Guest Post: Why President Obama Was Reelected

Tyler Durden's picture

Via James E. Miller of the Ludwig von Mises Institute of Canada,

It’s a safe assumption to make that the reelection of Barack Hussein Obama to the office of the United States Presidency will be talked about for decades to come. In history textbooks, 2012 will be referred as a momentous election year when the nation came together and collectively decided to stick with a president through the thick. Like Franklin Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, and other “transformative” presidents before him, Obama will be praised for keeping the country together in the midst of economic difficulty. In sum, he will be called a popular figure who triumphed over America’s old guard and lead the nation into a new era of solidarity and renewed social tolerance.

The lavishing has already begun with prominent voices on the left like Paul Krugman declaring the “new America” has made Obama their champion. It’s being said in major newspapers across the world that this new incarnation of the American experiment is much more attuned to the struggle of minorities and the downtrodden. They went with a President who will use the divine power of the federal government to lift the disenfranchised onto the platform of dignified living.

Like most of what passes for accepted history, this is downright propaganda. The country as a whole wasn’t frightened over sudden change by throwing out the incumbent. It wasn’t a declaration of a new, more diverse America. Shaping a new destiny wasn’t on the casual voter’s mind on November 6th.

There is a rational explanation for the President’s reelection which doesn’t invoke a deep or complex meaning. The only way to explain the outcome is in the simplest and direct prose: the moochers prevailed.

Obama’s winning tactic was to do what any respectable man does when he wishes to have something; he bought it. From cell phones and contraceptives to food stamps and unemployment benefits, the Obama administration kept the money flowing to ensure a steady turnout on Election Day. The coup de grâce was painting his opponent as a second coming of Dickens’ Scrooge that was ready to cut the voters from their trust funds.

The campaign made no attempt to hide this tactic. In an online video, celebrity Lena Dunham was tapped to extol the virtues of government-supplied birth control. The advertisement was aimed at a younger generation already guaranteed access to their parent’s health insurance till they turn 26 (and then morph simultaneously into full grown, self-sufficient adults). The video was a great demonstration of the campaign strategy but it was topped by one woman from Cleveland, Ohio who exemplified the public trough mentality on camera. Commonly referred to as the Obama-phone lady, this woman was so enraptured by her “free” cell phone and other welfare entitlements, she was determined to “keep Obama in president” to use her exact words. Though clearly dimwitted, Ms. Obamaphone was a phenomenal orator of the President’s message of goodies in exchange for votes.

Though it worked splendidly, Obama’s strategy was not brilliantly crafted from the minds of experts. It was the same bread and circus routine employed by the Romans and applied to modern demographics that relish in a victim-like mentality.  Women, the youth, blacks, Hispanics, and the elderly were all catered to through subtle patronization and outright payoffs.  It was the same tactic employed by the Roosevelt administration when the New Deal got underway. As journalist John T. Flynn wrote of the popular 32nd president:

It was always easy to sell him a plan that involved giving away government money. It was always easy to interest him in a plan which would confer some special benefit upon some special class in the population in exchange for their votes.

The 2009 auto industry bailout was Obama’s great tribute to Roosevelt. By infusing two auto giants with the federal government and still maintaining the appearance of their private ownership, the President convinced a majority in the battleground state of Ohio to put him back in the White House. Criticizing the auto bailout was the last nail in the coffin for Mitt Romney’s presidential aspirations.

None of this is to say the election of Romney would have meant the much needed axing of the welfare state and state-subsidized dependency. The army of bureaucrats tasked with cutting checks in the name of kindness would still work to expand their budgets. The wealthy interests the former Massachusetts governor looked to appease were welfare queens in themselves and would likely receive all the state coddling money can buy.

Obama won the election by catering to the worst of all human traits: envy. He demonized the rich while promising to take more of their income and give it out in the form of entitlement payments. Under his presidency, the attitude of the takers will continue to swell as they clamor for more privileges. Anybody who speaks out against the Robin Hood scheme will be called an unconscionable xenophobe and a hater of the poor. The protestant work ethic will slowly be choked into submission through deliberate iconoclasm launched by the political class and their pet media pundits.

The opponents of capitalism will keep blaming money and greed for all the ills of society. They will also keep wearing fashionable clothes and coordinating protests on their smartphones while drinking caffeinated drinks that cost the same as some third world country’s average salary. They will scoff at hard work when it’s the sweat and labor of generations before them that has created the living standard they enjoy today. Under their tutelage America will be brought into its final form of, as right-wing radio host Rush Limbaugh accurately defined it, a “country of children.”

