SINCE THE ELECTION OF RONALD REAGAN IN 1980, Democrats passed NAFTA, neglected the Employee Free Choice Act and all but abandoned progressive taxation of incomes. They have, more or less, abandoned the idea that an important function of government is to balance society by keeping the gap between rich and poor from becoming too great.
They have forgotten that the income tax system, support for labor and wealth redistribution have proven to be the most effective ways to accomplish these objectives. These sins of omission and commission, in tandem with the destruction inflicted by Republican Party economic policies, have devastated the working class.
During his administration, President Clinton made some pious noise about sending all those former assembly line workers from our devastated manufacturing sector to college so they could be “knowledge workers,” or something to that effect, which sounds nice but is actually kind of ridiculous. But for the most part the Democratic Party has stood by for the last 30-plus years and barely raised their voices to help the middle and working classes.
Someone once asked Sherrod Brown, the Ohio senator, why people in economically ravaged southeastern Ohio had begun voting for Republicans. His answer: “Because the Democrats stopped talking to them.” I think the problem is more that the Democratic Party, when it bothers to cast a glance their way at all, offers words (often tinged with condescension) but precious little else. And the Republican Party uses the resentment of the people abandoned by Democrats to push an agenda whose real purpose is to increase the power and wealth of the people who’ve been doing most of the prospering in the last 30 years.
The policy focus of the center-left in this country — its animating passion in those times when it has been most ascendant — has been economic in character. Every day on my television, I see ginned-up, phony controversies as economic royalists on the Republican “right” and social libertarians on the Democratic “left” pretend to care about the legal status of fetuses and gay people, and gee, sorry, there never seems to be any time left after discussing those issues to talk about how the economic lives of ordinary working people are getting steadily worse, under both Democrats and Republicans.
Almost 25 percent of American children are on food stamps. The combined number of un- and underemployment, even after four years of “recovery,” is still almost 16 percent. Half of all Americans struggle to feed themselves. People whose collars are blue and whose hands are callused are staring every day into a continuing economic abyss that is killing their friends and making their neighbors homeless.
But the thing is, even people who have jobs are staring into that abyss. People’s jobs (including, these days, those of so-called white-collar workers) are being offshored by companies whose only agenda is making sure stockholders are happy with the next quarterly report. From a long-term perspective, this is an almost comically stupid thing to do at the macro level. If every company did this, eventually no one in the U.S. could afford to buy their products except a few thousand people in upper management or those lucky few who have inherited wealth.
In short, the elitism of global capital destroys the golden goose — it deprives the economy of customers. But then, given the ruthless character of the world’s globalized capitalists, from their perspective this may not be a problem: After all, there’s a billion Chinese to make a buck off of. (Until they, too, are used up in a few decades, and then these global magnates can decamp for the next populations to exploit and bleed dry … )
I’ve got a new name for this trend: Locust Capitalism.
The only way to halt the debasement of this country’s (and the world’s) non-rich by the rich is to intervene; to stop it. History suggests that the only entity big enough to do that is the United States government — but our government will only do it if we citizens insist in unmistakable terms that it do so. And it will only do so if there is a governing majority of people who agree that a core function of government is defending the interests of working people.
The most important question to ask of any political party is not what it stands for, it is WHO it stands WITH.
The people who have prospered under the rightist economic regime of the last 30 years have been the top 20 percent of earners. These people are who the Republicans stand with.
Everyone else has either stood still or actually gotten worse off — and inexcusably, the Democratic Party has let it happen, largely by forgetting who they’re supposed to stand with: the other 80 percent of earners.
What does all this mean? Where do we go from here? The way forward is not easy, but it is simple in concept: The Democratic Party needs to commit itself to undoing the damage done by 30 years of laissez-faire neglect.
The Democrats need a clear and public “to-do” list of specific, concrete ways to help that neglected 80 percent (more on that in a future column), and their only task should be selling and implementing that agenda. Undoing the damage done to Americans by capitalism run amok will be the foundation of a powerful governing majority.
Of course, if the Democratic Party is at all successful in this effort, it will result in unending howls of protest from the usual suspects on the right — and if it gets bad enough, maybe even ridiculous, badly written polemical novels featuring leaden prose and characters named John Galt.
History suggests that failing to get it done, on the other hand, will result eventually in social unrest, and if it gets bad enough, armed revolution — and don’t ever think the United States is exempted by history from such events.
