This question is marked "community wiki".

Watching "Atlas Shrugged II" movie. Relevant today? Politicians enact "Fair Share Law." Take from the producers and give to the - voting - non-producers.

Atlas Shrugged

“If you saw Atlas, the giant who holds the world on his shoulders, if you saw that he stood, blood running down his chest, his knees buckling, his arms trembling but still trying to hold the world aloft with the last of his strength, and the greater his effort the heavier the world bore down upon his shoulders - What would you tell him?"

I…don't know. What…could he do? What would you tell him?"

To shrug.”

― Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

I would ask Atlas why is he holding such an ungrateful burden? Then he might shrug. Maybe he has already.

How long will the producers keep producing?

I saw a serious change in the 1960s. Yes, there were some problems with segregation and some groups were not being treated equally. My sister's best friend was Coretta King's secretary. Martin Luther King's wife. I met him. I liked him. He had a good spirit. He told me to call him "Marty." I liked that.

But, I saw what appeared to be vote-hungry politicians promoting instant change; beginning to regulate instant change; then passing laws for instant change. Making people unhappy because they did not "have". So let's take from the "haves" and give to the "have nots."

Short term good idea? Those seeds have blossomed into a society where people are more unhappy because they feel they have a right to the goodies; a right that has become entitlement. That mere existence entitles them to rights, and these rights are not dependent on responsibilities.

Welfare was, in the 1950s - 1960s, designed for those who were unable to work, from disability or age. It was not a right that people felt they should have to support, through exploitation of the system. Out of wedlock pregnancy was a disgrace, not a right to be supported by the system.

Change was needed, I agree. Integration was a worthwhile goal. But forced integration has resulted in attitudes that, I think "Marty" would have found idiotic and absolutely polar to his intentions. Welfare has not produced needed supporting strength, but, instead weakness. And with the weakness a frustration among the recipients that they do not have more.

So what happens then? Take a look at the producers. Well, they have more, so let's take that "excess" and distribute that "excess" among the "have nots." But what happens then? What is the likely long term effect?

“Let me give you a tip on a clue to men's characters: the man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it.”

― Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

What happens when the producers begin to say, "Why?" "Why am I working to support the non-producers?" and the non-producers are angry and frustrated because they have been told they should have more? And they vote in a regime that promises to give more, to take more from the producers?

Ayn Rand posits a likely scenario. Business leaders, unable to operate because of regulation and heavy taxation, simply drop out. They disappear. They close their businesses. They leave behind a note, "Who is John Galt?"

What happens then? There are fewer jobs. So the situation snowballs. Politicians borrow -- loot -- from the future. How long will this continue?

“Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter.”

― Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

There seems to be an attitude that the rich, the produces, the business leaders, stockpile their money. That because they "have" there is less to go around. This is stupid and short-sighted to me.

A rich guy drives by in an expensive car. The non-producers say, "I should have a car like that. I should have HIS car. I am mad at him because he has an expensive car and I don't." Short-sighted. Frustration because politicians have told the non-producers that they SHOULD have a car like that and if the non-producers will vote for them, the politicians will get them a car like that. Anger at the "haves".

Why do the "haves" have? It is not really from taking from the "have nots" not at all. It is from creation.

What happened to create that car? It is the result of labor, invested capital, and really results in the distribution of money. People were paid to build it. People were paid to acquire and process the raw materials that were part of the construction. And Yes, a business leader also made a profit, but this profit was spent to buy goods and services from more laborers, so the general standard of living improves.

But, instead, I am seeing the producers being taxed and regulated to support the non-producers. Nobody is happy. The system is flawed; and the economy goes downhill. It can't -- it will not last. The equation is against prosperity for everyone.

I started on a dirt-poor farm. We were poor, but I liked working, producing and became successful.

I have had to close some businesses. They could not survive in this economy. I am not alone in doing this. What can be done? I honestly don't know. I think that the system will somehow be self-righting. That the idiots will not be able to maintain the present situation no matter how many restrictive laws are passed.

I am reminded of "Lawrence of Arabia." The desert tribes through force acquired a large modern city, but they did not have the education to run it. First the electrical power quit working, they could not fix it. Then the water, then the rest of the infrastructure. Finally they abandoned the city and went back to the desert.

