The working class and the employing class have nothing in common

The working class and the employing class have nothing in common. There can be no peace so long as hunger and want are found among millions of the working people and the few, who make up the employing class, have all the good things in life. Between these two classes a struggle must go on until the workers of the world organize as a class, take possession of the means of production, abolish the wage system, and live in harmony with the Earth.

We find that the centering of the management of industries into fewer and fewer hands makes the trade unions unable to cope with the ever-growing power of the employing class. The trade unions foster a state of affairs which allows one set of workers to be pitted against another set of workers, in the same industry, thereby helping defeat one another in wage wars. Moreover, the trade unions aid the employing class to mislead the workers into the belief that the working class have interests in common with their employers.

These conditions can be changed and the interests of the working class upheld only by an organization formed in such a way that all members in any one industry, or in all industries if necessary, cease work whenever a strike or lockout is on in any department thereof, thus making an injury to one an injury to all.

http://www.iww.org/

This was written in 1919. The more things change...

The republicans represent the capitalist class and the Democratic party tries to represent both labor and capital and end up representing neither.

The IWW was one of the greatest social movements. They were true visionaries. It's a shame that the AFL came out ahead of them. Samuel Gompers was a pig.

In the late 19th century, Williams Jenning Bryan lost a few elections because, according to Kevin Phillips, although he was running during a time when the country was more ripe than ever for a populist president, his message appealed to the agrarian populists only. Because he was so hostile to manufacturers, urban populists probably correctly thought that they'd all lose their jobs if Bryan became president. Bryan didn't understand the historical moment America was in at the moment.

In 1983, a similar thing happened with the Labour Party in the UK. Probably never before in the history of western democracies had a left wing party run on such a left wing message. Labour actually promised to convert the means of productioin in the UK to public ownership if they won. The party was decimated. Not even labourers were willing to vote for that kind of arrangement.

So, it's best when capital, management and labour all win a little -- and it's in each's interest that the others win a little every now and then. Right now we definitely have a system in which capital is totally winning, and that's wrong. But the solution is not to make them totally lose, which is what Bryan and the '83 Labour Party didn't appreciate.

I think the problem was the approach. If what your saying is true about the Labour Party, they approached it all wrong. It is a very radical change from the current system. In might be as close to a 180 as you can get. There definitely needs to be a change, and there is no reason that public ownership should be totally ignored.

Capitalist competition promotes a lot of progress. But, where there can't be competion (electricity, water, trains) the markets are the wrong place to be conducting those businesses. That's a pretty clear cut situation.

The problem with the UK, however, is that labour was beated down so far by the fact that the scales were tipped so much in favour of capital and wealth that you lose sight of the fact that balanced scales are the best, not scales that tip too much in your own favor. Don't get me wrong, I like Keynes and think that the scales are balanced when the middle and working class are very very rich and very powerful.

Had they framed it in terms of people's existing experience....

was that alot of workers were told they would lose there jobs if Bryan got elected. "If Bryan gets elected don't bother coming to work tomorrow".
Gotta love the Wobblies

agricultural interests to such a degree that the seemed in opposition with urban manufacturing.

If you work in a city and the populist message is that you're going to tip the balance in favor of rural communities, and you don't care if it's going to hurt profits of manufacturers to the degree that they'll have to fire people, you're probably more inclined to vote against the populist so that you don't have to move to the country and take a chance of finding a job. A job in the hand is worth two out in the bushes.

Any worker can get an inspiration and become a employer. It takes having a plan and getting people to help implement your plan. Say I'm walking down the street and see a huge building that was in disrepair. I go to the owner and tell him for five hundred dollars I will fix up his building. I know if I try and do it by myself it will take a week so I "hire" a couple of my friends and we whip out the repairs in two days. I pay each of my friends one hundred and fifty dollars while I pocket two hundred dollars. Your whole theory is BS because anyone can become an employer at any time and not oppress the employed. All it takes is a few brains and the will to implement your ideas. The person who creates the jobs and does the footwork should get more of the return.

You can tell us all the stories of small entreprenuers you want, but what does that have to do with multinational corporations, especially the ones that get all their money from the government, like defence contractors?

