Today is labor day, a holiday inspired by the old Knights of Labor movement that wanted a holiday similar to one found in Canada. A lot has changed over the years and bloomberg columnist and American Enterprise Institute researcher Kevin Hassett believes that we need a labor & capital day. Why? Accoring to Hassett, In Hassett's view, the traditional marxist notion of brave workers standing up to their boss is an antiquated and unrealistic viewpoint that is no longer valid. He also maintains that labor and capital can never be divorced from one another. What benefits capital, benefits labor. lower taxes on capital help workers since higher capital taxes translate into lower wages and salaries for workers.

Kevin Hassett Bloomberg column.

Questions for debate:

1.)Should we have a "labor & capital day" to appreciate our economic system and those who contribute to it?

2.)Are labor and capital necessarily antithetical to one another?

3.)Should we change the marxist notion of labor day in our history to be comprehensive of labor & capital as mutually reinforcing economic entities?

1.)Should we have a "labor & capital day" to appreciate our economic system and those who contribute to it?

I don't know that we need a 'day' for it, but it couldn't hurt to change the mindset.

2.)Are labor and capital necessarily antithetical to one another?

Absolutely not. In fact, they aren't antithetical at all...they are inevitably intertwined. One isn't any good at all without the other.

3.)Should we change the marxist notion of labor day in our history to be comprehensive of labor & capital as mutually reinforcing economic entities?

I don't see any of our politicians wanted to bite that bullet....too easy to spin as being anti-worker. However, as I expressed above and Hassett more eloquently explains, changing the mindset would be beneficial.

This topic reminds me a bit of a conversation that many of us have heard.



Both of the major political parties in the United States are very much pro-business parties, so I'm a little baffled as to why we might need more celebration of capitalism. Don't get me wrong; I like the free market system, and I wish it were a little more free. (Eliminate corporate welfare, and so on.) Two cheers for capitalism! (I withdraw the third cheer for its more severe violations of common decency.)

I certainly agree that labor and capital need not be enemies. Any sane capitalist knows that she needs to treat her workers well. However, history teaches us that they can be enemies, and that the instigation of the enmity has usually been absolutely unrestrained behavior by short-sighted capitalists.

Let's face it; Labor Day has about as much to do with labor as Valentine's Day has to do with the vague, at least half-mythical history of a martyred saint by that name. I see no reason to fool around with it.

Labor and capital are not enemies, they are mortal foes locked into an epic battle, not really but it could make a good movie, axe wielding accountants and such.

I look at our economy as it stands as really just the cumulative effect of peoples activities. Regardless of position they all exist really to fuel the machine if you will, so all deserve at least some standard level of respect. I think the lack of such or the desire to simply capitalize at all costs is really what brought along the union or communism or whatever else you want to call it.

1.)Should we have a "labor & capital day" to appreciate our economic system and those who contribute to it?

Like most holidays I probably really would not notice it that much save it would maybe be a day off.

2.)Are labor and capital necessarily antithetical to one another?

I really think people should work endlessly to fill my coffers with gold! Really though its all just parts of the matrix.

3.)Should we change the marxist notion of labor day in our history to be comprehensive of labor & capital as mutually reinforcing economic entities?

The idea of people thinking outside the box is scary indeed, I would simply hope we can trust in freedom to the masses.

1.)Should we have a "labor & capital day" to appreciate our economic system and those who contribute to it?

Sure, what the heck. Those who are employeed, and thus benefitting, like the day off. Those who are unemployed don't care because every day is just another work day--working to get an opportunity to contribute to the economy rather than, you know, heading toward the street.

2.)Are labor and capital necessarily antithetical to one another?

Yep. That's why illegal aliens got so popular for certain employers. Without a tightening of the laws, the situation would have continued to take work away from US citizens.

This is also why foreign outsourcing has thrown so many IT workers into the ranks of the unemployed and those who have eventually fallen off the radar.

Intel (the company, not the concept) is about to hack away at its employees. Happy Capital Day, folks! Radio Shack recently laid off a bunch by email. Ooops, you mean people actually have feelings? Dang. Who would have known?

3.)Should we change the marxist notion of labor day in our history to be comprehensive of labor & capital as mutually reinforcing economic entities?

You can't change a notion if reality keeps on reinforcing it. One can pretend a condition does not exist, so for propaganda purposes, changing the name of this holiday might be profitable. Interesting framing of the question though: "Should we change the marxist notion of labor day in our history . . ."

Is this a suggestion to rewrite US history regarding the labor struggles of the 20th century? I keep looking at that sentence over and over again, and by gosh, that's exactly what it means.

