OPINION & EDITORIAL
Not everyone enjoys American dream
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Guest Columnist:
- Stop America's 'green scare' (December 10, 2007)
- Greek sexuality misconceptions unfair (December 6, 2007)
- Security fee shows UWPD's prejudice (December 6, 2007)
- Vote Democrat, vote equal LGBT rights (December 6, 2007)
- Free trade stagnates upward mobility (December 6, 2007)
Related Stories:
- John Edwards the best choice for students (February 6, 2004)
- If you only had responsibilities (January 26, 2004)
- MLK's dream far from realized (January 23, 2002)
- Assembly bill rewards illegal immigration (November 10, 2003)
- Everyone deserves to unite (September 18, 2001)
by Guest Columnist
Thursday, April 27, 2006
Wikipedia defines the American Dream as the faith held by many in the United States of America that through hard work, courage and determination one can achieve a better life for oneself, usually through financial prosperity.
The American Dream is a beautiful concept: the tableau of many an inspiring story. Lyndon Johnson embodied the rags to riches mentality that beckons the dreamer and gives hope to the destitute. Born on a dirt farm in Stonewall, Texas, Johnson became the 36th president of the United States. Johnson is testament to the common faith that we Americans profess; this is the land of opportunity.
That common faith, to which we subscribe resolutely, is based on the tenets of capitalism.
In America, capitalism garners more reverence than most deities. Free enterprise is what enables the poorest Americans to attain glory and wealth. Capitalism makes possible the American Dream. Capitalism, however, isn't what it used to be.
Once, capitalism was the means by which an impoverished Missourian like Ken Lay could rise to the forefront of the leading company of the New Economy. Now, capitalism is the trump card of the guardians of the status quo.
Currently, millions of immigrants are trying to establish residences in the United States, the Supreme Court allowed law schools to consider race as an admissions factor, and the University of Wisconsin guaranteed admission to MATC students who meet certain requirements. These disparate events are similar in that they evoke a common, vehement criticism from those who have established themselves in our country: "It's not fair because they didn't earn it!"
As Americans, our capitalist instincts tend to imbue the disillusion that we earn everything the hard way. There are approximately 300 million American citizens and six billion world citizens — half of which, by the way, subsist on less than $2 each day. It follows that each American had a one-in-20 chance of being born in the United States. I would argue that Americans "earn" most of their largess by the time they are born. Capitalist arguments against social welfare imply that the beneficiaries of such programs are not deserving of gratuities because they did not earn them. Perhaps the three billion people on this planet, who get by on $2 a day or less, just aren't working hard enough.
Wealth-sharing between the haves and the have-nots is not tolerated in this country. It is admonished on the grounds of capitalism. Capitalism has become an impervious, one-worded argument against programs like welfare and affirmative action. We are in the midst of a new brand of Joseph McCarthys who denounce advocates of social welfare programs as socialists. Regrettably, capitalism has become the means by which we further repress the opportunities of the poor.
The principles of capitalism have undoubtedly contributed to the increasing disparity between the wealthy and the destitute in America. Apparently, wealth-sharing is only to be abhorred if it occurs between the rich and the poor. Wealth-sharing is a common phenomenon among the wealthy.
For example, Jill Barad resigned as CEO of Mattel in 2000 amid declining sales and profit. Generally, Barad was failing in her duties as CEO to the Mattel shareholders. When Barad resigned, the Mattel board of directors awarded gratuitous compensation, which was not stipulated in Barad's contract. Specifically, Mattel forgave Barad a $4.2 million loan and paid the former CEO $3.3 million to cover the taxes on a previous loan that Mattel had already forgiven. Furthermore, Mattel allowed Barad's stock options to vest automatically and arbitrarily.
Jill Barad's case represents the rule, not the exception. Corporate executives are often protected with contractual clauses that take effect if the executive is terminated or demoted. The business community affectionately refers to these clauses as golden parachutes, golden handshakes and soft-landing provisions. In essence, they are wealth-sharing mechanisms.
The New York Times recently reported that Lee Raymond, former CEO of Exxon, collected an average compensation of $144,573 each day for the last 13 years. Have you ever wondered why executive compensation is so high? Corporate executives and boards of directors establish cozy relationships in which they are influential in determining each other's compensation. These arrangements take quid pro quo to a whole new level.
Evidently, wealth-sharing is all right as long as it is confined to the old-boy network. The wealth-sharing that takes place in the executive suite is within the boundaries of capitalism. However, the principles of capitalism are violated when someone proposes a program that redistributes wealth from the rich to the poor. To this extent, the ideology of capitalism has become the guardian of the status quo.