What can be done? I don't know. Personally I can not align with either political party. Too extreme on either side. All I know is

Mad as hell

EDITED: I admit that Ayn Rand is/was a harsh viewpoint and I am somewhat more inclined to a softer approach. I was in a peculiar mode when I wrote the above, this is not a good story and I want to tell a different and better story.

I am trying to make this less of a political statement and more about telling a better story.

@Snow is correct that education is critical to effective and long lasting change. We need to put more money into our schools. I'd be fine with dramatically cutting foreign aid as well as overseas military budgets and putting the funds into USA education.

We are spending money abroad when we need to be spending here at home. What happens on a macro or a micro scale when you use your strength to support another?

Abraham Hicks have told us that focusing on another person's, or another country's weakness, serves only to exacerbate that weakness.

I suggest that most foreign aid and our overseas military supports weakness. Lets pull back and see other country's strengths and see them gain the ability to better solve their own problems without our support.

And for our European members who get their info from the media, I would suggest a visit to California or Detroit or deep southern USA might give a more accurate understanding.

Damn' and I was gonna try to tell a better story. I need to seriously tell a better story. Wish I had not made this post, but it won't delete!

I am going to go take a long hot shower and read something better than Ayn Rand. All this is doing is moving me away from my Joy.

asked 18 Aug '13, 09:07

Dollar%20Bill's gravatar image

Dollar Bill

edited 19 Aug '13, 07:28

This is why I voted Jill Reed (12 Visions Party) for president.

(18 Aug '13, 20:37) Wade Casaldi

I think an American politician once said "you cant make the poor richer by making the rich poorer" He was right!

(19 Aug '13, 03:48) Monty Riviera

You said:"Damn' and I was gonna try to tell a better story. I need to seriously tell a better story. Wish I had not made this post, but it won't delete!"

I have many questions and answers I'd like to delete for good reasons. You have none to want to delete this one. It was a very good question. I think edgy, but good. If you can tell a story you consider to be better, by all means please post it if you're looking for someone who is interested and/or willing to engage. I find it compelling. =)

(20 Aug '13, 08:35) Snow

The S.O.S. Encourages reading Ayn Rand material. This is reason enough to consider it relevant.

(21 Aug '13, 23:51) Wade Casaldi
showing 1 of 4 show 3 more comments

I read your question soon after you posted , first thought was that is kind of a political question for IQ. Then I started thinking of political answers. Was busy yesterday with a rusty ball joint on a Volvo so had no time to sit and type that answer. Then it came to me. This is a LOA question.

What anyone else has or does not have has nothing to do with you. The only thing that affects your experience is the way you utilize the Non-Physical Energy with your thought. Your abundance or lack of it in your experience has nothing to do with what anybody else is doing or having. It has only to do with your perspective. It has only to do with your offering of thought. If you want your fortunes to shift, you have to begin telling a different story.
---Abraham Excerpted from the book - Money and the Law of Attraction



answered 20 Aug '13, 02:25

ursixx's gravatar image



Great the kind of answers that come when your using a 10 kilo sledgehammer.

(20 Aug '13, 10:02) ursixx

I'm European and I find the obsession in the US about Ayn Rand peculiar, maybe even dangerous.

She helped establish a fatal black and white thinking, especially a dichotomy capitalism vs socialism, which is a very false one. I figure it has become quite a meme in US culture. Socialism does not mean welfare state, the term "socialism" originally meant workers to be in control of the means of production, it doesn't say anything about the state. But that just as a side note and a little history lesson.

Me, personally, I don't like big bureaucratic states either, I'd even suggest this model of societal organization should belong to the past in the information age. If you look at history, the average half-life of a typical nation state is maybe 100 years. But that doesn't mean I support the alleged opposite (which it isn't), some kind of radical capitalism, or better said, I don't believe it would be stable either.

"The Market" and "The State" are not opposites, contrary to what most US Libertarians and Tea Party conservatives would like to believe. Throughout history, they worked together hand in hand, in the interests of the privileged classes, oppressing the peasant and working classes; e.g. markets and currency were an invention by kings and emperors to get the population to support and feed soldiers. Further recommended reading: Debt: The First 5000 Years.

Adding to that, the desire for more welfare today is understandable though. Capital has concentrated into the hands of the few over the centuries, and also we live in a more and more automated society, computers and robots take over jobs much faster than new ones can be created. Some say this line of arguing is a so-called Luddite Fallacy. Fine and well, I also believe progress never ends, but it just doesn't happen fast enough (yes, maybe the cause is the State schooling systems, but that doesn't solve the problem at hand for now). This is our main economic problem today, besides concentration of wealth in a few corporations, too big and bureaucratic nation states, and a very wrong monetary system.

