Why work for a living

Got off to a good start after high school as went to Vanderbilt University which is a top ranked school. And despite diverging after by enlisting in US Army, I did become a military officer later with a direct commission.

Then my life felt like went off the rails. A racist officer deliberately smeared me on an officer evaluation among other things accusing me of hitting on his buddy's girlfriend. His buddy it turned out was the civilian Radiation Safety Officer whose girlfriend was the head of the Mammography Department!

I once asked her to lunch in the hospital cafeteria. Was a friendly gesture. She declined. I thought nothing of it. My job back then was inspecting all radioactive emitting devices including in her department.

But was accused of hitting on her in an evaluation that read like a soap opera. So I appealed, got a JAG attorney who just really shrugged and said he could get away with it. And the US Army separated me but thankfully with an honorable discharge.

So much for claims of US Army about fairness and am not mad now. That was nearly thirty years ago. But my faith was shaken. I would trust American systems, no more.

Am glad I learned that lesson! In recent times a pandemic has been badly handled. Has killed and killed but people keep being told is managed. Are pressured to go back to work if managed to leave to be safer.

The pandemic virus causes brain damage and actually shrinks brains. Is airborne spreading when people talk! Governments have resisted telling those details though. I know is fear of additional government regulations, like for clean air or rights of workers.

The talk of our nation is one thing but like I learned with US Army, you cannot trust that.

But work is necessity. My work life went off the rails. That distrust I learned was not helpful for stability. But was great for personal safety. Repeatedly I found lies and exploitation were the norm. Trying to find a way to make my own way was eventually technically homeless. But relied first on family and later my status as a veteran to never be forced to live on the streets. 

Have documented much here. Have under label: struggle.

We work for many reasons where is not just about surviving but also thriving. Our systems are deliberately broken. Am working now to fix them.

Working reality and how information rules

Proper business involves providing a socially acceptable product or service for people who can pay, who are usually called, customers.

That business is so simple should be comforting. And many people can consider ready examples of places where if they have the money, and behave like people who value the efforts of others, they can readily obtain things of value to them in exchange for money.

While making money for most involves finding a business where a person can provide a service in exchange for money, which is typically called, pay. That pay should be a simple exchange of value-for-value got lost on some, who learned bad business practice of pay as little as possible which requires leveraging information against others.

For example consider you do some amount of work for someone, where we will keep it simple and say that what you can do is properly valued at $100 US for this arbitrary amount of work, where someone employing you knows THAT is the value. But that person pays you $60 per unit and simply pockets the other $40 US and that is NOT possible unless you have no clue.

That person requires your trust for you to be so betrayed by knowledge you do not have.

Like, who would hand that money to someone else if knew that was the value of the work done? And is the money you should receive if you knew that proper value of your work.

But how do you know? And turns out is a reason for people to discuss how much they get paid for work, so that a community sense of value can protect against ruthless business people who I say, are simply thieves. And someone like me can casually dismiss a lot of wealth in our modern world as simply thievery on a scale few humans apparently can comprehend.

I find that interesting that human beings seem to be woefully inept at preventing this form of thievery. But surmise it went wild with arrival of modern computing technology which apparently makes it easier for ruthless to hide value of work and plenty of folks find it more difficult to figure out value of their work efforts.

Looks like trillions US were simply stolen. Isn't that fascinating? I think it is.

Pay as little as possible for people who do things you need for your business to function? And I want you to go out of business.

Business should simply pay the value of the work received, returning the favor of that work, which is the decent behavior.

As nations learn better, we are starting to realize the human cost of behavior which is just cheating people which can have devastating consequences. I theorize the system arose after American slavery, and was refined by watching the stunning and devastating impact which is still highly visible over 150 years later.

That governments and even civil rights leaders did not focus appropriately on how much cheating people out of money they actually earned with best efforts can crush them psychologically while enriching thieves puzzles me.

Thankfully the web is changing things rapidly in our times.

YOUR information can rule the wealthy and tame the most ruthless among them, if they pursue lawful business. The more we all know about how much work is actually worth is a benefit for our entire global system. It matters for billions of humans who want best lives possible.

