A tale, gentle reader! A tale of greed, corruption, and betrayal from beyond the grave!
Well, ok, not from beyond the grave, but the rest is true.
Here in Kansas City, there is a beautiful shopping district known as the Country Club Plaza. Fashioned after a renowned shopping district in Madrid, Spain, “The Plaza” has enticed locals and tourists for years. The architecture is striking, the shops upscale, and the dining superb. The Plaza is especially popular during the Christmas season, when the buildings are all outlined in colored lights, lending a unique beauty to the already festive shops.
In Christmas of 2007, I happened to be down on the Plaza during a time when one of the shops there, Halls, had laid off a certain percentage of its workforce. Pulling to the curb on that snowy day, I spied a man braving the elements, holding up signs that urged the boycott of Halls because of “unethical business practices”.
Curious, I decided to engage him in conversation, rather than just assume his charge was true. “Hi!” I offered. “What do you want?” he snapped. I’m not kidding.
I told him I was curious about the allegations in his sign. In what unethical business practices does Halls engage?
He told me that two months ago, he had gotten hired on at Halls. He had the position of a sales associate. He told me that they knew he had kids, but had laid him off this past week, even though it’s Christmas!
I’m sure we looked like quite the pair: we both stood blinking expectantly at the other, waiting. He was waiting, I assume, for cries of commiseration, and I was waiting for him to finish his story. However, he was finished. What was unethical, evidently, was the fact that a father was being laid off at Christmas time.
To check his way of thinking, I asked him, “You don’t think that companies exist to pay salaries to employees and dispense benefits?” “No, they don’t!” he shouted triumphantly.
It took a few seconds for me to understand his meaning. Incredulous, I understood that he thought that companies SHOULD exist precisely for the benefit of the employees, to provide them with a living.
This, gentle reader, is classic Socialist thinking.
Mom and Pop evidently SHOULD come up with an idea for a business, go to the hassle of establishing a legal structure, do market research, save their money, pay a lease, pay extra taxes, and work themselves to the bone with endless hours in a thankless environment—so that they have the privilege of paying a stranger’s mortgage, his family’s food, and health care for his loved ones. What a deal—sign me up! Nothing drives an entrepreneur to create more than the burning, urgent desire to fulfill a “social obligation” to others, right?
Hogwash.
The employee benefits from a company when the company does well. That benefit comes in the form of pay, and, often, benefits, whatever they may be. But the company exists to benefit the owners of the company.
This makes Socialists very angry.
The first of two dishonest arguments that Socialists will use to decry a company’s right to employ as they see fit is the “Poor Walmart employee!” argument. I promise you, you WILL hear this, if you haven’t already.
The world’s largest retailer, Walmart (which, to the Socialist is evil because it is big) has tens of thousands of employees. The employees there applied and interviewed for a job. If they were fortunate enough to be offered the job, they were told very clearly what their pay and what benefits, if any, they would receive. By virtue of the fact that they are employees, these applicants accepted these terms.
Along come the Socialists.
They determine that these poor employees don’t make a “living wage”, whatever that means. They further demand that the employees get certain benefits, because to do otherwise would be, wait for it!, mean!
The problem with that so-called logic is that these people accepted this job within the context of this particular agreement. Unless they are being threatened with harm should they decline this job offer, it is a baseless charge to assert that they are being treated unfairly. If an employee doesn’t like the deal they agreed to, they can quit and go elsewhere.
Like someone watching a game of chess, we can easily anticipate the Socialist’s next move in response to this. They will assert that “some of these people can’t get better jobs elsewhere”. With literally hundreds of thousands of employers elsewhere, they most assuredly can. But even if that WERE true, they have the right to find a need and fulfill it themselves (preposterous—these are helpless people!), they can work multiple jobs (gasp!—how dare you! They have kids at home!), or they can pursue additional education to make themselves more valuable within their present job or more marketable to a different employer (you silver-spoon snob! They can’t afford school!).
Well, ok, not from beyond the grave, but the rest is true.
Here in Kansas City, there is a beautiful shopping district known as the Country Club Plaza. Fashioned after a renowned shopping district in Madrid, Spain, “The Plaza” has enticed locals and tourists for years. The architecture is striking, the shops upscale, and the dining superb. The Plaza is especially popular during the Christmas season, when the buildings are all outlined in colored lights, lending a unique beauty to the already festive shops.