Economist Thomas DiLorenzo sums up the key to Obama’s victory in this pungent bit of fine wisdom:

Every time Romney made one of his “let’s get the economy going again” speeches extolling the virtues of hard work he terrified the millions of welfare bums and parasites and motivated them more than ever to stand in line for hours to vote for Santa Claus Obama, their “savior” from having to work for a living.  (It’s always the low opportunity cost class that has the “luxury” of spending half a day or more standing in a line).

With Obama’s reelection comes the onward march of American society’s degeneration into that of the lazy, bitter masses forever on the lookout to loot a hapless minority still trying to make an honest living. The coming brave new world will be filled to the brim with self-righteous individuals eager to shuffle around the Earth’s gifts to achieve some kind of equality. In the process, none of them will produce a lick of good outside of satisfying their own disturbed need to dominate. It will be rule of the inept over the capable. Barack Obama will lead the way. He will be replaced in four years with someone that follows the same doctrine. The collective age of the country will continue to collapse till it reaches just shy of an unclothed infant wailing for succor. Except it will be grown men doing the crying and no one around to feed him because the sensible among us has already left.

The people have spoken and made it so.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
FeralSerf's picture

"Uh, I couldn't pay it." was the response.

This is, of course, the incorrect answer as anyone that is familiar with the economics of the US Treasury and Federal Reserve knows.  The correct answer is: "I would just charge the payment on another credit card."

Stupid moocher!  He deserves to lose his Obamaphone.

JR's picture

Post-election blame and credit are everywhere, much of it centered around the Hispanic vote surge, a product of the 1965 Immigration Act. Included is bragging from some Jewish groups on their role in creating this legislation and complaints from other quarters on the catastrophic result.

Jewish activist Earl Raab calls it in the Jewish Bulletin in 1993 saying America now has a pluralistic culture because of the 1965 Immigration Act used by Jewish political activists to “alter the ethnic composition of the United States.”

Raab argues that the Jewish community took the leadership role in changing the Northwestern European bias of American immigration policy, thus, inhibiting anti-Semitism, by “increasing ethnic heterogeneity” in America to make “it even more difficult for a political party or mass movement of bigotry to develop.”

It has been a successful campaign, culminating in the voting patterns of the 2012 election. The Census Bureau now reports that about half of the American population soon will be non-white.

We [i.e., Jews] have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to bigotry for about half a century, says Raab. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the” heterogeneous nature of our population tends to make it irreversible” and make our constitutional constraints against bigotry more practical than ever.

Charles Silberman notes in A certain people: American Jews and their lives today (Summit Books 1985), that “American Jews are committed to cultural tolerance because of their belief, one firmly rooted in history,” that Jews are safe only in a society acceptant of a wide range of attitudes and behaviors, as well as a diversity of religious and ethnic groups, or as recapped by Kevin MacDonald in Jewish Involvement in Shaping American Immigration Policy, 1881-1965. “It is this belief, for example, not approval of homosexuality, that leads an overwhelming majority of American Jews to endorse ‘gay rights’ and to take a liberal stance on most other so-called ‘social issues.”

Neo-Conservatives Julian Simon and Ben Wattenberg, who have advocated very high levels of immigration from all parts of the world, do so according to Wattenberg  so that the U.S. will become the world’s first “Universal Nation.”

S.M. Neuringer in 1969 notes in “American Jewry and United States immigration policy, 1881-1953,  that “Jewish influence on immigration policy was facilitated by Jewish wealth, education, and social status. Reflecting its general disproportionate representation in makers of economic success and political influence,  Jewish organizations have been able to have a vastly disproportionate effect on United States’ immigration policy because Jews as a group are highly organized, highly intelligent, and politically astute, and they were able to command a high level of financial, political, and intellectual resources in pursuing their political aims.”

D. A. Hollinger notes in 1996 in Science, Jews, and secular culture: Studies in mid-twentieth century American intellectual history, that Jews were more influential in the decline of homogeneous Protestant Christian culture than the Catholics because of their greater wealth, social standing, and technical skill in the intellectual arena.