To me contemptible humans do things like deliberately take efforts from others, and even cheer them and push them to work hard, only to repay with far less in value.

The web helps people to know. Your best efforts should be properly rewarded.

The amount to pay? Should be the amount of value YOU bring. Better businesses will try to pay you properly, but is up to ALL of us to keep up with the others.

We can no longer as a world accept that cheating people is acceptable business practice.

It never should have been. But lessons from after American slavery were so enticing to some people apparently from the history already made. And eventually taught history will tell you who am sure. The record is still there and as our world transforms, future generations will learn the story better.


James Harris

Business professionalism and showing up

Years ago in San Francisco found myself concerned while at work, with the realization social media could intrude. Careful to do things on breaks at least a few times found myself drawn to my social media as breaking political news was piling up. Sure was a position I called my day job, since I knew was working to figure out much, but prided myself on my professionalism. And one of the most important basic things as a business professional? Is showing up.

And physically being there at work is of course important, but also mentally being there and completely focused on the tasks at hand is part of business professionalism. My mental focus was wavering at times, and found that distressing though had not to my knowledge negatively impacted my job performance--yet. Where I primarily did data entry at a large insurance company. A position had started as a temp and turned permanent.

My job tasks were many, from handling ordering of office supplies, to some work talking to customers on the phones, but primarily I entered legal invoices into the company database, and also wrote checks for many.

Was a comforting position for me as a solid amount of work, could help me handle my continuing disquiet with web things. And understand better now, as the web has disrupted much.

At THAT time was trying to process learning that my web efforts were routinely garnering attention from over 100 countries.

Like with my own efforts at figuring out math, had found out that my math blog had annual visits from 125, which have repeated often for about a decade now. Yeah, math can draw that kind of attention learned personally.

The web quite simply can leave you--unsettled.

And why wouldn't it? Back then puzzled if the web stats were even real. Like, who were these people all over the world? Why were there no other indicators seemed to me? Where was the HUGE of WHATEVER thought should connect with such a thing as global on that scale? Reflexively looked for what I now realize are celebrity markers based on what I thought I knew primarily from the American entertainment industry.

Was not in an entertainment arena. And now have realized really didn't know much from what television told, and I thought I saw, when would even bother paying attention to celebrity things.

Being a business professional requires that you show up, both mentally and physically for work.

That simple sentence is one I understood then, but what I realize now is, yeah even if you are not sure what exactly it means to be global in our web age that will impact your ability to stay focused in most job arenas. And I wasn't even sure! Maybe one day, it would all click and whoosh!!! Then I would be gone, leveraging my global attention levels appropriately, possibly to have my own business.

Instead found my ability to even manage a day job crumbled. After I FINALLY put up a current picture on the web, and I do not blame that company if that was why I ended up in a general layoff.

Web is so new really. What exactly is the business risk with someone getting attention from around the globe?

For me that is not a question can leave unanswered and is not one where have had a good answer when contemplating employment now. Monetization of the web is a hard problem that is crushing entire industries, or completely remaking them.

Is cool to know your ideas can draw attention that is global.

But then is daunting to realize am a pathfinder. Looking around much am constantly searching for answers as watch others. The global messed me up for a LONG time as expected too much from it. And it still bothers me that with that important thing, figuring out how to make money is not automatically a part of it.

Even the numbers for people still push against my preconceived notions--as how then so few? But do know lots of people are not showing up in how that data is collected. So many countries but registering such a small number of people. Now realize the web stats hint more than tell the full numbers. And now feel is better to ask, how does anyone in this or that country even know who I am, and why would that motivate a visit to one of my blogs? Or to anything I have on the web?

Plenty of times can get a better sense then as can check which parts of blog are drawing interest from where. Is wild, looking over my own writing, and asking myself what brings certain attention from certain countries at a certain time.

Another reason to go self-referential, and pay attention to when I notice some person myself, and learn of interesting stories of others, around the world thanks to the web. Which emphasizes to me, is not the easiest thing really.

This blog is quieter across the board though. Which is also telling.

Never big country numbers as typically around a dozen. That differential helped me realize--is real. If was just some random thing, then would look same across my blogs. Is HUGE reason to have more than one web thing, to compare across them.