Ayn Rand falsely suggests that only strong and virtuous entrepreneurs can save America, or the world, for that matter. Surely some have good ideas and talent, but her views are ridiculously simplistic, and maybe Freud would be able to say a thing or two about her.

I agree it's not nation states who should provide welfare. Now back to the idea of workers being in control of the means of production: May I suggest a different idea, it's called syndicalism, and it works very well in practice:

The Mondragon Experiment (1980)

In a more and more automated world, horizontally structured organizations will very well be able to handle these dynamics. Every human being has talents, so everyone would be engaged in a branch of an organization somewhere (i.e. everyone would get a job self-evidently and almost automatically), and everyone would naturally be owning shares of the means of production. Everyone can move around to someplace else much more easily if machines take over their job, or the organization can provide further education or retraining, or they'd simply be able to work less and less, for the same wage (as productivity didn't decrease after all), until new innovations open space again for new fields of production.


answered 18 Aug '13, 18:08

herzmeister's gravatar image


edited 18 Aug '13, 18:22


Wonderful answer. Thank You!

(19 Aug '13, 12:15) peplumen

Nice to see a voice from the past. Welcome back @herzmeister

(20 Aug '13, 02:04) ursixx

thanks. You can thank Edward Snowden that I found this account again. ;) I had an email account at lavabit which closed down, so I had to wade through all my saved messages and update all accounts I found to a new email address.

(20 Aug '13, 03:31) herzmeister

haha We can thank Edward for many things then !

(20 Aug '13, 04:01) ursixx
showing 2 of 4 show 2 more comments

Damn. Harsh letter. Got me interested. I like it, I'll play.

On some points you're not very specific. In fact much of your letter lacks the detail necessary to actually address specific points, such as perhaps your particular qualms with which portions of social services, since you seem to be in favor of some but do not specify specifically where your dissatisfaction lies. So I'm going to have to infer what you're referring to and reply accordingly. If I'm off point please do clarify your intent. =)

Making people unhappy because they did not "have". So let's take from the "haves" and give to the "have nots."So what happens then? Take a look at the producers. Well, they have more, so let's take that "excess" and distribute that "excess" among the "have nots." But what happens then? What is the likely long term effect?

What was the minimum wage 'back in your day'? To avoid any misunderstandings regarding what the figures mean: if you were to compare the spending power one earns on minimum wage from then to now how different would it be? What is the relative cost of living? Now, we know things have changed, the question now simply becomes "How far is too far?" How far along the road of argumentum ad absurdum do we have to go until your stance becomes indefensible?

Would it be acceptable to aid those in need if one minimum wage job only provided you with three quarters of the wages necessary to survive? "Just get two jobs." OK, what if minimum wage only provided half of the wages necessary to survive? "Good, your two jobs will just barely pay for you to survive." Alright, what if the person wants to also go to school so they can get a better paying job? (Even though many with higher education are working low income jobs not in their field of study) "Work some overtime." OK, what about time for school?

At what point do you have to concede there needs to be a change? If minimum wage were 6$/hr? 5$/hr? You tell me where your number is, because logically there has to be a breaking point where "Oh they're just jealous of the have's" becomes an acknowledgement that sometimes, at SOME point, people will need help. Where do you start to think help is OK?

What happens when the producers begin to say, "Why?" "Why am I working to support the non-producers?" and the non-producers are angry and frustrated because they have been told they should have more? And they vote in a regime that promises to give more, to take more from the producers?

I'm glad you asked this question, because you may have noticed a similar tone in my last paragraph. What if we pose your question in reverse? At what point in time do the jealous lazy ones become oppressed? I'm not saying they are, I'm asking where you draw your line in the sand.

― Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged There seems to be an attitude that the rich, the produces, the business leaders, stockpile their money. That because they "have" there is less to go around. This is stupid and short-sighted to me.

A rich guy drives by in an expensive car. The non-producers say, "I should have a car like that. I should have HIS car. I am mad at him because he has an expensive car and I don't." Short-sighted. Frustration because politicians have told the non-producers that they SHOULD have a car like that and if the non-producers will vote for them, the politicians will get them a car like that. Anger at the "haves".

