Going to Extremes: CEOs vs. Slaves

Recent findings shed new light on the increasingly unequal terrain of American society. Starting at the top executive level: You may have thought, as I did, that the guys in the C-suites operated as a team – or, depending on your point of view, a pack or gang – each getting his fair share of the take. But no, the rising tide in executive pay does not lift all yachts equally. The latest pay gap to worry about is the one between the CEO and his – or very rarely her—third in command.

According to a just- reported study by Carola Frydman of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Raven E. Saks at the Federal Reserve, 30-40 years ago, the CEO’s of major companies earned 80 percent more, on average, than the third-highest-paid executives. By the early part of the 21st century, however, the gap CEO and the third in command had ballooned up to 260 percent.

Now take a look at what’s happening at the very bottom of the economic spectrum, where you might have pictured low-wage workers trudging between food banks or mendicants dwelling in cardboard boxes. It turns out, though, that the bottom is a lot lower than that. On May 16, a millionaire couple in a woodsy Long Island suburb was charged with keeping two Indonesian domestics as slaves for five years, during which the women were paid $100 a month, fed very little, forced to sleep on mats on the floor, and subjected to beatings, cigarette burns and other torments.

This is hardly an isolated case (see my book, Global Woman: Nannies, Maids and Sex Workers in the New Economy, co-edited with Arlie Hochschild.) If the new “top” involves pay in the tens or hundreds of millions, a private jet and a few acres of Nantucket, the new bottom is slavery. Some of America’s slaves are captive domestics, like the Indonesian women in Long Island. Others are factory workers, and at least 10,000 are sex slaves lured from their home country to American brothels by promises of respectable jobs. CEOs and slaves: these are the extreme ends of American class polarization. But a parallel kind of splitting is going in many of the professions. Top-ranked college professors, for example, enjoy salaries of several hundred thousand a year, often augmented by consulting fees and earnings from their patents or biotech companies. At the other end of the professoriate, you have adjunct teachers toiling away for about $5000 a semester or less, with no benefits or chance of tenure. There was a story a few years ago about an adjunct who commuted to his classes from a homeless shelter in Manhattan, and adjuncts who moonlight as waitresses or cleaning ladies are legion.

Similarly, the legal profession, which is topped by law firm partners billing hundred of dollars an hour, now has a new proletariat of temp lawyers working for $19-25 an hour in sweatshop conditions. On sites like http://temporaryattorney.blogspot.com/, temp lawyers report working 12 hours a day, six days a week, in crowded basements with inadequate sanitary facilities. According to an article in American Lawyer, a legal temp at a major New York firm reports being “corralled in a windowless basement room littered with dead cockroaches,” where six out of seven exits were blocked.

Contemplating the violent and increasing polarization of American society, one cannot help but think of “dark energy,” the mysterious force that is propelling the galaxies apart from each other one at a speed far greater than can be accounted for by the energy of the original big bang. Cosmic bodies seem to be repelling each other, much as a CEO must look down at his CFO, COO, etc. and think, “They’re getting too close. I’ve got to make more, more, more!”

The difference is that the galaxies don’t need each other, and are free to go their separate ways nonchalantly. But the CEO presumably depends on his fellow executives, just as the star professor relies on adjuncts to do his or her teaching and the law firm partner is enriched by the sweated labor of legal temps. For all we know, some of those CEOs go home to sip their single malts in mahogany walled dens that have been cleaned by domestic slaves.

Why is it so hard for the people at the top to graciously acknowledge their dependency on the labor of others? We need some sort of gravitational force to counter the explosive distancing brought about by greed – before our economy imitates the universe and blows itself to smithereens.

Comments

[Dr. Steph]

I agree with everything you say, but want to make a distinction between those who are choosing to do what they love for low pay (adjuncts and lawyers) and those who are forced into horrible working conditions due to immigration status, lack of education or skills etc.

I have done the adjunct thing for a while and was tired of living near poverty so I stopped. I miss teaching but I don't miss the uncertainty and low income. But I also have a PhD and skills and can find decent employment (I'm still at a University even).

Sure it's not a CEO salary, which IS earned from the labour of many many low-paid people, but it is also not the same as being a sex worker or domestic worker.

Though I also think the opportunities for even the well-educated are shrinking, just more slowly, so we don't notice and get activated to push for change.

[Celeste]

I was just watching something about human trafficking on PBS last night, "Lives for Sale".

I halfway wonder if the creation of a new low is not meant to make the beleagured lower class feel like things could always be worse.

[Millard Fullbore]

Barb: "There was a story a few years ago about an adjunct who commuted to his classes from a homeless shelter in Manhattan, and adjuncts who moonlight as waitresses or cleaning ladies are legion."

Not to mention, more recently, prostitution -- think D.C. Madam.

Celeste: "I halfway wonder if the creation of a new low is not meant to make the beleagured lower class feel like things could always be worse."

Of course it is. And why be so conditional about it? Make that CAN always be worse.

[Monica]

At least, slaves have room at board. It's just the worst abuses, such as severe physical abuse, that are a problem, but they would be reduced if slavery became legal and regulated.

I would actually be in favour of perfectly legal slavery in exchange for things like citizenship or legal resident status after a certain number of years, paying off a huge debt, an education and/or the guarantee of a decent paid job after a certain time, or not being put in prison for some non-violent crime. Regarding criminals, of course some, such as white-collar criminals, are probably not too dangerous to work in a home, and there would be some screening and evaluation, as well as allowing the slave owners to decide whether they are willing to take that particular convict or not after the authorities decide that he or she is probably OK.

If masters are not too bad and feed them relatively well, some slaves would actually prefer that to the alternative, such as eating ramen noodles while worrying about rent. And some would enjoy the family atmosphere, the help provided by benevolent masters, the ability to meet a better class of people and perhaps to get some help or networking, etc. As a matter of fact, of course such things actually existed in the past. If you don't think so, although something like that may have existed even then, don't forget that slavery is not just the kind of slavery that existed in the US or in some other country or during some particular period you may have in mind. This is even more true if slavery includes partial slavery or actual dependency, such as some form of serfdom or employment that is hard to change.

[Kyso K]

Monica, you can't possibly be for real.

[Kevin Carson]

Monica is the new Swift. Her advocacy for slavery/serfdom and for a privileged hereditary aristocracy are just "a modest proposal" updated for a new generation.

Bravo!

[realpc]

I think that, first of all, Barbara E. is exaggerating. The US is still mostly middle class. However she might be correct in assuming that capitalism's natural course is toward increasing inequality. I really don't know.

Let's assume for now that capitalism can't be trusted to work things out reasonably (and that is only an assumption). What would be the cure for run-away inequality? Barbara E. probably advocates government intervention to even things out. Does the government have the wisdom or the power to make things fair? I'm not really convinced it does.