Matt Talbot is a writer and poet, as well as an old Benicia hand. He works for a tech start-up in San Francisco.
Sharing is caring!
Well put, says me. And, in agreement with you, is this piece by the News Vandal:
http://newsvandal.com/2013/03/the-last-democrat-standing/
Great read.
Agree with Tom, Rich. Good stuff there.
Pretty left wing stuff that says nothing of importance.
http://www.vintageframescompany.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/will-ferrell-harry-caray-copy-300×271.jpg
Classic.
Superb article, Rich! Thanks.
Matt: Keep writing, you’ve discovered the truth. pb
Matt stated: ”(Democrats) have, more or less, abandoned the idea that an important function of government is to balance society by keeping the gap between rich and poor from becoming too great.”
Matt, can you refer your readers to the section of the Constitution that obligates the government to ensure an equalization of outcomes for all people?
DDL –
While I’m not a constitutional lawyer, my understanding is that there is a large body of law and precedent supporting the idea that government can legitimately intervene in the economy in the interest of the common good.
I’m not arguing for “an equalization of outcomes for all people” but more along the lines of, “Make your money, millionaires, but let’s keep it fair, guys.”
Matt stated: While I’m not a constitutional lawyer, my understanding… One need not be a “Constitutional Lawyer” to understand that the workings and purpose of the Constitution, as well as the fact that the document defines what the federal government can do and what it cannot do. If everyone had a clear understanding of the document, we would not need SCOTUS. Rule of thumb: If it is not allowed in the Constitution, the Federal government cannot do it. That is why there is a 10th Amendment (the one forgotten by progressives).
Matt: I’m not arguing for “an equalization of outcomes for all people” Sorry, Matt, but that sounds disingenuous, especially when you say: “wealth redistribution (has) proven to be the most effective ways to accomplish these objectives (narrowing the income disparity)”
Matt: “Make your money, millionaires, but let’s keep it fair, guys.” Define what is fair to you, and then tell me who is going to define “fairness” in DC.
If everyone had a clear understanding of the document, we would not need SCOTUS.
…which was kind of my point when I said, “there is a large body of law and precedent supporting the idea that government can legitimately intervene in the economy in the interest of the common good.”
Define what is fair to you, and then tell me who is going to define “fairness” in DC.
The idea, in our democratic republic, is that we elect people whose responsibility is to look after the common good. From the column: “…our government will only do it if we citizens insist in unmistakable terms that it do so. And it will only do so if there is a governing majority of people who agree that a core function of government is defending the interests of working people.”
you are talking in circles and missing the point.
Dennis doesn’t like it when others copy his tactics.
Dennis, if you ever understood it, you evidently forgot that NOT ALL values human, spiritual, practical and societal are encompassed and addressed directly by the Constitution. What about things not forbidden by the Constitution? Is government either forced or constrained from enacting them? Is government never allowed to “sail close to the wind” of changing an item in the Bill of Rights? (I think you grasp the answers, consequent upon which the USSC remains necessary, though made unreliable by bad political and legal theories.)
RMS Stated: if you ever understood it, you evidently forgot that NOT ALL values human, spiritual, practical and societal are encompassed and addressed directly by the Constitution.
Robert, if you ever understood it, you evidently forgot that NOT ALL values human, spiritual, practical and societal are encompassed and solvable by the Government.
What about things not forbidden by the Constitution? I would refer you to the Forgotten Tenth. Thanks for proving my point.
No proof there, just circuitous side-stepping, as usual. Still, the way government malfunctions, today, it is a wonder if anything can be solved by it. If government cannot function, what use is a constitution? A tyranny of corporations will do as well. They can come to some kind of feudal arrangement with each other. Or they can intensify their mutual warfare.
Besides, how do you know all issues cannot be solved by a fully functional government? We’ve never had one. Nor can your theories and assumptions produce one.
Nor can your theories and assumptions produce one.
Yet you seem to believe that yours can.
Yes that was proof; that you have forgotten the purpose of the 10th Amendment, as that is the answer to your question.
If government cannot function, what use is a constitution? Sounds like you favor doing away with the antiquated piece of paper, how un-American of you.
Whenever people start arguing about the Constitution, it reminds me of The Onion article:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-passionate-defender-of-what-he-imagines-c,2849/
Matt –
I find your conclusion troubling.
