Uniting a Diverse Country

In the wake of a divisive campaign and subsequent public protests of the results of the election, many are wondering how we can manage to come together as a Nation.  I am left to wonder if we can look to the principles in our founding documents to help us step back from the partisan and other divides that the campaign and election results have revealed.

So I’d like to pose a couple of questions: What does it mean to be “One Nation … Indivisible?”  What do the words “All Men Are Created Equal” and “In Order to Form a More Perfect Union” mean in terms of the rhetoric and divisions evident in the election’s aftermath?  What does a commitment to these principles require of us, as citizens, and of our leaders?

For me personally, this is a critical question.  I think the biggest threat to our country’s strength and progress is not who is elected President, or what party is in the majority.  The strength of our country does not lie with any individual candidate or party.  The word or concept of “party” does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. I believe the biggest threat to our country lies in accepting the divisiveness in our country today, from most of our leaders to too many of our citizens. 

I believe that service to country now requires those who believe in and love the principles on which our country was founded, and want to see a re-commitment to these principles in our politics and political processes, to become publicly involved in activities to change the current path of our country.

In this work, I’m not sure that our existing political parties are assets … as currently operating, they may in fact be 2 of our largest obstacles.  Our first 2 Presidents warned us of the risk of political parties to our system of a government “of, by and for the people”, with words that were spoken and written over 220 years ago:

“There is nothing which I dread so much as a division of the republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader, and concerting measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble apprehension, is to be dreaded as the greatest political evil under our Constitution.”

JOHN ADAMS, letter to Jonathan Jackson, October 2, 1789

“However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”

GEORGE WASHINGTON, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796

I am not suggesting that any party is better than the other. I believe that one of the causes of the diversity in our country and government today is the prioritization of our leaders in both parties on self-interest, partisan interests and special interests, instead of working together to advance the national interests.  Candidates speak in election cycles of “reaching across the aisle”, “coming together”, or “working together”, but too often this happens only by trading concessions among the partisan or special interests with each other, often at the expense of the national interest. 

I am suggesting that we need to recommit ourselves to respecting and accommodating differences in the development of our policies and programs.  Data indicates that neither party by itself reflects the concerns of more than 40% of the country.  So one party’s visions or policies alone will never reflect the needs and interests of most of the country.  There really is no such thing as a “mandate” to govern under the ideologies of only one party.  The only way we will get effective policies that reflect the concerns of most of the county is from the parties working together in a collaborative process to develop “win-win” policies, instead of the “win-lose” approach that dominate our policies and politics today.  Politics should not be a “blood sport” played by the parties for the great spoils of being in the majority.  If our leaders worked together in a “win-win” approach to national policies, then which party was in the majority or won the Presidency might matter less than what policies work best for the country overall.

I’d like to recall the final sentence in the Declaration of Independence: “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”   There would be no United States of America today if the leaders of the 13 Colonies had not come together, respecting and accommodating the diverse concerns of the very different regions in the country.  There were slave states and free states, there were Southern states and Northern states, there were states with agricultural economies and those with industrial economies, and there were states with historical ties to England and to other “home” countries.  Yet they came together, to speak and share their own principles and concerns, but not standing so firmly on them that they refused to accommodate other points of view from their own.  They recognized that the United States can be strong only when “they mutually pledge to each other” their lives, their fortunes and their sacred Honor. 

We seem to have fallen far from those ideals today in our politics and political discussions. How do we reclaim that heritage?  I would suggest two options for consideration:

1.  We as citizens need to respect and value the differences that exist among our fellow citizens. We need to be humble enough to realize that we alone do not have the only “right” vision for what’s best for the country.  That in a country as diverse as ours, based on the principles of equality and justice for all citizens, that we need to respect, understand and accommodate the visions of those who think differently than we do.  This is what a “win-win” process does.