While some of my blogs were routinely drawing interest from 50+ countries annually, this one never moved much, even if I tried to promote from the others. Its stats just would not react that I noticed which is yet another web puzzle.

But then again, is just more evidence. People know what they want and go to get what THEY want. I cannot simply direct them this way or that, and myself am same way. Web sites cannot simply direct me in efforts to promote some other web site. I have to have a reason from my own interests to go to one web site from another.

So yeah it does make sense with time and thought. Are real people out there with real needs, and they know why they are doing what they are doing. YOU reading are a real person. My thinking with this post though is like am chatting with someone and talking these things through. Oh and thanks for your interest! Have learned helps me to give that appreciation, as grounds me more. Helps feel real.

Can tell now what draws global more, and even relate to what notice from others. Have tested the potential many ways, while the money struggles continue.

Maybe it is helpful to put out there. Writing a post like this one not only helps me get a better handle, can explain for others and maybe even help others.

The global attention can come ahead of anything else. And that global attention can be disconnected from so much else.

You can struggle massively both to comprehend, process and handle, while being pressured still to work.

And as a business professional, you should show up, which I will do. And my commitment to professionalism will not waver. My focus on work will always be to show up, both physically and mentally. Understanding helps massively, and have a better handle how to maintain my standards still as web things become more...familiar.

Challenges from the web have better helped me appreciate exactly what so much more means.

Welcome the lessons learned, but is much like being forced to get a law degree I tell myself, while needing to get work as a lawyer, while the law is in constant flux. Where replace with having to figure out the web, while needing to somehow get a paying occupation with web impacting much, while the web continues to evolve.

Now I look at struggling INDUSTRIES and am like, oh, ok. You have people with billions US in monetary assets and thousands of people needing to figure it out, and they're still struggling.

Necessity does not create the knowledge. We have to figure it out. And THAT process takes time and immense effort.


James Harris

Wage, work and web

Our species has the first major technological advance in its history, as computers have fully arrived in many ways, which has lead to the greatest economic inequity in its history. Where I like simple explanation and that is easy to find.

For example, consider a worker today at a company who, with the aid of computers or things related to computers including the web, can do the work that was done by 4 or more people in the past. So you have a business which requires a worker for a task, and that worker brings value to that company, which is in excess of what any one person could do in the past and can be 4x but their pay?

Is possible that worker is making roughly the same as any one of those 4 workers in the past.

That money not paid in return for that value received to the person who gave it flows upwards to business owners, including stockholders when there are any.

Society in our times rather than focus on the value an individual brings to a business, has let businesses pay people based on a perceived value to their work, which is based on historical trends, now woefully out of date.

Computer revolution swept through rapidly.

The web has begun to help. As people share salary information that can push wages closer to the value you ACTUALLY bring to a company, but still, how do you know?

How does anyone know?

And turns out that the business does know.

The problem became so harsh and destabilizing that crippled economies were beginning to have difficulty functioning, as people are, thanks to computers, giving vastly more value than they are receiving in return.

Some communities are so destroyed, drug abuse and other dysfunctional behaviors are taking over for people who cannot understand why working hard is no longer enough in the US. Which is a troubling conclusion for me. And do NOT condone drug abuse but am not against looking for simple explanation there for explosions in rates of it in the US either.

While business owners have pushed the idea that they are simply smarter and better than other Americans. And some stoop to fighting to maintain low wages, knowing their employees barely survive and often require public assistance, as politicians begin to figure it out, and try to push for higher wages including by raising the minimum wage.

Good news is that in time balance will arrive as web facilitates flows of information, like here. As Americans especially escape the programming that we are vastly overpaid, and begin to focus on figuring out how much your work effort is ACTUALLY worth.

Especially if you realize--that business? Is likely lying to you about how much more you bring, when with computers you can do the work that 4 or more people were required to do in the past.

Do the math on what you SHOULD be making then.


James Harris

Business of risk

There is so much risk in life where people can pool resources with businesses which will pay out when needed, up to a point, if needed. And such businesses are called insurance companies.

