What Should You Be Earning?

On August 30 2013, Elise Gould writes:

In honor of Labor Day, we made a little tool––based on our project inequality.is––that shows how much you would be making if wages had kept pace with productivity, a key indicator of an economy working for all.

Economic inequality is a real and growing problem in America. Since the 1979, workers are working more, making more goods, and not reaping the rewards of their increased productivity. Instead, CEOs and executives—the top 1% of earners—now take home 20% of the nation’s income.

But it doesn’t have to be like this. Growing inequality isn’t an inevitability—it was created. It’s the result of intentional policy decisions on taxes, trade, labor, and financial regulation. But that’s the good news: if inequality is not inevitable, then it can be fixed.

Take a look, and share with your friends. And remember that American workers should be earning more than we are. To do something about it, visit inequality.is.


What should you be making?

American’s wages have lagged further and further behind productivity gains since the late 1970s, but it wasn’t always this way. After World War II, our pay rose with productivity—the more we made, the more we were paid. Today, the gap between American workers’ productivity and their wages is at an all-time high. What could you be making if wages had grown with productivity?

Enter your current annual wage:

The problem with this analysis is that productivity gains are attributed to human labor input when in reality it is the non-human means of production––productive capital assets––that are responsible for the increased productiveness in the production of products and services.

Binary economist Louis Kelso was quoted as saying, “Conventional wisdom says there is only one way to earn a living, and that’s to work. Conventional wisdom effectively treats capital (land, structures, machines, and the like) as though it were a kind of holy water that, sprinkled on or about labor, makes it more productive. Thus, if you have a thousand people working in a factory and you increase the design and power of the machinery so that one hundred men can now do what a thousand did before, conventional wisdom says, ‘Voila! The productivity of the labor has gone up 900 percent!’ I say ‘hogwash.’ All you’ve done is wipe out 90 percent of the jobs, and even the remaining ten percent are probably sitting around pushing buttons. What the economy needs is a way of legitimately getting capital ownership into the hands of the people who now don’t have it.”
Few in academia and in the political arena understand the problem that tectonic shifts in the technologies of production present, as these shifts are destroying jobs and devaluing the worth of human labor. Most solutions put forth are based on the redistribution of private property rights to extract a tax to provide “greater wage income” and/or “forms of guaranteed welfare support income and services” to every citizen.

Capitalism in America is based on the true premise that the right to property is absolute, and the false premise that the rights of property are also absolute. For its part, socialism is based on the false premises that the right to property is not absolute, and that the rights of property may be defined in a way that removes the absolute character of the right to property––as in the extraction of the earnings of property for the purpose of redistribution.

Thus, whether a society permits private ownership, even universal private ownership, it remains socialist if the State or the community retains the right to deprive someone of his or her ownership — including the fruits of ownership consisting of control and the receipt of all or partial income attributable to whatever is owned — at the will of the State, a majority of the citizens, or for any other reason without just cause or due process, or in any way that denies that every person has the natural right to be an owner.

The effect of abolishing the absolute character of the right to be an owner, inherent in every human being by nature itself, is to make all natural rights insecure, that is, alienable. This changes the character of the natural law itself. By making any natural right insecure, all natural rights become insecure.

A society may “permit” private ownership — but that is precisely the trouble. It permits private ownership. It does not recognize and protect it as an inalienable, absolute right. This constitutes the abolition of private property as a natural right, and is the essence of socialism.

As my colleague Michael D. Greaney at the Center for Economic and Social Justice (www.cesj.org) states: “The basis of society itself is shifted from a theory of law based on reason, to a theory of law based on private interpretation of something those with power accept as the will of a god, whether explicitly or implicitly, and whether actually divine, or a manmade creation with immense power, such as Hobbes’s characterization of the State as a ‘Mortall God.’”

America has tried the Republican “cut spending, cut taxes, and cut ‘entitlements’” and the Democrat “protect ‘entitlements,’ provide tax-payer supported stimulus, lower middle and working class taxes, tax the rich and redistribute” brands of economic policy, as well as a mixture of both. Republican ideology aims to revive hard-nosed laissez-faire appeals to hard-core conservatives but ignores the relevancy of healing the economy and halting the steady disintegration of the middle class and working poor.

The guarantee income proposal is yet another scheme that uses redistribution of the earnings of the productive sector to provide the source of income to those who are propertyless or under-capitalized, and solely dependent on jobs, welfare or charity for basic living.

Some conservative thinkers have acknowledged the damaging results of capitalism, based on a laissez-faire ideology, which furthers the concentration of productive capital ownership. They are floundering in search of alternative thinking as they acknowledge the negative economic and social realities resulting from greed capitalism. This acknowledgment encompasses the realization that the troubling economic and social trends (global capitalism, free-trade doctrine, tectonic shifts in the technologies of production and the steady off-loading of American manufacturing and jobs) caused by continued concentrated ownership of productive capital will threaten the stability of contemporary liberal democracies and dethrone democratic ideology as it is now understood.

Without a policy shift to broaden productive capital ownership simultaneously with economic growth, further development of technology and globalization will undermine the American middle class and make it impossible for more than a minority of citizens to achieve middle-class status.

Unfortunately, pursuing democratic capitalism has been frustrated by the systemic concentration of economic power and exclusionary access to future capital credit to the advantage of the wealthiest Americans. The so-called 1 percent rulers of corporations have rigged the financial system to enable this already rich ownership class to systematically further enrich themselves as capital formation occurs and technological industrialization spreads throughout the world, leaving behind the 99 percent to depend on income redistribution through make work “full employment” policies, government boondoggles, excessive military build-up and dependence on arms production and sales, and social welfare programs due to the lack of an alternative to full employment and the growing economic helplessness and dependency. The unsatisfied needs and wants of society are not in that 1 percent or for that matter the 5 percent; those people are not the ones who are hurting.

Once the national economic policy bases policy decisions on two-factor binary economics1, productive capital acquisition would take place through commercially insured interest-free capital credit, resulting in a quiet revolution in which economic plutocracy will transform to economic democracy. As for redistribution, there should be a substitute for inheritance and gift taxes––a transfer tax imposed on the recipients whose holdings exceeded $1 million, thus encouraging the super-rich to spread out their monopoly-sized estates to all members of their family, friends, servants and workers who helped create their fortunes, teachers, health workers, police, other public servants, military veterans, artists, the poor and the disabled.