We see examples across the world of societies where one segment of society cannot respect the other, denies their rights, and in extreme cases, clashes violently.  We have always been unique in the history of the world by our commitment to being “one nation … indivisible”.  We have not let race, creed, economic standing, regional backgrounds, etc., divide our country. In times of crises or disaster we come together as Americans based on our sense of community. We need to see that the path we are on is the largest crisis we have ever faced, and choose a different path.

2.  We need to demand that our leaders work together to develop policies and programs that represent most of America as well as our own.  If we believe only OUR visions and concerns are the “right” approach for all of America, and citizens on the other side believe the same, how will we ever move forward as a country?  If we can’t move forward as a united country, we will cease to be the strong and effective force for good in the world we have largely been for the past 240 years. 

Everyone who graduates from high school likely knows of the quote by John F. Kennedy in his inaugural address: “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country”.  That embodies the idea that citizenship requires service to country, not to self, or to party, or to special interests.  But there is another quote by Kennedy that is even more relevant to the situation we now face:

“For, in a democracy, every citizen, regardless of his interest in politics, 'holds office'; every one of us is in a position of responsibility; and, in the final analysis, the kind of government we get depends upon how we fulfill those responsibilities. We, the people, are the boss, and we will get the kind of political leadership, be it good or bad, that we demand and deserve.” 

If the polls are right, and 65% to 70% of the public believes the country is “on the wrong track”, then we the citizens need to look at ourselves as being an enabling force.  In the past, we have punished those in office who have collaborated with members of the other party, and “compromised” party positions to accommodate differences with others to address truly national needs and interests.  Today, we need to vote AGAINST any of our representatives who do not respect the differences that exist in our country, and aren’t willing or able to work with the representatives of different points of view.  

The direction of our country is truly in our collective hands as citizens.  Are we the generation that will decide to change these trends?  If not us, who?  If not now, when?

The Race to the Bottom

The race to the bottom in this election seems to be in full swing this week.  Neither candidate is talking positively about what their approaches would be to addressing the key needs in the country, nor spending any time explaining why and how their policies would work to be effective in delivering the improvements we need in areas like economic growth, job creation, and deficit reduction.

Both candidates are focused on painting the dark, negative outcomes that could result if their opponent is elected.  The objective seems to be to create a high level of fear about the possible outcomes that would result from the election of the other candidate so that the public is motivated to vote for them instead of their opponent.

The fact that both candidates are resorting to this negative, fear-based messaging is nothing less than a scar on our democracy and the spirit of our country.  It will not likely set the stage for a period of positive change for the country going forward, no matter which candidate wins the election.  Instead of exhibiting statesman-like leadership to minimize the level of divisiveness and build a sense of unity in the country, this will almost certainly deepen the existing divides in our country today.  And it will almost certainly lead to even more dysfunction and deliberate gridlock of any policies by whichever candidate and party wins the election.   

Donald Trump tells his supporters that if Hillary Clinton is elected, they will lose their gun rights … that she will appoint Justices to repeal the Second Amendment.  Then he states in language which would be too easy to misinterpret by a small but radical element of his supporters, “there’s nothing that can be done if she wins, unless the second amendment people do something”. 

The issue is not what he meant, it’s what his lack of care in what he says and how he says it could lead to … how this might be interpreted by a small group of his listeners as an urging to take violent action against Hillary Clinton or other public officials who support her if she should get elected, in order to protect their Second Amendment rights.

For her part, Hillary Clinton speaks about Donald Trump being unfit to serve as Commander in Chief, and “someone like him cannot be given access to our nuclear codes”.  So if he wins, what might a small but radical element of her supporters feel is the only course of action to “save the country”?

This exaggerated rhetoric should be carefully avoided by a President and Presidential candidates. They have to take care with what they say to ensure their comments can’t be misconstrued as endorsing violence against the members of the other party.  This is the too likely outcome of campaign rhetoric that paints the other candidate and the other party as being “evil”, “anti-American” or “destroying of our society and Constitution”.  That language can be misconstrued as justification for “revolution” if one side doesn’t get the outcome they believe is “critical” to our future. 