However, the fact of the matter remains: Capital wants cheap labor wherever capital can find it. Labor is an irritating overhead. This is just doing business in today's economy. We have no choice but to suck it up.

Or figure out a better way. I still think there's plenty of room for improvement.

1.)Should we have a "labor & capital day" to appreciate our economic system and those who contribute to it?

Sure--Let the guys with the yachts and summer homes hold a(nother) day of festivities for their "poor" salaried employees and call it Capital Day. Let only those who say that organized labor is obsolete celebrate this holiday. The boss giveth, the union taketh away...

2.)Are labor and capital necessarily antithetical to one another?

They do seem to have an adversarial relationship these days. Look at the stereotypes: The big boss talks to his fairly well-paid management lackeys while putting on the mini-green in his office: "Those lazy [so-and-so's] on the union payroll are ruining us..."

Author/Musician made a good point when he brought up the topic of undocumented/illegal (take your pick) workers doing the jobs for far less than what a legal American worker will work for. But I don't see a lot of noble big bosses taking salary cuts in the interest of helping their companies' bottom lines, either. Last time I remember, Lee Iacocca did that to help Chrysler Corporation out a few decades or so ago.

As long as the big guys think it's unconscionable for the little guys in the rank and file to work for a living wage and benefits because they might not get 2-3 million dollars more for their bonuses, there is an antithetical relationship between labor and management (i.e., "capital").

3.)Should we change the marxist notion of labor day in our history to be comprehensive of labor & capital as mutually reinforcing economic entities?

Marxist, eh? I guess we know where you stand. And just why is it Marxist to provide work and wage protections for the rank and file?

It seems to me that the corporation heads think it's just fine to reinforce such a stereotype to their advantage. Never mind that because of the labor movement, people started getting a day off a week, and child labor could no longer be exploited. And those damn meddlers got legislation passed making sweatshops illegal!

Nope, just bring old Karl Marx into the argument for goodness knows, socialism is just one step away from...COMMUNISM! Bull Hockey!

You might be a capitalist if:

I recently was reading an article in the current Reader's Digest


Questions for debate:

1.) Should we have a "labor & capital day" to appreciate our economic system and those who contribute to it?

We celebrated Labor Day with some friends. It was a matter of deciding though if we could afford to buy food and gas to make the trip across town. They mulled over whether they could afford enough meat to feed an extra 3 people. That’s the reality of coming from the working class.

According to this evening’s newspaper, DuPont was the third major corporation to take advantage of “The Pension Protection Act” to scale back their pension program. I couldn’t find a link to that story, but I did find this.


I read recently that Microsoft has never offered its employees a pension plan. I’m certain that Bill Gates doesn’t honestly see the need for such a benefit.

2.) Are labor and capital necessarily antithetical to one another?

Living in Michigan, part of the history lessons we learn are of the struggle to form unions and get them recognized. The sit down strike in Flint is taught, as well as the history behind “Never cry fire in a crowded building.” Company goons went into a crowded union meeting in the Upper Peninsula, yelled fire, and counted the dead later as people literally stampeded over each other to get out safely.

3.) Should we change the Marxist notion of Labor Day in our history to be comprehensive of labor & capital as mutually reinforcing economic entities?

I’m old enough that I was in school when we were taught that we could survive a nuclear explosion by sitting with our head between our knees and putting a hand on the back of our necks. What our teachers were allowed to teach us of Karl Marx was that his ideas were co-opted from the Mayflower Compact, and corrupted by…

Capital might need labor.

Then again, most of the jobs in the factory I used to work in were turned over to robots. When I retired, they had plans to run six production plants from a single control room run by two operators. Forty years ago, I worked in one of those production plants. During a fire drill, it took us nearly twenty minutes to evacuate the building using every available exit. There were perhaps 1,000 employees working in the plant that day.

Capital is increasingly being invested abroad, relying on prison and child labor in other nations that have less restrictive labor laws.

Before unions were formed, hiring was performed on a daily basis at the auto plants. There was no such thing as seniority, vacations, an eight hour day, a five day work week… "Another day, another dollar," reflected a 10 hour work day at a prevailing wage of 10¢ per hour.

If your average capitalist needs a day off, let him cash in his frequent flier coupons. If we keep it as Labor Day, we may be able to maintain it as a holiday.

No, and why should he? Microsoft has created over 10,000 millionaires through its stock option program. That evil, evil man....making everyone rich like that....he should be ashamed of himself. I'm curious...how many of those millionaires would trade in all that money for a pension plan? I'm betting not a one of them.