Oh, never mind, you don't want to talk about that. Let's hear another Horatio Alger story...

More of your bullshit. I was very detailed in my mention of money. It doesn't meet your billions of dollars mark so it doesn't exist I guess. All jobs are not multinational corporate jobs. Get your head out of your rear and join the real world. Most workers are not oppressed. They are happy and content and willing.

"I'll Put it in simple words:
WORKING MEN ARE PISSED!"

Happy, content and willing? I suggest you trade places with me at my butcher's job for a couple of hours in a hot kitchen in the middle of summer with an insurance plan that doesn't mean shit that yer still paying out the ass for, earning nine dollars an hour while at home the bills stack up higher and higher...Happy, content and willing, my CROTCH! Working class labor is demeaning, petty, and squalid; and what's more, most people in this countryt are forced to work at two or more of the type of jobs I just described. I worked at two full time cook jobs for three years straight and ended up with hospital bills I'll never be able to pay because my haealth was so poor.

Not everyone WANTS to be an entrepeneur, either, and also not everyone is skilled at making money, even the hardest working among us. Prosperity has nothing to do with working hard. Most prosperity is inherited. All fof us in the "content" labor force merely want to pay our rent and have free time to do the things we want to do; I'm a musician, and as such am forced to rely on some shitty greasy cook job that don't pay shit. And because I come from a working class family, I got into college on scholarship and financial aid, and when that ran out, well, you see what happens to the people thrown away by the ruling class....

Acquaint yourself with reality..you sound like a conservative.

First of all, no building owner in his right mind would allow you and your friends near his building. He would probably assume you are trying to pull some kind of scam, fake an injury and sue him. You never even bothered to discuss something like insurance or workers comp, and of course Social Security and all the rest. I understand how specifics get in the way of a good yarn.

Second, you didn't mention any starting capital or anything like that - you going to repair a building with no tools and equipment?

Third, in your example, you have a revenue of $500 for two days work - so basically you've "created" three minimum wage, temporary jobs - excluding of course any regulation, health and safety issues, taxes, SS, and all the rest. Again, specifics get in the way of a good "bootstrap" story.

The main problem is you are comparing apples to oranges - sure, a kid with some initiative and hard work can make a few dollars over the summer - good for them. But getting your friends to help you do a weekend jobs HARDLY makes you a member of the employing class now does it?

When you get past chapter 2 in your freshman econ textbook, get back to us okay :)

Bandit's bootstrap story might have been a real possibility 50 years ago, but as you point out, Workers Comp, SS, environmental regulations, etc- do in fact prevent all but the largest firms from obtaining this kind of work- or virtually any other in America today.

So, if you're saying his analogy is false, then you have to ask yourself why that is so- and I'm sure you won't like (or admit to) the answer.

That said, America is STILL the best place to create wealth and open new avenues of income. It takes knowledge, dedication, motivation, skill and hard work. A lot of businesses have supplemented their success with unsound practices or outright fraud- but that is not an indictment against the practice of capitalism- merely an indictment against the system of law-enforcement and government abdicating it's role as the arbitor between business and the people. Ultimately, I suppose, it's the people's own failure to prosecute the bad apples and run a tight ship.

I guess you are going to tell me that it's all the onerous regulation on business that is the reason three kids can't start a building repair business with no money and no capital. Well, not quite.

Apples and oranges. The main issue is multinationals and large scale corporations, and some people keep telling us stories about small scale entreprenuership - it just doesn't work that way, except in the fantasies of college libertarians.

It's the SCALE okay? Surely you can understand that.

"It takes knowledge, dedication, motivation, skill and hard work." - and you don't mention capital, interesting ommission.

Three and a half years ago I started a company based on an idea that I researched & developed from scratch - and spent my own life savings on (not to mention the investments of family members). I hit the market with a line of herbal pet products in july, 2001.

In september, 2001 you know what happened.