So strangers will take care of your needs, because you've given them money along with enough other people, if you have a problem covered under a contract, which limits liability of the strangers.

And have posted about money and limited social trust before.

Business is about limiting liability to others, while community at its best will save you with its every breath, like if your nation goes to war. The United States as a community has fought. Like with other allied nations as a community of nations more than once to save our world, and community at the highest levels has no limits. And yeah, even family should not, though reality is that is not always true.

As a community the nation has a duty to its citizens, while to be a business an insurance company should only pay to the limits of a contract. But what if a person is sick and still needs care?

If your insurance runs out? Then your community, if you have it, should still care for you. And when it comes to health insurance, your nation should bear the responsibility, and that is probably best paid for at the national level, but could also be at the state level in the US working together with the federal level.

If an insurance company keeps paying past the contractual limits or takes on a person already sick?

Then that insurance company is NOT acting as a business.

Here's a tweet I made recently talking a subject have discussed here before:

Under my healthcare plan ANYONE can have any health insurance provider. Health insurers direct insure only their choice. Administer others. https://t.co/05LHNDrYYV

— James Harris (@jstevh) July 13, 2017

And the tweet links back to a prior tweet where I gave a rather simple healthcare plan which could fit into 140 characters. And will post the text here:

My healthcare plan: Preventive Care--everybody, Core Care--insurables, Expected Care--not easily insured, Elder Care--quality of life at end

Where explain all in a post, from 2009: My Healthcare Plan

That insurance companies can administer insurance even if they are NOT paying from the pool paid into to handle risk is not a wild idea.

Wealthy people will have an insurance company, when they will pay if, for instance, in a car accident. The insurance company has more expertise than a wealthy person who presumably rarely gets in an accident, with handling accidents, and that expertise is worth a LOT.

There is no reason for a person to stop receiving care if they reach caps in their health insurance!!!

And politicians know it.

The government can simply pick up the tab from that point on, while the insurance company continues to handle administration.

It's a simple idea folks. Harder to do in the past because administration was very expensive too, until computers made it very manageable.

So why would such a simple idea, which I put forward in 2009, not be part of the national discussion?

I can speculate. More than likely is about TAXES and POWER.

For instance, single payer healthcare would give vastly more power to the US Government, and some seem to desire it. While others seem intent on cutting their taxes by any means possible, and somehow have figured out a way to do so with healthcare a mess.

Some may wonder about the details, like what if people refuse to pay for insurance and just wait till they are sick, knowing is guaranteed? Well I explained one way to handle with a post I called health insurance responsibility back in 2012.

But limits of liability to be a business are just a reality. Without limiting liability, insurance companies can't act as true businesses, but with it they can focus on their strengths, without people caring as they still GET care.

Do you care with your health insurance, who pays if you need care, like if you're in the hospital as long as payment is guaranteed?

So if it switches from your insurance company paying direct, to the government paying you STILL get care. And don't even have to notice as still interact with same insurance company.

Why would you? Main thing for you is to get medical treatment and get well, not worry about who pays.

Why would anyone think you would?

James Harris

Uniform taxation proposal for web entities

The question of taxing activity on the web has been deferred for quite some time but as someone who has thought about gaining revenue on a global scale will admit am very interested in a uniform solution so have ideas for one.

To me the simplest solution is to have a global body tasked with gathering taxes at a globally decided percentage of revenue per user, or per transaction above flexible minimums which nations could set. So a web entity would simply report same to that body which would also collect those taxes and then distribute to nations.

Nations then would be tasked with further distribution, like here in the US down to the state level, where the state might then distribute down to the local level.

There is still some big data in there so that enough information is available for that to happen, but other than sharing that data the web entity has a simplified taxation position, and can be protected from worrying about granular distribution.

So the web entity would see only one taxing authority. That global taxing authority would only see nations for distribution. And then those nations would worry about the rest.

Some might wonder why such a system would be best but in my case for example am lucky enough to have a product in over 100 countries which is an open source software product so don't and won't have to worry about taxes, as is freely shared! That's cool and feel lucky is an option. Open source is one of the greatest things that thankfully arrived with the rise of the web.