Hmmm...average capitalist. Just exactly who might that be? That would have to be Joe Stockowner...otherwise known as your neighbor, the person down the street, anyone who participates in a 401k program. You know, all those evil, greedy people living all around you. Perhaps this is the notion that needs to change first...the average capitalist is just an average person, and things that benefit the average capitalist therefore benefit the average person. Which is pretty much what the article (how many bothered to read the article) discussed. What happens when capital is increased? For the corporation, that money is put back into increasing production, which benefits workers. For the investor, that money works its way back into the economy, which benefits workers. Either way, workers benefit. However, as the article points out, the adversarial relationship typically portrayed hinders legislation which in the end benefits workers. What's the sense in that?

1.)Should we have a "labor & capital day" to appreciate our economic system and those who contribute to it?

2.)Are labor and capital necessarily antithetical to one another?

3.)Should we change the marxist notion of labor day in our history to be comprehensive of labor & capital as ugmutually reinforcing economic entities?

seems like a good idea to me. cannot have one without the other.
Good pay gets good people, low pay gets what you would expect.
I don't understand the hatred older folks have towards big business. Its been a long time since the Depression.
don't want a lousy job--get some skills. Most states have all sorts of sponsored training programs if you cannot afford out of pocket.
Without the "capitalist" we would never had gates and microsoft, and whether or not you like him he IS responsible for countless jobs and better lives for many many people.
Since most business in America is of the small business type, most "Capitalists" are not of the "Yacht Club" stereotype, but suburbia alumni. As for Labor?
I'd never work a for a Union company, ever.
In my professional career I have never had a good experience with them. Quite the opposite. I have watched them milk their contracts and deliberately goof, knowing they are immune because of how hard it is to get in actual trouble because they are "protected". Some of my worst working memories are delivery to union shops and having them throw off my schedule for the day while they got around to my delivery.
IMO they buried themselves.

I think it is time to leave the stereotypes of the big bad corporation behind. most businesses, again, are of the SMB type and not the microsofts and big 3. maybe if more people were taught the value of independence in their careers--and maybe encouraged to start a SMB themselves, we have fewer people so desperately dependent on their employer.

really wouldn't you be a good boss?

Agreed, so why don't corporate heads want to pay a living wage to the underlings who produce the goods and services?


Perhaps it isn't hatred, Christopher. Perhaps it's the fact that some companies outsource jobs because they don't recognize that, as you said, "Good pay gets good people, low pay gets what you would expect." But hey, planned obsolescence has been around for quite a while, hasn't it? So what if the parts wear out, and the consumer doesn't pay a second time for the extended warranty? Americans have money to burn, right?

Just why do you (and I assume by what you wrote that you are a younger person) hate organized labor? If all corporations are not evil and grasping, then it follows that all union workers are not lazy goof-offs, either.

If you would rather work for a corporation where the boss can fire you because he doesn't like the car you drive or your political affiliation, go for it. Many of us who are approaching retirement age, however, are more concerned with holding on to what we've got if we do have jobs or, (in my case) finding a steady job where they won't mind hiring me even though I'm in my fifties and am a cancer patient (we've gotta live, too!). And if it weren't for Curmudgeon's pension package which includes health insurance for our family, I would be either S.O.L. or "up the creek without a paddle;" choose the expression you prefer.


Ask AuthorMusician, who had been trained in computer technology, got a job, and then lost it, just what this generalization means to him. He wrote a book, Deer in the Headlamps, that describes the struggles he encountered a few short years ago as a salaried worker in a right-to-work state. He'll tell you about the safety net that isn't there for people like him despite the optimism regularly dished out by those who place so much faith in just getting more education.

And while you're at it, there's another book by Lou Dobbs, Outsourcing America, which documents the hemorrhaging of American middle class jobs, including those requiring college-level technical skills, to India, China, and other areas of the world where the standard of living is cheaper and there are fewer laws to protect workers.

The fact is, until you're experiencing the difficulties, it's easy to envision a rosy state of employment where one need only get a good community or four-year college degree, remain healthy, open one's own savings plan independent of the employer, and work hard (ala an old Horatio Alger story) in order to thrive in the American workforce. In reality, everyday scenarios are far more complicated, and the security that would-be middle class workers crave is becoming a much rarer commodity. It doesn't take a nightmarish 1930's scenario to appreciate having someone to represent you when dealing with an otherwise arbitrary employer.

Remember, the same capitalist America that brought you MicroSoft also brought you Enron.