The Great Depression did a good job of leveling things out. Of course, the leveling can't last forever. Some people are luckier, more talented, work harder, etc., and capitalism rewards them. Others are punished for being born to the wrong parents, having sub-optimal genetics, being lazy, mentally ill, etc.

This is what happens in nature, doesn't it? There are no food stamps for wild animals who can't compete.

I am not advocating Social Darwinism, or anything like that. I'm just saying that fixing extreme inequality is much harder than it might seem.

For example, universities compete with each other to get the best professors, which leads to salary inflation. The same thing happens with movie stars, athletes and CEOs. How can you stop this competition?

Yes, adjunct professors get a miserable deal. But that's why no one wants to be an adjunt professor, unless they're retired or have some other source of income. Choosing to make a living as an adjunct professor just isn't smart. Does Barbara E. want to reward the kind of thinking that leads someone into unrewarding work?

When a profession is over-crowded, not everyone who tries will be successful in that profession. What can the government do? Force law firms to pay every lawyer a good salary? Force universities to pay every professor a good salary with benefits?

Those strategies do not work the way you expect. Let's say all professors must be paid well, whatever their level. This results in a mad rush into the field, and only the first ones in benefit. Now you can't get a low-paying adjunct position, even if you want it. The adjunct positions have all been filled by the lucky first-comers.

The same thing often happens with union jobs that pay well. The positions quickly get filled up, and then you have to be a close relative of a member to get in.

[paperpusher666]

Monica, you are referring to indentured servitude, which was reasonably common during colonial days and up to the Civil War. Suppose that you supervise people at some job. They go home at night. If you have indentured servants, that has to be a lot harder because as the master or mistress, you are responsible for their well-being, providing housing and food, and you have to worry about losing your investment in them if they run away, presuming that you paid something for them or for their transportation or clothing that you provided. The initial cost of employing the indentured servants is higher than merely hiring someone.

Perhaps the reason that indentured servitude is no longer a common employment arrangement is that it is cheaper to have people work for wages rather than pay for the servant's living expenses. Another reason is that people might not wish to live under the restrictions that the master or mistress might impose, such as curfew or having to remain unmarried and not pregnant while in their service.

[Monica]

So why is there such outrage when a family is willing to take on a slave? Also, buying slaves was the expensive part, not feeding them. If buying them was not necessary, paying for very basic food and housing would still be cheaper than a living wage, since a living wage includes money for that and at least a little more, plus the master may happen to have the space for the slave without paying extra. It is true that an employer can pay even less than a living wage (for instance, by making the job part-time), but for any employer that is willing to provide full-time work, slavery could well be a viable alternative and provide the opportunity to get more work out of the worker.

Or, in my system, the master would not need to buy the slaves or indentured servants. There would be some advantage for the slave, such as citizenship after many years, but the slave would enter slavery voluntarily, or as an alternative to something worse like prison or starving while their salary is garnished.

Naturally, any restrictions such as a curfew would be just part of the deal. But then, some people, such as prisoners, military personnel or people who have to get several jobs just to get by, may not have more freedom, or time to enjoy their freedom in reality.

Something like that would be a way to start over (or even for the first time, for some people), somewhat similar to military service in the sense that it provides much-needed opportunity but it is also very demanding. Someone who was once a slave would probably become a very reliable and hard-working citizen and free worker.

By the way, some restrictions, like going to sleep early and avoiding pregnancy, would probably be just what the slave himself or herself would want, since the master would be ruthless in making the slave work and illness (unless it's much too serious to be ignored), pregnancy and lack of sleep would just make it harder for the slave to work. Besides, there could be penalties such as five extra years of slavery for each year of pregnancy. The extra time must be enough to discourage anybody who may take a chance or willingly accept a shorter extension.

[Anarcissie]

If we're doing Swift, we could go lower than slavery and create a class of people whose function was to be eaten. You can just see them buzzing among themselves, hoping to be among the lucky ten percent who get promoted to the slave class.

[Monica]

Well, there could be various categories, such as relatively "decent" slavery, so to speak, as domestic servants or even indentured professionals, for instance, and slavery in very bad and/or risky jobs or slavery instead of the death penalty or life in prison, with a chance to be "promoted" to a somewhat better status for hard work and good behaviour. So there could be some "promotion". There is always worse.

[Anarcissie]

I suppose there could be a class of people whose function was to be savagely tortured for the amusement of others. They could hope for promotion to comestible status.

[tony]

Your this article is very good

[knivesfox]

Thank you for your article

[vlorbik]

i'm surprised that
nobody's mentioned the
prison-industrial complex.
slavery's been back in effect
for quite a while now.
they just call it
"the war on drugs".

[Jared Goldberg]

Monica:

You're serious? Holy crap.

[chris]

Barbara wrote:

"By the early part of the 21st century, however, the gap CEO and the third in command had ballooned up to 260 percent."

So what? The statement also begs the question of whether the total compensation was included. Cash payments are one thing. But stock options are another. The gap between the top dog and the other two or three top execs often narrows when risk-free stock-based compensation is included.

[chris]

Sex and slavery always make a great pair. Female college students have made hay exploiting the two for, gee, generations.

Don't we all know women who "work their way through college" either stripping at the Bada Bing Club or prostituting themselves?

If you don't believe it, check out a few books on the subject. Female novelists have created a genre around the extra-curricular activities their pricey educations forced them to undertake.

As for those foreign women lured here with false promises and forced into prostitution, well, that's against the law. It's outrageous to suggest links between people accepting lawful jobs performing legitimate services -- temp lawyers, for one -- and those who are illegally and brutally exploiting vulnerable people.

Meanwhile, hasn't the liberal left attempted to legitimize prostitution? It's easy to argue that prostitution should be legal. It's certainly accepted in Nevada, and common in cities as well as lesser municipalities.

As in other areas of employment, there is a shortage of workers. If there weren't, the demand for foreign women would disappear. Is it because prostitution is a job Americans won't do? Or is demand for services rising?

[realpc]

chris,

It does matter. If capitalism naturally leads to runaway inequality, then it will ultimately destroy freedom.

We should ask whether, as the socialists assume, this is true about capitalism. And then, if it is, we should look for something other than the usual socialist remedies.

Barbara E. would like everyone who graduates with a PhD to be given a fulfilling professor job with good pay and benefits. She doesn't understand that the crummy pay for adjunct professors results from universities churning out an over-supply of PhDs, at least in some fields.

It's like the difference between holistic and non-holistic medicine. The non-holiistic MD gives you a pill to treat the symptom, while the holistic MD tries to find the cause and return the system to a healthy balance.

Socialism is non-holistic and short-sighted.

On the other hand, blind faith in capitilism is, well, blind. The free market is great, but nothing is infallible and nothing that powerful should be trusted blindly.