In November, 2001 the FDA put in the federal registry that DSHEA laws that eased up on the regulation of herbal supplements for humans do not apply to pet products (this benefits big pharma's expansion into the petcare industry). Since the individual states' Ag depts actually interpret and enforce the FDA guidelines, i cannot sell in 2 states - these states are home to two the major competitors in my segment of the industry. If I were to fit into the FDA cookie-cutter guidelines(thus overriding state restrictions), I'd have to spend over $2.5 million to MAYBE get the 40 herbs I used approved as "medicated feed".

In December, the FDA began implementing the Bioterrorism act, and since then, all of my shipments of herbs - from an FDA approved GMP facility in Taiwan - have been held up for inspection for at least a month. Attorneys have had to get involved every time to clear the shipments. Meanwhile, dog food companies that produce overseas (using bone meal and other BSE red flags) get pushed through.

Major companies who don't even compete with me have advised distributors not to carry my products. The advice I get from people is to sell to Petco and Petsmart, but my bread and butter is the mom & pop shops and that would hurt them even worse.

Still alive. Still growing at a hand-to-mouth pace. I haven't drawn salary yet, much less been able to employ anyone. I work part time at a supermarket for the healthcare benefits.

All I'm saying is that "start your own business" should be the answer, but big corps and the government do not endorse an environment that's conducive to it.

care to comment, whocounts?

And as far as omitting capital- let's just say it was an unintentional oversight. However, I tried to start a business about 4 years ago with no capital whatsoever- just a pure idea. It was software related idea. I had some partners, we labored independently to produce demos, etc. and tried to sell the idea to larger companies. Ultimately, we failed, and I don't blame anyone for getting in my way. It was probably just the dot-bomb bust that killed us.

But the fact is, this idea needed no capital to develop (we could have used some to be sure), but perhaps that's why I omitted that factor.

He's an employee, and makes his living at his supermarket job. His attempt at being a small independent business has been stymied by big corporations and big government - this is exactly the point I was making.

There is an obvious difference between small independent businesses and the large multinations - I thought everyone realized this. It's just people always post inspiring stories about small entreprenuers instead of dealing with the realities of the powerful organizations that control our economy and our government. Pretending that a shop owner is part of the "employer class" is silly, that's all.

there should be little difference between the small mom and pop outfit that employs five and the GatesWorld Empire that employs 50,000- in so far as how they are perceived by the government.

I am actively working toward the general realization of that view. Believe me, I am not holding my breath.

But the general concepts that most progressives adopt to "protect" the world against the evils of the evil giant multinationals are very often the concepts that hobble the small entrepreneur. The small business is most likely to be adversely affected by these strategies, so the idea that progressive laws and regulations are in any way favoring the "little guy" is inconsistent with the reality.

This is one of the primary reasons that we here in Kali are facing the recall. Business and conservatives have sucessfully argued the concept that the Davis administration's policies are not "business friendly." And many examples can be cited of small, medium and large companies either moving out of state or of shutting down.

What can be done to prevent this?

I believe there is a way that we can go that benefits both small and large companies- as well as labor- by not FAVORING any of them.

Government's role is to protect the public against fraud and force- nothing more.

"there should be little difference between the small mom and pop outfit that employs five and the GatesWorld Empire that employs 50,000- in so far as how they are perceived by the government."

That's just crazy, since there is an obvious difference between a small mom and pop outfit and GatesWorld - but you want the government to pretend that it doesn't exist? What a ridiculous idea.

"But the general concepts that most progressives adopt to "protect" the world against the evils of the evil giant multinationals are very often the concepts that hobble the small entrepreneur. The small business is most likely to be adversely affected by these strategies, so the idea that progressive laws and regulations are in any way favoring the "little guy" is inconsistent with the reality."

You mean child labor laws? A minimum wage? Worker safety laws? Food safety? Lots of Republicans want to bring us back to the days of the robber barons - thankfully the Democrats don't believe that yet.

"This is one of the primary reasons that we here in Kali are facing the recall. Business and conservatives have sucessfully argued the concept that the Davis administration's policies are not "business friendly." And many examples can be cited of small, medium and large companies either moving out of state or of shutting down."