But producing something for profit is daunting enough a prospect that will admit I'd just as soon not worry about lots of things, especially how could one handle just the taxes from a few nations let alone over 100?

The web by easing distribution means that web entities that are relatively small companies could potentially sell valuable products on large scales but be incapable of handling vastly different taxation rules. And even large corporations am sure find that burdensome though guess some may be facing it now. But nations just want the money, right?

Having globally agreed upon taxation levels could facilitate collection of tax revenue while removing impulse to cheat, facilitate business creation so a small company anywhere in the world could potentially handle worldwide product sales, and leave up to nations to still work through how they wish the money to further distribute.

These ideas are just some that occur to me pondering things, without claims of expertise with it noted am looking at my own interests in potentially having a company with a global product which operates for profit with the belief that in time there will be widespread taxation. It should not be construed as a claim of expertise in any related area. Nor do I claim it is the best solution or that it will lead to a solution as am simply putting forward ideas. If these ideas have been shared by others already, great!

Am not currently looking at anything on this subject though so as far as I know am putting out ideas that are products of my creativity, but I read a lot from all over. Besides the concept is simple enough I'd be surprised if not similar to ideas out there.

These ideas I consider open source, freely given to the world for its use, or can just be ignored. Benefit to me if used greatly outweigh any other so would make no further claims against anyone who used them. And further do not even ask for attribution back to myself.

Well that was fun. And yeah am NO expert in legal things, so I have to guess at things to handle potential areas where yeah, someone might get excited when there is no reason. These are just some ideas occurred to me today I wanted to share, and they are freely given.


James Harris

Work really fascinates me

Realized have some simple concepts about work, outside of physics, and what it is. So figured should just write out to see.

To me work is when a person provides a service under some kind of contract to some entity.

So you could work for your mother by doing the dishes, and she could be said to have put you to work. Or you can work for your nation, in service to your country, at any number of tasks.

And employment to me is when you work for some entity for remuneration.

And to employ someone you establish a contract for them to work for you for some remuneration.

What fascinates me about looking at work simply is the idea of some kind of contract within its definition, which then carries over to others. But employ is a verb which I think still needs contract stated when trying to define simply. And why abstract to this level?

Because how we define work defines so much about how people give back value to their society usually in exchange for value in return, which is how you make a living. And with my idea that money is most efficient as a return on a favor, the favor of work is interesting to me as well. But are you doing your mother a favor by washing the dishes?

And contracts are a huge subject where you can have social contracts and written ones, but guess all reflect some kind of future obligation. Contracts indicate you will DO something, not that you have done something.

Whether your work can be considered to be a favor to some other entity or not is a lot about community. Having a friend favor you with a cup of coffee is great. Having a stranger do the same at a coffee shop is commerce, as you return the favor with money, which I see as a social IOU. You return the favor of the cup of coffee with money which will be used later in exchange for some other favor.

But defending your nation? Is not a favor to that nation but can be about duty, honor and country. So the nation figures out how to value employment for national defenders on a community basis and for instance in the United States, the US Congress works out how to pay soldiers in the US military.

Found myself almost shifting from saying they work in the US Congress but of course those elected to represent the interests of their constituents are to do a service for their nation under a social contract. They get people to vote them into office with expectations they will do valuable service to the nation.

Our expectations as voters are about future work.

Looking at work simply helps me consider how to work best. But for instance, is this post work? I don't think there is a contract involved, unless am working for myself? The post definitely reflects effort, am sure. Am trying to do my best, and to communicate things I feel are important for myself and for others, maybe.

So to me, no this post isn't work. It IS fun.

It's an opportunity to share ideas others may find useful and help me clarify my own thoughts and set them down in a way meant to help freeze them in place.

Decided not to put links to other posts in this one, but it has labels: business, employment and money and can click those below to get other posts related.


James Harris

Money and resource allocation

Have spent a lot of time talking about money, and I think for many there is the idea that money has its greatest benefit in helping societies allocate resources. After all, it lets us put a monetary amount on the value of something, but I have already spent some time talking about limited social trust and how people tend to use money for things they value LESS, which is not something only I noticed.