The Federal Reserve needs to stop monetizing unproductive debt, and begin creating an asset-backed currency that could enable every man, woman and child to establish a Capital Homestead Account or “CHA” (a super-IRA or asset tax-shelter for citizens) at their local bank to acquire a growing dividend-bearing stock portfolio to supplement their incomes from work and all other sources of income.

The CHA would process an equal allocation of productive credit to every citizen exclusively for purchasing full-dividend payout shares in companies needing funds for growing the economy and private sector jobs for local, national and global markets,

The shares would be purchased on credit wholly backed by projected “future savings” in the form of new productive capital assets as well as the future marketable goods and services produced by the newly added technology, renewable energy systems, plant, rentable space and infrastructure added to the economy.

Risk of default on each stock acquisition loan would be covered by private sector capital credit risk insurance and reinsurance, but would not require citizens to reduce their funds for consumption to purchase shares.

The end result is that citizens would become empowered as owners to meet their own consumption needs and government would become more dependent on economically independent citizens, thus reversing current global trends where all citizens will eventually become dependent for their economic well-being on our only legitimate monopoly –– the State –– and whatever elite controls the coercive powers of government.

See “Financing Economic Growth With ‘FUTURE SAVINGS’: Solutions To Protect America From Economic Decline” at NationOfChange.org http://www.nationofchange.org/financing-future-economic-growth-future-savings-solutions-protect-america-economic-decline-137450624

http://www.epi.org/blog/your-pay/

Poor Concentration: Poverty Reduces Brainpower Needed For Navigating Other Areas Of Life

On August 29, 2013, an article was published in Science, which states:

Poverty and all its related concerns require so much mental energy that the poor have less remaining brainpower to devote to other areas of life, according to research based at Princeton University. As a result, people of limited means are more likely to make mistakes and bad decisions that may be amplified by — and perpetuate — their financial woes.

Published in the journal Science, the study presents a unique perspective regarding the causes of persistent poverty. The researchers suggest that being poor may keep a person from concentrating on the very avenues that would lead them out of poverty. A person’s cognitive function is diminished by the constant and all-consuming effort of coping with the immediate effects of having little money, such as scrounging to pay bills and cut costs. Thusly, a person is left with fewer “mental resources” to focus on complicated, indirectly related matters such as education, job training and even managing their time.

In a series of experiments, the researchers found that pressing financial concerns had an immediate impact on the ability of low-income individuals to perform on common cognitive and logic tests. On average, a person preoccupied with money problems exhibited a drop in cognitive function similar to a 13-point dip in IQ, or the loss of an entire night’s sleep.

But when their concerns were benign, low-income individuals performed competently, at a similar level to people who were well off…

Norman Kurland, Center for Economic and Social Justice (www.cesj.org):
This article should call our attention on how poverty affects human competency. The point should seem obvious. But it’s a point that should be re-emphasized to all supporters of the Just Third Way, binary economics and Capital Homesteading reforms to be used in trying to persuade those who blame the poor rather than working to address poverty by changing the system through Capital Homesteading reforms.

Support the Capital Homestead Act at http://www.cesj.org/homestead/index.htm and http://www.cesj.org/homestead/summary-cha.htm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130829145125.htm

Can Private Sector Protect Retirees?

 
Workers facing the thorny problems of healthcare, retirementTrader Joe’s chief executive pledged to reduce workers’ healthcare costs 10% for the remainder of the year while the company determines its response to changes under the Affordable Care Act. Above, Gino Hasler Jr. helps create a dairy box sign at a Trader Joe’s in Montrose. (Gary Friedman, Los Angeles Times / October 25, 2011)

Are Americans best served by relying primarily on the private sector for health coverage and for benefits in their sunset years? Experts’ opinions vary.

On August 29, 2013, David Lazarus writes in the Los Angeles Times:

Like most employers, Trader Joe’s is grappling with how to look after the well-being of its workers amid difficult financial circumstances.

In May, the head of the privately held Monrovia company, with stores nationwide, sent a confidential memo to employees notifying them of changes to their health coverage, retirement program and wages.

“In these increasingly complex times, it has become necessary to relook at our programs,” wrote Dan Bane, the chief executive and chairman. “We do not do this review lightly.”

He pledged to reduce workers’ healthcare costs 10% for the remainder of the year while the company determines its response to changes under the Affordable Care Act.

Bane said Trader Joe’s would scale back its contribution to employees’ retirement plans, though the company’s contribution would remain generous by industry standards. He also set new limits on employee raises.

A Trader Joe’s spokeswoman declined to comment on the memo, which was provided to me by a company employee.

As Labor Day approaches, it’s worth noting that the challenges faced by Trader Joe’s are shared by most U.S. businesses, large and small.

Meeting workers’ present and future social-welfare needs has become a crucial and highly complex issue as healthcare costs continue to outpace inflation and secure retirements grow increasingly out of reach for many people.

These issues highlight the vulnerabilities of a system in which people’s social safeguards are tied to their employment and workers are largely fending for themselves in financial markets.

Put succinctly: Are Americans best served by relying primarily on the private sector for health coverage and for benefits in their sunset years? Or would it make more sense to pool our collective risks and look to a greater role for public programs such as Social Security and state pension plans in providing safety nets?

The reality facing America and the global community is that jobs are being destroyed and the worth of labor is being devalued by tectonic shifts in the technologies of production and by the globalization of production and constant low cost competition on a global scale. If we are to avoid socialism and prevent us from being controlled by an elite operating as the State as well as avoid the continued greed and monopoly capitalism that concentrates ownership of wealth-creating, income-generating productive capital assets in the hands of the 1 percent, then the system MUST be REFORMED. ONLY in this way can we preserve the principles of private property and liberty, while enabling EVERY citizen to build financial security over time.

We must ask ourselves why is it that corporations do not obey the laws of property? As my colleague Jerome Peloquin states: “If you and I buy 100 ties for a dollar each and and then we sell them for $2 each, we share the profits depending on the amount we invested (less expenses) NOT … you buy a share of stock and the company makes ten dollars on your dollar investment and you get SHIT! You have to bet on the value based on lies told by the company. You invest, they keep your money and give you nothing except the opportunity to gamble on Wall Street. WE NEED OUR SHARE … if they want more money let them sell more stock. Corporations are NOT persons because no one could get away with that hustle.”