I draw a pension because my employer made me an offer I couldn't refuse. When I sat down with their computer and projected my take home for a decade working, and compared it with my take home for a decade retired, there was essentially no difference. My Pension plan if I worked another decade would be discarded, and the new pension plan would have, a decade later, a cash value ten cents higher than the offer on the table. Sure, if I really liked my job, I could have worked another decade and come out a dime ahead. I recognized what was meant my the phrase, "They made me an offer I couldn't refuse."


Actually I had several skills. I was trained as a chemist, an animal caretaker, an electrician, and an instrument man among other skills. I had a Master Electrician License, and my own electrical contracting business.

I have also had several brain seizures resulting in amnesia. On my bad days I carry a GPS unit with me so that I can find my way home. The last receptacle that I wired up successfully took me two or three years. On the days that I feel confident, I attempt to get the one in the bathroom working...

I draw Social Security disability because I tried to continue working, but I couldn't hold on to a job for an entire day. I walked on to a construction job barefoot one day. I got lost reporting to work another day. It took me two hours to reach a job a mile away, where I was supposed to be driving a service truck.

Further education will not make me employable!


I used to say quite honestly, that if I were a better estimator, I might still be in business. My skills at getting along with either employees or customers were really rather abysmal. On the job, I managed to stay employed for thirty years because I tended to take the lone operator job, the off shift job, the job that no one else wanted...

I have no ability to look someone in the face and remember what they look like, and who they are. I have walked up to cashiers in Wal-Mart when my wife was working there, and asked if she was in. Very puzzled cashiers would say, "You have your back to her. Turn around and say hi."

I have taken a number of courses in college, and on the job on how to be a supervisor, but I lack "People Skills."

No, I really would not make a good boss, and that is a fact that has been frequently brought to my attention through most of my adult life!

1.)Should we have a "labor & capital day" to appreciate our economic system and those who contribute to it?

There are alot of complex issues here, and a day off to appreciate the big bosses is probably not a good way to educate folks on how a capitalist economy works. -

2.)Are labor and capital necessarily antithetical to one another?

They can be, but are not neccesarily- for instance- i agree with Hobbes, Bill Gates has a net gain to all of humanity to the point that he is almost above critisism here, as long as he doesn't actively stifle competition through the sheer size of his economic muscle, and that economic muscles' ability to force out competitors in unethical means- which, I don't think he has done intentionally either.

The main complaint I have about big business, which I define as any business with over 1,000 full time employees, and publically traded, is that I feel it is MORE anti- capitalistic IN PRACTICE than marxism itself, because it has the power to influence law and politics to the degree that it stifles competition- see Walmart and it's predatory pricing lawsuits. There just isn't enough punishment or ability to change the behavior of majorly large publically traded companies.

now, in the realm of small to medium size businesses, they are absolutely NOT anthithetical to each other, and in fact, are joined at the hip.

My own experianc in competeing with "the big boys" is how closely my business is tied into labor in order to have a team effort in competing.

I hope to have, someday, about 5 employees, with 1 minimum wage position. The rest will be darn near profit sharing, and the two jobs I now fill are "sub-contractors" by definition, I call them over to my shop to work when I have the work. For me to compete against, say, a honda dealership, which gets factory money to run it's service department, which means it can operate at a loss for years at a time, I have to have very, very good poeple to compete, that generates a high level of confidence in coming to my shop instead of just "taking it to the dealer".

My main sub-contractor, in fact, works for Honda, and "moonlights" at my place- and, once I build up the biz far enough, we both hope it becomes a full time biz.

So my labor and capital are so intertwined they are really inseperable.


3.)Should we change the marxist notion of labor day in our history to be comprehensive of labor & capital as mutually reinforcing economic entities?

A slanted question from you Nebraska- are you giving out some tongue in cheek here? Well, good one LOL- - because labor is not a "marxist" notion, though it can be taken to that extreme- labor day is simply to celebrate folks that gave thier lives to fight some really scummy bosses that killed women and children without remorse or regret, and were really just thugs on the side of corporate bosses that saw even children as expendable to fill thier own accounts. the Pinkertons were a pretty evil group of folks, and it is very sad to see them exist today, and why we still need labor unions.

Just to make sure, none of my responses were aimed at you Curmudgeon.
But some of your responses are good to work with. One, I think there is a generational difference in viewpoint in regards to labor. The way of life that planned on retirement with one company and a pension was dying and almost dead when I was hitting my teens. So I never planned on it at all. I also saw how badly the Unions did for my relatives (Pratt and Whitney) and decided then and there it wasn’t for me.
Perhaps it's the fact that some companies outsource jobs because they don't recognize that, as you said, "Good pay gets good people, low pay gets what you would expect." But hey, planned obsolescence has been around for quite a while, hasn't it? So what if the parts wear out, and the consumer doesn't pay a second time for the extended warranty? Americans have money to burn, right?