According to MacDonald, referencing J. Judis’ “The conservative crack-up” in The American Prospect (1990), immigration targeting diversity from the Third World also has been a conflict between predominantly Jewish neo-Conservatives and predominantly gentile paleo-conservatives.

“Neo-conservatives Norman Podhoretz and Richard John Neuhaus reacted very negatively to an article by a paleo-conservative concerned that such immigration would eventually lead to the United States being dominated by such immigrants.”

905ozs's picture

Open invitation to the ZH FELLOWSHIP...

Good cheap, beautiful country here,, happy to help anyone escape...:) Here we have a proud history of not taking any shit, White, Black, Green whatever, you know the story.

What's happened to the Americans? Was it ever the people or always Rothschild Inc. I have been to your shores 3 times, lots a good people there, lol, even more ignorant, I gave up visiting you in 2002...Clinton, Bush after Nixon, now Hussain, twice!

When the shit really hits the fan, the southern hemisphere is the place to be + we are the best rugby national pound for pound on earth :)

Grid Iron vs rugby, you are dead meat :)
Baseball vs cricket, ditto :)

brent1023's picture

Articles by people who view all of creation through one very tiny analytic lens are amusing, but hardly worth reading more than a paragraph or two.

Of the thousands of things done and not done, said and not said, promised and not promised, by either candidate, the moocher effect (as opposed to the state provides help when no one else can) is one of many factors, no single one of which prevails over all others.

It is not one of the 13 keys to the white house.

People moving in very smaller circles until they vanish ...

fledermaus's picture


The Financial Aristocracy asserts its interests over the 99% and then buys the complicity of the bottom 60% with largesse paid for by the top 19% of earners.
From Charles Hugh-Smith' s  post this morning.  Hopefully we're referring to all freeloaders not just the bottom 60%... While the middle class gets screwed and we play the false Right vs. Left game.

alangreedspank's picture

Some politician got elected by bribing people for their votes and this is supposed to be a controversy, on ZH of all places ?

Yes, voters are morons but I'm afraid this applies to a majority of ZH readers as well, no offense to the staff.

Uncle Remus's picture

I for one do not welcome the idiot-bastard overlord-wannabes.

richard007's picture

A reminder from Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790)

When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.

905ozs's picture

Uncle Remus

But you ought not be one sir, or ma'am.


48hrs on, no MSM, no print, Rueters/AP...Rothschild Inc.

Der Wille Zur Macht's picture

Mr. Miller is correct, never underestimate people's fondness for masochism. We absolutely LOVE burning our arm on the cornballer...EVERY DAMN TIME!

As long as a candidate suits the public's preconceived notions of what is 'good' and whose ideals require little or no original thought, they will prevail. If I promise more than you, I win.

Everybody wants what they don't have. Envy is the name of the game folks. And as long as it's not being taken from them specifically, then it's A-OKAY.

What they don't realize is we're all getting fucked.



Tom of the Missouri's picture

Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, et. al. hat it right when they exclueded women from the right to vote. Emotion i.e., women, should play no role in such important adult decisond as national defense, fiscal responsibility and the long term interest of society.   I would have added people that live in their parents basement should not vote either,  but reasonablle people can differ.   Male adults are also better at detcting charlatans and con men, but I digress.

kestrel2012's picture

The exit polls showed that the basic affinity groups didn't really change their voting in significant way.  Less than 1% has actually changed their vote.  This is why all the polls and expecting undecides to break for Romney were wrong. 

We didn't vote on the economy, women's health/rights, foreign affairs or anything else.

We voted on one thing... "What do you think about the BLUE DRESS?"   We all took sides then and have never moved which is why the world is divided.  Not a coicidence that Slick Willy was brought out again, as that was once again what the election was about.  (I do have to say that doesn't say much for single women though, but it is true)

ItsDanger's picture

Most of the people I know work hard and make good livings.  They also would never spend more than 10 minutes in line to vote.  No chance.

GCT's picture

Not going to argue politics with the fight clud today.  Foreign policy magazine did have the UN's thoughts on our elections the day after.  You can search it yourself.  Basically the un observers thought our system was unfair because ID is not required.  A very good read by the way and smothered by the media as well.

I predicted the Obama win a year ago based on the numbers. Married women voted for Romney 53% and single women 72% voted for Obama.  Not alot was going to change as most federal programs are indeed designed for single women.  Actually 56% of tjhe people in this country are on some type of Govt. handout.  Another eye opening number for me was the elderly they voted 65% for Romney!