If wealth tends to snowball then so does power. Wealth and power could, hypothetically, become concentrated to the point that non-wealthy individuals lose their rights.

That's what leftists are afraid of, with good reason. Of course, leftists are not afraid of governments that seize control and become corrupt and tyrannical. But they are afraid of free markets running amock.

We really should be afraid of both.

Our control over the free market is very limited and precarious. Our interventions should be clever and wise, not short-sighted and simple-minded.

Conservatives have their "law of unintended consequences" which progressives apparently have never heard of.

[chris]

real pc, you wrote:

"If wealth tends to snowball then so does power. Wealth and power could, hypothetically, become concentrated to the point that non-wealthy individuals lose their rights."

If you want a countervailing force to blunt too much capitalist power accruing at a single point, the best way to get there is to encourage the emergence of more capitalistic states.

You can be sure the power of "comparative advantage" will move elements of economic power to different states around the globe.

With China and India on the rise, it's laughable to think the financial power of the world is in the hands of a few Americans. Or that it will concentrate in American hands in the future.

Meanwhile, as much as it would interest me to acquire a Ph.d. in English, I know it's not worth the money, unless I expect no monetary return on my investment.

Probably one of the least valuable Ph.d.'s is the doctorate in education. Unfortunately, it is easy to obtain. Most intelligent people making informed guesses could probably demonstrate their possession of the basic knowledge required for the degree.

Let's see. If someone has the drive to earn a Ph.d., the best financial payoff will come from something either business, science or engineering related.

Meanwhile, the country is screaming for competent high school teachers. Demand for science and math teachers is miles beyond the supply of teachers. I believe English teachers are in short supply too.

You wrote:

"On the other hand, blind faith in capitilism is, well, blind. The free market is great, but nothing is infallible and nothing that powerful should be trusted blindly."

Yeah, well, if "nothing is infallible" then there's no reason to think human strategies to avoid unwanted consequences will outperform our acceptance of market forces.

[papaerpusher666]

Monica, describe what you would want in return for working as a slave. State the number of hours of work per week you would be willing to work consistently. Chances are that your desired compensation wouldn't be a subsistence living with no money in hand and just a roof over your head and your meals and clothing.

Or is slavery just good enough for "others"?

[paperpusher666]

Chris, prostitution is legal only in the less populous counties of Nevada, which makes it illegal in Clark (Las Vegas) and Washoe (Reno) counties. I think that the cutoff is a county population of 50,000. There are also distance requirements from schools and other businesses that the brothels must meet.

[realpc]

[if "nothing is infallible" then there's no reason to think human strategies to avoid unwanted consequences will outperform our acceptance of market forces.]

We can't out-smart nature, or free markets, in the long run. But we also don't have to, or are not willing to, accept the sheer ruthlessness of nature or markets.

There are no slums in the wilderness because there is no welfare. There are no mentally ill homeless animals in nature. Anything that can't survive on its own, or with a little help from its social group, quickly dies.

Animals don't have the brains or the thumbs to meddle with nature for their own short-term benefit. If they did, I'm sure they would.

Free markets are, like forces of nature, powerful and efficient. And like forces of nature they can be cruel. So Chris, I think you might try seeing the feelings behind Barbara E.'s criticisms of capitalism.

I disagree with progressives' logic, but there is value in their feelings. Libertarians turn off their compasssion as they worship free markets and individual toughness.

Toughness is good, to a point, but you can't expect human beings to lie down like sheep and get bulldozed by market forces.

[lc2]

A big part of the problem is that we've gotten used to things that used to be luxuries and are now unwilling to give them up.

A partial list of things that we've gotten used to buying w/middle class incomes, which translates into people making unwise employment and debt choices, born of desperation: (desperation to keep up middle-class appearances)

cell phones
fresh produce out of season
tv's
cars
college classes
alcohol
disposable diapers
cosmetics
pc's
stereos, ipods
books
extraneous clothing i.e. more than the basics
travel

... you get the idea. We live in a time of unfathomable levels of consumption. This is a huge part of the problem, one that few of us, least of all me, want to really address. We want too much stuff, and we don't want to feel the pinch in our wallets. We want to support 4 independent lifestyles, complete w/cars, in an average household of four people. It is an unsustainable proposition and we need to get real about it.

[lc2]

Also:

Monica, employers who draw from this "slave pool" who propose don't pay a living wage currently, plus some, as you suggest. That's the whole point: part-time or not, minimum-wage jobs in the vast, vast majority of housing markets do not pay a living wage. So yes, slavery would be far more expensive.

Wal-Mart comes pretty close to slave-master status in other respects however. It likes to lock its employees indoors when they're stocking shelves overnight. Sometimes when people have to punch out at 1 am lest they work more than 36 hours and veer too closely to full-time, they have to twiddle their thumbs till 7 am when the day manager arrives and lets them go home.

[Monica]

If they don't work and are not paid, they can sleep, can't they? It will never be as good as in a bed, but they can sleep even if they are not allowed to lie down, which they should (even if told not to), because they are neither on the clock, nor allowed to leave. It is possible to sleep while sitting down (and even standing up, as a matter of fact).

And of course, slavery would mean being available all the time except during the time necessary to satisfy physiological needs such as sleep, eating, bathroom breaks, etc. And of course there would be no salary. As explained above, it is things like citizenship or legal resident status, forgiving a huge debt that can't be paid in a lifetime of salaried employment (or only by making huge sacrifices), not going to prison, getting training and a firm promise to get a real job afterwards, getting someone to pay for very expensive medical treatment or surgery for the slave or his/her family, and so on, that the slave would get. That, and better nutrition and not being in danger of becoming homeless because of unpaid rent, if the alternative to slavery is living on ramen noodles as a "free" person. In some cases, such as if a very large debt is forgiven, this arrangement could actually look like a favour, since the slave gets a lot after all.

[Chris S.]

I think one trend is that it's much harder for working class people to become middle class because union scale wages and benefits have nearly disappeared along with alot of industrial work. One could conclude that the difference between slavery and being in a dead end low wage job is only one of semantics.

[chris]

real pc, you wrote:

"There are no slums in the wilderness because there is no welfare."

Not true. There are plenty of slum-equivalent environments in nature. Those are the places that are inhospitable to most animal life, like the Mohave Desert or the Bonneville Salt Flats.

You wrote:

"There are no mentally ill homeless animals in nature. Anything that can't survive on its own, or with a little help from its social group, quickly dies."

That's hard to confirm. Frankly, ALL wild animals are "homeless". Meanwhile, mental illness among animals may take the form of excessive aggressiveness, which might allow the most brutal member of the group to become its leader.

You wrote:

"Free markets are, like forces of nature, powerful and efficient. And like forces of nature they can be cruel."

Compared with what? Life in North Korea? Cuba? Zimbabwe? Darfur?