When searching on the web I came across a Wikipedia article on the paradox of value, which brings up water, which is great, as water is an important resource.

Not surprisingly in my country water is SO important, most people pay very little for it, though others pay more by buying bottled water.

In fact, water is so important that I suggest to you that the only reason people pay any money for it at all in the United States, is to limit overuse.

However, there has been corporate interest in the area, where water rights can be bought up in some communities, where conceivably people could be unable to pay the corporation for water down the line, so what would happen then? Well the government would step in of course and simply take the water rights back--without regard to money.

People can't live without water. And in fact if you take water from a person for only a day, he will be in distress. If you keep it away from him for over a week, he will die.

Even if he's a billionaire, what good is his money if no one will give him water? Like if he were kidnapped?

Yet water is one of the most important resources where money clearly is NOT good at allocating, and in fact, I think most resources in society are actually allocated on community needs.

More than most may realize I'm saying societies allocate most resources, especially important ones, by other means than money, and then may simply slap a monetary value on something after the fact, which can be entirely arbitrary. For instance, how much is a nuclear weapon actually worth? Or any medical cure? Or a college education?

Why? Because money is NOT a system for resource allocation as water demonstrates, but is a way of enumerating the value of a favor. It has limited utility, as it requires limited social trust. And in fact, when things get VERY important, people act without any regard whatsoever for money, as it is then irrelevant.

After all, paper money is just scraps of paper with stuff written on them. It is, in and of itself, utterly worthless. But it is a symbol of a favor which can have value. But very limited value in carefully socially circumscribed areas!

Resource allocations in society actually follow different rules, like how do you pay firefighters?

You can't pay them per fire put out, right? You can't give incentives for setting fires so that firefighters can get paid by putting them out.

If you ponder how a community figures out how it should pay people like firefighters, police officers, and political officeholders, it doesn't take long to realize that mainly you want to give them enough to live, support a family, and have a certain amount of social stature within the community.

Which means, of course, that people who want to get rich don't take such positions, though in corrupt societies, unfortunately, they may take such roles which is a CLEAR sign of corruption. So, someone becoming a police officer to get rich, may do it to take bribes from drug dealers. And a politician may get elected in order to parlay political favors for wealth from wealthy people or corporations.

People who are more community oriented, who treasure family, friends, and human beings working together for the good of all, are NOT going to be money motivated.

While people who are money motivated are unlikely to be any of those things, as their focus is on gathering favors from others.

For instance, it is cliche to talk about a man pursuing his fortune utterly ignoring wife, family, friends, community needs, etc. in his relentless pursuit of it. His focus is NOT on community.

Can a society operate without money? And the simple answer is, not if it's a big one, as money provides the important mechanism of limited social trust. It limits how much we need to trust people. And in so doing allows business as we know it in the modern world which has given so many in our world so much. Reality is that trust is a BIG DEAL. Being able to limit it, is the foundation of the modern monetary system.

Your community has to trust that firefighter. So you do as well, and if your house is on fire, you do not have the right to question his orders, as he tries to save your life and property. Which he may do at great risk to his own life and personal safety!

But that guy just out to make a buck? Need to trust him? Thankfully, not nearly as much.


James Harris

Want a PDF? Trying out sharing from Google Drive. Just click this link.

Wealth versus ruthless behavior

One of my favorites from last year was a post concerning Henry Ford. He is an icon of American business for good reason with good and bad elements to his story, but one thing that impressed me the most was the bravery and audacity he showed by more than doubling the salaries of his workers. Can you imagine today? What if your boss, if you have one, doubled YOUR salary?

And it was a fierce fight for him to get that done, though he controlled his company. There was a lot of opinion against, but thankfully he was brilliant enough to see the possible, and make it happen.

But what about the fierce rich? What about the cruel wealthy who ruthlessly fight to limit pay to their employees? And the reality is that we more often associate brutal, ruthlessness with the wealthy, even though there is plenty of evidence it's not the best way for them to gain greater wealth.