This is the same exact kind of lowest-common-denominator argument which doesn't do any positive benefit to thoughtful discourse. Also I like Ayn Rand's use of the phrase "short sighted", since there is none other which more aptly describes Rand's work except perhaps one sided. Especially this particularly unusual strawman which is quite distracting as I assume it's intended to be. Can I say all rich people behave like Scrooge and are greedy and are killing our economy because of abusive, improper, and immoral business practices? Yes. Would it be true? Of course not, there are many people who are charitable and giving with and without money. Can you say all people who don't have money immediately want a fancy car? Of course not. Can you say all people who don't have money not only want a fancy car but are ANGRY at those who do have what they don't? Absolutely not. This is absurd.

We can all acknowledge there are stereotypes like this that exist. Just like the lazy system abuser stereotype, just like virtually any stereotype. But if we base our arguments only on attacking the weakest any group has to offer how is that valuable in an intelligent discussion? I can say all Christians are hateful evil cruel self-righteous judgemental narcissists who run around with signs saying "God hates fags" and "God hates America" and "Thank God for 9/11" and saying God made 9/11 happen because of the fag loving society we're going to burn in hell for embracing. [Reference to the WBC, what some might consider the least Christianity has to offer]. And what's the best part? I can even provide scripture supporting why they're actually following Biblical instructions! But what good is this? What good is not only not seeing the whole picture, but also fixating on the worst part of the picture which also happens to only correlate to the point I want to believe?

People look for arguments to suit the belief they desire to have before they consider the arguments. Similarly, people are drawn to religions or beliefs which give them a permission slip to behave or believe as they wanted to in the first place. But ultimately when it comes down to it the religions don't matter to the person, nor the argument, they just want an excuse to believe as they wish. This is why you can have a book like the Bible, which has so many opposing points it's absurd, and have one group who takes this and says "We should love everyone! He who is generous to the needy honors the maker!" another group takes it and says "It's my job to judge people and try to force them to live by the religion I chose for myself while being as polite and proper as I can be" and still another says "I need to scorn and damn those unlike me for the good of their own soul".

Why do the "haves" have? It is not really from taking from the "have nots" not at all. It is from creation.

For us to actually make any progress in ANY topic we need to be able to be at least somewhat objective. We need to be able to say "Sure, there are some evil people flying the Christian flag, I can't blame all Christians for that." We need to be able to say "Sure, there are some corrupt and greedy people in high places, I can't alienate those who are fighting for the same things I am despite being well off." We need to be able to say "Sure, there are some lazy people and freeloaders rich and poor, but this doesn't mean I can ignore all those in need and pretend anyone who is can't also be a normal human being."

We have two figures which are increasing at different rates. The amount of money the poor are earning is not increasing at the same rate as: the amount of money the rich are making, the amount of money it takes to meet the basic needs of life, the amount of money it takes to pursue recreational needs in life. It's clear this isn't sustainable, at some point anyone who believes this is OK and doesn't need to be addressed is unarguably wrong. The question is how many years need pass at the same rate until the disparity becomes too great? When will nobody be able to consciously argue otherwise?

There are people who can look at this and say "OK, we should address this problem now." There are others who say "It isn't a problem right now, it's still easy enough to live, if it DOES get worse or bad enough to warrant my attention then we can change it." So the question is, do we really want to sweep it under the rug? Do we even care? It wont be our problem, so is there a reason out there to warrant making a change?


I might ask.. How can a country not feed, clothe, house, educate, and employ every single person who wishes to live there when its budget for war is multiple times greater than what it would take to accomplish these goals?

I propose a mental exercise. Our budget is more than the next twenty largest military spenders combined. What do you think would happen if only ONE HALF of our military budget was spent on education? Would we fall to the immediate invasion of combined forces of the next half dozen countries? What would happen to our children? Our adult education? Our universities? Our sports teams? Our extra-curricular activities? Would our employees be more productive? Would reproduction rates go down? Would intelligently informed students be more likely to prepare a life for themselves before having children? Would the "greatest country in the world" actually enter the single digit rankings in student's test scores in math, literature, or science? Maybe even the top 5?