You wrote:

"So Chris, I think you might try seeing the feelings behind Barbara E.'s criticisms of capitalism."

I see that her criticisms are weak. Capitalism leads to abundance. Food is plentiful in the US. No one starves to death in this country due to insufficient food supplies.

Why? Because the government doesn't actually operate farms. However, our agricultural system is skewed because the government influences food production with subsidies driven by politics rather than markets.

If the government butted out of the energy industry, oil prices would drop a lot. If drilling off our coasts were not prohibited, our oil imports would shrink, our domestic oil industry would employ more people and everyone would pay less for fuel oil and gasoline.

But foolish people who believe (on no evidence) they are putting the well being of people ahead of profits, have punished the entire world with higher oil prices, and consequently, higher prices for everything.

We export oil workers to the middle east and import oil. This an economic oddity given the 80 billion barrels of untapped proven reserves in this country.

How does this help? The US and the world would benefit from an increase in drilling and production of US oil. This simply no argument that can defend our current practices.

This, your statement is partially true. Markets are powerful and that power can hurt. But the energy markets are controlled by politics, not sane economics and freedom.

[Monica]

In fact, the slave is better off because of the security (not being in danger of losing the job, having housing and better food). I can imagine slavery actually seen as an opportunity, especially if a great advantage, such as citizenship or getting out of debt sooner and without starving, is offered. Imagine a judge lecturing the future slave on how great that opportunity it is, that the person does not even quite deserve it, but "it is fair to give him a chance to start over after all". And imagine the person actually applying and trying to prove that he deserves the "opportunity" (after all, it's done for things like bad jobs and military service). In the case of slavery for debt, banks would no longer have to lose money, and people with few assets would be able to qualify for loans because if they can't pay, they would just become slaves. And taxpayers would be happy, because there would be no welfare benefits and fewer inmates in prison.

[chris]

lc2, you wrote:

"A big part of the problem is that we've gotten used to things that used to be luxuries and are now unwilling to give them up."

That's what people have said about electricity, indoor plumbing, refrigeration, air conditioning, air travel, cars, telephones, TVs, store-bought clothes, and much more.

You wrote:

"A partial list of things that we've gotten used to buying w/middle class incomes, which translates into people making unwise employment and debt choices, born of desperation: (desperation to keep up middle-class appearances)"

The notion that people are buying goods to "keep up middle-class appearances" is too silly for serious consideration.

I doubt you or anyone else can provide the definitive profile of a middle-class person. About the best anyone can do is to describe the middle-class person in terms of income. But even that is lacking.

Warren Buffett is a person of middle-class sensibilities. But he isn't middle class.

Who are they, these middle class people? How do we spot them?

You claim the following is a partial list of expenditures for people who are not what they purport to be. How can that be?

Does the purchase of any item on the following list mark a consumer as a profligate wasteful spender?

What defines a "keeping-up-appearances" expenditure? Are you saying people travel merely to return home to tell their friends they were somewhere else? Or that people acquire cell phones to call their friends to announce their arrival in the land of cell phones?

Why didn't you put housing on the list?

Your list:

cell phones
fresh produce out of season
tv's
cars
college classes
alcohol
disposable diapers
cosmetics
pc's
stereos, ipods
books
extraneous clothing i.e. more than the basics
travel

... you get the idea."

You wrote:

"We live in a time of unfathomable levels of consumption."

Unfathomable? What? This is hard to understand? It's quantified in our GDP. Very fathomable.

It seems you favor a return to a primitive state, or at least a state of which you approve. Sorry. Not happening.

You wrote:

"This is a huge part of the problem, one that few of us, least of all me, want to really address."

What problem? Are you saying we spend too much? Well, one answer to that is more WalMarts. WalMart has contracted to sell Dell computers. That should keep a lid on computer prices. Meanwhile, WalMart sells just about every item on your list at favorable prices.

I wish I could shop at one in New York City. But our local politicians prefer high prices over low prices.

You wrote:

"We want too much stuff..."

Unlike Cubans? Or North Koreans? Or people in Darfur?

and:

"...and we don't want to feel the pinch in our wallets."

It is a simple fact that almost everybody spends what they can afford. Only a small percentage of people overspend, which means they suffer a financial calamity. Too bad for them. It's not a death sentence. Meanwhile it seems you think the government should step in to manage the financial lives of citizens. Bad idea.

You wrote:
"We want to support 4 independent lifestyles, complete w/cars, in an average household of four people."

What's wrong with this desire? Some people can afford it; others can only dream about it. Big deal.

Should we live life free of the frustration of unmet desires? Sound totalitarian to me.

You wrote:

"It is an unsustainable proposition and we need to get real about it."

Yeah. And real estate is unaffordable. Gasoline is too expensive and nobody's going to college because it costs too much.

[paperpusher666]

Monica, you've answered my question. What you ignore is the cost to the slaveowner. Suppose that the compensation that the slave gets is the forgiveness of some large debt in return for years of service. It would be to the slave's advantage to have some fraction of the debt paid off every year by the owner rather than have to wait for the end of the period of service. Essentially, what you are arguing for is a sort of mandatory attachment of wages for repayment of debt.

The structure of payments allows the prospective owner to evaluate the cost of hiring the slave. Suppose that the payment for slavery was $10K per year for 5 years of service, or a total of $50K. The cost to the prospective slaveowner is higher than that, because the slave would have income from the forgiveness of the debt, plus would have to pay Social Security tax that income. It would cost close to $16K PER YEAR to be in a position to forgive $10K of debt, provided that it was the duty of the owner to pay the debt, interest accrued on the debt and the taxes that result from the "income" from debt forgiveness. Add the cost of housing, food, and clothing to the total, and the prospective slave had better be at least a college graduate to make them worth hiring, or able to work 100 hours a week.

Of course, it might be possible for the owner to buy the prospective slave's debt at a discount, and so lower the cost of the slave. There should also be a secondary market in slaves under the system that you advocate so that people can be resold if the slave no longer meets their needs or the owner wants to relocate and leave the slave behind.

[paperpusher666]

At the "used slave market", it seems reasonable to expect the "used slave" to have to sign up for a longer period of servitude if discharged by the owner, for whatever reason, to have the balance of the debt paid off by the next owner. It's sort of like the used car lot. The car might have the same number of miles left on it, but you'd have to pay a transaction cost for trading in the slave.

Like the used car market, the used slave would be marked down to pay the transaction cost and let the operator make a profit, most likely by a fee paid to the market that would be added to their debt, but paid by the new owner to the operator of the market. Think of it as the buyer's premium commonly charged by auction houses. Suppose that the slave received $10K worth of loan forgiveness for their first year of service. It might take seven or eight MORE years of slavery to get the remaining $40K (plus fee) paid off. After all, the slave must be a lemon if the owner is getting rid of it so soon, and so prospective owners would be willing to bid that much less to limit their cost.