My take if people wanted change the Congress would have changed and basically not alot happened there. 

AnAnonymous's picture

As usual, 'americans' only expose propaganda to make room for theirs. This article is another fine example.

'Americans' have always voted for obtaining something from their State. It is one core tenet of 'americanism'

Now is simply a case when some 'americans' no longer feel the state works for their exclusive benefit.

The article also comes with no back up to show that the bribery works, that indeed people who received something actually voted.

But, hey, anything is good to try to divert attention from 'americanism'.

akak's picture

As usual, AnAnnoyingUs only exposes his posterior to make room for more roadside nightsoil. This typically anti-American comment is another fine example.

AnAnnoyingUS has always ranted in sweepingly bigoted but fundamentally unbacked assertions, damning all the inhabitants of one single nation for all of the earth's ills.

But hey, anything is good to try to divert attention from one's own unsustainably exploding society's faults and failings.

TheFourthStooge-ing's picture


But, hey, anything is good to try to divert attention from 'americanism'.

The criticism of America has always been a bit infantile. One is familiar with the theory from psychoanalysis, when people talk about transference, or when suppressed feelings or emotions are overcome by projecting them onto others. It may work for a while, improving one's feeling of self-worth by devaluing an imagined adversary. But it always falls short. Which is why the ritual must be constantly carried out anew.

Winston of Oceania's picture

You are such a HUMP, do you ever tire of your own duplicity?

therearetoomanyidiots's picture

Don't bother, shit is shit, don't step in it...

HD's picture

I don't know why he bothered to write the whole article.  The use of "Barack Hussein Obama" in the first sentence tells you that it wasn't going to be a love letter to Barry.

...Show me one mainstream media puff piece that ever uses Obama's middle name.

Winston of Oceania's picture

I saw nothing in the title that said it was? Perhaps you could write your own...

therearetoomanyidiots's picture

Funny how Obama used his middle name when swearing in.....

q99x2's picture

My friend said that I should have made my speech on the FED last week interesting for the audience by starting it off with, "Barak Hussein Obama re-appointed Ben Shalom Bernanke head of the Federal Reserve" He said that could be the entire speech and that I could bow to the audience and walk off stage.

Rastadamus's picture

The GOP is going the way of the Whigs.

So white people, feel free to start Whiggin.

This ain't your country anymore. Jefferson Davis is spinning in his grave.

Fuck Dixie.

And yes, I'm taking as much free shit as I can get.

therearetoomanyidiots's picture

The number one reason that Obama won is because TeeVee told people to vote for him.  Period.

The number two reason he won?   He isn't White. 

GernB's picture

Why Obama won: The republican establishment's strategy disenfranchies their most enthusiastic supporters. They ticked off liberatarians through their treatment of Ron Paul, and gave the tea party the finger, then tried to placate them through a Ryan VP pick.

Now they are trying to tell conservatives they are the problem and that they won't win again unless they give up this rediculous idea of having convictions and standing on them. The problem is, the republican party can change it's approach all it wants but people will not just change what they belileve in so easily. They might as well be begging for a third party to voice the views of all those voters who no longer like either party.

therearetoomanyidiots's picture

Still, by not voting or voting for Gary Johnson or writing in Ron Paul, what did we get? 


You didn't vote because you were pissed the GOP didn't listen to you.  We punished the republicans.  Right?  Nope!

By your own post you now indicate how the GOP is blaming conservatives, or Paulians or whomever.  

But, in the end of all this, Obama is still president because you stayed home OR didn't vote for Romney, well over 3 million Republicans didn't vote, not to mention independents, Paul supporters, evangelicals.  Now all we have is sheer lunacy, neophytes, and idealistic marxists...Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi...they're going to write the rules. 

Thanks for your efforts.

GernB's picture

To be clear. I did vote, but I can completely understand why Ron Paul supporters did not. What purpose does it serve to vote for Romney if you think he's just Obama light. So there's a chance we don't get Obamacare if Romney is elected, but what will you get in ir's place: a big government compromise that benefits the health care industry, but not necessarily consumers and which progressives can now blame on consrvatives.

The lesson of the Bush years is that voting for the conservative because they are better than the alternative gets you an electorate that jusitfiably sees republicans as the problem and leads to 8 years of Obama.

TheFourthStooge-ing's picture


Still, by not voting or voting for Gary Johnson or writing in Ron Paul, what did we get?

