Relax

 
My father was a sociopath.  Like most sociopaths, originally known as "the morally insane", my father didn't really understand the difference between right and wrong.  He only knew how normal people reacted to right and wrong, so he was careful to deceive and manipulate to get what he wanted without provoking undesirable reactions from his victims.

In an unpleasant surprise, following my father's recent death, it became clear that my brother really doesn't understand the difference between right and wrong either.  His notion of fairness is so lop-sided that it falls squarely in the camp of selfishness, the same camp that was my father's base of operations.

My reaction to all this has not been well received in the family.  I have been advised to sit back and "let it be."  "Don't rock the boat."  "Relax."  "Enjoy life."  Yes, relax in the face of injustice.

I got that message again for Christmas when my sister sent me the sign pictured above.

Don't get me wrong -- I like this gift because it emphasizes the unbalanced approach of the sociopath, which has permeated my family.  Sociopaths want nothing more than for their victims to relax into the abuse and accept it quietly.  They don't want any resistance.  They don't want you to react; they want you to relax.

There are indeed times when it is appropriate to relax.  And there are times when it is appropriate to react.  The balance lies in knowing the difference.

We see the same dynamic in the world around us.  The United States invaded Iraq in 2003 when our sociopathic leaders lied to us about "weapons of mass destruction".  To this day we are still relaxing rather than holding the liars accountable for war crimes.  We are also far too relaxed about 9/11 truth, Fukushima radiation, Guantanamo Bay and other government torture facilities, unconstitutional NSA spying, judicial corruption, Congressional criminality, and presidential con-artistry.  We are so relaxed that we have become sheep good for nothing but fleecing.

So relax.  Be a good sheep.  Stand still for your fleecing.

Just excuse me if I don't join you.
 

Wealth reform

 

It isn’t laziness that has caused worldwide poverty, it is the disenfranchisement of millions through the perpetuation of corporate greed.  Even the mega-corporation of Ben & Jerry’s, makers of the popular ice cream, once had a 5 to 1 board member ruling that the CEO would be limited to a 5 to 1 ratio of earnings over his lowest paid worker, but the company ditched this practice when they couldn’t find anyone to replace Ben Cohen, the CEO that worked for just $81,000 a year. -- source

 

Idiots!  Any excellent idea, poorly executed, will fail.  That doesn't mean the idea is a failure.

The flaw in this idea is the 5 to 1 ratio.  What ratios will make this idea succeed, and what ratio is optimal for all involved?

If Ben worked for $81K per year, then the lowest paid worker was getting $16.2K per year, or about minimum wage ($8.10/hour).

What if the ratio had been set to 50 to 1?  Then Ben would make $405/hour, or $810K per year.  Can't find a CEO that will work for that?  BS, you can find lots of them.  Even I would do it.  I've run my own company for 27 years, every one of them in the black.

Maybe the CEO you want requires a million dollars a year.  Set the starting salary for the lowest paid employees at $10/hour, and you've got your million dollar CEO, along with some happier employees.

50 to 1 is probably not the optimal ratio, but it clearly works better than 5 to 1.  A much higher ratio is probably as poor a choice as the 5 to 1 ratio.  Google's CEO takes home an obscene $101 million every year.  That's a ratio of 6234 to 1.

So what is the optimal ratio that will satisfy all employees and still allow a business to thrive?  And if humans are so smart, why haven't we solved this very simple economics problem?  And don't give me any of that "free market" BS.  There are no free markets wherever sociopaths are running the show, and that's exactly what we've got.  At the very least, we need to place limits on the people at the top of the hierarchy.  A 100 to 1 ratio seems like a good place to start.  And if those at the top want more money?  They will have to create the rising tide that lifts all boats.  Isn't that really what they are paid to do anyway?

What if the whole world were modeled in the same way, and the richest among us could not be more than 100 times richer than the poorest among us?  Can you imagine the improvements that would bring?