Yes, that's the Republican argument. It has nothing to do with the Enron energy scam I guess? It's the strict environmental laws in CA that are the problem - we all need to be "business friendly" - which in PRACTICE means letting the large corporations do whatever they want, while we get feel good stories about hard working entreprenuers. Sorry, I don't buy this BS anymore :)

"I believe there is a way that we can go that benefits both small and large companies- as well as labor- by not FAVORING any of them. Government's role is to protect the public against fraud and force- nothing more."

Sigh, another internet Libertarian. When you force and fraud us all into your own little version of utopia, just like the Communists did to Eastern Europe, if I'm alive I'll say "I told you so".

I can't really consider you an ally, and I don't see why you're even in the Democratic party.

Oh, and by the way, a kid's silly story about his building repair business, and two stories about failed small businesses are hardly a ringing endorsement of your political beliefs now is it? If you wanted by advice, and I presume you don't, I'd say stop believing your own hype. Ideologies can blind you to realities.

"You mean child labor laws? A minimum wage? Worker safety laws? Food safety? Lots of Republicans want to bring us back to the days of the robber barons - thankfully the Democrats don't believe that yet."

Having libertarian ideas does not mean I am an idiot- and I'm sorry to inform you that I can't be shot down by this canard- that libertarians don't believe in any laws or regulations.

Maybe you just didn't have time to come up with better examples. But here is my response anyway:

What are sensible laws and regulations versus nonsensical laws and regulations, or: what is good for people AND business, versus what is marginally (if at all) good for people AND YET hurtful to business (especially very small ones without deep pockets.)?

A mom and a pop own a small museum in the downtown of a big city. The museum is rented for special occassions such as weddings and parties. The couple decide it would be nice to open a cafe in the same building.

Of course, there are fire laws at play when opening any space for commercial use. What would be prudent regulations that a libertarian would endorse? Clearly marked fire exits. Fire extinguishers present and periodically inspected. An integrated sprinkler system. Perhaps even some type of basic training for employees on how to prevent fires and help the public escape.

Maybe a few more ideas- but that's the basics.

But, alas, that is not good enough for our beloved all-powerful / all-knowing goverment is it? Mom and pop are now required to install a $300,000 vent hood over the grill, not to vent the smoke and grease from the cooking, of course, (a mere $50,000 hood could do that insignificant task), no this uber-hood has computerized sensors and halon emitters and state of the art fire extinguishing equipment built into it- to be used in the event that something on the grill catches fire.

Good for people and workers? Maybe it will save a few lives. I'm not saying it won't. But it will also persuade that couple away from starting up the business that they once thought was a "good idea." Several local area people will not be employed as cooks, waiters, waitresses, etc. Several local supliers will not generate extra income and hire more people because this and other businesses were prevented from opening their doors.

I know this is the case- it happened to my parents about 8 years ago.

Which is it libertarians? When you say you support regulations, do you mean "voluntary regulations" or just good business practice? All the libertarians I've ever met say exactly that - just "force and fraud" - so if there is a new strain of moderate libertarianism that believes in regulating business, how is that different than a moderate Democrat?

I am not a Libertarian, but I have decidedly libertarian ideals in many regards. Just like the democratic party where you have a spectrum of ideals that cover ground from the likes of Lieberman to the likes of a Mosley-Braun (and theoretically into socialistic or even communistic ideology in some aspects), libertarian ideas also have a wide spread.

Some in the party would undoubtedly favor immediate withdrawal of the government from virtually every aspect of our lives, including business. I don't see it exactly that way. Our society has benefitted from many laws that have created a safer, cleaner environment. Some good has undoubtedly come from the democratic party's insistance on these issues.

I am in favor of maintaining some of the very basic concepts of safety that are currently mandated by government. If other more doctrinaire libertarians cannot accept this idea- I could be persuaded to move this responsibility over into the realm of the insurance industry, making it illegal to open a business without insurance coverage- and letting the business and the insurance provider hash it out as to whether the business is meeting it's safety requirements.

To me, some aspects of safety and child labor laws DO IN FACT touch into the realm of force and fraud. The fraud being, you are led to believe that this is a reasonably safe environment, when in fact it is not. It's a bit of a grey area, but it is not impossible to tell the difference between sound law and stupid law.

I don't see a stark difference between the concepts of "Business" and "The People."