“History suggests that failing to get it done, on the other hand, will result eventually in social unrest, and if it gets bad enough, armed revolution — and don’t ever think the United States is exempted by history from such events.”
Are you saying that if the rich don’t give us more of their money willingly, then the rest of us will get a gun and kill the rich? Destroy the property of the rich? Steal from the rich?
Are you saying that if the rich don’t give us more of their money willingly, then the rest of us will get a gun and kill the rich? Destroy the property of the rich? Steal from the rich?
History suggests that systemic injustice can either be reformed through the democratic process, or if that fails, then reform often happens in a less kindly way. Corruption is deeply corrosive of social cohesion.
So you feel that only corrupt people accumulate wealth? If someone is rich they must have committed an injustice?
Wealth = Guilty?
And that guilt justifies governmental confiscation? Governments failing to confiscate justifies thuggery? Violent crime against the rich is justified because, by definition, wealth = guilty?
Tom – those seem to be the claims you need me to be making to make your point…but no, I’m not saying any of those things.
Unrestrained capitalism tends to concentrate wealth at the top; the people at the top then tends to use their comparative advantage to rig the system in their favor; the preceding is a commonplace of political economics. Do you really know nothing of this?
Matt I do believe you just stepped in it. You are dealing with the wrong guy in Tom. He will eat you alive.
Thanks for the warning, Bob.
Matt –
I am trying to understand your closing statement above. If I improperly inferred anything, I apologize. That was not my intent.
You state, “Unrestrained capitalism tends to concentrate wealth at the top”. Wealth concentrates at the top under any form over government. Do you think that Stalin lived the same life as ordinary Soviet citizens under communism? Do dictators toil in the fields and return to meager apartments? Why does wealth concentrating at the top bother you? Why focus on it? From my view the middle class standard of living has significantly improved during my lifetime. I don’t really care if my real wages haven’t increased. I’m able to buy more with what money I have. I don’t really care what type of life Warren Buffet, Bill Gates or Ken Langone live.
You also state, “the people at the top then ends to use their comparative advantage to rig the system in their favor…” To me, this smacks of guilt by association. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? What of the reality of all of the charitable work done by the Gates foundation? Warren Buffet has helped make a lot of people wealthy through his management of Berkshire Hathaway. Berkshire owns and operates numerous businesses providing tens of thousands of jobs. Buffet is committed to charitable causes as well. Ken Langone founded Home Depot. Again providing thousands of jobs. He has also gone on record as saying that the investment and regulatory environment today would prohibit starting a similar company. Maybe the middle class is hurting or shrinking because we have made it too difficult to succeed.
Are there dishonest rich crooks? Sure. Are there affluent jerks? Sure. Are there nice, decent, hardworking and caring people in the 1%? In the 20%. I believe so.
Are there dishonest blue collar workers? Blue collar jerks? Nice, decent, hardworking and caring middle class folks? I believe so.
Tom – excessive wealth concentration at the top tends to destroy the economy, since the economic elites run out of customers, and then everyone is screwed, including the elites (except, as I said in the column, they’ll just decamp for greener pastures when they’ve bled us dry.)
And while it’s true that individual rich people do wonderful things (Gates, et al) what I’m talking about is the tendency of oligarchs to rig the game – and history provides reams of empirical evidence that this A. happens on a regular basis, and B. eventually ends in tears.
Maybe the middle class is hurting or shrinking because we have made it too difficult to succeed.
Then why is class mobility higher in Europe, where high taxes and regulation supposedly stifle innovation?
Matt –
We’ve discussed this before. Wealth redistribution will at best move $X out of one sector into another. There will be no change in GDP just a shift in what is produced. Given that the government is inefficient, governmental wealth redistribution will result in one sector being reduced by $X and other sectors increasing less than $X. GDP will decrease.
Do you really want to emulate Europe? Would you prefer our economy to be more like Spain, Greece, France, Germany? I say none of the above!
Tom – we have indeed discussed this before, and when you say, GDP will decrease, I don’t think there’s much logical or empirical support for that assertion.
Economic growth from rising incomes (which is another way of saying, better income distribution) is sustainable growth; economic growth from easy credit leads to crisis.