Isn't economics fun?

[realpc]

"ALL wild animals are "homeless". Meanwhile, mental illness among animals may take the form of excessive aggressiveness, which might allow the most brutal member of the group to become its leader."

Wild animals are at home in their environments. Just because they aren't paying a mortgage doesn't mean they don't have a home.

And your theory about mentally ill animals becoming aggressive leaders is utter fantasy. You're assuming mental illness correlates with aggressiveness, and you're assuming aggressiveness resulting from mental illness can be purposeful and strategic. There is no evidence for your theory, and it defies logic.

Nature is efficient and beautiful partly because it puts the whole before the individual. Weak and sick individuals die. I can't imagine why you argue against something so obvious.

Socialism is not the answer, but completely free capitalism is not acceptable to most people, other than fringe libertarians.

[Alex]

Relating to something in the comments of Chris and lc2, I picked up on the favouring of walmart and the urge to by cheaper.

Unfortunately, that's a double edged sword. The less we pay for products, the less the manufactering of those products will pay to workers. It seems bizarre to think that HIGHER prices are better, but in this one way, they actually are. Supporting a local store with locally made products and foodstuffs will (at least in theory) provide more of a benefit to the local economy, which then comes in turn back to you. It's the same theory behind raising minimum wages. People spend where they live, which then creates more jobs and higher wages for them to spend.

[chris]

Alex, you wrote:

"The less we pay for products, the less the manufactering of those products will pay to workers. It seems bizarre to think that HIGHER prices are better, but in this one way, they actually are."

Nonsense. But if you want to test your theory, see what happens when clean water is sold for $1,000 a gallon.

Heck, we all need water. If we all paid $1,000 a gallon, we'd live in a wealthy society, right?

[chris]

real pc, you wrote:

"Wild animals are at home in their environments. Just because they aren't paying a mortgage doesn't mean they don't have a home."

Aren't all animals nomads?

Who cares what animals do? They're animals. Good for dinner and good for the zoo.

[realpc]

chris,

If you don't think we can learn anything by studying other animals, then you don't see, or don't want to see, that we are part of nature. We are animals and we evolved from other animals. Refusing to look at our evolutionary history just blocks understanding.

You would never say "who cares about history?" We can't understand our current civilization without knowing something about its history, and the history of other civilizations. We can't know anything about what we are if we have no idea where we came from.

"Aren't all animals nomads?"

Different species do different things. There is a swan couple on a lake where I live, and I would say that lake is their home because they never leave it. Other species follow migratory patterns, others follow their food supply. Many animals, such as bees, create lasting homes. Some animals build nests or dens, places they stay at least long enough to raise a brood.

I don't claim to be an expert in zoology. But I think any educated person would naturally be curious about how we are similar to and different from other animals.

[chris]

real pc, you wrote:

"If you don't think we can learn anything by studying other animals, then you don't see, or don't want to see, that we are part of nature."

What I see or don't see is irrelevant in the grand picture. The knowledge I possess and how I use it will not leave a mark on the world.

You wrote:

"We are animals and we evolved from other animals. Refusing to look at our evolutionary history just blocks understanding."

Not really. There's 6.5 billion people on Earth. What percentage can read and write? Of those who can read and write, what percentage knows anything beyond what is necessary to survive?

The answer is: Small Percentage.

You wrote:

"You would never say "who cares about history?""

Again, what does it matter? The bulk of the world's population believes complete and total fictions about almost every aspect of life. Ignorance grows daily and much faster than the spread of knowledge.

You wrote:

"We can't understand our current civilization without knowing something about its history, and the history of other civilizations."

If people were driven by rational thought to know the world and its origins, that would be one thing. But most of the world's population accepts and embraces religious explanations for whatever life delivers. Faith, faith in utter foolishness, not reason, guides the thoughts of most people.

Since the majority of humans face life believing bizarre fabrications about omnipotent cosmic beings and their Earthly representatives, science means far less than it should.

While a relative few scientists and thinkers have advanced man's knowledge immeasurably in the last century, the counterweight of religion has kept most peopole of the world in a long-term benighted state. Advancing technology enables the idiots to spread idiocy faster than the knowledgeable can spread knowledge.

You wrote:

"We can't know anything about what we are if we have no idea where we came from."

Falsity and idiocy are widely and happily embraced. It's so much easier to accept the smoothly crafted lunacy of those who hypnotize followers with the stories the listeners want to hear than it is for the listeners to acquire the often difficult facts that explain our world.

You wrote:

"Different species do different things."

That says it all.

You wrote:

"There is a swan couple on a lake where I live, and I would say that lake is their home because they never leave it."

Habitat? Yes. Home? No. By suggesting the swans, or any animal has a home, you are anthropomorphising. They are animals. They live outside, in or on whatever exists. "Home" is a human concept.

You wrote:

"Other species follow migratory patterns, others follow their food supply."

Nomads. All of them.

You wrote:

"Many animals, such as bees, create lasting homes. Some animals build nests or dens, places they stay at least long enough to raise a brood."

Squatters. Gypsies. Transients. Travelers. Wanderers.

You wrote:

"I think any educated person would naturally be curious about how we are similar to and different from other animals."

The points of comparison are few; the points of contrast are many. And the points of contrast are multiplying.

[Terry]

600 milllion dollar retirement package to the CEO of Exxon.

And he has done what for the world?

[Alex Albertson]

Interesting, I was formally the CEO of Fortune 1000 company. While we did charter private jets we were always cost sensitive. Primarily we used the services of a company called Prudential Aviation, www.PrudentialAviation.com, who specialize in filling empty segemts in gorgeous new Gulfstream jets. It was always a great deal.

[Timothy]

Wow, this chris fella seems to be very well-versed in rules of the "money and power game". This is further buttressed by his reductionist belief that we are nothing more than bacteria, with nothing beyond the bottom two tiers (food and shelter) of Maslow's pyramid. If that were true, heck, life WOULD be nothing but the "money and power game", right?

My point is, progressives need to emphasize the social, cultural, artistic, spiritual, etc. damage of the capitalist system. Mere bacteria are not concerned about the above four qualities. Otherwise you will be stuck in a "resource allocation" debate. In which case the free-market fundamentalist will just bring up the old "the richest countries in the world are capitalist" strategy and that'll be the end of it. Heck, he'll even taunt you by saying only in a free market can a single guy be paid 260 times more than another one who already makes millions himself.

Applied to the above article, I would like to ask, how does a CEO, who earns twice as much as the 2nd guy, 261 times as much as the 3rd guy, and 261000000 as much as people like me, affect all of us, beyond resource allocation implications? Perhaps culturally?

[chris]

Timothy, you wrote:

"My point is, progressives need to emphasize the social, cultural, artistic, spiritual, etc. damage of the capitalist system."