The growing gap in income inequality is due to the increasingly concentrated ownership and hoarding of wealth. Anyone who seeks to own productive power that they cannot or won’t use for consumption are beggaring their neighbor––the equivalency of mass murder––the impact of concentrated capital ownership.

When you are a multi-millionaire or billionaire you are the ultimate greed “hoggist” capitalist seeking to OWN as much as possible. This is not to say that we should dishonor private property rights, but to prevent massive income inequality in the FUTURE we absolutely must finance FUTURE economic growth using financial mechanisms that empower propertyless Americans to acquire wealth-creating, income-generating productive capital assets with the earnings of the investments––just like the billionaires operate. OWNERSHIP CREATION should be the focus of our political leadership and academia. This is the path to prosperity, opportunity, and economic justice, and the means to build a FUTURE economy that can support general affluence for EVERY American.

We must also prohibit “retained earnings” that is presently permitted in our incorporation statutes. Private sector publicly-owned corporations should have to share the profits with the stockholders (i.e. investors). When monies are needed to expand and grow publicly-owned corporations, new shares of stock should be issued and sold. And access to acquiring such shares of newly issued stock should be made equally available to EVERY American citizen.

We need to apply the proven principles of insurance to the financing of FUTURE wealth-creating, income-generating productive capital assets. We need to empower individuals to acquire multiple company diversification ownership facilitated with private capital credit insurance or a government reinsurance agency (ala the Federal Housing Administration concept). The promissory note can be offset to the government’s central Federal Reserve Bank in return for the cash equivalent of the amount of the loan, less an administrative fee. The only cost to the direct lending bank in making a loan to the corporation would be the administrative fee, or about 2 percent of the loan’s principal and then another 2 percent for capital credit insurance, with an additional quarter of a percent paid to the Federal Reserve Bank to monetize the loan and give the lender the same cash as it would have had if it had actually loaned money to the corporation. The lender’s cash loaned to the company’s Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) trust and/or the individual Capital Homestead Account or “CHA” (a super-IRA or asset tax-shelter for citizens) is replenished with the Federal Reserve Bank cash. When the company pays the ESOP trust or CHA enough money to enable the trust(s) to repay the lender, the lender has to retrieve the note and pay back the Federal Reserve Bank. Thus, the loan cost would be essentially not more than 5 percent to allow ownership broadening financial capital to be in­vested in ownership broadening ESOP and CHA trusts to create new capitalists. Thus, national capital credit insurance replaces the requirement for pledging past savings and security (which for the most part the most Americans do not have).

If we would build a FUTURE economy using “future earnings” to finance growth, we could significantly broaden private, individual ownership of the economy’s productive capital assets and provide financial security and general affluence to EVERY American citizen, whose income in large part (in addition to the job opportunities that would be created) would be derived from the full payout of the dividend earnings they would be entitled to as per their share holdings in portfolios of diversified public corporations.

See “Financing Economic Growth With ‘FUTURE SAVINGS’: Solutions To Protect America From Economic Decline” at NationOfChange.org http://www.nationofchange.org/financing-future-economic-growth-future-savings-solutions-protect-america-economic-decline-137450624

 http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-lazarus-20130830,0,2801749.column

Fast-Food Workers Across U.S. Rally For $15 Hourly Pay

On August 29, 2013, Tiffany Hsu and Alana Semuels write in the Los Angeles Times:

In the aftermath of the recession, hundreds of workers in low-wage industries have tried to call attention to how difficult it is to survive on the minimum wage.

Thursday might have been their biggest effort yet.

Fast-food workers in an estimated 60 cities protested outside 1,000 stores, turning out at the crack of dawn to call for union representation and a wage of $15 an hour. Organizers of the effort, bankrolled largely by the SEIU and promoted by a slew of community groups, said it was the largest protest ever to hit the fast-food industry.

Teenagers used to dominate fast-food jobs. Now, many older workers, out of a job because of the stagnant economy, have gravitated toward the industry. They’re ripe for organizing because they’ve seen the economy improve around them while their pay has remained the same and they continue to work without benefits.

This is good news for the SEIU and other labor groups, which have faced years of declining membership. Unions are finding that fast-food workers are all too happy to protest, figuring that their jobs are bad enough that if they lose them from protesting, they haven’t lost much.

The National Restaurant Assn. argues that many employees are young part-timers who aren’t responsible for their own households.

But Arne L. Kalleberg, a sociology professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said the median age for fast-food workers is more than 28; for women it’s 32. And low-wage jobs are among the fastest-growing in the country, he said.

“These protests are a cry for help,” he said. “It’s a microcosm of a larger phenomenon. It reflects the growing frustration of these folks who have for a long time seen the gap between what they’re earning and the tons of money the corporations and the CEOs are making.”

 Companies such as McDonald’s have recently stood behind their pay practices. At Burger King, more than 99% of all U.S. restaurants are owned by franchisees, who control wage decisions for employees, the company said in a statement.

Workers in the system receive compensation and benefits “that are consistent” with the quick-service industry, according to the statement.

The National Retail Federation called Thursday’s protests a “publicity stunt” in a statement, saying that they’re “just further proof that the labor movement is not only facing depleted membership rolls, they have abdicated their role in an honest and rational discussion about the American workforce.”

Looking ahead, Brent Giddens, managing partner in the Los Angeles office of employment and labor law firm Carothers DiSante & Freudenberger, said he’s skeptical of protesters’ chances of success.

“I can’t see the federal minimum wage rising to anywhere near $15 an hour,” said Giddens, whose firm’s clients have included Taco Bell and Jack in the Box. “It would have a devastating effect on the economy and can only have the effect of driving labor out of the country.”

However, Giddens said he “would not at all be surprised” to see a minimum wage increase in California, where the lowest legal hourly pay is $8.

“The political climate here is very favorable toward employees and historically always has been,” he said. “Nobody can argue that California is not among the most protective of employee rights among all the states.”

Digital computerized operations and automation are destroying jobs and devaluing the worth of labor. This tectonic shift in the technologies of production and the greater employment of robotics and super-automation to save labor costs is not well understood and reported by the national media. Advances in software and production technology, abundant and relatively inexpensive energy, fast access to huge amounts of data, and growing global demand will continue to drive competitiveness of American manufacturing, and drive down labor costs, except for people with jobs in research and high-tech skilled work. Such innovation will increasingly impact the fast-food and services industries and result in fewer and fewer jobs as a result.