The American Dream has a nuanced meaning to those who have already established themselves. To them, capitalism stands not only for the wonderful opportunities that enabled their prosperity, but also for the fact that no one else should enjoy the same opportunities.
Joe Rossmeissl (jarossmeissl@wisc.edu) is a graduate student pursuing his Masters of Accountancy.
Anonymous (April 27, 2006 @ 8:40am):
"I would argue that Americans "earn" most of their largess by the time they are born."
Not to worry, the USA is following the lead of Eurabia in off-shoring procreation. Once the USA borders are wide open and amnesty declared , this trend will no doubt accelerate.
Anonymous (April 27, 2006 @ 9:39am):
This article is so idiotic it is hard to stop laughing in order to type. So the American Dream is dead? The worlds poor, which come mostly from Socialist(Mexico, India), Communists(Cuba, China) or Totalitarian States (Pick a spot in Africa or the Middle East)no longer see a shining city on a hill which is why we don't have 11-20 million illegal immigrants fighting their way up the hill?
ExxonMobile is not owned by a bunch of fat cat Texans it is owned by damn near every intelligent person with a decent mutual fund. The fact that some guy was floated into retirement with $400 million may be offensive to me as a share holder but I am quite happy with the return I have seen from Exxon over the last 8 years.
When an executive leaves a company they often get compensated for what they agree to not do in the near future. If you are the CEO for Microsoft and it is decided that it is time to for you to go. You are frequently paid to keep you mouth shut regarding on going projects and products. Otherwise you could be hired by a competitor for the sole purpose of flapping you lips. In addition, it eliminates the need to pay lawyers legal fees when the executive jumps to the competition and starts to share information.
Capitalism provides me the ability to do with my capital what I wish, the greatest threat to the american dream is not the individual. The greatest threat comes from those who would turn our nation into Mexico or France. In those countries upward mobility is very difficult because those in power make rules that restrict the ability of others to gain wealth. The rich and powerful create barriers to markets that prevent competition. Every time congress passes a new costly restriction for whatever purpose they are creating barriers in the marketplace.
Which is why Oil is so expensive, Congress and the environmental lobby create legal barriers that prevent entrepeneurs from finding new sources of oil. An increase in the supply of oil on the market would reduce
prices and shift the balance of power away from middle eastern theocracy's. When taxes generate .60 cents a gallon while oil companies earn .10 cents you wonder why the left is so pissed off at the oil industry when it is government that is doing the gauging.
Anonymous (April 27, 2006 @ 11:03am):
Joe Rossmeissl? I'm guessing you're related to Rob Rossmeissl, who wrote yesterday's crackpot article on the Christian immorality of wealth? Glad to see it runs in the family.
Anonymous (April 27, 2006 @ 11:23am):
This sounds like a really good argument that one should work hard in order to join the riches at the top. If that doesn't attract you, then why worry about it. Do you feel cheated when a failing executive makes millions and you didn't? Or is it because it's "just not right"? Or should that money be given to the "workers of the world"? In a perfect world, none would go hungry and none would want. Of course, in another perfect world, every body would work as hard as they could without sticking their hand out for uneeded aid. The 80%/20% rule applies to most things and for some (you), that "just isn't right".
Anonymous (April 27, 2006 @ 12:57pm):
What a smart, inciteful, well written commentary. It would be difficult to make an actual, solid criticism of any argument in this piece - the logic is solid. With this writing, why the hell are you studying accounting?
Anonymous (April 27, 2006 @ 1:42pm):
the constitution only says we have the right to pursue happiness...it doesn't say we all must be happy....just the pursuit, which we have...suck it up.
Anonymous (April 27, 2006 @ 2:58pm):
Life isn't fair. Stop whining.
Anonymous (April 27, 2006 @ 3:10pm):
"why the hell are you studying accounting"
Verbal skills are at least as important for an Auditor as skill with numbers.
We are in a new Feudal Age. The nobility is in fine shape but everyone else is just a serf, more or less.
Anonymous (April 27, 2006 @ 3:11pm):
"Which is why Oil is so expensive, Congress and the environmental lobby create legal barriers that prevent entrepeneurs from finding new sources of oil."
And there it is! I've been waiting for the "Whoa is Me" conservatives to turn yet another one of their disasters the result of the evil liberals. Guess what, Conservatives have had all of the power for some time. Maybe you should stop making yourself a victim of the liberal elitist media and start doing something with all of the power you have (do something besides continuing to make all of your rich college buddies richer I mean).