Maybe there is priority issues among those in welfare, but it seems to me it's best that one is able to admit there are priorities askew in all levels of life, and that is why this is the era of revolution.


answered 19 Aug '13, 03:26

Snow's gravatar image


edited 19 Aug '13, 04:08

Social Services - I was at a housing project recently. There were a lot of single parents. 13 year old mothers, 26 year old grandmothers and so on. I asked a very young girl what was her life goal? I had to rephrase this several times until she understood. "I'm gonna have me some kids so I can get me an apartment and a check from de gov'ment." There were nods of aproval from other residents.

(19 Aug '13, 07:37) Dollar Bill

Minimum wage? $4.00/hour So, let's look at buying power. In 1969 gasoline was 32 cents a gallon. It is over ten times that number now. I bought a brand new Mustang auto for $2800. It is over ten times that amount now. Is minimum wage $40 an hour? Are single wage earner families able to make it anymore?

(19 Aug '13, 07:42) Dollar Bill

@Snow - I completely agree with cutting our foreign military budget! AND most foreign aid -- welfare for the world?.

Let's put that money into our education and stop this suicidal political borrowing from our future to support top heavy governmental programs. I am going to edit my original post.

(19 Aug '13, 07:47) Dollar Bill

Your first comment absolutely terrifies me. I know, I've seen the same thing. But I don't blame those people for being that way, I don't believe they were born lazy freeloaders or that they're even unintelligent. I think nobody showed them they could be successful at something or how to find something more, and they're unknowledgeable. But there are no options for ways we can leave them out and forget about them. The only choice we have is to work to undo the damage from decades of failed gov&ed

(19 Aug '13, 18:13) Snow

Your second comment is exactly my point, why I think welfare is a symptom not a cause, and not the problem needing addressing. Single wage earner families CAN survive still, but not until you start earning near double minimum wage and only if you have one child who isn't very hungry.

I believe if we address the issues which are actually the root of this problem (evil & careless politicians, failing education, fucked up attitude where we look down on those left behind) welfare would solve itself

(19 Aug '13, 18:17) Snow

Hell yes welfare for the world. I'm perfectly OK with us taking a few hundred billion and establishing supercenters in the most needy areas of the country and world to provide economic growth, food, education, safety, development. How much have we spent on building or developing weapons of war? My imagination goes crazy at the idea of what kind of a University you could create with funding like that. I'm fine with spending mountains of money trying to improve a life, we already do to end lives.

(19 Aug '13, 18:29) Snow

Oh, and last thing @ your first comment: Like I said, I'm not even going to try denying those people exist. Nor that it's a growing group, nor that its existence is horrifying. This being said, one can find people who are good examples of people trying to improve, make a difference, raise their kids well, putting the money they get into the well being of the kids instead of into their own indulgences.. Can you punish the latter because of the existence of the former?

(19 Aug '13, 18:36) Snow

@snow it is the same problem always some get very rich on the back of other people. Why to have desire fulfilled money and power. When a system is making some people poor and some rich can we say that this system is in balance? or can we say that a system in balance benefit all the people that are part of the system? system are human created to serve their needs. But when some human are poor, hungry, have no place to stay. and some other have more money then they need the system needs to be fix.

(20 Aug '13, 08:01) white tiger

@WT: It's true some will always be more prosperous than others, and that's not necessarily a problem. It only becomes an issue when the imbalance becomes too great to sustain. If things are kept even reasonably in check then all things move along smoothly. Problem is we are so far out of balance things are starting to collapse, but we're not willing to always even admit there's a serious problem or we minimize the gravity of the situation. I agree with you completely pretty much all around.. =)

(20 Aug '13, 08:43) Snow

@snow be perfect as the holy father is perfect. if you keep things reasonably in check when it become not reasonable will you know it? would you drink from a cup that is dirty inside? or from a cup that is clean inside? on the outside it might look find but how is the inside? can you tell if the inside of the cup is reasonably clean and in truth.

(20 Aug '13, 09:37) white tiger

@Snow - I don't have any blame for the people on welfare. I have no complaint for the wealthy who made their money. My question relates to political looters who have gained votes by empty promises that do no more than stir up grief. That create a false sense of entitlement that weakens the people it is supposed to be helping,

(21 Aug '13, 23:27) Dollar Bill

@snow - The young girl and many others in this sad housing project had bought into that sense of entitlement that said the general population, owed them a debt, that it was their right to "have kids and get a check from the 'thority."