Business owners are not stormtroopers flown down from the death star to enslave the poor natives. They are us, we are them, and we are all together.

Put an average worker in the position of being a business owner, allow him to feel the squeeze of regulation, taxes, capital investment, workers comp and the real possibility that his life's work could be lost if he makes the wrong decisions- and you've got the recipe for conservatism.

Running a business is not a cakewalk, nor is being a worker who might feel the sting of exploitation. There are real issues that need to be understood, dealt with and overcome on both sides of this coin.

Reference this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=167952&mesg_id=167952

I've been involved in worker ownership/democratic operation for over a decade. It's the economic model I've found to have the least exploitation, the happiest workers, and the most resiliency during tough times.

The Revolution Starts At Work.

of a "right way" to conceive of a business model. I'd love to see more of this in our world. That said, I wouldn't penalize owners who did not adopt it.

(it wouldn't be owners who adopt it, it would be workers).

Given that workers in a democratic environment are more motivated than wage slaves for a big corporation, sooner or later we will bury them (banging shoe on desk).

:evilgrin:

Seriously, though. There's nothing stopping people from organizing this way except their own feelings of disempowerment (which can be a pretty big issue, granted).

We've had no trouble dealing with banks, suppliers, etc... We've had many mutually beneficial relationships with other worker cooperatives over the decades, and have helped to start one or two ourselves.

We have a high-average pay scale, and an unmatched benefits package for our industry. The highest paid worker doesn't make more than 3 times what the lowest paid entry-level worker makes. And to top it off, we turned a nice profit this year that we all get to share in after we store some away for a rainy day (as we did last year).

would require a lot of construction materials to update. In addition to the requirements you bring up, there are little things like building permits, municipal inspectors, licensing, bonding, and whether the work is being done in a heavily union area. Qualifications to do that kind of work is another issue. If, for example, the electrical infrastructure within the building needs updating, the person doing the work needs to be trained.

I work in the development/construction business, and a solid estimate based on exactly what the building needs done to it before picking a number off the top of one's head should be required.

And only individuals can perform labor, so where does the right to give orders to employees based on property ownership come from? Basically, only from the coercive power of the law, the courts, and the police who serve the employers' interests. And since corporations are not human, they don't do any labor and wouldn't have property rights either, except for (see previous sentence).

"Sec. 27. Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state nature hath placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other men: for this labour being the unquestionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others."

--John Locke, 2nd Treatise of Civil Government, Chapter V

How come Bandit won't respond to these replies?

I was using a very poor example and got jumped on by all but my point was that any worker can become employer by using some brain power and inititive. I could have just as easily said start a fruit stand and hire some friends to deliver for me. I wasn't being accurate in action or figures but in the idea. Employers are not evil and not against the employees. Not every employer sets out to exploit their employees and that was my whole point but it went right over everyone's head. :shrug: I think the concept of pitting employees against employers is total Bullshit.

I don't mean to say employers are bad people. It works like this.

After you pay overheard, and suppliers, there is a pool of money left over. The employees get paid out of it, and the employers get paid out of it.

Guess what? The employers wants as much as he can get, and wants to pay the employees as little as possible - the employees want as much as they can get, and leave as little for the employer as possible. I'm not saying anyone is bad, but their economic interests are directly opposed.

Now if the pool of money gets bigger, everyone can get more. If the pool gets smaller, someone is going to have to get less - and who is that usually?

employees right they will treat you right and everyone benefits. I have 12 employees so I do understand some basics of business. I just disagree that my desires are different than my employees desires are. We all want to succeed and the more the company prospers the more everyone does. I personally have a lower salary than three of my employees even though I am President and CEO of the Corporation. Here is a link to my business.
http://www.juneauwholesale.com/

It's not about being nice though, it's about power. If you decide to not be nice one day, do they have any options (aside from losing their job of course)? Even if you pay yourself less, the equity in the business goes to you - even though your employees build the equity as much as you do.

I guess you could say a kingdom is okay, as long as the king is nice, but that wouldn't cut it for the American revolutionaries.

Anyway, I don't have any problem with independent businesses or the people who run them. Good for you.