Surprised? I'm sure plenty of people believe all kinds of things not true about how you build a fortune, including ruthless back-stabbing, lying to your employees, regulators and anyone else. Avoiding paying taxes. Cutting salaries and endangering employees by not paying attention to safety. And many other ways of cheating that are often associated with wealthy people and corporations and every single one of those things is horrendous for actually making profit in the real world.

Customers don't exactly like shoddy products that fall apart as soon as they try to use them. Disgusted and angry workers don't exactly build the best things. Bad safety practices, well, can burn down entire buildings. And you can dream of beating people into doing what you want, but reality is people don't exactly respond well to it. Would you?

Fantasy is one thing. Actually running a business is another.

So why do people believe otherwise? Because I think there are plenty of businesses that engage in those behaviors and claim it's to make money.

Why do they make that claim?

While there are cases where bad business practices, or changing business climate can push people to cheat, I think usually it's because they like doing it.

That ruthless boss who is so hated by his staff that they dream of his death, probably enjoys inflicting pain on them--even if it hurts the company's performance.

That supervisor who humiliates and demeans employees, just likes to do it, even though it hurts company profits.

That person who cheats and cuts corners, may just be lazy, or even stupid, possibly in a position because of who he knows, or whose son he is, when he has no clue what he's doing.

And I could go on, and on.

People make excuses for bad behavior because it IS bad. Claiming it's a way to make money, even when it's not, is easy. Easy is appealing to some.

But the best in business can't afford the business consequences of stupid behavior.

Henry Ford went on to become even more fantastically rich, where doubling the salaries of his employees was just one part, but an important part of his success. Those around him who thought it would bankrupt him were just plain wrong. It helped do the opposite.

It's weird to consider: but if Henry Ford had listened to those people American history would have been drastically different, and he would probably never have become as rich as he did! They were counseling against the path to far greater wealth and stature on the world stage. Those who thought he was wrong to do it, even though also wealthy, were just not as good at business.

And thanks to his stubbornness he helped invent modern America.

Appropriately Henry Ford is given a lot of credit for the rise of the modern middle-class--around the globe.

Today with that group under siege by ruthless wealthy, who dedicated tremendous efforts to unraveling this country's economy, it's worth thinking back to how much has been undone.

Some wealthy will always be convinced that inhumane ruthless behavior is the key to success, but who ever said that being wealthy meant you were also smart? I sure wouldn't.

These people lost American lessons that go back to Henry Ford.

Ruthless people have made their way in business. I'm sure. But who gets to make America?

Thankfully, we're learning again that paying people what they are worth, or at least trying, is a lot smarter than ruthlessly trying to exploit them, as not only does that not best build profit, it breaks down the economic base of the United States of America.

We need a country that works for everyone. Lets everyone work best. And puts wealth in its proper place.

Our country does not limit how much you can make.

So no one in this country should limit this nation's potential.


James Harris

So what is capitalism?

People can toss a word around where the meaning can get a bit fuzzy and hearing lots of talk about "capitalism" I thought it worth it to post about what it is. And will start with what the Wikipedia claims it is:

Capitalism is an economic system in which trade, industries, and the means of production are largely or entirely privately owned and operated for profit.^[1][2] Central characteristics of capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labour and, in many models, competitive markets.^[3] In a capitalist economy, the parties to a transaction typically determine the prices at which assets, goods, and services are exchanged.^[4]

Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

For instance, if you make money from a store you own in a neighborhood, you are a capitalist. Your store is your capital, as well as the products it sells, which you presumably buy on the free market. And the living you earn from selling goods to others from your store is your profit.

For a country, the alternative in general to private ownership is that the government owns, for instance the store, and provides goods to a population.

And that's it.

So what if the neighborhood owns the store? Then the owners in the neighborhood are capitalists, if they operate for a profit. If they don't then they aren't.

Is there any scenario where people other than the government own the store which does not make the owner's capitalists?

Yes. If they don't make a profit from the store. But no, if they do.

That is, if you follow the definition, then the neighborhood store is capital. And those who own it, if not the government, are capitalists, if they make any money from it.

If they don't, then no.

And you can build from there.

The alternative from private ownership is ALWAYS the government owns.

So how can people operate something without a profit? It depends on how you define "profit".

My own view is that what you call profit is a matter of community.

