On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 22:54:09 -0800, "Harold and Susan Vordos"
wrote:
snip
The one
difference is that workers generally have nothing invested in their jobs,
unlike the owner, who has everything to gain, and everything to lose,
depending on the course of his business.
snip
=============
In my not so humble opinion, you have just identified *THE* major
problem, and substantive difference, in our current economic
crisis. [e.g. median annual inflation adjusted income falls three
years in a row while sales and property taxes continue to
increase ....]

By and large, the people making meaningful [in the sense of
impacting the aggregated US economy] business decisions are *NO
LONGER* "owners," but "professional" managers hired by the
[stockholders] owners' representatives [directors] to run the
business for them.

== A major lapse by the stockholders was to ignore the dictum
"never hire someone you can't fire." The result is situation
where the stockholders "eat" the losses while the
officers/executives/directors get the lions' share of any [or
all] gains.== Another bad affect is that the mind set when
gambling with "my money," is considerably different than gambling
with "your money."

Operation of a Fortune 500 [or even Russell 2000] corporation is
qualitatively and quantitatively different than the operation of
a owner operated business, and the same tacit rules and
assumptions do not apply, even though these are chanted at every
opportunity.

In almost all cases these professional managers have invested
nothing more than the typical blue color worker. They may own
stock, but this was not because they put any money in the
company, but because of stock options. [Bill Gates and Steve
Jobs are among the very few exceptions.]

Uncle George