and thinks "this guy must be RICH! but he overcharges for his creations" "What a greedy man!"

delftsman, I don't think she was complaining about minimum wage, but about the state of the economy that affects her tips, leaving her with nothing but minimum wage to subsist on.

I worked as a waitress in my school days. I made minimum wage from the owner, and about $80 in tips. It's hard work, but honest and well paying.

The struggle for most small businesses is that they're being eaten alive by the competition from corporations. For instance in my neighborhood, they built another shopping mall. We already have several. Small businesses are going under because of it. And they employ more people in the country than corporations.

The problem isn't business, delfstman, it's BIG business. It's monopolies and conglomerates that encroach on small business and force them to cut wages and staff in order to stay afloat. It's cororations that don't pay a living wage to their workers. If as you say they can't pay a fair wage, then they don't deserve to be in business.

Greed is not good business, nor is it good governing to support the proliforation of greed.

And why does big business flourish? Largely it's because the way tax/business policies the government has enacted since the New Deal favor the economy of scale. Minimum wage laws price small businesses out of the market, tax incentives given to the larger employers.
Both parties are complicit in this, but the Democrats have been the main pushers of the worst of the anti-business policies ever since FDR. These policies favor the larger businesses to the detriment of the real backbone of the american economy.

Bush is trying to help small businessmen, but the opposition has cried foul on every one of his proposals, all the while taking money from the "big boy's" themselves, yet portraying themselves friends of the little guy. Capital gains taxes are a case in point, as are inheiratence(sic) taxes, and many others.
Yes, Bush has helped the big boys too, but wait and see what a Kerry Presidency will do to the economy. Do me a favor, if Kerry wins the election, take a "snapshot" of the economy as he takes office and file it away;at the end of his term take another and then compare the two.
IF it is more than 2% better at the end, I'll buy you the dinner of your choice at the restaraunt of your choice. If it's more than 10% worse, you buy me a dinner. I'll be looking forward to eating a surf and turf on your tab! after all, with the economy that bad I sure won't be able to afford going out to eat any other way.

*chuckle* I'm already planning next year's vegatable garden.

I just know both political parties are making common sense to their constituancies, and both are pointing out how little sense the other party makes. And the vote is evenly split. The boost for Bush from the Swift Boat Veterans ads tells us everything we need to know - Election 2004 will be decided by those who have no common sense whatsoever and will vote against whoever they are more pissed at.

Now excuse me - I have weeds to pull.

"The boost for Bush from the Swift Boat Veterans ads tells us everything we need to know"

????

Pray tell, name ONE lie in any of those ads?
Kerry has changed his story several times because they held his feet to the fire. And that doesn't make you wonder about the character of the man?
And please tell me any definative program that he has layed out on any issue? All he says is that he will change things for the better, but not how he intends to do so.

I was talking about the character of the election, not the character of the candidates. I presume those who have known for quite some time who they'd be voting are satisfied enough with the character of their candidate.

The undecided, it seems to me, are swayed by who can make the most vicious characterizations of the other candidate, a tendency which lacks common sense.

Delfsman, I'd agree with most of your conclusions above. The small businesses are getting squeazed and are, in some cases, operating on small margins. As for Bush's help for small businesses, I'm skeptical. One thing I've noticed about the way the U.S. economy works is that many features of the U.S. system, which would seem to work for both small and big players, are really impossible to access unless your a big fish. As an individual, it's extremely difficult for me to sue a large company that's ripping me off and to do so would probably require more than my entire savings and would require me to quit my job to make court dates. (Not to mention the fact that the corporation would counter-sue and bankrupt me for life.) For a large corporation, on the other hand, such a suit is the equivalent of a mosquito biting their armor. Many of the tax loopholes work the same way--they would seem to be available to all of us, but in reality, they are extremely complicated. In the end, I think we have to look at end results versus explanations of the mechanisms at hand: people who work very hard often receive little at the end of the day while those who don't work at all (large owners of capital) do exceedingly well. This doesn't bother some people since they don't feel that a better world is possible. I, on the other hand, feel we can do better.

"Many of the tax loopholes work the same way--they would seem to be available to all of us, but in reality, they are extremely complicated."

Thats one reason to scrap the entire tax code and go to either a flat tax or national sales tax Karlo. Bush has said that the "Fair Tax Plan" (http://www.fairtax.org/) sounded promising...don't know if he would be able to get something like that pushed through or not, but at least he's willing to consider it. Kerry dissmisses it out of hand,(after all, why pay millions into a politicians war chest, if there isn't tax advantages to be gained?, that leaves only money paid for regulatory advantage, which is much harder to conceal) ignoring the fact that it would help the lowest levels of our society the most. It would lower prices in the long run, and basic needs would be exempted. It would also serve to level the playing field between large and small businesses. The large corporations will always have some advantages, thats just a fact of economy of scale, but by eliminating the huge advantages of employing tax lobbiests,it would serve to bring them closer together.

"..while those who don't work at all (large owners of capital) do exceedingly well."

Little class envy there? I know some "large owners of capitol"...they became large owners of capitol by working their asses off. Most of them work a minimum 80 hr week. I would only ask one question about all these "rich oppressors"...Have you ever been hired for a job by a poor man? They take the risks of losing big as well as making it big, while most of us are content to take our 40 hrs. pay and never take any risks whatever. My Uncle has been a millionair several times and lost it all only one time less than he made it. He says the trick was not to (unduly)worry about risk and do whatever it took to keep going on when you lost.
I never had what it takes to do that, I always contented myself with the best hourly job I could find, do the job to the best of my ability to earn my pay, and left risk to those in the office who payed me.

I've been out of the job market for over two years due to health problems...I have to rob Peter AND Paul to pay Simon, but I have yet to take any money from government or family, and I wouldn't dream of asking my Uncle for aid..I'd never be able to look him in the eye again if I did so.

By "large owners of capital," I certainly don't mean someone who has worked all their life and now owns a house and a few stocks. Such people worked for their money. Rather I refer to those who don't work--never did and never will, in short, the George Bush's of the world. And when they make me emperor, I will reward hard work and not pay a penny to laziness. Of course, that means the system I set up won't reward capital. Capital, after all, doesn't work. And the constant rent we pay to owners of capital is simply the modern version of surfdom or slavery, in which those on bottom pay to support the lavish lifestyles of the aristocracy.

Well, sorry I cannot offer anything along the lines of employment and commerce, but my non-profit, barter and local craftsman-reflected economic theories just don't have any relation to capitalism.

Just popped in to say I'm over my negative grumble posted above. Thanks for the opportunity to vent, Diana.

"..but my non-profit, barter and local craftsman-reflected economic theories just don't have any relation to capitalism."

Your wrong Doran, those theories are caitalism in it's purest(and I belive BEST)form. Unfortunately they only work on small scale, hence the monster we have at the forefront now. Even though it IS a monster, it's still better than any of the other forms of production, which are even more monstrouse.

*Caitilism = capitalism Sheeesh, pimf..

"Even though it IS a monster, it's still better than any of the other forms of production, which are even more monstrous."

Are you saying that every possible form of production and corresponding government has been tried? So this is it? Are choices are only barter, feudalism, Stalinism or American-style capitalism?

Some form/combination of the above, yes. I'm open to any suggestions. Have you found a new paradigm karlo?

I'm looking.

I think some baby steps in the right direction are provided by Hardt and Negri in Multitude. The paradigm they discuss is definitely new, taking into account changes in the structure of labor (i.e., a shift to "immaterial labor" as the dominant bellwether).

how about a link?

I discuss Multitude and Empire in my blog:

http://swerveleft.blogspot.com/2004/09/multitude.html