The elite moneyed class, the class that Bush represents, has more in common with their elite counterparts in Riyadh, Zurich, London or Mexico City than they do with the workers of Main St. USA. To them there are no "Third Worlders" just "Other Worlders" outside their elite base, all ripe for picking, and this now includes American labor. When are the working people of this country going to realize they've been had, their future is set and based on the Central American model?

I was just gonna bring up Central America, and blue-collar outsourcing; when the US started exporting cheap labor jobs over seas and down south, there was an uproar. Now, we've re-imported these jobs back into the country, and they're even cheaper. The ratio between take home pay for the working class and the cost of goods for ALL classes is not stagnant; take home pay (adjusted for inflation) is getting progressively lower and lower in proportion to cost of goods yearly. In other words, in 1967, I could afford more than what I can now afford, while still earning the same amount. The working class gets the shaft again and again...and yyet they still vote Republican. Why?

The top 1% wealthiest households in America own at least 38.1% of all the wealth in America. The Great Depression happened when 44.2% of all the wealth in America was owned by the top 1%.

The bottom 90% of American households own less than 30% of America's wealth.
The bottom 40% of American households own 0.2% of America's wealth.

http://www.ufenet.org/research/wealth_charts.html

Big buisnesses (owned by those in the top 1%) are running small buisnesses out of buisness. Big buisnesses are now leaving the country and taking their wealth with them. Run a small buisness and you have to pay high taxes. Run a big one and you can incorporate in the Cayman Islands, thereby avoiding federal taxes, and shop around in all 50 states for the one that will pay the board members the most to move there.

Treasury Chief: Tax Evasion Is on the Rise

...
According to Citizens for Tax Justice (www.ctj.org), 65% of the benefit of the recently passed tax cut will go to the richest 10% of taxpayers. In 2003, 49% of taxpayers will get less than $100 from the tax bill. The average tax cut for these 65.7 million Americans will be just $19. By 2005, 74% of taxpayers will be getting less than $100 from this tax cut, with the average person in this group receiving just $5 in tax relief. Meanwhile, these revenue cuts will force deep cuts in important social programs upon which we all rely.

This calculator will help you estimate what the 2003 tax cut will mean for you. We’ve looked at the three biggest components of the tax cut bill: individual rate reduction, capital gains tax cuts and dividend tax cuts.
...
http://www.responsiblewealth.org/tax_fairness/2003TaxCut.html

Remember President Hoover and the big buisness robber barons. Paul Krugman (NY Times columnist on economics) has an excellent column on this period of American history known as the "Gilded Age":
http://www.pkarchive.org/economy/ForRicher.html

Small business owners are basically workers like the rest of us - same with middle management. I work for a "small business" - we have 35 employees. I could pretend that we are somehow an indepedent business, but we aren't - we have two major clients, one a large defence contractor and another a large multinational. The owner of the company is basically an employee of the large corporations, even though "officially" he isn't.

The piece I posted was written about 1919 - back when small businesses didn't have "employees" so the difference between the "employing class" and the "working class" was obvious. It's since been blurred, but only rhetorically, not in reality.

Economic progressivism would help small businesses. It's the multinationals that are the problem. One half of one percent of the people own most or all of the wealth - that's the problem.

employers too. There should be no misunderstanding about what you are talking about if you want to get small buisness owners to understand that you are on their side, also.

I've learned two things in the last few months - talking about "rich people" reminds people of attacks on "black people" or "gay people" and anything about "business" just brings to mind the local shop keeper.

Give me some advice, I'd like to update my rhetoric. I use "corporate" a lot, but that sounds too technical to many.

Help me out, I will seriously consider any suggestions.

Small businesses account for more of the economy than you might be aware of.

Don't quote me on this but I believe that small business (under 20 employees) and all manner of sole proprietorships, etc. account for about 40% the trading here in the US. According to the census, 21 million are employed by "small" business whereas 57 million are employed by "large" businesses with payrolls of over 500.

So you're reluctance to acknowledge the HUGE role of small business, or your willingness to write it off as insignificant, or really any attitude that seems to downplay or discredit the immense contribution of those "little people" in the garage or on the street corner with the fruit stand is simply wrong headed.

