Nick Hanauer at the 2015 GeekWire Summit

[@mostbestjia627]

Lots of respects to this man. He speaks the truth.

[@WALLACE9009]

This man is my hero.

[@kennethslayor8177]

Twenty-five years ago I did a study in the economics of the major city in my area. I took my results to my economics professor and he confirmed them as accurate. Combining this with my study of history, this is what I postulated in combination with my observations and findings: In the beginning, it took 10 people working hard all day long every day to ensure that 5 would survive long enough to breed. As time went by someone observed how to do it better and management was born. Eventually, those 10 people working had some left over after making enough to ensure that 7 would survive to breed, so they began to trade with other groups for different things. That forced the creation of distribution systems for the what they traded. By the modern era, those numbers had changed dramatically. Modern tech had made it so that 1 in 5 persons could produce, manage, and distribute enoug for all. In otherwords, only 20% of the population is necessary for production of all goods and services, but 75% of the population is necessary for consumption, with 25% being children consuming indirectly. But those children and the remainder of the 75% not needed for production, make about 80% of the population. So, we need 55% to be enfranchised to buy, but employing them to produce is unnecessary. Some of that 55% receive pensions, social security, disability, are stay at home parents, unemployed, discouraged workers, etc. Some of them are enfranchised through pensions, social security, etc. to purchase goods and services. But enough are not that it hurts our economy. The one problem in all of this remains Petri Dish Earth. What happens once we have turned all the sugar into waste?

[@kennethslayor8177]

Trump actually used this knowledge when he stated 1 in 3 Americans were out of work. No body called him on it, the media ignored it in order to sell the titillation of his less savory remarks. And no this doesn't mean he is on our side, just that anyone willing to look at the numbers would know this. And yes, AI's are expected to replace another third of the jobs over the next decade. This also makes the efforts of the Right likely to be seen as failing the promise of improved employment. The problem is we have too many people planet wide, and more than our national economy needs for production. However, it needs them as consumers. It just has no way to employ them so they can be consumers.

[@JoeCiliberto]

Kenneth, Isn't the argument greater distribution of profit and income to the working class through worker business ownership (EOCO), versus increasing the working population? Thanks

[@kennethslayor8177]

Microcommunism was promoted in the early 1900's by the founders of the IWW. Today we call it profit sharing. The question is how do the workers achieve that ownership. If they achieve it through mandated transfer of ownership from one group to another, then it is legalized theft. If they achieve it by earning shares as a part of their wages, then at what point do they max out rather than being able to earn their employer's property out from under them? The other problem is the same one that impedes local support for increased minimum wage. Businesses want the lower class to earn more income to use buying from their business - but they don't want to pay the higher income. They want everyone else to pay it so they can mop up. When you have profit sharing there occurs two things - 1) a depredation on those who are less productive by those who see themselves as the most productive, and 2) a free rider mentality by those who see no reason to try extra hard since everyone else is going to be making the product for them. These two personality types (A & B) see the world as something they act upon without restriction (A) or which acts upon them without regulation (B). Now, as to increasing the working population, that is not a possibility. Technology is going to replace productive positions faster than we can down size the population - baring overt acts of war, bio-terrorism, etc. In the near future it is very likely that we will only need about 10 to 12% of the total population working to provide enough for 100% of the population. That means over 85% will have no earned income. They will not be needed for production and cannot be employed to earn a paycheck. But they are still needed to purchase the mass production of those who are working. The choice is either employ them to do things which are utterly unneeded, provide them unearned income to maintain the economy, or eradicate them. Ultimately I expect a combination of all three - with the latter being less a deliberate action and more the result of naturally occurring violent conflict. The amount of working population cannot increase so long as technology advances. The less the surplus population can purchase from the working population the more working people will be transferred to the surplus population. The more welfare provided to the surplus population the more it will expand to meet the level of the resources available - at the risk of unbalancing and destroying every ecosystemic environment on which they encroach. The key to both economic and environmental issues starts with population control - the prevention of population pollution. There is no part of this discussion which should be comfortable for anyone other than a sociopath - that will not make the facts of our circumstance go away. The world is not a nice place.