And yes, I absolutely want to emulate Europe! They pay (in the aggregate) half as much for their health care system, and get better health outcomes from it; there is greater class mobility in Europe than here; the gains from economic growth are much more widely shared, and so on.
As Michael Moore said, at the end of his movie, Sicko:
“Economic growth from easy credit leads to crisis.” Agreed.
“Economic growth from rising incomes (which is another way of saying, better income distribution) is sustainable growth.” Where does the money come from to pay the higher salaries?
Europe is a mess! Emulate away! See above comment about easy credit (i.e. excessive borrowing) leads to crisis.
Where does the money come from to pay the higher salaries?
As I said previously, the money comes from from the gains from rising productivity of workers.
See above comment about easy credit (i.e. excessive borrowing) leads to crisis.
Here’s a Nobel-Prize-winning economist, more or less on point::
If anything, the current situation in Europe indicates that Keynesian policies are what’s called for – austerity in a depression makes things worse.
Matt stated, “As I said previously, the money comes from from the gains from rising productivity of workers.”
Where does the money from rising productivity of workers currently go?
Where does the money from rising productivity of workers currently go?
For the last 30 years, it has gone to the top of the income scale.
Matt stated, “For the last 30 years, it has gone to the top of the income scale.”
Assuming that means investors and business owners / managers, how do you transfer those funds from the top of the income scale to blue collar workers?
Assuming that means investors and business owners / managers, how do you transfer those funds from the top of the income scale to blue collar workers?
I talked about that in the column: ideally, we need to give workers a greater say in how the benefits of economic growth are distributed. Pass the Employee Free Choice Act. Strengthen the Wagner act, and repeal Taft Hartley.
Support labor.
Also, we could do more to provide vocational training (more on that in a future column) and do many more public works projects (ditto).
Matt stated, “ideally, we need to give workers a greater say in how the benefits of economic growth are distributed. Pass the Employee Free Choice Act. Strengthen the Wagner act, and repeal Taft Hartley.
Support labor.”
All of the above would strengthen unions. Unions typically demand higher hourly compensation, generous benefits packages, job security, and a higher number of jobs. None of which is tied to any measure of performance.
Is that a position that you support?
Why not have a profit sharing plan where the increased worker compensation is tied to improved company performance (i.e. profit)? That way increased profit benefits the workers, managers, and investors?
Why not have a profit sharing plan where the increased worker compensation is tied to improved company performance (i.e. profit)? That way increased profit benefits the workers, managers, and investors?
That sounds great, Tom – but why not make that profit sharing plan part of a collective bargaining agreement with a union? Make another part of the contract that a certain percentage of productivity gains go into increased wages for the workers.
What workers lack is power. Unions help with that.
Matt –
Where is the data that shows “greater class mobility in Europe than here”?
Rather than looking up research papers (I do have a day job…) I hope you’ll accept a secondary source, but a source that is probably on your side of the argument in most things, like the National Review?
Matt:Here’s a Nobel-Prize-winning economist…
That would be former Enron Advisor Paul Krugman.
I would not put much faith in him, if I were you.
That would be former Enron Advisor Paul Krugman.
I would not put much faith in him, if I were you.
Dennis – you’re better than that (and while I’m saying nice things, I must say I enjoy our conversations here. I look forward to your responses to my columns.)
Thank you Matt, I appreciate the kind words, glad to know you enjoy the exchanges.
However, I cannot let Krugman go by, as it seems you may be overlooking his comments after 9/11:
So the direct economic impact of the attacks will probably not be that bad. And there will, potentially, be two favorable effects.
First, the driving force behind the economic slowdown has been a plunge in business investment. Now, all of a sudden, we need some new office buildings. As I’ve already indicated, the destruction isn’t big compared with the economy, but rebuilding will generate at least some increase in business spending.
Krugman is an idiot, Matt.
He later deleted these from his blog
Whatever his personal flaws, Dennis, he’s a credible voice when the subject being discussed is economics. You seem to be resorting to ad hominum.
Matt stated, “That sounds great, Tom – but why not make that profit sharing plan part of a collective bargaining agreement with a union? Make another part of the contract that a certain percentage of productivity gains go into increased wages for the workers.
What workers lack is power. Unions help with that.”