A clear conscience.

You didn't vote because you were pissed the GOP didn't listen to you.  We punished the republicans.  Right?  Nope!

I'd say, based on all the whining coming from the losers that still think there's a rodent turd worth of difference between Barack "Hussein in the membrane" Obama and Willard "the rat" Romney, that yes, the republicans are indeed feeling a bit butthurt.

Cheer up, kids. After all, it's really just a one-party system, and as long as Barack or Willard wins, the party wins.

mammoth mo's picture

Well this is a fine place.

Lose and whine - lose and whine - lose and whine.

So Blacks voted 95% for Obama.  How dare they reject the Republican offer of the whip, the chain, or the rope.   Those Blacks must be moochers.  Lets see how do you spell moocher?   Let me see, Walmart patrons.  It's a darn shame those moochers are supporting so much of society with their payments at Walmart.  Stop the trucks from rolling the moochers are going to be cut off.


So Latinos went for Obama by over 70%.  How dare they reject the Republican offer of the whip, the chain, or the rope.  Those Latinos must be moochers.  We know how to spell moocher Walmart patrons.   Oh they and the Blacks also pay local sales tax and other assorted taxes.  Freaking moochers paying the darn regressive taxes.  If we can stop the moochers things will be fine.


So Women didn't want to be told about birth control by men who showed a thorough knowledge of the understanding of the human body and may I add a woman's true intentions.  Screw them, who told them to think when they vote.  All of us with a Penis know what is best for women.  Just ask us.


Enjoy the whine people - enjoy the whine.  Perhaps the Republicans can come up with something other than the whip the chain or the rope for minorites and something other than sex is consensual if a man says it is and you had better have my baby no matter what circumstances I knock you up under.


At this point the Democrats don't have to work hard to get votes.  Just point to the other guy and say what's he offering?  Hell, the Democrats aren't much better.  They too reward rich people first.  They lack the level of stupid offensive people at the front that repeatedly are trotted out by Republicans.


Your stupid if you think this election was about moochers wanting a free ride.  The moochers who want the free ride are the rich who get zero interest loans and then don't have to pay those back.   Any of you whiners feel like looking up how much paper work it takes for an individual to get on welfare and how much paper work it took to get millions in tarp loans from a bank get back with me.


Until then - enjoy the pity party while those of us who realize that the country needs to work together will move on with those who agree.

GernB's picture

So wanting people to have freedom and choices is the whip, the chain, or the rope. Not forcing peolpe to pay for other people's brith control with money that is not theirs, is anti-women. Your answer is a society where the minority is crushed under the heel of a tyranical, all powerful, majority fed by an all powerful tyrnaical government that gets to decide who wins and who looses across all of society. Well, in that world everyonme looses. People who don't produce but just consume are not contributing to the prosperty of al,l because prosperity only comes from having goods and services that people make. The fewer people making goods and services because they don't have to because they can mooch off of others, the less prosperity there is for all.

You don't fix the problem of rich people getting zero interest loans by giving more people a free ride, you just perpetuate the problem with the idea that government gets to decide who gets a free ride. You fix the problem by disabusing people of the notion that they or anyone is entitled to another person money. Do me a favor, figure out, over their lifetime, how many extra years a typical person will have to work paying taxes to support someone else, and then compare than to the hours spent filling out welfare paperwork.Moreover, tell me what gives you the right to spend that other persons life like it was nothing.

hawk nation's picture

You dont work with a policy agenda that believes centralized government control is the answer

these policies that are being employed will starve the beast that is the government.

People will then find out dependence of the government lead to them starving 

roadhazard's picture

The reason Obama won was Repubicans are only interested in rich white people. That and four years of obstruction is not a plan worthy of a vote. Wingers will continue to shoot themselves in the foot.

therearetoomanyidiots's picture

Holy shit, who let you in here?

If you have something to say that actually contributes anything to the discussion, please mention it, otherwise it would be best if you just shut up...I can get all your talking points just by turning on the TeeVee. 

spooz's picture

And you act like your half of the duopoly has any more credibility.  Lesser of evils is a sure road to serfdom.

therearetoomanyidiots's picture

And I might add that voting for someone promising you serfdom is a surer road to serfdom. 

As much as these guys were the same, they were different if only slightly.   One man offered man offereed liberty. 

The people that spoke won, they chose government because idiots that knew better sat home.