[@JoeCiliberto]

Kenneth thanks, to your first paragraph - It is a mindset that labels a greater ownership share as "communisim" if I take your bias correctly. Four of us started a company, two Navy Veteran, one SEAL, me a submariner, the other two not veterans at all. To us the thought of becoming communists is laughable. Where does it say that a multi-owner or employee owner or a joint venture, other partnerships and collective ownership of a business is communism? As we hired, we offered through incentives, a greater share of the profits and eventually, if one created enough growth and other quantifiable merits, a share in the ownership of the company. Later, as I went on to consult, I charged very little to form and carry out strategy, bid and (hopefully) win, and upon my client's generation of income, I too has a similar remuneration scheme. It is not a matter of tapping out, to topping off, it is a matter of greater levels of participation and with it a greater share of the reward. Looking at it algebraically, the less we pay in salaries and bonuses, say the lower rungs of the "working class", the more all of us who pay taxes will be footing the bill for their government-provided subsistence, health care and housing allowances. We end up making the difference anyway, and to your point; If they achieve it through mandated transfer of ownership from one group to another, then it is legalized theft". Well, what is more mandated than taxes? To your 'Freeloader' thoughts, there are, in the business I'm in, a Pareto situation. In it, 100% of the folks are well paid, and have excellent benefits, live in the richest counties in America, enjoying the best schools, low crime and wonderful accommodations. I'd reckon that 20% of them bust their butts and make a difference. The remaining 80% fall along a descending slope of effort to almost zero output, where the near zero effort is feeding themselves and writing comments excoriating the lower and immigrant classes. Unfortunately, these sloths include the highest ranking, and oddly enough many business owners. You can liken them to the plantation owners sipping lemonade, watching their wealth develop in the fields. I agree with your second paragraph. Lucky for us we have that Pareto model to which I just referred. Trouble is, owners and upper level management are at best masters of survival, and electors of who comes and goes (and the justice system increasingly favors it that way). And if it is anything like this current administration we will be left with cronies (or payers) and relatives of dubious talent and abilities to contribute effectively, if not adversely, but still allowing to earn. If you will an administration is an inverse of the market place, where large business spin their giant wheels at some velocity while each concentric smaller business, size-by-size, spins faster and faster. An Administration are like three small businesses (maybe four if you split the house) but, when they spin..... I have not given much thought to the automation to manual labor A:M ratio. I have to reread what you have written more carefully and find other data on the matter. I can;t speak to your third paragraph until I understand more about yours and others thoughts on the A:M ratio

[@kennethslayor8177]

Joe Ciliberto, I separate moral and ethical. Morals are standards an individual lives up to which may go beyond the legal ethical standard. Ethics are the standard permissable through law, but which may not be moral. Simply because the law has the power and legal capacity to do a thing doesn't make it a right thing to do morally. With that in mind, as I understand your response, you agree that government mandated transfer of part or all ownership of a company to someone other than the owner is at a minimum a moral violation. Those on the right, view the demand for company shares as a part of the employment contract to be theft through coercion. I personally view it as simply a point for negotiation in an employment contract. However, those who feel regret or grief over the loss of a percent of their profits or their ownership due to such negotiations define microcommunism/profit sharing as theft. The concept originated in the late 1800's and was a principle part of the platform of the Industrial Workers of the World. (Big Bill Haywood, Elizabeth Gurly Flynn, Mother Jones, Eugene Debs, Jo Hill, etc.) They wanted to abolish hourly wages, pay by the piece, etc. and put everyone on salary with each employee owning a share of their worksite. Hence their songs against "wage slavery". They also wanted to eliminate absentee ownership, or the "plantation owners sipping lemonade" by making everyone work. The legal system in the US would not favor owners in this manner with one adjustment common to Europe. In Europe, especially Germany, CEO's of corporations are elected by the employees. Also in parts of Europe, management can be unionized. This substantially alters the discussion between ownership, employees, and customers. It changes the dialog completely when the board of directors and management are accountable to those over whom they rule. I like Pareto, but mostly for his influence on Liberational Theology. I also lean heavily toward acceptance of Hobbes, Locke, and Rawls. Educationally, I have a B/A with dual majors in history and communications theory/human relations, declared minors in ethical philosophy and religion, and an undeclared minor in political science. That may assist you in understanding my posits. From Pareto I accept the following rules: Liberation cannot exist where the oppressed become the new oppressors. Liberation cannot exist where the oppressors and oppressed are not liberated from the definitions which promote oppression. Liberation cannot exist where the demands of justice trump the promotion of mercy. I memorized the principles for these rules in college some 30 years ago and cannot give an exact citation. In addition, the following from Kafka is something I find illuminating: "Conservatives ritualize religion until it has no meaning [value]. Liberals unable to find the meaning [value] throw the religion away. It takes both to destroy a religion." I find this to be a truism. Substitute any institution you wish for the word religion and I find the pattern holds. Try words like Business, Education, Government, Tradition, and the like. My third paragraph isn't limited to the A:M ratio. It is a basic law of biology. Put sugar in a Petri dish. Add Water. Add mold. The mold will devour all the sugar and water until there are no more resources and then all of the mold will die. Animals exploit their available resources. When resources are available they reproduce to the level of their resources. So long as there is damp sugar in Petri dish planet earth, Homo sapiens will continue to reproduce and expand to the level those resources permit. (And will anihilate all other forms of life, animal and plant, in their way no matter what the cost.) We have conservation management for deer to keep them from suffering malnutrition, starvation, disease, etc. through hunting them. We have no method for conservation management of humans. Our only predator is us. We make very piss poor predators upon one another. We have not kept our populations in check for a long time. We used to be assisted by famine, plague, and a life so harsh the life expectancy of an adult male averaged between 25 and 35 years depending on region. We have defeated famine. We have defeated plague. We have mechanized and computerized work until there are more men with soft hands than callouses. The only method left is war - and we have virtually defeated that. (Numbers off the top of my head, not memorized.) In about three months in one battle (Battle of the Somme) the British alone lost around 75,000. In Vietnam we lost about 50,000 in ten years. In the recent wars we are almost a tenth of that. In the commission of war we are more efficient than ever at keeping our own alive. The function of Evonomics is based on the idea that the same cycles of the natural environment are also a part of the cycles of the natural economy. An unbalanced ecosystem follows the same rules as an unbalanced economy. Why wouldn't they? They are both dependent upon the exact same exchanges of energy for outputs, of death as the recycling that supports life. What happens when the production on 1/10th of the pond cycle provides enough for the entire pond? The organisms that live at the pond expand/reproduce until they devour the all the resources provided. Where there is another pond just over the hill that is not important. But there is not another planet just over the hill and we have nearly exploited this one up. The global economy has the same limitations.