While I am not opposed to the concept of a “minimum wage,” economic productivity is a bigger part of the story. Those arguing its support basically argue that labor is producing more value today, but working people aren’t seeing any of the gains. Who has walked away with the proceeds from all that productivity?

A January report from Oxfam noted, “The richest one percent has increased its income by 60 percent in the last 20 years.” It further argued that the 2012 net income of the world’s top 100 billionaires—a haul of $240 billion—would be four times the amount needed to eliminate extreme poverty internationally.

These arguments fail to point out the income source for the richest one percent is not their labor but their dividend income derived from their ownership of productive capital assets––the non-human factor of production.

To maximize profit and thus dividend income, the purposeful function of business, companies strive to keep labor input and other costs at a minimum. Private sector job creation in numbers that match the pool of people willing and able to work is constantly being eroded by non-human physical productive capital’s ever increasing role.

This is the reality of business in the global setting where lowest cost production is necessary to be competitive.

Yet, the government continues to discharge its responsibility for the health and prosperity of the economy through coerced trickle-down; in other words, through redistribution achieved by the rigging of labor prices, including the minimum wage, by taxation to support redistribution and job “creation,” or subsidization by inflation and by all kinds of welfare, open and concealed. Employment should practically start at the time one enters the economic world as a labor worker, to become increasingly a capital owner, whose capital contributes to the work load, and at some point to retire as a labor worker and continue to participate in production and to earn income as a capital owner until the day you die.

It doesn’t make any difference what’s going on in the scientific world or the business world or the industrial world, we still believe full employment and a minimum wage will solve our income distribution problems. This is what major political figures have always maintained.

Binary economist Louis Kelso, whose books should be read by ALL conventional economists, the media and political figures, was quoted as saying, “Conventional wisdom says there is only one way to earn a living, and that’s to work. Conventional wisdom effectively treats capital (land, structures, machines, and the like) as though it were a kind of holy water that, sprinkled on or about labor, makes it more productive. Thus, if you have a thousand people working in a factory and you increase the design and power of the machinery so that one hundred men can now do what a thousand did before, conventional wisdom says, ‘Voila! The productivity of the labor has gone up 900 percent!’ I say ‘hogwash.’ All you’ve done is wipe out 90 percent of the jobs, and even the remaining ten percent are probably sitting around pushing buttons. What the economy needs is a way of legitimately getting capital ownership into the hands of the people who now don’t have it.”

The best way to protect American citizens from this spiraling disaster that will continue to undercut American workers, destroy jobs and devalue the worth of labor in the United States is to implement policies to create an OWNERSHIP SOCIETY, whereby EVERY American is extended the right to acquire productive capital with the self-financing earnings of productive capital––the physical wealth-creating assets of corporation, e.g., machines, super-automation, robotics, digital computerization operations, etc. Currently non-property-owning Americans are left to acquire, as best as they can, with their earnings as labor workers. This is fundamentally hard to do and limiting. Thus, the most important economic right Americans need and should demand is the effective right to acquire capital with the earnings of capital. Note, though, millions of Americans own diluted stock value through the “stock market exchanges,” purchased with their earnings as labor workers, their stock holdings are relatively miniscule, as are their dividend payments compared to the top 10 percent of capital owners.

What historically empowered America’s original capitalists was conventional savings-based finance and the pledging or mortgaging of assets, with access to further ownership of new productive capital available only to those who were already well capitalized. As has been the case, credit to purchase capital is made available by financial institutions ONLY to people who already own capital and other forms of equity, such as the equity in their home that can be pledged as loan security––those who meet the universal requirement for collateral. Lenders will only extend credit to people who already have assets. Thus, the rich are made ever richer, while the poor (people without a viable capital estate) remain poor and dependent on their labor to produce income. Thus, the system is restrictive and capital ownership is clinically denied to those who need the dividend earning it produces.

This will address the fact that productive capital is becoming more productive and increasingly responsible for the production of society’s products and services, not labor, whose relative input is constantly being diminished by the substitution of the non-human factor of production.

As Kelso asserted: “The problem with conventional financing techniques is that they address only the productive power of enterprise and the enhancement of the earning power of the rich minority. Sustaining or increasing the earning power of the majority of consumers who are dependent entirely upon the earnings of their labor, or upon welfare, is left to government or governmentally assisted redistribution of income and to chance.”

See my article “The Absent Conversation: Who Should Own America?” published by The Huffington Post at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-reber/who-should-own-america_b_2040592.html and by OpEd News at http://www.opednews.com/articles/THE-Absent-Conversation–by-Gary-Reber-130429-498.html

Also see “The Path To Eradicating Poverty In America” at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-reber/the-path-to-eradicating-p_b_3017072.html and “The Path To Sustainable Economic Growth” at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-reber/sustainable-economic-growth_b_3141721.html. And also “Second Income Plan” at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-reber/second-income-plan_b_3625319.html

Also see the article entitled “The Solution To America’s Economic Decline” at http://www.nationofchange.org/solution-america-s-economic-decline-1367588690 and “Education Is Critical To Our Future Societal Development” at http://www.nationofchange.org/education-critical-our-future-societal-development-1373556479. And also “Achieving The Green Economy” at http://www.nationofchange.org/achieving-green-economy-1373980790. Also see it complete with the footnotes at http://foreconomicjustice.org/?p=9082.

Also see “Financing Economic Growth With ‘FUTURE SAVINGS’: Solutions To Protect America From Economic Decline” at NationOfChange.org http://www.nationofchange.org/financing-future-economic-growth-future-savings-solutions-protect-america-economic-decline-137450624

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-fast-food-protest-20130830,0,4300156.story

Democrats Have Failed… But Opportunity For Redemption Awaits

Published August 26, 2013 on The Huffington  Post:

As a lifelong advocate for economic justice, who in 1974 ran for Congress on a platform for economic justice, it saddens me to see the United States of America continue to fail, leaving Americans serfdom subjects of plutocratic government and concentrated capital ownership, which denies every citizen his or her pursuit of economic happiness (property).

President Obama and the Democrats have failed the American people, especially the poor and propertyless who are increasingly dependent on ever-lower-paying jobs, taxpayer-supported welfare financed through tax extraction and national debt, and charity.