                                                                                                                                                

Of course, it is a certain outcome of the election that one of the two candidates is going to lose.  What kind of a country are these two “leaders” setting the stage for following the election with such highly negative messaging?  Shouldn’t true national leaders be concerned at least a bit on the national condition for the 4 years after the election, as they are on their own election?  Wouldn’t it make sense to focus messaging about their candidacy based on their visions for America and the policies for making that vision a reality?   Would it not be better for the country’s immediate future to focus the messaging about the vision and policy choices in this election, rather than stoking the fear of negative consequences?   Will the losing candidate and party be willing to encouraging the country to unite to help make the new President a success in leading the whole country?  And if not, what do we have to look forward to for the following 4 years?

Are we as an electorate willing to accept leaders who seem to believe that “the end justifies the means”?  One can only hope that perhaps the electorate will perform better than our leaders.  And that the well-being of the country in general, and specifically the extent to which we can continue striving to be “one nation … indivisible”, which we confirm each time we recite the Pledge of Allegiance, can provide the incentive for more positive messaging for the balance of this campaign. 

If you are a person who shares these concerns, I hope you won’t choose to remain silent, that you might reach out to the candidates you support and suggest that you want the negative messaging to end, and want to hear positive messages about their vision and policies if they want your continued support.

Trying to Figure out Which Candidate Has the Best Economic and Job Growth Policy? How About “None of the Above”?

The most important policy issue in the coming election is slow economic and job growth.  Yet neither political party or campaign has proposed a policy that represents an effective solution. 

It is not the “wage gap” that is the issue … it is the declining incomes in the middle class over two decades. 

•   Consumer spending has the single largest impact on economic growth, driving about 65%-70% of overall economic growth, and that requires growing middle class incomes.

• · Since middle class incomes have not grown for 20 years, we should not be surprised that economic growth has been lower than in other post-recession recovery periods. 

Nor are high taxes the key issue.  We currently have had the lowest tax rates in history since 2003.

• ·   Since the end of WW II, top tax rates have been consistently above 39% until 2003.  These were the years our current economy and national wealth were largely built. We have only a few years of economic growth with tax rates at or below 39%.
• ·   During those 50 years, we have multiple decades of economic growth, even with top tax rates as high as 90% from 1950-1962. 

Those 1950 tax rates enabled us to pay for the interstate highway system, the war debt, the VA bill and other benefits for veterans, and the Marshall Plan for Europe.    

• ·  Where would our economy and quality of life be today without those investments? 
• ·  If tax rates had been cut to stimulate more growth in the 1950’s and we carried that debt forward, we’d have much higher debt and interest service expenses today.

Cutting tax rates is no guarantee of economic growth. 

• ·  From a balanced budget in 1999-2000, we cut taxes in 2003 to the lowest level in the past 50 years, in the “hope” that this would stimulate economic growth to bring in more income to offset the decline in revenues from the tax rate cut. 
• ·  What happened, immediately, was that we created an annual deficit in the “hope” that future growth would pay for the investment.  The growth did not happen, and just 5 years later, we experienced the worst economic decline since the great depression.  

The best and most effective way to help grow overall middle class incomes is by sharing company profits with all employees. 

• ·   Companies should be incentivized to allocate a portion of the record profits they are earning to the employees, who are helping to drive the record profits companies are seeing.         
• ·   This approach would help increase the overall income of middle class employees without adversely impacting the profitability of a company, since it does not raise fixed expenses via higher fixed wages or benefits. 
• ·   Then, if profits are invested in expanding a business into new markets or products, hiring more employees, or supporting profit sharing programs to all employees on a reasonable allocation basis, those profits would see a very low tax rate. 
• ·   But, if profits are used to buy back a company’s stock, where most of the benefits of the 2003 tax cuts went, or to allocate bonuses or salary increases to the executive employees only, then those profits would see a very high tax rate. 

In other words, tax cuts have to be tied to the actions that benefit the economy specifically, in order for them to generate the benefits the economy needs to offset the income reductions. 