I can understand that sentiment. I take a different view. Working for one company for a lifetime became unrealistic 30 years ago. When the expectation was that one person would be with one company for an entire career, a union representing a worker and tying compensation and protection to seniority made some sense. Those days are over. Few people work for one employer or in one trade for an entire career. We had to give up some security to gain the freedom to change employers without acquiring a stigma of being a bad employee. Employers gained from that change. Employees also gained from that change. You feel that employees need some third party representation to ensure security. I feel that freedom to change jobs provides the ultimate security. I would love to live in a world where 10 businesses exist within a one hour commute radius that value my services. If I feel that I can get a better deal somewhere else, I am free to move on because my services are in high demand. I want a multitude of opportunities so that I can chose the option that best suites my personal needs. The more profitable businesses in existence, the more options that I have. The more profit that those businesses earn the more bargaining power that I have. “Hire me for $X/hr and you will make $3X/hr,” is an amazingly powerful position. “Hire me for $X/hr or I’ll drive down the road and you’re competition will,” is where I would like to be. Having more businesses provides the worker with more options. The more profitable the businesses the more bargaining power that I have as an individual. We should be supporting businesses because they provide ECONOMICALLY sustainable jobs. We should be supporting insanely profitable businesses to support insanely high salaries.
Needless to say, I’m sure that you don’t agree. And that’s okay Matt. I respect your opinion and appreciate you stimulating this conversation.
Tom – I too appreciate the conversation – I’ll buy you a drink one of these days.
I look forward to that drink. Until then, Cheers!
Overstated, Tom, unto reductio-ad-absurdum.
Mr. Shelby –
Please find the Cliff Notes version below:
I am trying to understand your closing statement above. If I improperly inferred anything, I apologize. That was not my intent.
You state, “Unrestrained capitalism tends to concentrate wealth at the top”. Wealth concentrates at the top under any form of government.
Why focus on what the rich have that you do not. Why not focus on how much better middle class life is now than a generation ago?
You also state, “the people at the top then tends to use their comparative advantage to rig the system in their favor…” Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
I believe the middle lass is not dead nor has it ever been dead. The big problem for the midle class is the Democrats and their control of the so called middle class. Keep them own and blame the epublicans or past bvad deeds. If I am correct the Democrats had controll of The House of Representatives for 40 years. Controlled the Presidency for 48 of the last 77 years. t seems to me it was not the Republicans who have or are destroying the middle class. It has been the Democrats all along. Up the levels for poverty and blame the Republicans. Keep telling the middle class the Republicans did it and they soon figure it out.. It is the Democrats. Matt I suggest you take a look at who is holding this country back and you will see it is the very Liberal left wing of the Democratic party. They stopped all drilling on government property and regulated this country into sending jobs overseas. They are now coming back because of two things. Which neither of these the Democrats had anything to do with. #1 energy independence; #2 high tech cost of manufacturing. By 2020 this country will have more manufacturing jobs per capita than the rest of the world. We also will or could become the biggest exporter of oil, coal and natural gas. The only problem is the Liberal Socials and their interference. It will stop sooner than latter. The Liberal Socials are not the answer. I think you may believe that also but at the same time have no love of the Repblicans. Do you consider yourself with having maybe Marxist or Socialist leanings? I will let you explain that one.
Sorry for some of the typos but you got the idea.
Matt, I read a quote from Ola Betiku the other day that I thought you might appreciate:
“I don’t share my thoughts because I think it will change the minds of people who think differently. I share my thoughts to show people who already think like me that they’re not alone”
Yea, bro’!
The problem with Matt’s writing is that he writes in extremes and rails against poorly defined entities like the “elite”, the “rich”, “millionaires”. He uses words such as “sins of omission and commission”, “destruction inflicted”, “devastated” — all in one sentence. In the next sentence, he uses “pious”, “devastated” (again). He goes on and on in this same hyperbolic, quasi-religious strain.
And that leads to what environmentalpro says, that Matt is preaching to the choir and not convincing anyone else. That is the reason why — Matt is actually quite obnoxious and insulting in his “high and holy” manner of writing. Passionate, yes, Righteous, yes. But does he make any sense or make any compelling arguments? Not by a long shot.
“And that leads to what environmentalpro says,…” Actually, what Ola Betiku says, not I.
Maybe Matt is “obnoxious and insulting” only to those who need to be spanked into the sensible and balanced outlook requisite to good citizenship?