The Democrats have yet to declare CONCENTRATED OWNERSHIP of the non-human productive capital assets of American enterprise as the main culprit to the inability of the 99 percent to expand and strengthen their source of income and increasingly become “customers with money” to purchase the products and services the economy is capable of producing. Never has ANY Democrat, during their political career, used the term “ownership” of the means of production to educate the electorate of the necessity to OWN productive capital assets. And without a clear understanding of the problem and a goal projection, there can be no successful PLAN to correct the income and wealth inequality that has resulted ever since America entered the age of the Industrial Revolution, when the nation began its shift from labor intensive production to non-human physical productive capital means of production. Such assets, due to the unjust structure of a plutocratic financial system, allows the ownership class to continually monopolize ALL future productive capital investment — ownership channeled into fewer and fewer people.

The Democrats never have advocated that we must respect the traditional understanding of private property as a natural right, inherent in each person, albeit limited in its exercise. They have failed to declare that the reliance on “past savings” as the only source of financing for economic growth necessarily means that only those people who can afford to cut consumption and save significantly will receive the benefits of economic growth as investor owners instead of wage or welfare recipients.

The Democrats have never once pointed out that as job destroying and labor-devaluing technology advances and the scale of economic growth becomes too expensive for the resources of average people, only the rich will own the enterprises that generate the bulk of production. This is the greed or “hoggist” capitalism that is practiced in America. Everyone other than the rich who own capital is limited to wages or sub-economic microenterprises, unless the rich decide to be generous and voluntarily surrender some of their wealth so that others can own productive capital, too.

The Democrats are part of the problem in that they have stepped into the ranks of those who, within this “past savings” paradigm, see as the alternative to having a few rich people monopolize ownership to change what “ownership” means. By changing what ownership means, the State (whether the central government or the local community) decides what and how much of the fruits of ownership go to those who hold legal title, and what and how much is distributed in some fashion to others in the local community or the nation at large. This makes title a meaningless concept, abolishes private property, and is socialism, by whatever label.

The Democrats need to acknowledge that if we restrict financing of economic growth to what can be withheld from consumption out of what has been produced in the past, we are necessarily trapped into either monopoly capitalism (concentrated private ownership of productive capital) or socialism (concentrated State ownership or control of productive capital).

The Democrats need to see that there is a way out: a source of financing economic growth that does not depend on how much consumption can be reduced.

Instead of using the present value of past reductions in consumption to finance economic growth, it is possible — even preferable — to finance economic growth using the present value of future increases in production. In other words, shift from a “past savings” system, to a “future savings” system.

The focus needs to be on OWNERSHIP CREATION, not JOBS CREATION, which has been the Democrats’ pitch thus far. Instead the challenge is to reform the system to provide equal opportunity for ALL Americans to acquire ownership of FUTURE wealth-creating, income-generating productive capital assets with “FUTURE SAVINGS” (earnings) generated by the investments. Thus, over time EVERY American citizen will be able to accumulate a viable, income-generating capital estate portfolio to provide a second income to their wages earned from job employment or provide a sustainable income without the need to be employed in a job or dependent on welfare or charity.

For solutions see “Financing Economic Growth With ‘FUTURE SAVINGS’: Solutions To Protect America From Economic Decline” here and here.

Support the Capital Homestead Act.

This should be the message that the Democrats should deliver on the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom.

A Corporate Tax Idea––Modify The “Deferral” Tax Loophole

On August 29, 2013, Dave Johnson writes on NationOfChange.org:

The amount now being held outside of the country is astounding. Some estimates say that it is as much as $1.5 to 2 trillion, or even more. If the full amount were brought back and the tax rate applied that would bring a $525-700 billion windfall that the government could use to hire people to get things done that really, really need to get done like modernizing our infrastructure, hiring teachers, building high-speed rail, retrofitting homes and buildings to be energy-efficient … so many things… (Of course it would be less because of taxes paid elsewhere, etc., but we’re still talking hundreds of billions.)

Beyond the one-time windfall from bringing that cash back there would be two other major effects of changing this deferral loophole. The first, of course, is that tens of billions of revenue now withheld each year would be coming in to be taxed, thereby reducing the budget deficit. But perhaps more important, the incentive to move jobs, factories and profit centers (“crown jewels”) out of the country would be eliminated, so companies would keep factories and jobs here.

 Why They Do It

The reason so much $$ is being kept away is that companies have good reason to believe that eventually they will be allowed to bring it back without paying the taxes they owe. Congress made a huge mistake in 2004 and gave corporations a “tax repatriation holiday.” They allowed companies that were holding profits outside of the country to bring those profits back without paying all of the taxes due. This created the expectation that Congress will of course do this again (and again). So, not looking a gift horse in the mouth, companies started to find ways to increase their outside-the-country profits and reduce their inside-the-country profits. Jobs, factories, production, profit centers (desks, chairs, carpets…) and everything else that could be moved out of the country started to be … moved out of the country. And it gets worse every year.

This proposed “fix” of the “deferral” tax loophole would certainly bring additional tax revenues to the government. But what remains to be discussed is how to use the monies and the stipulations for broadened individual ownership where those monies are spent with companies in the private sector.

We also need to apply the proven principles of insurance to the financing of FUTURE wealth-creating, income-generating productive capital assets. We need to empower individuals to acquire multiple company diversification ownership facilitated with private capital credit insurance or a government reinsurance agency (ala the Federal Housing Administration concept). The promissory note can be offset to the government’s central Federal Reserve Bank in return for the cash equivalent of the amount of the loan, less an administrative fee. The only cost to the direct lending bank in making a loan to the corporation would be the administrative fee, or about 2 percent of the loan’s principal and then another 2 percent for capital credit insurance, with an additional quarter of a percent paid to the Federal Reserve Bank to monetize the loan and give the lender the same cash as it would have had if it had actually loaned money to the corporation. The lender’s cash loaned to the company’s Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP) trust and/or the individual Capital Homestead Account or “CHA” (a super-IRA or asset tax-shelter for citizens) is replenished with the Federal Reserve Bank cash. When the company pays the ESOP trust or CHA enough money to enable the trust(s) to repay the lender, the lender has to retrieve the note and pay back the Federal Reserve Bank. Thus, the loan cost would be essentially not more than 5 percent to allow ownership broadening financial capital to be in­vested in ownership broadening ESOP and CHA trusts to create new capitalists. Thus, national capital credit insurance replaces the requirement for pledging past savings and security (which for the most part the most Americans do not have).