Damage of the capitalist system? Really? Give me an example.

Tell me where you'd rather live. The US or North Korea?

How's life in any country on the African continent? Capitalism is effectively banned from the entire land mass.

How about Venezuela? Chavez is ridding his country of capitalism and democracy. Would you move there now? Or stay here?

How about Cuba? For some, Cuba might look good. Castro will die soon. His fabulous universal medical program led to his botched treatment, which will bring on his death soon, I hope.

Should Cuba finally bury its failed marxist experiment when it buries Castro? Or should a new group of despots seize power and impose more years of misery?

[chris]

Timothy, tell me about the "social, cultural, artistic, spiritual, etc." superiority of other nations.

Tell me where artists are freer than they are here.

How much art-work created in the US would land artists in jail if they created similar works in other countries?

How many Salman Rushdies, with death sentences on their heads issued by muslim nuts, would there be?

How many Timothy (?) van Gogh's (Dutch film-maker murdered by muslim angry over van Gogh's work) would we lose?

Yeah. Capitalism is the problem. You are a nitwit.

[chris]

Terry, you wrote:

"600 milllion dollar retirement package to the CEO of Exxon."

First. Assuming your numbers are valid, you should know that his retirement package is not all cash and it is not payable the day he leaves the company.

Much of CEO retirement compensation is stock -- which can lose value. Theoretically, it can go to ZERO, though I would not expect that from Exxon.

Second, because much of his retirement pay is stock, journalists will place a maximum value on the stock to pump up the total retirement figure. That always sells a little outrage.

You asked:

"And he has done what for the world?"

He crafted a retirement package -- when he assumed the role of CEO -- that rewarded him if he led the company to achieve well defined goals. Apparently he succeeded.

Think what you want, but he led a productive company that works hard to meet the demands of its customers.

Take note that no such concern for the demands of millions of people exists in the countries run by despots and dictators.

Life sucks in most countries because it is not possible for groups of people to work cooperatively to meet the demands of others.

The US is rich even though it must pay middle east muslim dictatorhips $60 for a barrel of oil.

On the other hand, those muslim dicatorships (except Kuwait) are wretchedly poor even though they collect our $60 per barrel. They are idiots.

The US and the world is a better place due to capitalism. Bill Gates, Henry Ford, John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie and a long list of other Americans and American corporations have contributed to the improvement of life. But, in addition to your outrage over the retirement package of one executive, I'm sure you can find other pointless reasons to object to the nature of life in this country.

[Timothy]

yeah chris, just rehash your old talking points, just tell all of us to go to Cuba or Zimbabwe the moment we mention problems with a free market. Great strategy, since you're not the type that takes criticism terribly well...

How in the heavens did you ever think I was implying that Islamic, socialist or communist civilization is any better? Do you just cut and paste the above two paragraphs when faced with opposing opinion???

I want to emphasize that under any political system, and currently under capitalism, things not tied to money and power get neglected, and there you go with your "rah rah free markets, it's better than terrorism and communism" routine.

[Timothy]

Ok talking-point chris, here's the situation in a nutshell that'll be easy for you to understand:

capitalism is better than terrorism and communism. But even though capitalism might be the least of all the evils mentioned above, it stifles culture, spirituality, art and society in its own way.

Below is purely my prediction: chris will probably retaliate by telling us to all move to France, and state more examples of how capitalism benefits culture, spirituality, art and society, which is besides the point but I will acknowledge anyway.

[chris]

Timothy, you wrote:

"I want to emphasize that under any political system, and currently under capitalism, things not tied to money and power get neglected..."

Really? Can provide an example? Or will you simply repeat your unfounded claim?

As it happens, in the last 20 years I've seen more and more and more examples than ever of people engaging in "things not tied to money and power."

As for France, sorry, I don't think as highly of the French as you do.

[chris]

Timothy, you wrote:

"capitalism is better than terrorism and communism. But even though capitalism might be the least of all the evils mentioned above, it stifles culture, spirituality, art and society in its own way."

Oh. How does capitalism stifle culture, art and society?

[chris]

Timothy, add spirituality to the list in my preceding post.

[Timothy]

C'mon chris, do you really NEED examples of how capitalism stifles the above four??? Have you any common sense??? Is the most valid religion, culture, art and society defined by what SUCCEEDS in the marketplace? I'm sincerely hoping your question is not one of your delay tactics

[Anarcissie]

Maybe capitalism is the worst system, except for all the others.

On a related note, I am curious as to what the fifty billion dollars alleged to belong to Mr. Gates can possibly mean. He can't spend it on himself or his friends and relatives, except through obvious waste like building a house for thirty million dollars, or giving huge donations to politicians and bureaucrats to fumble away. At base money represents labor, and there is only so much of other people's labor you can actually get any personal use out of.

[chris]

Timothy, you wrote:

"C'mon chris, do you really NEED examples of how capitalism stifles the above four???"

Yep.

You wrote:

"Have you any common sense???"

Yep.

You wrote:

"Is the most valid religion, culture, art and society defined by what SUCCEEDS in the marketplace?"

In other words, you have no examples. Your criticism is just fashion. And it's a dull one as well.

[Timothy]

The problem with you, chris, is not that you support capitalism. The problem with you is that you SWARM people who disagree with you. You try to win an argument just by saying a lot. I, for once and for all, thank capitalism. Without it I wouldn't be typing on the message board, with air conditioning on high, on a building overlooking an ocean in a country that hasn't been invaded since 1887. Point taken.

But the point I'm trying to get you to understand is that culture, art, spirituality and society shouldn't be valued by what price it fetches in the market. And their rise and fall shouldn't be dictated by how they do on the market

[Anarcissie]

Timothy: What is the alternative to things succeeding in the public marketplace? It seems to me it can only be succeeding in bureaucratic hallways. In my experience as an artist and an observer of the arts, while you can put things over on bureaucrats occasionally, what they mostly go for is dreary and lifeless, because they go by words, by the book, by things looking like other things look that they were told in school was "art". At least the bourgeoisie want to be epateed now and then.

[Timothy]

Okay I've had it with this chris guy, all he wants is the last word on everything. I'll let him have it

[Timothy]

Anarcissie,

of course what you said is very true. All I can say is to be aware of the powers-that-be who try to dictate how much you and you do is worth, not controlled by it and spread the word fast!

[realpc]

realpc: "You would never say "who cares about history?""

chris: "Again, what does it matter? The bulk of the world's population believes complete and total fictions about almost every aspect of life. Ignorance grows daily and much faster than the spread of knowledge."

I have no idea what the heck you're talking about. You said you don't care about understanding other animals and I said ignoring our evolutionary past is like ignoring history.

Your response seems to be that since, in your opnion, most people are ignorant (except for yourself, of course), there is no reason for any of us to improve our understanding.

Talk about irrationality!

