Crossposted at http://www.leftturnsonly.wordpress.com
Before we begin, we should read Paul Krugman's piece in today's Times. I could just link to Krugman everyday, he pretty much says it all, but that wouldn't leave me with any fun.
Okay, now that we're up to speed; A funny thing happened to me on Facebook again. I posted a status update that the Pittsburgh Steelers (who will be making their 8th Super Bowl appearance next month) should "share the wealth." A friend of mine, a staunch conservative, had this to say: "I suppose that you would like them to redistribute their wealth to those teams that did not earn it."
Now, we were both having some fun, injecting socio-economic talk into our sports fandom.
But, it got me thinking.
The NFL, under the leadership of Hall of Fame commissioner Pete Rozelle, turned itself into the dominant professional sports league in the world. (Soccer is still the world's dominant sport, but it's pro leagues are spread out among dozens of countries.)
And the NFL's story is not a triumph of capitalism. Rozelle's legacy is one of parity, both on the field, and in the front office. Rozelle knew that what was best for the league was best for the teams, not the other way around. Rozelle's most notable innovations, team salary cap and revenue sharing, are intrinsically socialistic.
The NFL operates as one unified whole. The individual franchises are free to turn a profit and operate independently, but they must follow league rules.
Just like American businesses must follow the "league rules" of the U.S. Imagine if Verizon and AT&T had to share revenue for the greater good of the nation they operated in! It's completely unthinkable in today's anti-government, pro-big business climate. But the NFL is seen as a uniquely American enterprise, and it operates this way every day.
Which brings me back to Krugman, who says...
"...the interests of nominally "American" corporations and the interests of the nation, which were never the same, are now less aligned than ever before."
If the NFL can institute a fair and equitable environment for its franchises to operate, what can't the U.S. government set up a fair and equitable environment for its people to pursue the American Dream?
Let's take a quick look at how American business works.
Most of us, like me, have taken Econ 101. We can draw a supply and demand chart, and give a brief description of how a 20th century small manufacturing business got widgets to Walmart.
Some of us have M.B.As and are equipped to run the day-to-day operations of a corporate branch.
A select few, like Krugman, have a PhD and teach economics at Princeton. So when Paul talks, I listen.
When most of us think of the American Dream, we think of small businesses and entrepreneurship. These are two institutions, that, for the most part, have been eliminated from the American economy.
Small businesses have been bullied around by the Walmartization of America. While modern entrepreneurship is pretty much limited to making a web or phone app, and hoping that either Google or Yahoo buy you out.
There is nary an example of a small business, owned and operated by a member of the community, who can build his business as his life's work, and make his living providing a needed, and trusted, good or service to said community.
It's all about corporate takeover.
It's Big Business that runs things. Big Business isn't interested in the greater good of its community, or the nation as a whole. Certainly, they're not interested in the well-being of their employees. Big Business is beholden to one all-mighty: the shareholder.
Now, most of us are shareholders. Anyone with a 401k has stock in these big multi-national corporations. But, once again we're not who Big Business is interested in. I don't even know where my 401k is invested, and I certainly don't show up to shareholder meetings.
It's the big investor. The people who can create a bloc of shareholders large enough for majority or near majority control. And these shareholders want one thing: Growth.
It all seems reasonable. Investors want their stock prices to go up, that's why they invested. And it all makes sense on the surface. But a business can only grow so far. Once you're a multi-billion dollar, multi-national major corporation, there's nowhere to go but down.
But the shareholders still want their growth. And the corporations have a legal and ethical duty to provide it. That's when we see layoffs, stagnant wages, longer hours and disappearing pensions.
So, who, as our title indicates, earns their money more.
- The $62,000 middle-manager who pushes paper around, and can show $1.2 million dollars worth of efficiencies?
- The $30,000 worker, who created $250,000 worth of revenue, but saw his pension shrink and his health insurance premiums rise?
- The $25 million CEO who can show $500 million on the bottom-line, mostly through layoffs and lowered insurance and 401k matches?
- The $150 million investor, who supplied some capitol, but sat on his yacht eating caviar until the shareholder's meeting?
This is why we have true, monumental, devastating income inequity in this country. We could use a Pete Rozelle to shape us up.
<