See “Financing Economic Growth With ‘FUTURE SAVINGS’: Solutions To Protect America From Economic Decline” at NationOfChange.org http://www.nationofchange.org/financing-future-economic-growth-future-savings-solutions-protect-america-economic-decline-137450624

http://www.nationofchange.org/corporate-tax-idea-fixes-lots-problems-1377783890

The Fabulous Life Of Filthy Rich Billionaires

“No intention for copyright infringement… just wanted to share this beautiful video to promote abundance consciousness to people.”

Anyone who seeks to own productive power that they cannot or won’t use for consumption are beggaring their neighbor––the equivalency of mass murder––the impact of concentrated capital ownership.

When you are a billionaire you are the ultimate greed “hoggist” capitalist seeking to OWN the world. This is not to say that we should dishonor private property rights, but to prevent massive income inequality in the FUTURE we absolutely must finance FUTURE economic growth using financial mechanisms that empower propertyless Americans to acquire wealth-creating, income-generating productive capital assets with the earnings of the investments––just like the billionaires operate. OWNERSHIP CREATION should be the focus of our political leadership and academia. This is the path to prosperity, opportunity, and economic justice, and the means to build a FUTURE economy that can support general affluence for EVERY American.

See “Financing Economic Growth With ‘FUTURE SAVINGS’: Solutions To Protect America From Economic Decline” at NationOfChange.org http://www.nationofchange.org/financing-future-economic-growth-future-savings-solutions-protect-america-economic-decline-137450624

Fast Food Workers: “We Can’t Survive On $7.25″


See Robots Are Starting To Take Over Fast-Food Jobs at http://foreconomicjustice.org/?p=9139.

This was the story on July 31, 2013 on Moyers & Company:

Fast food workers in seven U.S. cities are walking off the job this week in what organizers say is the largest strike in the industry’s history.

The wave of protests began Monday in New York City, where workers earning as little as the federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour — in a town where the average rent is over $3,000 a month — demanded $15 per hour and the right to organize.

The average yearly salary of fast food workers in New York City is $11,000, according to protest organizers Fast Food Forward. The group Wider Opportunities for Women estimates that a single mother with two children needs a minimum of $6,376 per month to survive in the Big Apple.

As a result of this discrepancy, many fast food workers rely on government services like Medicaid and food stamps.

“The fact is, we are subsidizing their business model,” says Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), who co-chairs the Congressional Progressive Caucus and attended the rally in Manhattan to show support for the workers. Ellison says the minimum wage is kept down by lobbyists who spend industry money to buy favorable legislation. He points out that the minimum wage, in real dollars, is lower now than it was in 1968.

Digital computerized operations and automation are destroying jobs and devaluing the worth of labor. This tectonic shift in the technologies of production and the greater employment of robotics and super-automation to save labor costs is not well understood and reported by the national media. Advances in software and production technology, abundant and relatively inexpensive energy, fast access to huge amounts of data, and growing global demand will continue to drive competitiveness of American manufacturing, and drive down labor costs, except for people with jobs in research and high-tech skilled work. Such innovation will increasingly impact the fast-food and services industries and result in fewer and fewer jobs as a result.

While I am not opposed to the concept of a “minimum wage,” economic productivity is a bigger part of the story. Those arguing its support basically argue that labor is producing more value today, but working people aren’t seeing any of the gains. Who has walked away with the proceeds from all that productivity?

A January report from Oxfam noted, “The richest one percent has increased its income by 60 percent in the last 20 years.” It further argued that the 2012 net income of the world’s top 100 billionaires—a haul of $240 billion—would be four times the amount needed to eliminate extreme poverty internationally.

These arguments fail to point out the income source for the richest one percent is not their labor but their dividend income derived from their ownership of productive capital assets––the non-human factor of production.

To maximize profit and thus dividend income, the purposeful function of business, companies strive to keep labor input and other costs at a minimum. Private sector job creation in numbers that match the pool of people willing and able to work is constantly being eroded by non-human physical productive capital’s ever increasing role.

This is the reality of business in the global setting where lowest cost production is necessary to be competitive.

Yet, the government continues to discharge its responsibility for the health and prosperity of the economy through coerced trickle-down; in other words, through redistribution achieved by the rigging of labor prices, including the minimum wage, by taxation to support redistribution and job “creation,” or subsidization by inflation and by all kinds of welfare, open and concealed. Employment should practically start at the time one enters the economic world as a labor worker, to become increasingly a capital owner, whose capital contributes to the work load, and at some point to retire as a labor worker and continue to participate in production and to earn income as a capital owner until the day you die.

It doesn’t make any difference what’s going on in the scientific world or the business world or the industrial world, we still believe full employment and a minimum wage will solve our income distribution problems. This is what major political figures have always maintained.

Binary economist Louis Kelso, whose books should be read by ALL conventional economists, the media and political figures, was quoted as saying, “Conventional wisdom says there is only one way to earn a living, and that’s to work. Conventional wisdom effectively treats capital (land, structures, machines, and the like) as though it were a kind of holy water that, sprinkled on or about labor, makes it more productive. Thus, if you have a thousand people working in a factory and you increase the design and power of the machinery so that one hundred men can now do what a thousand did before, conventional wisdom says, ‘Voila! The productivity of the labor has gone up 900 percent!’ I say ‘hogwash.’ All you’ve done is wipe out 90 percent of the jobs, and even the remaining ten percent are probably sitting around pushing buttons. What the economy needs is a way of legitimately getting capital ownership into the hands of the people who now don’t have it.”

The best way to protect American citizens from this spiraling disaster that will continue to undercut American workers, destroy jobs and devalue the worth of labor in the United States is to implement policies to create an OWNERSHIP SOCIETY, whereby EVERY American is extended the right to acquire productive capital with the self-financing earnings of productive capital––the physical wealth-creating assets of corporation, e.g., machines, super-automation, robotics, digital computerization operations, etc. Currently non-property-owning Americans are left to acquire, as best as they can, with their earnings as labor workers. This is fundamentally hard to do and limiting. Thus, the most important economic right Americans need and should demand is the effective right to acquire capital with the earnings of capital. Note, though, millions of Americans own diluted stock value through the “stock market exchanges,” purchased with their earnings as labor workers, their stock holdings are relatively miniscule, as are their dividend payments compared to the top 10 percent of capital owners.