I am on THEIR side to the MAX. I want them to succeed beyond their wildest dreams- and to become larger and more profitable and more secure. That's why I favor a less active role in their struggle to attain those things.

From the Census Bureau, year 2000 numbers:
http://www.census.gov/epcd/www/smallbus.html

Use your imagination as to what the statistics have changed to after 2.5 years of Shrubinomics.

Doing some math with the statistics on that page, here's what I get:

FOR Small Businesses (1-20 employees):

76% of total number of businesses
BUT
only 18% of total employment
only 14% of total sales in the US (in 1997. 2000 sales numbers weren't available on that page)

So, while there are numerically a lot of small businesses, the vast majority of jobs and sales are with businesses with over 20 employees (your definition of small business).

Small business owners usually do some kind of work associated with business with the business or at least did at one time. They usually know who all of their employees are and have some interest in their well being. Principle stockholders of large corporations generally are motivated only by profits and usually do little to no actual work in regards to the business. They tend to see employees just as they see machines, instruments of their money making. Their goal is to control the market. They lose touch with concerns of humanity.

They have THAT in common.

well some would say parasitic :)

However, to say that workers and employers have "nothing in common" is absurd. It's rivaled by the second statement that, "the employing class, have all the good things in life."

If only things were so black and white.

OK, with some people there's not much humanity there. But I disagree that all business owners have nothing in common with all workers. How much you get paid is fortunately, not the only aspect of your life. If payscale and type of responsibility were the only factors in life to aspire to, then I would have shot myself already. There is so much more to life than that, if you will only look for it.

The following article is from Wichita State Univ. which is hardly a hotbed of radical left-wing thought....I am including only a few paragraphs. Click the link to read the rest.

The reason "Horatio Alger" rags to riches stories make the news is because they are UNUSUAL and it helps to prop up the ruling class. It also keeps working-class people from seeing themselves as a distinct class with distinct interests. As long as this remains the case those in power will continue their assault on the rest of us.

ORGANIZE!

From the article:
"The study shows that class mobility has decreased over the past few decades. While the study shatters the myth that working hard will lead to a better station in life, it shores up the idea that "the rich are getting richer."

"When Wright suggests to students in his Social Inequality class that in addition to a minimum wage, America should have a maximum wage of about $80,000 — studies have shown that any earnings past $70,000 becomes discretionary income — no student buys into that idea. Everyone believes they have the potential to surpass that maximum wage, yet the reality is that not many will, Wright says."


http://webs.wichita.edu/dt/insidewsu/show/article.asp?201

Study shows class counts
3:20:41 PM CDT - Tuesday, May 06, 2003
By Amy Geiszler-Jones
Americans, bolstered by a popular culture that revels in rags to riches stories, have the notion that they can do better than the generations before them and move up the class structure.

But a study co-authored by WSU sociologist David Wright indicates that might be more fiction than fact.

The study shows that class mobility has decreased over the past few decades. While the study shatters the myth that working hard will lead to a better station in life, it shores up the idea that "the rich are getting richer."

Wright and fellow sociologists Robert Perrucci from Purdue University and Earl Wysong of Indiana University compared incomes and occupations of 2,749 father-and-son pairs from 1979 to 1998 and found few sons had moved up the class ladder. Nearly 70 percent of the sons in 1998 had remained either at the same level or were doing worse than their fathers in 1979.

The study also shows that at the upper level, the affluent sons were moving into better positions more frequently than their fathers had.

"We all know the rich are getting richer," says Wright. "Why aren't the people at the bottom seeing an increase?"

The answer probably has much to do with whom you know and where you've gone to college, as well as your family's stock and investment portfolio.

"Twenty years ago, going to college was enough," said co-author Perrucci. "Now, it has to be an elite school."

At least at the corporate level.

Why should Capital be anything other than a tool subservient to Human Beings and not vice versa?

As in Workers/Capital & not the way it is now Capital/Workers.

I know you'll all poo-poo to 1:1 wages but what about 3:1 max differential within one large Corporation?

Local Government almost works that way today. Perhaps closer to 5:1 but much, much, better than 750:1.