In Christmas of 2007, I happened to be down on the Plaza during a time when one of the shops there, Halls, had laid off a certain percentage of its workforce. Pulling to the curb on that snowy day, I spied a man braving the elements, holding up signs that urged the boycott of Halls because of “unethical business practices”.
Curious, I decided to engage him in conversation, rather than just assume his charge was true. “Hi!” I offered. “What do you want?” he snapped. I’m not kidding.
I told him I was curious about the allegations in his sign. In what unethical business practices does Halls engage?
He told me that two months ago, he had gotten hired on at Halls. He had the position of a sales associate. He told me that they knew he had kids, but had laid him off this past week, even though it’s Christmas!
I’m sure we looked like quite the pair: we both stood blinking expectantly at the other, waiting. He was waiting, I assume, for cries of commiseration, and I was waiting for him to finish his story. However, he was finished. What was unethical, evidently, was the fact that a father was being laid off at Christmas time.
To check his way of thinking, I asked him, “You don’t think that companies exist to pay salaries to employees and dispense benefits?” “No, they don’t!” he shouted triumphantly.
It took a few seconds for me to understand his meaning. Incredulous, I understood that he thought that companies SHOULD exist precisely for the benefit of the employees, to provide them with a living.
This, gentle reader, is classic Socialist thinking.
Mom and Pop evidently SHOULD come up with an idea for a business, go to the hassle of establishing a legal structure, do market research, save their money, pay a lease, pay extra taxes, and work themselves to the bone with endless hours in a thankless environment—so that they have the privilege of paying a stranger’s mortgage, his family’s food, and health care for his loved ones. What a deal—sign me up! Nothing drives an entrepreneur to create more than the burning, urgent desire to fulfill a “social obligation” to others, right?
Hogwash.
The employee benefits from a company when the company does well. That benefit comes in the form of pay, and, often, benefits, whatever they may be. But the company exists to benefit the owners of the company.
This makes Socialists very angry.
The first of two dishonest arguments that Socialists will use to decry a company’s right to employ as they see fit is the “Poor Walmart employee!” argument. I promise you, you WILL hear this, if you haven’t already.
The world’s largest retailer, Walmart (which, to the Socialist is evil because it is big) has tens of thousands of employees. The employees there applied and interviewed for a job. If they were fortunate enough to be offered the job, they were told very clearly what their pay and what benefits, if any, they would receive. By virtue of the fact that they are employees, these applicants accepted these terms.
Along come the Socialists.
They determine that these poor employees don’t make a “living wage”, whatever that means. They further demand that the employees get certain benefits, because to do otherwise would be, wait for it!, mean!
The problem with that so-called logic is that these people accepted this job within the context of this particular agreement. Unless they are being threatened with harm should they decline this job offer, it is a baseless charge to assert that they are being treated unfairly. If an employee doesn’t like the deal they agreed to, they can quit and go elsewhere.
Like someone watching a game of chess, we can easily anticipate the Socialist’s next move in response to this. They will assert that “some of these people can’t get better jobs elsewhere”. With literally hundreds of thousands of employers elsewhere, they most assuredly can. But even if that WERE true, they have the right to find a need and fulfill it themselves (preposterous—these are helpless people!), they can work multiple jobs (gasp!—how dare you! They have kids at home!), or they can pursue additional education to make themselves more valuable within their present job or more marketable to a different employer (you silver-spoon snob! They can’t afford school!).
1. Anyone who is willing to work hard enough and has enough ingenuity can find and meet a need in the marketplace. As just one example, I know someone who left the employ of Walmart and now owns a going concern cleaning houses. In a Capitalist society, not all the opportunities are glamorous, but they abound.
2. Working multiple jobs is a hassle. As with any solution to any problem it also can create other sub-problems. If there are kids, a daycare or sitter can be paid if the support of loved ones isn’t available. If the pay isn’t enough to offset daycare, there are solutions #1 and #3 here to address that.
3. Go back to school! It is a false argument to say that one can’t go back to school. Again, other hassles will be created! If one doesn’t have income to pay for school, one can get student loans and pay them back after school is completed. If one doesn’t qualify for school, one can choose to work very hard and save carefully to pay for school, and/or seek student work opportunities.