And yes, people do believe in fiction, but you are no exception. It is our nature to learn some mythology and not question it. No matter what we believe, it is never the whole truth.

I believe in capitalism as the best possible social and economic system. Nature is capitalist, in that everything depends on supply and demand. Human beings cannot engineer a better system.

On the other hand, our species will, and always have, meddled with nature for their stort-term benefit. People will try to conrol capitalism to minimize its disadvantages. Most interventions just make things worse in the long run, but the alternative is resignation.

Capitalism is the best possible system, but it sucks. We should learn how to live with it. Progressives constantly moan about its defects, libertarians constantly insist that it's perfect. Both are wrong.

[Monica]

The slave or his master would not have problems related to income taxes, social security, or so on, and there would be no salary, and no need to quantify the amount. It would be like prison: after a certain number of years, it's over, and the former slave gets the advantage he was supposed to get, such as no longer owing money. Special rules could be created for this situation to allow the person to start with a clean slate once the slavery is over.

Since banks lose money anyway when someone can't pay, the banks could own the slave and perhaps rent him to somebody else for a relatively affordable fee. Moreover, that could be arranged even if, in fact, slavery is not profitable, just to hold people accountable and make them think hard before they get into debt or don't pay. Collection agencies would have an argument: "Pay or else you may end up a slave, whether this is really profitable for us at that point or not. What do you prefer: to pay us XXX dollars a month, or to have us bring you before a judge who will decide for how many years you'll be a slave?". That would also replace bankruptcy, or rather be added to it, as people would not be able to just walk away from their debt or part of it without first paying the price by being slaves.

Same thing for citizenship, or any other advantage that could be offered. The slave gets just the advantage that was part of the deal. He starts his new life with zero money and assets, or with things like a bus ticket and a few dollars, as if he got out of prison.

[lc2]

Sigh. chris usually manages to not only get the last word but to ruin all the fun here on this forum. I've tried to explain to him/her -- more than once -- that none of us are trying to write iron-clad arguments here, just throwing out some ideas for discussion. For whatever reason s/he takes it on her/himself to vociferously and viciously refute the rest of us. The problem is, we already KNOW everything s/he has to say!! That's why we're here ... b'c we're tired of the "everywhere else in the world you'd be stifled/starving/running scared/covered with a burqua" crap we've been hearing all our lives.

chris, I wish you would just go away. And don't flatter yourself, it's not because you've found the holes in our ideas, it's because you kill the fun and spontaneity of this forum.

[paperpusher666]

Monica, the IRS would take issue with your point of view. "In kind" payments are taxable as income unless there is law in effect to make them nontaxable. That's why the housing or housing allowance that military personnel receives isn't taxed. Similarly, debt that is forgiven (or merely claimed as a bad debt) is income to the debtor in the year that the bad debt is declared.

I suspect that for you, slavery would be more about revenge than anything else. One of the reasons that they gave up having debtor's prisons was the cost of running the prisons. You'd need some changes in the law to make what you advocate possible, and I suspect that it wouldn't be worth it. Would you want to share a house or spend much time around someone who resented you intensely?

[Monica]

Of course some laws would have to change to make that possible. After all, slavery is currently illegal. In my system, things like in-kind payments or debt that is forgiven would not count as income for the slaves.

The slave would have no particular reason to resent the master, especially if the master is a third party such as someone who rented the slave from the bank with the debt, but not the bank owner. But even then, that would be a business arrangement and there would be a great benefit afterwards for the hard-working slave. Also, don't forget that many people, such as illegal immigrants, suffer a lot and are often near-slaves in reality without getting a great advantage, such as immediate and automatic citizenship, handed to them on a platter after a certain number of years.

That would not be about revenge but about making people accountable (if slavery is due to things like crime or debt) or providing a perfectly legal means to succeed through hard work (in the case of citizenship or a guaranteed job after slavery is over).

I would support debtor's prison, too, but I think that slavery is better because it can be made economically profitable or less expensive, or at least the person is working really hard at useful work instead of doing nothing or only meaningless tasks in a prison or poorhouse.

Even if the slave hates the master initially, maybe that would change after a long time. People tend to get used to each other. Moreover, if the master is rich and well-connected, maybe he would do something nice for the slave like finding him a job or giving him some money at the end of the slavery period even if that was not part of the deal. Don't start with the IRS because of the gift, too. Maybe it would be paid in cash (hey, the guy has zero money), maybe it would be taxed, but at that point, the slave would get back into the real world and soon start paying taxes because he would get a normal, paid job. Only while a slave, the individual would have no taxes to worry about, but no money either, and hardly any possessions. In fact, technically, he would probably not even own the toothbrush that would be given to him.

[chris]

real pc, I wrote:

"The bulk of the world's population believes complete and total fictions about almost every aspect of life. Ignorance grows daily and much faster than the spread of knowledge."

You responded:

"I have no idea what the heck you're talking about."

Religion. That's what the heck I'm talking about. Not the basic Ten Commandment advice for getting along in the world. In fact, I'd cut out a couple.

Rather, the complete guide for living and the determined effort within all religions to enforce ignorance at the expense of fact. To demand faith instead of reason.

You wrote:

"And yes, people do believe in fiction, but you are no exception."

But I have no difficulty or objection to shedding disproven ideas and replacing them with ideas of greater merit.

You wrote:

"It is our nature to learn some mythology and not question it."

Learn some mythology? Yes. Not question it? Speak for yourself.

You wrote:

"No matter what we believe, it is never the whole truth."

Your one true statement.

[chris]

Timothy, you wrote:

"But the point I'm trying to get you to understand is that culture, art, spirituality and society shouldn't be valued by what price it fetches in the market."

The market value of culture, art, spirituality and society is your obsession. Not mine. You are focused on quantifying the value of non-commercial creation. Not me.

Why do you believe what you believe?

However, to address the issue, do you know any artists? If you do, you will observe that the most serious among them want lots of money for their work.

I know quite a few. They all want money, lots of it, for their work. And they believe they are worth it.

As I've said, the amount of non-commercial creative activities has soared in recent decades. You seem to almost resent this flowering because capitalism has made it possible.

You wrote:

"And their rise and fall shouldn't be dictated by how they do on the market."

Once again, you repeat your obsession with the market value of creativity. That's you at work assuming you possess some insight into the minds of others.

Finally, you haven't given any examples to support your claims. Your lack of an answer to that question makes it plain you don't have one.

