

Here’s my breakdown, numbers from Wikipedia, for estimates and purposes of discussion:
Total population: 340 million Eligible voters: 245 million Turnout: 155 million
Children can’t vote, that’s 70 million. Convicted felons and other non-eligible citizens make up another 20 million.
Are you suggesting that children should vote? (I do believe that convicts should have the right to vote, but that’s only 20 million.)




I love that you took the time to make this analogy. I’d like to share another example, and then explain why I think the above analogy maybe won’t appeal to working class folks. First, a bit of history:
Years ago, I was broke and jobless. My neighbor needed an odd job or two done. So, I tightened a few screws and painted her kitchen. She loved my work. I loved working for myself. I started painting houses. Interior only, because all I needed was a tarp and a paint brush. The customer was responsible for buying the paint up front.
Eventually, I worked my way into buying a really shitty truck and a ladder and it kept snowballing. My equipment got better. The jobs kept rolling in. I had more work than I could handle.
Now…what should I do? Should I hire someone? Try to find an equal partner? Or just turn down the work? I talked it through with several friends, and decided to hire a friend of a friend. I didn’t know the guy, so it didn’t make sense to immediately offer him a partnership. The guy didn’t know me, and wasn’t about to commit to a partnership.
So, at this point, I’m the same as “Fred”, right? I’m the owner, I’m looking for an hourly employee. Why am I the bad guy? I’m just working hard. If business is good and I can pay someone who wants the money, isn’t that a good thing?
Let’s skip ahead in your story. Fred retires. Fred Jr. inherits the business and continues to make money for doing nothing. And that’s a very valid objection to the way things work - inherited wealth is poison to a fair system. Nepotism is poison to a fair system.
On the other hand, Fred built a business. Yes, he had someone else running his backhoe. Fred was responsible for other aspects of the business, though. Admin tasks, sales, etc. He worked, there’s no shame that his was a desk job instead of a field job.
The wrap up your analogy is this:
“This is the way we decide who gets the rewards of all the work humanity collectively does (under capitalist systems) and it’s resulted in a hundred or so people so insanely wealthy we can’t even conceptualize how much money they have and everyone else scraping by.”
Let’s break down that statement, there’s a lot going on.
“This is the way we decide who gets the rewards…” Sorry, but the system we use is SO much worse than your analogy. I buy a share of stock in the company. I never meet an employee. I never meet a customer. I never even see the business. I just get paid when the company profits. The company itself is too big to fail. The government will loan them low or no interest money to ensure that it doesn’t go under. In 30 years, I can sell my stock, or I can pass it to my children. I can take loans against the unrealized value of that stock.
“it’s resulted in a hundred or so people so insanely wealthy we can’t even conceptualize how much money they have…” Again, it’s SO much worse than that. The poorest person on Forbes 400 list is worth almost $4 billion. (That list is USA citizens only, btw.) A billion dollars is inconceivable wealth to most people. At a 10% return rate, that’s $400 million per year accumulated by doing nothing but investing in the Dow. Imagine that. Enough money to give 50 of your family and friends $4 million per year AND still have $100 million income for yourself AND still have $100 million to reinvest every year. Imagine how much political influence that amount of money buys.
So, yeah. I think using a small business as an analogy for capitalism - especially a single proprietor working-class business - distracts from just how bad things really are. Thanks for reading, and hope that I didn’t offend you by jumping into the comments with this rant. :)