Tuesday, April 20, 2010

Vanishing Capitalism in the name of Capitalism

Today, Arianna Huffington posted one an article that made me especially thoughtful. For the last several years, Americans have felt the pain of the shockwaves created by some sizable problems in the financial sector. What Arianna brings to light goes far beyond Wall Street however.

Amid all the arguments made, this particular quote stuck out to me: "Thirty years ago, top executives at S&P 500 companies made an average of 30 times what their workers did -- now they make 300 times what their workers make." Now, I am all for the American Dream, and the belief that people should be able to rise to whatever heights that they can bring themselves up to, but 300% more than the people that do the work to make you successful? That means if the average worker is bringing in $40,000, their execs are making TWELVE MILLION dollars! The imbalance there is stagering.

Before I go to far, let me say that I totally value the worth of being in charge, and having the responsibilities that executives and business owners have. Being in charge means that you carry the biggest responsibility. You are responsible for the company, its image, and the people who work for you. That's a lot to carry around, and certainly one should be well compensated for all that work. What I can't say- and I say this as someone who was and will again be the boss- is that this stress and responsibility is worth 300 times that of those who work for me.

Another concern that I have with big businesses is that unlike true Capitalists- who I view the vast majority of SMALL business owners to be- most of these execs are not the ones that suffer if their business is. When my business did well, so did my finances. When my business struggled, so did my budget. That's part of the trade off. The company's success rests on your shoulders, so you should reap the rewards. So to should you shoulder a large portion of the burden when things aren't going well. When companies are laying off hundreds of thousands of employees because their budgets got out of control, but then turn around and give their executives multi-million dollar bonuses, there is a significant problem. The workers aren't the ones that make decisions which lead to a company's success or failure, the execs are. While the workers are the foundation upon which a company is built, the overall effect that an individual at the "bottom" has on a major company's bottom line is miniscule, and yet they are the ones that are feeling the pain. They are the ones who are having their benefits cut, losing their jobs, and not getting raises.

More infuriating is the fact that for the average American, a 10% cut in benefits or pay is earth shattering. To an individual making several hundred thousand or worse several million dollars, such a cut isn't felt in nearly the same way. The cost of insurance, health care, food, and living for the execs doesn't scale with their income. Basic needs and a decent quality of life can be met with some semblance of a baseline. The closer your income is to that baseline the more traumatic it can be to lose any of that income.

I don't believe that everyone should make the same amount of money. I do believe that those who take risks and work hard should receive financial benefit for what they do. What I don't believe is that anyone needs to be so far out above the people they work with that there isn't even a comparison. I believe in Capitalism, but many in this country who now call themselves Capitalists aren't actually upholding the values they claim to. When a man or woman has been able to put themselves in a nearly unassailable position, where the above average man with grit and determination can't ever even dream of competing with them, you have simply created a new type of royalty. The system we have today more closely resembles feudalism than the dreamed Capitalism, with only the fringe of small and medium sized business owners struggling to maintain their rightful foothold or true Capitalism in the country and system that this country was originally built on.

Thursday, April 8, 2010

Some nature inspired views on love

This entry was inspired when I was sent this quote:

"Love is a temporary madness. It erupts like an earthquake and then subsides. And when it subsides you have to make a decision. You have to work out whether your roots have become so entwined together that it is inconceivable that you should ever part. Because this is what love is. Love is not breathlessness, it is not excitement, it is not the promulgation of promises of eternal passion. That is just being "in love" which any of us can convince ourselves we are. Love itself is what is left over when being in love has burned away, and this is both an art and a fortunate accident." --St. Augustine

Sort of brilliant, no?

The interesting distinction that he makes when distinguishing between the feelings of being "in love" and actual love are quite interesting. Particularly when so often you will hear people say "I love you, but I am not in love with you." Apparently, said people would be neither. They have neither felt the incredible fireworks of the volatile eruption, nor do they feel that such an event has left them irrevocably linked to another person.

One main thing that I REALLY like about this statement, is that it portrays love as a violent and powerful force of nature. It is something that we have tried for milllenia to control, and have been truly unable to do so. When it comes into your life it is explosive, causing as much damage as possible before you can actually see the great things beneath it. If we go with St. Augustine's analogy, we are almost "in love" so that we can survive together long enough to actually love someone. Without the "breathless excitement and promises of eternal passion" we might very well be unwilling to get to the point with another person where our lives are truly entangled.

The entanglement he mentions is also particularly vivid. I think that image is something that anyone who has ever been in love can visualize for themselves and those they have truly felt for.

Despite all the powerful images he conjures, I think that in the end, the analogy fails to actually capture the entire truth. I would like to think of something without ignoring the man (or woman) involved in the moment, and all the various things that can happen with love. Looking towards nature, I would like to offer the following observation in its place:

Love is the act of two storms crashing together. The mere proximity to one another changes the makeup of each storm and all that surrounds it. Their meeting can be violent or calm. The collision can cause the storms to dissipate completely, rebound off one another in completely different directions, circle around one another for an indefinite period of time, or in the rarest of occasions, the two can merge, becoming a Perfect Storm, one that is greater than either of the two individual parts ever could have been alone.

I like the image of a storm because it can be long or short, and its strength and duration can be completely unrelated to one another. It can be beneficial to the land or destructive, but will always make an impact. Of course, it is constantly changing. Even those loves that last a lifetime, I believe do so not because they are stagnant, but rather that they change together.