68 new regulations a day.  Moratoriums on drilling in the west.  He hasn't even waited for the hangover to lift...

spooz's picture

Wait, which one offered liberty?  The flip-flopping plutocrat?  You have been brainwashed or you are spewing propaganda.

TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

therearetoomanyidiots added himself to the count with:

And I might add that voting for someone promising you serfdom is a surer road to serfdom. 

As much as these guys were the same, they were different if only slightly.   One man offered man offereed liberty. 

The people that spoke won, they chose government

Why are you rehashing the Republican convention?

spooz's picture

Chris Hedges (a real liberal) on the Obama election":

"The presidential election exposed the liberal class as a corpse. It fights for nothing. It stands for nothing. It is a useless appendage to the corporate state. It exists not to make possible incremental or piecemeal reform, as it originally did in a functional capitalist democracy; instead it has devolved into an instrument of personal vanity, burnishing the hollow morality of its adherents. Liberals, by voting for Barack Obama, betrayed the core values they use to define themselves—the rule of law, the safeguarding of civil liberties, the protection of unions, the preservation of social welfare programs, environmental accords, financial regulation, a defiance of unjust war and torture, and the abolition of drone wars. The liberal class clung desperately during the long nightmare of this political campaign to one or two issues, such as protecting a woman’s right to choose and gender equality, to justify its complicity in a monstrous evil. This moral fragmentation—using an isolated act of justice to define one’s self while ignoring the vast corporate assault on the nation and the ecosystem along with the pre-emptive violence of the imperial state—is moral and political capitulation. It fails to confront the evil we have become."

The Rs would have had an easy time knocking the imperial president off his throne with this kind of message, but that would have meant having some integrity.  When the other side of the duopoly agrees with the direction Obama is taking the country, towards an imperial presidency and police state, they try to fight with the wedge issues and lose.

archon's picture

That's a good quote, and thanks for that, but I don't think it would have done a bit of good to turn the election around, since that woulde require a truly "free press" to allow the message to be heard, and that its message would sound reasonable when falling on deaf ears.  We are, after all, talking about a news media that imposed an intentional blackout on the murder of an ambassador and four diplomats for two months prior to the election.  You won't break that kind of rigid discipline with a message that requires them to rat themselves out.  I agree with Pat Cadell that the news media, the very "Free press" that is supposed to be the guardian of our democracy, has actually become the enemy of the People.

therearetoomanyidiots's picture

I  think Obama won becuse of all the threats of riots by blacks if Obama lost. 

spooz's picture

Speaking of the black vote, the Rs did the Ds a big solid with the voter suppression thing.  People tend to get riled up when they feel they are being targeted, gives them a rallying point:


roadhazard's picture

Keep the BS coming, son, it did you soo good this last election. Wingers never learn.

loveyajimbo's picture

SUMMARY: Obungo is an asshole, as are all who voted for him.

roadhazard's picture

Then it was a contest of assholes vs morons.

monad's picture

Ask DCI Petreaus. He knows everything...

Uncle Keith's picture

Moochers, huh? 


I work for a 3rd generation rich guy. 3rd. His grand-pappy made his money as a war profiteer (WWII). Truman was right: those people were scumbags. Their decendents are little better. Anyway, I work for a subsistence wage - not a reproductive wage. The business owner just doesn't understand why he should pay more than the prevailing wage the market demands. So, I never reproduced. Neither did a lot of other folks from my generation. This attitude is commonplace, dare I say, Nearly Universal.


The 99.95% of us who find ourselves in the same boat - those working to enrich the already too-rich-for-society-to-afford - have had enough of the arrogance and "me first" of the Top .05% and require that the Tide Turn. The fact that the author of this piece is reacting like a Nationless Prick pretty much sums up the problem: The Deification of the Wealthy while labelling everyone else as a dehumanized commodity.

GernB's picture

I don't think you phrased that right. Your employer does not understand why he should make himself uncompetitive by trying to tell consumers they should value your labor more than they do.

The thing is, the market is you, Every time you buy something you make value judgements about what something is worth, and in so doing what the labor to make it is worth. You don't decide what something is worth purely to deny someone good wages, you make the choice because that is your right. People want to pretend like companies are the problem and exist totaly appart from the consumer. Well, every employee is a consumer and when you rob companies of the right to make decisions that benefit consumers you rob consumers of the right to decide what things are worth to them.