[@JoeCiliberto]

At 19 Minutes these is a discussion about Mr. Hanauer running for office, I notice that his answer is not as quick and energetic as it was in 2013. He also is apprehensive that his private life would not be, and he and his wife would not like to be held to such public scrutiny. I'd offer that he reconsider for the same reason. Donald Trump and his minions have wiped out any public scrutiny filters for prevention form holding public office. The filters are meaningless. Wen I compare what I know about Mr. Hanauer and his business associates lives and Mr. Trump's legacy of, well, can't begin because there is no end i sight, Nick is a knight in shining armor. Secondly, once we have removed the cancer that is the Trump administration, straight talking, truly successful and even tempered people like Mr. Hanauer will be not only a welcomed relief but a sorely needed one.

[@srseki]

Let's say Walmart pays its employees 70 bucks per day, and every employee spends 20 bucks of wage and 10 bucks of food stamps to purchase from Walmart. Assume it raises wages to 100 bucks per day and the worker no longer take food stamps, and that worker spends 50 bucks in Walmart, therefore the company spends 30 bucks increase wages to create 20 bucks of new revenue. It's kind of making sense.

[@papasteve215]

I really love this guy's way of thinking. Until he began speaking about gun control I saw him as light years ahead of anyone in Washington DC. More gun laws are not the answer.

[@Jan_YTview]

Tech based employment obsolescence is a huge problem. Many people made redundant from jobs that no longer exist, end up on the retraining round-about. I've retrained 4 times in 15 years at great $ cost to me. He is right about the welfare mentality . . those who earn proper wages and great wealth had better get used to the idea THEY will subsidise workers who put in 40hrs a week and still qualify for food stamps.

[@justingurski8770]

So when will he endorse Bernie?

[@blendi3825]

I want this guy to be the President of the UK 🇬🇧

[@JoeCiliberto]

Be civically engaged but understand the facts, the situation, the risks, the outcomes, your abilities to select the best for all. Too many folks mouth off and vote viscerally with little or no understanding, no interest in thinking critically and more than a little will to push us all off the proverbial cliff.

[@sinamirmahmoud7606]

wow 👏

[@iamjaykaye]

Amazon is "innovative?" It's Walmart. On the internet. Whooptie...

[@feoil]

Is technology infantilising?

[@oldmoviemusic]

i think so.