The Greatest Challenge to This Generation

I have watched with a combination of deep sadness, frustration, horror and fear in the past few days, the violent events taking place in our country.  Normally I write about topics related to the dangers of rampant partisanship and rigid ideological thinking in our political discussions, and how these attitudes or thinking patterns are barriers to successfully developing real solutions to our key problems.

Today I am writing about the racially-related violence of the past week, because I believe there’s a common link between these events and the state of our politics.  That is, the absence of an ability or willingness for most of us to sincerely care about those people or groups who look and think differently than ourselves.  This absence impacts our ability to successfully address not only political issues but those of race and community relationships with police.  These issues are putting our economic and community security at risk today, and I shudder to imagine what events might take place in our cities, streets and neighborhoods between now and the coming election.

Based on news coverage and social media, we seem to be divided into “camps” even in our outrage …. One camp seems only to be outraged at the deaths of police at the hands of a black man in Dallas, and the other seems only to be outraged at the deaths of black men at the hands of police in Baton Rouge and St. Paul.  There does not appear to be a middle ground, a place where the two points of view can be accommodated … where people can express outrage at ALL these killings, and can both support the daily police sacrifices to protect citizens, and want any police abusive action to be held accountable.  That divisive attitude in viewing issues and problems is what this blog is about addressing, at its core.

So here’s my thinking today.  This inability to handle difficult events, or to solve difficult problems, as the “one nation” we profess to be in our Pledge of Allegiance, is the greatest challenge of this generation.  I believe it threatens the security of our country, our prosperity and our future to a greater degree than global fascism in World War II or communism in the Cold War. According to the historian Doris Kearns Goodwin, Teddy Roosevelt once said that “we cannot have democracy where people don’t understand each other’s points of view.”

Is there a solution?  I have not yet heard one from our leaders.  So let me step into the vacuum, and with all due humility, provide a suggestion to consider.

I believe the solution is recommitting to our foundational values at every level in our society, up to and especially including our political leaders.  It starts with acknowledging the truth that each of us benefits more greatly by coming together as a united nation, society and community than we do by dividing into separate camps, groups, parties, regions or states.  Each of us in our own mind and heart needs to put “respect for others” near the top of our list of personal values that guides our thinking, decisions, behaviors and actions.  We have to do more listening to others who think differently than we do, with a sincere desire to understand the points of view of others in very different situations than ours.  We need to respect and value those different points of view, needs and concerns. 

And here’s the action step … we need to work to accommodate those needs and concerns with our own in a “Win-Win” solution that largely addresses the major needs and concerns of both ourselves and others.   Practically, this means that political leaders from both major parties need to seek not a Democrat or a Republican solution, but a solution that addresses the needs and concerns of both parties. For a practical demonstration of how well that can work, please read the blog post on Gay Marriage that I posted on June 23, 2015, at the bottom of this page.

For our racial issues today, we need to build trust through demonstrating that there is true caring for the safety of both the police and the safety of ALL citizens, for both respecting police and not tolerating bad policing.  Our police leaders, including the police union leaders, really play a key role here, by taking the lead in expressing understanding of the pain and distrust that excessive use of force by police causes in the Black community.  They need to be explicit in words and actions that there is no tolerance for those behaviors by their officers, and those who exhibit them will be weeded out of the department, either by legal or administrative actions.

We need to be able to bring together, community by community, and on a national level, the groups concerned with supporting police and the groups concerned with the loss of life and the level of police action that can be perceived as harassment in the Black community.  Community leaders need to bring groups together to address the causes and develop solutions that accommodate the needs, concerns and fears of both sides.  We have to stop just reporting events and statistics and begin to come together to develop real solutions … not to dictate solutions but jointly develop solutions on the “Win-Win” basis, reflecting honest respect and concern for both sides.