A government that forces employers to hire minority workers, not because they are qualified, but because of their ethnicity or color of skin. Sure, those people can vote, and they do. It is a vicious cycle.

(21 Aug '13, 23:32) Dollar Bill

Unquestionably the answer is education. BUT education is a slow process. The educated are much to young to vote. So, let's get bigger and bigger financial band aids.

Personally I agree with most of what you are saying, but I don't believe that our present system even begins to address the underlying problem. It is this waste, this inefficiency of the administration that appalls me. The money, the benefits are not really reaching the deserving needy.

(21 Aug '13, 23:44) Dollar Bill

And I think that we need to clean up our own, first. I am for drastically cutting our foreign military budget and divert those funds into education. Stop our interference in those countries and let them solve their own problems. I would also dramatically cut foreign aid. I don't think that we are really helping the majority of people who need that help. We are making their politicians richer.

(21 Aug '13, 23:51) Dollar Bill

I don't see a good answer, but I do see fellow businessmen dropping out. A close friend just went under. He was supplying certain computer items for the State government. A "minority" business was trying to get this contract. They had had it before and totally botched it. They won the contract on a six month trial. My friend mortgaged everything he had to pay his employees for that six month period. Hoping that the "minority" business would fail to deliver.

(21 Aug '13, 23:57) Dollar Bill

They botched it as badly as they had done before, but they were a "minority" business (designation) and they kept the contract and my friend went bankrupt. The State was concerned that if they took the contract away and gave it to my friend that they would be faced with discrimination charges. See the logic there, @snow?

Damn! Just got up for a drink of water and got sucked back into this muck. I am going back to bed. I am just making myself feel badly and need to explore different realities.

(22 Aug '13, 00:01) Dollar Bill

I see the logic behind many of your arguments, and in varying degrees align with them myself.

"Sucked back into this much"? Aww, that's too bad you see it that way. Don't let it make you feel badly, it's been fun and engaging if nothing else. Thanks for the discussion. Feel better. =)

(22 Aug '13, 00:09) Snow

Thank you @Snow. My present frustration is fueled by the huge amount of taxes I pay to a government, that if it had to try to exist in the real world of business would be a dismal failure.

And I am tired of business. In October I will hit a milestone. 70 years old. I am already playing and having a good time.

I am involved in politics at a grass-roots level, behind the scenes. There are some good people I support and some excellent organizations.

(22 Aug '13, 00:44) Dollar Bill

I am fortunate in that even after taxes, I have the means to support the people whom I see making a difference. is one of the shining examples of powerful, intelligent education. We need more school systems like them, and they are coming. And I am doing what I can. This makes me feel good.

(22 Aug '13, 00:49) Dollar Bill
showing 2 of 19 show 17 more comments

for history to be a lesson
the mistakes of yesterday
ought be refined today with

balanced representation
and both sides acepting
the loss of entitlements


answered 18 Aug '13, 18:39

fred's gravatar image


Yeah, @Fred!

(22 Aug '13, 00:02) Dollar Bill

Lots of writing that say the same thing. that people are blind and do not know how to love the neighbor as them self. they stand on the wide gate to the left or to the right and fee have strive to enter the narrow gate. Many are not able to walk a mile in someone else shoe. what are the producer the unproducer the have and not have. are they not the same people living on this world? Atlas you have receive enough stone from the people of the world. You made the choice to support the world. will you support it a little while longer so the children can grow? Very Good answer Atlas.

Let there be light, be the light that you can be, experience and enjoy.


answered 19 Aug '13, 06:57

white%20tiger's gravatar image

white tiger


Love the answer WT.

(19 Aug '13, 18:32) Snow

@White Tiger - yes, great answer. Let's support the world "so the children can grow."

Wish we could all get on the same page as you. We can, and your loving posts help.

There is much good we can do, and many, many people are helping. Experience and enjoy my friend. Yes.

(22 Aug '13, 00:55) Dollar Bill

My mom and dad own a security company. So from a business point of view, I'll show what increasing minimum wage does. First of all every time minimum wage goes up they are thrown into crisis. They can't afford to pay the guards. So they must go asking for a raise and hoping they don't lose the contracts. When we get approved everything is okay but these big companies have many more people to pay. Where are they going to get the money? They raise the prices of their products. Now the people that needed a minimum wage increase to pay for anything again can't afford anything, therefore needing another minimum wage increase.