The Socialists rejects these solutions because they are difficult, and it is the responsibility of society to take away difficulties. A Capitalist seems these solutions as just that, solutions, and will pursue them with vigor, to the betterment of self and loved ones.
The second false argument a Socialist will employ in an attempt to negate a company’s right to employ as it sees fit is the old “Fat-cat greedy owner” gambit.
When a struggling small-shop owner works in his struggling small shop, Socialists swoon. Ah, the poor shopkeep! He’s fighting so hard to make it! Those big stores are putting such cruel pressures on him—we should sue them! Who will save the poor victim in the precautionary tale against Machiavellian Capitalism? If he fails, Socialists gleefully bellow from the mountaintops, like the horn-blower from a Ricola ad. “Regulation!” they cry. “Windfall profit tax!” they cry. “Rezone the area to keep them out!”; “Grass roots efforts to protect our poor shopkeep!”
However, if the shopkeep survives, he goes through a period during which he is neither canonized nor demonized. Yet once he grows beyond a certain invisible, indefinable point, he suddenly becomes the evil and greedy one from which the (other) poor shopkeep needs protection.
Life’s funny, isn’t it?
It boils down to this: when the shopkeep is struggling and therefore has no money, he is OWED by society. When he becomes successful, he OWES his material rewards to society.
A company has the right (and, indeed, if owned by the public, the moral obligation) to protect its bottom line. If it chooses to cut costs to create or simply increase profits (a dirty word to our Socialists friends), that is the company’s prerogative.
The struggling shopkeep created the business to take care of himself and his family. It is his money. He is morally, legally and ethically obligated to pay his employees in a way consistent with their agreement with one another. Profits over and above that—and other—expenses are the reward reaped by those who own.
The employees will provide shelter, food, clothing, and the life they choose for themselves and their families from their money. No business owner has the right to dictate what that employee does with their money. The reverse is also true!
And that, gentle reader, is what is just and right.
The Socialists rejects these solutions because they are difficult, and it is the responsibility of society to take away difficulties. A Capitalist seems these solutions as just that, solutions, and will pursue them with vigor, to the betterment of self and loved ones.
The second false argument a Socialist will employ in an attempt to negate a company’s right to employ as it sees fit is the old “Fat-cat greedy owner” gambit.
When a struggling small-shop owner works in his struggling small shop, Socialists swoon. Ah, the poor shopkeep! He’s fighting so hard to make it! Those big stores are putting such cruel pressures on him—we should sue them! Who will save the poor victim in the precautionary tale against Machiavellian Capitalism? If he fails, Socialists gleefully bellow from the mountaintops, like the horn-blower from a Ricola ad. “Regulation!” they cry. “Windfall profit tax!” they cry. “Rezone the area to keep them out!”; “Grass roots efforts to protect our poor shopkeep!”
However, if the shopkeep survives, he goes through a period during which he is neither canonized nor demonized. Yet once he grows beyond a certain invisible, indefinable point, he suddenly becomes the evil and greedy one from which the (other) poor shopkeep needs protection.
Life’s funny, isn’t it?
It boils down to this: when the shopkeep is struggling and therefore has no money, he is OWED by society. When he becomes successful, he OWES his material rewards to society.
A company has the right (and, indeed, if owned by the public, the moral obligation) to protect its bottom line. If it chooses to cut costs to create or simply increase profits (a dirty word to our Socialists friends), that is the company’s prerogative.
The struggling shopkeep created the business to take care of himself and his family. It is his money. He is morally, legally and ethically obligated to pay his employees in a way consistent with their agreement with one another. Profits over and above that—and other—expenses are the reward reaped by those who own.
The employees will provide shelter, food, clothing, and the life they choose for themselves and their families from their money. No business owner has the right to dictate what that employee does with their money. The reverse is also true!
And that, gentle reader, is what is just and right.
Posts
I went to a wonderful homeschool conference last weekend. One of the speakers was Michael Farris of the Home School Legal Defense Association. He was very informative, inspiring, and convicting.
ReplyDeleteWhat brought it to mind was what he had said about socialism in regards to education. He simply said that in socialism the purpose of govenment is to provide services. With that in mind, our govenment has being growing more and more socialistic which is why people expect them to provide goventment centers otherwise called public schools for their children. Isn't that so true? Public schools have become nothing more than childcare sources which provide everything from meals to of course, indoctination.