What's interesting to me is that if you go with a person owning a store in a neighborhood who does NOT make a profit, then I guess that person would need to be independently wealthy to run the store.

But a community might be able to run a store without profit, assuming members of the community have income from some other sources.

While the government can run a store without profit, as it can rely on taxation.

And we can see an example where primarily the government runs things, where also there is private enterprise with education.

Here in the US below college level, schools are primarily run by the government, though there are private schools. At the college level, there are government run colleges and universities, as well as a lot more private ones, but even those are still for the most part non-profit.

And government pays for running schools at all levels primarily through taxation, though students are also at the college level often asked to pay fees.

And it can show how a community can move something outside the realm of profit motive as American society sees a benefit in educating its children. Yet things shift a bit with young adults, who aren't guaranteed a free college education. Though some have suggested such a thing.

But at this point in time, it's not clear what the value is, as college isn't for everyone, while EVERY American child needs school. Where I'm sure there is no real debate in this country as to whether or not that is true as it's a cultural value of this country.

James Harris

Innovation potential of PBV concept

A little while back I introduced an idea I call Pay Back Value, or PBV for short, which gives the Web one more pay model--pay after. 

May seem strange but you do that all the time, like at restaurants or the barber. What would you do if your barber asked you to pay upfront? 

Why do people think that's the only way to pay on the web? It's kind of bizarre in a way that people do!!! Do you know of any other way to pay on the web but upfront? 

It's even worse with subscriptions as you're paying upfront well in advance!!! For a newspaper with a subscription you pay for papers not even created yet. 

But there is this other way to pay that we use all the time. Now I'm going to expand the concept with an innovation to it, which is to have a PBV corporation, and have PBV votes.

So there could be this mega corporation called PayBackValue.com, and you sign up to it, and it gives website owners the option of putting a PBV button on their site, with a link beneath it explaining that PBV is just a way to pay after you consume, like at a restaurant. 

So, maybe you'd have 25 cents, below which is a PBV button, below which is a link that might say: "What is PBV?" The PBV value is set by the website owner, though the PBV corporation may suggest prices, or give continual guidance on proper price given demand. 

But what if PBV really takes off and some website that doesn't have it, wants it? 

Well assuming a PBV base of members are setup--people who have signed up for PBV, which requires they give a way to pay like a credit card--why not give them the option to vote on whether or not the website should be included? 

So a potential website might get a "PBV Test" button, where PBV users could vote as to whether or not they see value in the site itself and might actually pay at it, and if the site, say, didn't get 2/3 saying they might, then it'd be rejected for membership in the PBV network. 

Hmmm...that also gives the option of letting PBV members vote on sites currently in the PBV network, but wait! That's dumb. They're already voting if they are paying, so each pay is a vote. 

But if revenue suddenly dropped at a site, it could end up with a "PBV Test" button (in the terms of agreement in the contract with the PBV corporation), and PBV users could then vote it out of the network, or let it stay.  

Wow. Lots of options for users here! The PBV corporation would, of course, give users access to a report showing their expenditures, on what sites, etc. which could even break things down in various ways to give them insight into their own web valuing behavior. 

Web site owners might really be surprised by something like PBV as well, as what if you have TONS of visitors by traditional measures, but find out from PBV that most don't think your site has content worth paying for? 

Another site with far fewer visitors might make much more money from PBV, while advertising would only give pennies. It could be a quality differentiator on the web. I increasingly believe that hypothetical company will be here some day. 

After all, there is a pay model that many people use every day that is not on the web for some bizarre reason which is to pay after. 

Here's a weird tidbit to leave you with: you buy a newspaper upfront, right? Can you imagine having to pay, say, $1000 US to walk into a grocery store, and be able to fill one grocery cart with whatever you wanted, paying upfront there as well? Oh, $1000 too much? What if they said, $100, but you have to walk past all these signs with ads on them? Ever consider that the pay upfront with ads model is actually kind of strange? Would you pay $100 upfront to walk into a grocery store and fill one cart? 

What I call PBV is simply more like what you actually do: go into the store, take possession of what you want, and pay after, not before. James Harris