Planned obsolescence doesn’t bother me; it is a good idea IMO. I don’t want 50 year old badly maintained cars stinking up the world. I don’t argue with your point about companies and their outsourcing but in many cases it is necessary. I’d go a different route – robots were possible and retrain my guys for those jobs where possible.
I don’t say all Union guys are, but my overall experience with Union shops has been almost exclusively bad. All I can say is: I give back what I get.
I will never work Union.
As for Author Musician, his story is mine. The danger is that with tech you can be replaced fast—many times by a piece of hardware or more efficient code, or in the case of my first layoff, by a college kid willing to work for what amounts to beer money. It moves too fast and updates all the time. So I switched to management and worked horrid hours to make my bones and have been super critical with my budget. It is paying off. I plan my insurance for instability and will never tie it to any company.
I am an Independent operator and will never have my fortune tied to the work ethic of others. I think that completely removing healthcare and such from business is the best route and instead have it re-centered on us as individuals. Instead of having the pension focused on the company as its responsibility it should have been focused maybe in a Union controlled program independent of the companies worked for. Basically I would say you won’t Enron yourself.
As for outsourcing from what I have seen it is not panning out as the great jam fest it was supposed to be. I expect some changes.
Personally were I to run a business I would never let it open to Wall Street. I would use the profit to attract the best people and keep them happy and to improve my business with better equipment and expansion.

As for the “until you have experienced it”, been there and done that. While never rich I have had periods where I made incredible money and have also ended up sleeping in a public park when I lost everything all at once. Right now I am looking at permanent vision loss.
But I will still remain an Indies
I just know I can do better on my own.
And for every Enron there are too many positive examples of capitalism to leave it as the scary example of greed and criminal indifference.

Hobbes, sure, if you're swimming in money, you don't care if you personally get a pension, SS or anything else for that matter. However, this is not an argument to get rid of such things for everyone.

The trouble with the argument is that MS has employed a lot more than 10,000 people. It's stock hasn't moved upward for quite a long time, at least not enough to create more millionaires. The MS phenomena depended upon a couple of factors:

1) IT purchasing management got sick of paying for high quality from outfits like IBM. 2) Gates and crew are marketing wizards, not technical. 3) The cost for VLIC (your PC's 'puter chip) plummeted, although so did the reliability.

I watch the job openings around here closely. Where a Unix systems admin can expect $35-40 an hour, a Windows system admin is almost half that rate. So, I can argue that in this neck of the woods, Microsoft training is about as good as training in technical writing. A few years back, the MS training circuit was hot territory. Today, it's nearly dead.

What's gold these days is the government secret clearance. There are no state-sponsored programs to get people government secret clearances. The way to this career credential is through the military, and if you are above a certain age, that's not available. Another way is through the employer, but then one hits an age barrier. Why invest so much money (secret clearance is very expensive) in someone over thirty years of age? Or forty? Forget about fifty. You're dead to them by that age.

How one feels about management has a formula: TS squared = TBA (Time Screwed * Time Screwed = Time Bad Attitude). For my particular situation, my TBA goes toward Bernie Ebbers, although it isn't much (18 months * 18 months = 324 months). For those who can't understand how this works, I imagine their TS numbers are non-existent or very low. This tends to change over time.

Anyway, someone wants to put labor and capital on equal footing for the name of a single-day holiday. I really don't care what they call it, as it's just another work day for me (freelance writer).

And so, back at it . . .

PE, thanks for the plug!

It would be labor-capital day and would celebrate the actions of owner and worker alike. Yes, there are wealthy people, but life isn't necessarily easier for them. CEOs have to answer to share-holders and the vast majority of owners are small-business people. Is it necessarily a crime to become wealthy? For each yacht owner, there are countless employees who have a good paying job and who can afford the good things for their children. I'm not certain they would want the boss and the company to disappear.




Isn't that an antiquated notion though? Workers no longer worry about the pinkertons and at some point in their lives, a lot of people seriously consider going into business for themselves. Why not celebrate that too?



Is it really that way? Union membership is at a historic low. What is it, less than 8% of workers belong to a union? If things were as some suggest, those numbers should be a lot higher. A lot of people want to keep their wages, not necessarily give them to be squandered in some union treasury that in all likelihood, gets funneled to the mob or pays for $2,000 socks for some corrupt union boss.