Neo-tech and the 12 Visions party has the answer.


answered 19 Aug '13, 18:51

Wade%20Casaldi's gravatar image

Wade Casaldi

@Wade Casaldi there is a fee things that you forgot to say that the company that employ a security company have insurance lowered when they employ a security company also being a business it is tax deductible at the end of the year. also when they produce something they are making 3 time what it cost to produce in profit. and yes I agree that minimum wage is not the solution because the more high the wage the more tax you pay. you also pay more tax when you buy the product also.

(19 Aug '13, 19:38) white tiger

the security guard at 27 000$ per year even if he is pay 0.25% more in is year giving him 27 067.50$ is making only 67.50$ more in is year. and the company in insurance must save a fee thousand dollar as small company. and maybe a fee hundred thousand dollar as big company. and the minimum wage should be more high then the price of life. as for company they make enough profit if they would not make profit they would close. also company that produce things the more they produce and sell-

(19 Aug '13, 19:52) white tiger

the more money they make. that is why they sell stuff very cheap a fee year later because they are selling a lot of them. example: TV electronic product. when it is new the price is very high a fee year later they are selling a lot of them the price drop by 10x. also the company is making a lot more money then the employee at minimum wage so do not try to make me cry because the company as no money to give a raise at 0.25% when they sell stuff at 400%.

(19 Aug '13, 20:02) white tiger

also security company make around 4 to 6 dollar per hour on each of the security guard it employ. so to give the security guard 0.25$ more per hour should not be that complicated. do you agree? also the employee pay tax so on the 27 000$ after tax is left around 17 000$ for company employee are tax deductible. For the employee for rent food gas car at 1200$ per month x 12(14 600$) there is only 2400$ left at the end of the year if there is no other cost. like buying a car phone cell phone etc.

(19 Aug '13, 20:03) white tiger

Number one, small security agencies have competitors that jump at any chance to get your contracts. Number two sometimes and this does happen, a company will say we can save money just using our maintenance as security. Either way puts us out of work and the guards out of a job since we lose the contract. Both have happened before.

(19 Aug '13, 20:29) Wade Casaldi

Another thing I need point out is you can not just raise minimum wage. All wages go up a dollar, let's say you have employees making minimum wage and others making a dollar more. Minimum wage goes up a dollar, all the minimum wage workers are happy but those that were making a dollar more are now making minimum wage!

(19 Aug '13, 21:00) Wade Casaldi

So now they need a dollar raise too to keep up with where they were. But wait now they are making what the higher ups are making, so the higher ups need a raise as well to keep them the higher ups. None want to lose money including the boss or owner so people need to be cut and the company needs to find ways to increase revenue to cover everyone's raises.

(19 Aug '13, 21:04) Wade Casaldi

Unfortunately this just goes in circles.

(19 Aug '13, 21:18) Wade Casaldi

@wade casaldi you say: people need to be cut. I do not agree on this security company asset is the people in the first place. cut in the fat you know where is the fat. in the company profit. if the company is not making profit it is because they are not making the right math. security company needs to get contract. I agree with you that some company will take other security company at lower cost and some other if satisfy with the security company service will keep them even if the price is-

(20 Aug '13, 08:12) white tiger

higher. why because the asset is the security guard. he know the people and the contract. if you get a new company that is not charging enough money to get the contract how long will it stay open? will you get the same service? How long will it take to train them so that they are on par with the security guard that are working there for a fee year now? also this new security company will it stay open since it does not charge enough? also in that field like in many other field there are rule-

(20 Aug '13, 08:16) white tiger

if the rule are not apply to make more money something is not working. when they do not pay the security guard is wage and do not respect the degree to keep the contract doing every thing the client ask. in the end it does not work. the security company loose its employee and get a bad reputation and cost plus interest to pay the security guard. that is when the syndicate of security guard does their job. also it is more hard to get employee for the security company when they get a bad name-

(20 Aug '13, 08:23) white tiger

because they do not pay their employee. a new potential employee check the company reputation and say they are black listed and do not pay or respect the employee right I will not go work there. some that have no choice will go work might not be the kind of employee that the security company is looking for but they cannot be to picky since they are not very good in the first place by not respecting the rule.