[Perry]

An adjuct teaching 3-4 classes (a full-time load) each semester would earn $30-$40,000 per year. That isn't poverty and why should someone be homeless on that amount? At our university adjuncts get benefits. It isn't only the oversupply of PhDs that creates more adjuncts but also the university's desire to have the flexibility to adjust to fluctuations in enrollments without laying off or firing people. Only about 50% of adjuncts would prefer full-time tenure-track employment. Many have kids and like the ability to fit their schedule into other responsibilities. I just don't see this as exploitative. Even if you compare adjunct salaries to tenure track, the adjuncts are not required to do the entire job. They do no research, have no committee assignments, do not do advising or mentor students, and are not expected to teach at the same level of excellence. For example, there is no expectation that adjuncts will use technology in the classroom or supplement their lectures with AV or interactive activities, assign term papers or even do essay exams (as opposed to multiple choice). So the many ways adjuncts cut corners to invest less time in their courses are permitted when a tenure-track professor would not get away with half-measures. Further, many adjuncts use this lower expectation to teach far more courses than a tenure-track professor is permitted to do, teaching from 7 to 17 courses per semester (poorly). I think this stinks but I wouldn't waste any energy feeling sorry for the people doing it.

[theresa]

Experience shows us

Wealth unchaperoned
by virtue is never
an innocuous neighbor

--Sappho
`800 BC

[paperpusher666]

Monica, you're missing the point. In order for the form of indentured servitude that you advocate to be economically viable, the prospective indentured servant has to offer work of a value that makes the debt worth forgiving, while paying the maintenance of the person, rather than writing it off as a bad debt and getting a tax credit of whatever the corporate tax rate is times the debt, which can be done at the stroke of a pen. Credit card agencies have your SSN, so it would also be easy enough to issue a 1099 for the discharged debt, making it income to the debtor. That is beginning to happen more and more in the subprime lending markets as mortgages go into default, if the house is worth less than the value of the mortgage.

One of the issues of prison labor is that they can far underbid companies that pay a market wage. That's why the folks at UNICOR (federal prison industries) are required to sell only to federal agencies, and not to, say, Wal-Mart. Another issue is release money. It varies from state to state, but I think is almost always less than $500, plus what they were able to save while in prison, which usually isn't much. If you're going to make indentured servitude a real path to getting people back on their feet, they would have to exit it with a decent credit rating and enough money for the various deposits that renting an apartment requires. This is another item that drives up the cost of your plan.

I'm about to become an indentured servant of sorts. In return for paying about $5000 in moving expenses for a job that I begin next week, I had to agree to continue to work for that employer for a year. If I don't, I have to pay the moving costs back. Fair enough, you might say, and I'd agree. The moving expense allowance is taxed as ordinary income, but I do get a payment in addition to the reimbursement that pays the taxes. This has the effect of complicating my taxes two years running, because I don't receive the make-whole payment until the year AFTER I file for relocation expense reimbursement. I'll get $3500 (net of taxes) in year one and about $1500 in year two.

[webmaster]

testing

[Nymphalidae]

Whether or not an adjunct job is worthwhile depends on the school. I have a friend who is an adjunct who will be making less than she did on a grad student stipend and with no benefits.

[buena]

Read the comments from adjunct teachers in the blog and "our stories" on the United Professionals website: www.unitedprofessionals.org

Many feel they are taken advantage of through poor pay, lack of benefits, etc.

[paperpusher666]

Buena, I can't disagree with you concerning the pay scale for adjunct professors. Many people with full-time jobs teach a class in their area of expertise for a couple of thousand dollars a semester, and that's in the Washington, DC area.

All that it takes to get hundreds of applications from Ph.D.s is for a university to run an ad for a tenure-track position. In the sciences, it is taking two and three postdocs for the new Ph.D. to land their first job.

[Hattie]

Real PC says: There are no food stamps for wild animals who can't compete.
How true.

[tomthetemp]

"I agree with everything you say, but want to make a distinction between those who are choosing to do what they love for low pay (adjuncts and lawyers)"

I take issue with this. Most of the lawyers I work with in cockroach infested basements aren't choosing to be there. Law School is expensive, debt loads can easily top $150,000-200,000 at 8% interest, and the jobs are few and far between. (only a tiny percentage of law school graduates land those fancy, high paying associate positions that everyone hears of). We have no choice; we have to make those monthly loan payments. Firms know of our desperate, and are taking advantage of the situation. They bill us out at $250 an hour and pay us $19-35 an hour to work for 80 hour weeks in crowded, unventilated basements. If this isn't indentured servitude, I don't know what is.

If we choose to walk away from these conditions, we will default on our loans, our chances of ever landing a permanent job will be ruined, and the bar authorities don't look to kindly on student loan defaults.

[Al, Canberra, Australia]

Your findings are true to what I fear is slowly emerging in Australia, at least with the CEO's in all fields of professions. Remember, global economy means global jobs - most of the CEO's don't even work or live in Australia, yet enjoy the riches of the company's workers talents and innovative skills.

I know a very talented artist in a TV industry, making the TV Station millions of dollars by creating the images that 'sell' the station's programs - earning $3/hour less then in his night job as a cleaner ... work that one out.

[Michael]

Wow. Just WOW. Lawyers working in "sweat shop conditions" for $19-$25/hr is a BAD thing? Talk about class elitism.

The Market bares what it does. We have FAR too many lawyers in this country, so the lesser among them have to "demean" themselves for "only" twice what the average American makes? Forgive me for being less than sympathetic.

[Michael]

"They bill us out at $250 an hour and pay us $19-35 an hour to work for 80 hour weeks in crowded, unventilated basements. If this isn't indentured servitude, I don't know what is."

Are you kidding me? $19/hr at 80 hours is $1570/wk without OT even accounted for. More than 80 grand a year. $35? Thats $2800. For a WEEK. $145000/yr.

I'm sure most of America is crying for you.

[Michael]

"But the point I'm trying to get you to understand is that culture, art, spirituality and society shouldn't be valued by what price it fetches in the market."

It should be valued by EXACTLY that. What YOU value usefull among those things is likely different from what I value them. So Why on earth should I be forced to pay for them?

Personally I don't see "the arts" as beneficial to society as a whole, so why should my tax dollars benefit those who do? In fact, taking it a step further, I'd say that 98% of Americans are never exposed to the "arts" our tax dollars support, easily making the point those $$$ should never be spent.

[What?]

"Are you kidding me? $19/hr at 80 hours is $1570/wk without OT even accounted for."

Your right, alot of projects won't pay overtime, they claim an exemption.

$200K of student loans at 8% interest, comes out to $1500 a week.

[What?]

Why should some biglaw partner (CEO of the legal world) be able to bill a client $250 an hour, and pay someone else $19 an hour to do the work in sweatshop conditions? 19 of 250 is 7%!!!!

[Robert]

Managed Hosting, Colocation and Data Center Services by victoryushchenkonashpresudent ...

[Robert]

Managed Hosting, Colocation and Data Center Services by victoryushchenkonashpresudent ...

[ltqgo xpyhvk]

fdrhjlwky bhjodzplu zjpudtlyw peiqb prgctvxi siaw hnkcp