What historically empowered America’s original capitalists was conventional savings-based finance and the pledging or mortgaging of assets, with access to further ownership of new productive capital available only to those who were already well capitalized. As has been the case, credit to purchase capital is made available by financial institutions ONLY to people who already own capital and other forms of equity, such as the equity in their home that can be pledged as loan security––those who meet the universal requirement for collateral. Lenders will only extend credit to people who already have assets. Thus, the rich are made ever richer, while the poor (people without a viable capital estate) remain poor and dependent on their labor to produce income. Thus, the system is restrictive and capital ownership is clinically denied to those who need the dividend earning it produces.

This will address the fact that productive capital is becoming more productive and increasingly responsible for the production of society’s products and services, not labor, whose relative input is constantly being diminished by the substitution of the non-human factor of production.

As Kelso asserted: “The problem with conventional financing techniques is that they address only the productive power of enterprise and the enhancement of the earning power of the rich minority. Sustaining or increasing the earning power of the majority of consumers who are dependent entirely upon the earnings of their labor, or upon welfare, is left to government or governmentally assisted redistribution of income and to chance.”

See my article “The Absent Conversation: Who Should Own America?” published by The Huffington Post at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-reber/who-should-own-america_b_2040592.html and by OpEd News at http://www.opednews.com/articles/THE-Absent-Conversation–by-Gary-Reber-130429-498.html

Also see “The Path To Eradicating Poverty In America” at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-reber/the-path-to-eradicating-p_b_3017072.html and “The Path To Sustainable Economic Growth” at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-reber/sustainable-economic-growth_b_3141721.html. And also “Second Income Plan” at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-reber/second-income-plan_b_3625319.html

Also see the article entitled “The Solution To America’s Economic Decline” at http://www.nationofchange.org/solution-america-s-economic-decline-1367588690 and “Education Is Critical To Our Future Societal Development” at http://www.nationofchange.org/education-critical-our-future-societal-development-1373556479. And also “Achieving The Green Economy” at http://www.nationofchange.org/achieving-green-economy-1373980790. Also see it complete with the footnotes at http://foreconomicjustice.org/?p=9082.

Also see “Financing Economic Growth With ‘FUTURE SAVINGS’: Solutions To Protect America From Economic Decline” at NationOfChange.org http://www.nationofchange.org/financing-future-economic-growth-future-savings-solutions-protect-america-economic-decline-137450624

http://billmoyers.com/2013/07/31/we-cant-survive-on-7-25/

Fast Food Workers Plan To Strike Nationwide Thursday

BS2M_cUCQAAEoPh-1

On August 28, 2013, Candice Choi and Karen Matthews of the Associated Press write in The Huffington Post:

Fast-food customers in search of burgers and fries on Thursday might run into striking workers instead.

Organizers say thousands of fast-food workers are set to stage walkouts in dozens of cities around the country, part of a push to get chains such as McDonald’s, Taco Bell and Wendy’s to pay workers higher wages.

It’s expected be the largest nationwide strike by fast-food workers, according to organizers. The biggest effort so far was over the summer when about 2,200 of the nation’s millions of fast-food workers staged a one-day strike in seven cities.

Thursday’s planned walkouts follow a series of strikes that began last November in New York City, then spread to cities including Chicago, Detroit and Seattle. Workers say they want $15 an hour, which would be about $31,000 a year for full-time employees. That’s more than double the federal minimum wage, which many fast food workers make, of $7.25 an hour, or $15,000 a year.

Digital computerized operations and automation are destroying jobs and devaluing the worth of labor. This tectonic shift in the technologies of production and the greater employment of robotics and super-automation to save labor costs is not well understood and reported by the national media. Advances in software and production technology, abundant and relatively inexpensive energy, fast access to huge amounts of data, and growing global demand will continue to drive competitiveness of American manufacturing, and drive down labor costs, except for people with jobs in research and high-tech skilled work. Such innovation will increasingly impact the fast-food and services industries and result in fewer and fewer jobs as a result.

While I am not opposed to the concept of a “minimum wage,” economic productivity is a bigger part of the story. Those arguing its support basically argue that labor is producing more value today, but working people aren’t seeing any of the gains. Who has walked away with the proceeds from all that productivity?

A January report from Oxfam noted, “The richest one percent has increased its income by 60 percent in the last 20 years.” It further argued that the 2012 net income of the world’s top 100 billionaires—a haul of $240 billion—would be four times the amount needed to eliminate extreme poverty internationally.

These arguments fail to point out the income source for the richest one percent is not their labor but their dividend income derived from their ownership of productive capital assets––the non-human factor of production.

To maximize profit and thus dividend income, the purposeful function of business, companies strive to keep labor input and other costs at a minimum. Private sector job creation in numbers that match the pool of people willing and able to work is constantly being eroded by non-human physical productive capital’s ever increasing role.

This is the reality of business in the global setting where lowest cost production is necessary to be competitive.

Yet, the government continues to discharge its responsibility for the health and prosperity of the economy through coerced trickle-down; in other words, through redistribution achieved by the rigging of labor prices, including the minimum wage, by taxation to support redistribution and job “creation,” or subsidization by inflation and by all kinds of welfare, open and concealed. Employment should practically start at the time one enters the economic world as a labor worker, to become increasingly a capital owner, whose capital contributes to the work load, and at some point to retire as a labor worker and continue to participate in production and to earn income as a capital owner until the day you die.

It doesn’t make any difference what’s going on in the scientific world or the business world or the industrial world, we still believe full employment and a minimum wage will solve our income distribution problems. This is what major political figures have always maintained.

Binary economist Louis Kelso, whose books should be read by ALL conventional economists, the media and political figures, was quoted as saying, “Conventional wisdom says there is only one way to earn a living, and that’s to work. Conventional wisdom effectively treats capital (land, structures, machines, and the like) as though it were a kind of holy water that, sprinkled on or about labor, makes it more productive. Thus, if you have a thousand people working in a factory and you increase the design and power of the machinery so that one hundred men can now do what a thousand did before, conventional wisdom says, ‘Voila! The productivity of the labor has gone up 900 percent!’ I say ‘hogwash.’ All you’ve done is wipe out 90 percent of the jobs, and even the remaining ten percent are probably sitting around pushing buttons. What the economy needs is a way of legitimately getting capital ownership into the hands of the people who now don’t have it.”