It is not so much what he says as his manner of preaching in a pseudo-religious style that is obnoxious. There are many other ways to state his points that would be much more effective.
I’m extremely pleased to find Mr. Talbot contributing to our Forum. It takes some weight off of Jerry Page, Harvey Rifkin and me. Well done, Matt.
Thanks, Robert
Robert Shelby you contributing nothing. Also make very Liberal Socialist statements from someone who has contributed nothing. Your article this morning is a perfect example of what you are all about. Just a lot of words that have no meaning. You are better off at the poet group and even there you are not considered a success.
Robert Livesay you contributing blather. Also make very illiberal fascist statements from someone who has contributed nothing. Your letters to the editor show how you hated your mother, wife and sisters if you had any, so that Mayor Patterson fits right in there, too. You just can’t stand strong women or women in positions of authority. Your letters perfectly exemplify what you’re all about. Just a lot of words that have no meaning, spouted from a mouthful of beer breath. You wouldn’t last ten seconds among poets, you would be spotted instantly for a boozing blabbermouth with very little brain-power or skill with language. 😉
Thanks very much for the compliment Robert Shelby. All it shows is that you know nothing abou me. You are very thin skinned and cannot take it. Robert in my career I work for and with women. I was as a man in the minority and got along very well with women. I also have a great deal of respect and admiration for women and their accomplishments. My comments about the mayor are only about her skill and agenda driven desire. Not at all about her personally or the fact that she is a women. Yes we do not see eye to eye politically but as far as I am concerned that is all it is. Robert if I applied your thinking I guess I would not also lke any Liberal Socialist also male or female. That also is not true. Politally only.. If you had followed any of my LTTE or comments you would know it is all about politics and not gender. Now I do dislike you Robert Shelby because you are very condesending and think you are above everyone with that advanced AA degree. Robert I am sorry to say this but all you do is fire personal insults at anyone that does not agree with you. Not only are you small in stature but also in mind.
You could be right. It does take the weight off those other writers. Mainly Jerry Page. As far as you Robert and Harvey no one reads your nonsense any way. Jerry Page is a very good writer and easy to follow and uderstand. I may not agree but I do read him regularly. As far as Harvey goes you must be kidding. As far as yourself goes you are a wordy writer with no substance or solutions let alone a conclusion. Your articles are only anti Conservatives in a very hatful way. If that is pressure you may need to try something else to cure your overweight problem. Never mind Shelby I now understand why you are only 5’1″. It is all the weight you are carrying on your slim shoulders with those braces to hold up your pants.
Bob you are far too ugly to be making personal appearance cracks.
Those are not personal appearance cracks. Pure facts on how the little man dress’. You apparently do not know me. I am a very handsome man with a beautiful wife. Beautiful children, grandchildren and great grandchildren. Also all are very intelligent. Since you will not identify yourself I will not make a comment about your appearance. I have been told about you by others and it was not very flattering. But being I can not verify that I will not make a comment on your appearance.
It takes some (the) weight off of Jerry Page, Harvey Rifkin and me.
It is such a burden, you bare.
Yeah, Dennis, you and your ilk of pine-box opinionators are pretty dead weight, here. It amuses some of us how you work so hard without pay to save the world that detests your path of salvation and all its clap-trap. Would that you could be a rugged individualist somewhere besides Benicia.
Ahh, the old, overused, over-rated “ilk” word again being tossed out my Robert “Mr. Hyde” Shelby, as he relentlessly chooses to attack those who dare to question the ‘lib-prog’ speak that you so adoringly thrive in.
For the last 30 years, it has gone to the top of the income scale.
Like the guys at GM?
Matt I do not know where you have been all your life. But I must tell you profit sharing is not new. Try Shell, Valero. For all employees. Yes there will be some qualifications to be part of the program but they are not dramatic. They all have it. It must be tied into profit of the company. If you tie it into the unions you will have a problem. I think Matt you do not understand collective bargaining or the willingness of so called big corp to share. Remember Matt when you start to use it as a bargaining tactic the employee loses. Ask anyone who has retired from Shell Oil what they think of their retirement plan? I think you will be very surprised. The issue is not middle class against the so called upper class. It is a joint effert by all employess to make the company successful. There are many more good examples but at the same time many Liberal Socialist run company’s that are the bad examples. Matt that is my lesson for the day. Please absorb it.