Anonymous (April 27, 2006 @ 4:47pm):
"We are in a new Feudal Age. The nobility is in fine shape but everyone else is just a serf, more or less."
You're kidding me, aren't you? Do you honestly believe this. Want some evidence we're not in a "new Feudal Age"? Every day, every week, every month, every year and every generation people move from the lower class to the middle class and from the middle class to the upper class. Is it easy? No. It's not supposed to be. If your dad is underpaid working 60 hours a week in a factory so he can get 20 hours of overtime to be able to afford the bills, and he and his children do nothing and make no sacrifices to do the things that are necessary to raise up in social, it is nobody's fault but their own.
Anonymous (April 27, 2006 @ 5:10pm):
You are all way off the mark. It sounds to me like all of you are merely trying to dance around this issue rather than to address the real culprit: white males. They are the ones who are getting filthy rich off the whole deal. Eliminate them and you solve the problem.
Anonymous (April 27, 2006 @ 7:26pm):
If you want less of something then tax it! Tax the oil business more! That's sure to lower oil prices - What a crock!
If we had any brains we'd be building pebble bed nuclear power plants along every river and running everything possible on electricity.
As Homer says "Facts?! You can prove anything with facts".
***
According to Business Week and Oil Daily magazines, the oil and natural gas industry earned 5.7 cents for every dollar of sales compared to an average of 5.5 cents for all U.S. industry over the past five years. By contrast in the third quarter of 2005 the pharmaceuticals industry made a profit of 18.6% per dollar of sales versus 7.6% for the oil and gas industry. The average profit per dollar for all US industries is 7.9%. ***
It is time for Congress to look at the facts. It is the global market place and the law of supply and demand, not greedy oil companies that are responsible for higher prices. The price of a barrel of oil is set by the global market not by multinational energy companies. When some in Congress refuse to allow for domestic and deep sea energy exploration that would increase supply and reduce cost, the problems get worse. We must enact legislation that would open ANWR, expand refinery capacity, reduce costly fuel regulation and allow for deep sea exploration. These are long-term issues that could have made a difference today had we avoided political posturing and addressed them years ago.
***
I want the oil companies to make enormous amounts of money. I want them to make enormous amounts of money so they can spend it on drilling wells and building pipelines and refineries. I talked to an oil executive recently who told me that the fact that we can't expand our refining capacity is a scandal in terms of the public interest, but is actually good for the oil companies' profitability. Look at it this way: if the oil companies agreed among themselves not to drill for oil in new locations like ANWR, and not to build new refineries, so as to limit the supply of oil and thereby drive prices higher, it would be illegal; indeed, it would be the greatest price-fixing conspiracy in American history. But it isn't the oil companies that have conspired to limit supply and thereby drive prices higher. It is our government that has foreseeably, if not intentionally, achieved this ignoble end.
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/013898.php
Anonymous (April 28, 2006 @ 12:03am):
"it is nobody's fault but their own"
You'll never be Pharaoh no matter how had you work on the pyramid.
In 1980 CEOs made 10 times what the average worker made. Now it's 430 times.
Anonymous (April 28, 2006 @ 10:44am):
You will never be Pharaoh no matter how hard you work on the pyramid.
Exactly right. Which is why our constitution does not have a postion for Pharaoh. Mexico appears to have at the very least a Spanish aristocracy class that runs everthing. The Bayer family seems to have managed to stay wealthy before, during and after Hitler as have many of the wealthy in Europe. How about some Rags to Riches stories like Tom Cruise, Mia Angelou or Oprah Winfrey. Or some middle class to riches stories like Bill Gates, Paul Allen, Bill Clinton, Hulk Hogan, Jerry Jones, Mark Cuban, Chris Rock, Jennifer Lopez, the liberal idiots who run Google, Matt Stone, Trey Parker, Ross Perot the list goes on and on.
Of course none of those folks are pharaoh because we have done away with the class system that lets some be royalty at birth. We let them be wealthy at birth and wait to see if they turn out like Paris Hilton or Donald Trump, either way we get to make fun of them without the losing our heads.
Anonymous (April 29, 2006 @ 3:08pm):
OK, I'm a Liberal Idiot like the guys at Google. But Bill Gates???? PUHLEEZE!!!
The Founder of Microsh*t? Take Gates out of our catergory and add Steve Jobs instead.