The best way to protect American citizens from this spiraling disaster that will continue to undercut American workers, destroy jobs and devalue the worth of labor in the United States is to implement policies to create an OWNERSHIP SOCIETY, whereby EVERY American is extended the right to acquire productive capital with the self-financing earnings of productive capital––the physical wealth-creating assets of corporation, e.g., machines, super-automation, robotics, digital computerization operations, etc. Currently non-property-owning Americans are left to acquire, as best as they can, with their earnings as labor workers. This is fundamentally hard to do and limiting. Thus, the most important economic right Americans need and should demand is the effective right to acquire capital with the earnings of capital. Note, though, millions of Americans own diluted stock value through the “stock market exchanges,” purchased with their earnings as labor workers, their stock holdings are relatively miniscule, as are their dividend payments compared to the top 10 percent of capital owners.

What historically empowered America’s original capitalists was conventional savings-based finance and the pledging or mortgaging of assets, with access to further ownership of new productive capital available only to those who were already well capitalized. As has been the case, credit to purchase capital is made available by financial institutions ONLY to people who already own capital and other forms of equity, such as the equity in their home that can be pledged as loan security––those who meet the universal requirement for collateral. Lenders will only extend credit to people who already have assets. Thus, the rich are made ever richer, while the poor (people without a viable capital estate) remain poor and dependent on their labor to produce income. Thus, the system is restrictive and capital ownership is clinically denied to those who need the dividend earning it produces.

This will address the fact that productive capital is becoming more productive and increasingly responsible for the production of society’s products and services, not labor, whose relative input is constantly being diminished by the substitution of the non-human factor of production.

As Kelso asserted: “The problem with conventional financing techniques is that they address only the productive power of enterprise and the enhancement of the earning power of the rich minority. Sustaining or increasing the earning power of the majority of consumers who are dependent entirely upon the earnings of their labor, or upon welfare, is left to government or governmentally assisted redistribution of income and to chance.”

See my article “The Absent Conversation: Who Should Own America?” published by The Huffington Post at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-reber/who-should-own-america_b_2040592.html and by OpEd News at http://www.opednews.com/articles/THE-Absent-Conversation–by-Gary-Reber-130429-498.html

Also see “The Path To Eradicating Poverty In America” at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-reber/the-path-to-eradicating-p_b_3017072.html and “The Path To Sustainable Economic Growth” at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-reber/sustainable-economic-growth_b_3141721.html. And also “Second Income Plan” at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-reber/second-income-plan_b_3625319.html

Also see the article entitled “The Solution To America’s Economic Decline” at http://www.nationofchange.org/solution-america-s-economic-decline-1367588690 and “Education Is Critical To Our Future Societal Development” at http://www.nationofchange.org/education-critical-our-future-societal-development-1373556479. And also “Achieving The Green Economy” at http://www.nationofchange.org/achieving-green-economy-1373980790. Also see it complete with the footnotes at http://foreconomicjustice.org/?p=9082.

Also see “Financing Economic Growth With ‘FUTURE SAVINGS’: Solutions To Protect America From Economic Decline” at NationOfChange.org http://www.nationofchange.org/financing-future-economic-growth-future-savings-solutions-protect-america-economic-decline-137450624

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/28/fast-food-workers-strike_n_3832192.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

Many Highly Paid CEOs Are Failures

A new study says Lehman's Richard Fuld was among the country's best-paid CEOs for 8 straight years - until Lehman disintegrated.

In this Oct. 6, 2008 file photo, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. Chief Executive Richard Fuld, front center, is heckled by protesters as he leaves Capitol Hill in Washington after testifying before a House committee on his company’s collapse. A new study says he was among the country’s best-paid CEOs for eight straight years — until Lehman disintegrated. (Susan Walsh / Associated Press)

On August 29, 2013, Walter Hamilton writes in the Los Angeles Times:

Nearly 40% of the nation’s best-paid CEOs over the past two decades were either fired, forced to take government bailouts or in charge of companies that paid huge amounts in fraud-related claims.

That’s the conclusion of a report Wednesday that attempts to gauge the link between weak corporate performance and skyrocketing executive pay.

The study, “Executive Excess 2013: Bailed Out, Booted, Busted,” was issued by the liberal Institute for Policy Studies in Washington. It’s the latest in a years-long line of reports by the IPS and other groups charting alleged abuses in executive pay.

Among other factoids, it cites an AFL-CIO study showing that the pay gap between corporate chieftains and regular workers ballooned to 354-to-1 last year from 195-to-1 in 1993.

“Our analysis reveals widespread poor performance within America’s elite CEO circles,” the report says. “Chief executives performing poorly — and blatantly so — have consistently populated the ranks of our nation’s top-paid CEOs over the last two decades.”

Who works the hardest? Jobs with longest, shortest workdays

According to the study, 22% of the highest-paid CEOs ran companies that either had to take government bailouts to survive during the 2008 global financial crisis or that collapsed altogether.

For example, Richard Fuld, the former head of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., was among the 25 highest-paid chieftains for eight years in a row — until his company disintegrated.

An additional 8% of CEOs headed companies that paid whopping fraud-related fines or legal settlements. In some cases, the executives themselves had to pay penalties for their own inappropriate behavior, such as the backdating of stock options to goose their compensation, according to the study.

And another 8% of CEOs suffered the ultimate ignominy — getting the ax for poor performance, according to the report. Of course, the disgraced executives didn’t give back any of their enormous compensation. In fact, the average deposed CEO walked away with a $48-million golden parachute.

Over the past two decades, the myth of CEOs earning their runaway pay packages has grown into the ultimate scam. Their pay packages are measured against how much “profitability” they can achieve. Unfortunately, the “profitability” is too often derived by cutting costs, particularly labor costs, and out-sourcing globally.Of course, companies, no matter what their size, strive to keep labor input and other costs at a minimum in order to sustain “profitability” and stay competitive. As such, private sector job creation in numbers that match the pool of people willing and able to work is constantly being eroded by physical productive capital’s ever increasing role as a job destroyer and labor devaluer in the never-ending pursuit of efficiency and “profitability.”This is the reason that ordinary citizens must gain access to productive capital ownership to improve their economic well-being by providing income streams sourced from dividend earnings.