(20 Aug '13, 08:27) white tiger

I talk from experience. they are like a taxi driver that do not put gas in the car then complain about the car not working, get rid of the car to show their arrogance, and get another car that is worst then the first. And they are blind and do not see it. they are even worst then the other car that they take how can they blame? they do it of their own they should blame them self.

(20 Aug '13, 09:39) white tiger

I'm talking from experience, my parents are the ones that own our Security company. This is what happened in the past. One time in the 80's we were doing well, now we are much smaller and venerable to lose.

(20 Aug '13, 16:05) Wade Casaldi

@Wade Casaldi do not be surprise at my saying every one is running after their tail to get more money. since the sons of man made this system. Yet often the sons of man will say it is not working it is disgusting and offful and there is nothing we can do about it is like this. to be logical should not the sons of man make to change to solve what is not working? is it that the machine the system created is to big and ineffective to make the proper change in the proper time and the sons of man-

(22 Aug '13, 11:35) white tiger

get discourage by the inefficacy of the system of is own creation? if there is change to be made make them. do you see now that many things in the water are not in truth and in duality and need to be solved to find harmony again and do the proper things? Your survival hangs on things created by sons of man money, systems, power. who as the power to make that change in this world is it not the sons of man living in this world. for the security company of your it needs to grow find contract give-

(22 Aug '13, 11:43) white tiger

good service consider every one working in the company as your best asset strive and help each other, tell the truth.

(22 Aug '13, 11:49) white tiger

I worked in the security field most of my adult life, + some of it as a contractor. Later in life, I was on the other side of the table, contracting guards myself to supplement my own crew. If a company is only interested in the lowest bid, they aren't worth working for, and will usually get what they pay for. It's best to pay your people well, expect cream of the crop, and only take assignments with companies willing to hire quality and nothing else.

(22 Aug '13, 16:57) LeeAnn 1

(cont'd) A couple excellent contracts keep the company afloat better than a number of cheapo ones that are nothing but trouble. Pay well and expect the best! Paying peanuts to guards is never a good strategy for anyone concerned. And this kind of answers the bigger question here too, at least this is what I see works best!

(22 Aug '13, 16:59) LeeAnn 1
showing 2 of 19 show 17 more comments

Like all of us, Ayn Rand expressed herself from what she had experienced and learned from her own life. In what I have read, and learned about her, she was shaped by the communist takeover of her country in her youth, and the losses from that. When socialism became popular here in America she saw many elements that could lead to communistic principles, destroying the democratic principles of our republic, and destroying what makes a country strong, the efforts of individuals to better themselves and an environment that encourages that. Her warning was put out in her novel, and yes, she was very strong in her view, and not unbiased but she hit upon many truths that are painful to society, therefore the controversy continues. As we become more politically correct in supporting all facets of individual "rights" it becomes apparent that some "rights" trample on others, where does it end? I sure hope it's not in handing over our human rights to a non-representative government, but that's what is happening more and more as our government grows larger in the name of "protecting" us, and given more power by those who receive the most from it. In that sense, Ayn Rand's warnings remain relevant still.


answered 19 Aug '13, 19:04

Carla%20Urbauer's gravatar image

Carla Urbauer

I think that Any Rand is relevant today. Before we can make an "informed" decision, we must be informed as to the probable consequences of any changes BEFORE we face them.


answered 21 Aug '13, 08:20

Gail's gravatar image


I agree, @Gail. Would like to know how we can go about this? Do you feel that what we have now is working? What changes and what consequences?

(22 Aug '13, 00:04) Dollar Bill

1) Get rid of $$$$$$ (Barter is a form of $) this restores equality and justice for all and takes away our serfdom. 2) Democracy by Consensus. Eliminates the power-over hierarchy. 3) Restore a Constitutional republic.

Follow the lead of the Iroquois who had the first known democratic republic - established 70 years before the Magna Carta.
Among the participating nations - no war, no crime, no poverty, no prisons, jailers, IRS, NSA, etc. Relationships were the social glue. For us: $$$$$

(23 Aug '13, 11:16) Gail
Click here to create a free account

If you are seeing this message then the Inward Quest system has noticed that your web browser is behaving in an unusual way and is now blocking your active participation in this site for security reasons. As a result, among other things, you may find that you are unable to answer any questions or leave any comments. Unusual browser behavior is often caused by add-ons (ad-blocking, privacy etc) that interfere with the operation of our website. If you have installed these kinds of add-ons, we suggest you disable them for this website

Related Questions