I pray that this generation is ready to be the next “greatest generation” that comes together in service and some sacrifice to promote a “more perfect union” for all Americans.  If you are, please pick up a pen and/or your cell phone and reach out to your community leaders to volunteer to be part of the solution. It’s time to enlist in the cause of bringing the country together.

July 4 2016 – A Thought for Independence Day

Today we are celebrating the 240^th Anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence in communities all across our country. 

I saw a video on Facebook today that showed John Wayne hosting a rendition of God Bless America, sung by a collection of the day’s most well-known stars, dressed to represent the major groups of people from America’s history; from the Indians and Pilgrims at the first Thanksgiving, to the Founding Fathers, to the soldiers who fought in the Revolutionary War, to the freed slaves, to the western settlers, cowboys and shopkeepers across all 50 states.  America has always been a melting pot of people with diverse backgrounds and beliefs.  But in difficult times, we have always found the path to unity.

John Wayne opens the video by encouraging all of us to recite on the Fourth of July, “This is my country and I’m going to do something good for it.”   That’s not too unlike the urging by John F. Kennedy in his inaugural address, that we should “Ask not what your country can do for you …  what you can do for your country”.

The common thought here is, it was not just the words of the Founding Fathers in the Declaration of Independence that we need to celebrate today.  Wasn’t it the selfless sacrifice of these leaders, who committed “their honor, wealth and their very lives” to bringing these words to life in an Independent America?  They committed to this sacrifice in the belief, the faith, that it would lead to the freedom they sought, a freedom they sought not just for themselves but for all the citizens of America. 

Also on national holidays like today, our thoughts often are focused on the sacrifices and service of those in the military who are far away from home and loved ones, standing watch to ensure our freedom and our national security.  Again, it is the sacrifice and service to their fellow citizens that earns them the gratitude that nearly every American rightly shares and often expresses.

So here's a thought on one action we could choose to do that would be good for our country, in following John Wayne’s and John F. Kennedy’s words.  In this election year, let's honor the sacrifices and service of others that have secured our freedom for the past 240 years in actions, not just by saying "thank you for your service" ... that's far too easy.  Let's try to mirror their ability to focus on doing their jobs and serving their countrymen in both parties, all regions, all ages, races, creeds, beliefs, genders, economic levels and sexual orientations, as we discuss the best ways to help our country address our problems with respect for differences and unity of purpose.  

Let's commit to work together to address our challenges and problems by listening to, respecting and working creatively to address the needs and concerns of Americans on both sides of the ideological divide. The last year of the primary campaign results have clearly indicated that there is a large disconnection between the actions of our current leaders in both parties and the needs and concerns of a large segment of voters.  In all honesty, the leadership in neither political party has done a good job of serving the needs of the country, of all Americans.  And as for sacrificing personally for the benefits of others … that unfortunately seems to be a characteristic that our leaders, and  too many Americans expect those in the military and our first responders to exhibit, but are not willing to practice much themselves.

I believe a case could be objectively made that rigid ideologies and partisanship are major barriers to working together for effective solutions to our problems.  How did we lose our respect for the beliefs and concerns of other Americans, and replace it with the belief that our ideas and ONLY our ideas are the best ideas for America?  Indeed, both sides often resort to claiming the title of “true American” or “American patriot” only for those who share their beliefs about how to best address our major problems.  This is not just unfortunate; I believe it is dangerous to our national unity, our security, and our strength as a country … perhaps the greatest danger we’ve faced our country has faced in more than 150 years.

The challenge for this generation is to renew our own commitment to sacrifice and service for the good of the country and our fellow citizens.  We each need to commit to working to respect and understand the beliefs, needs and concerns of those who look and think differently that we do, and to develop "Win-Win" solutions that can accommodate both our and their concerns.  Without such an approach, we may continue to experience only "Win-Lose" or sometimes "Lose-Lose" approaches.

On this July 4^th, let us each strive to again be a country where we successfully resolve differences for the common good of the country, as the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence did 240 years ago on this date, Let’s not just honor their words, let’s by our actions begin to also honor their service and sacrifices that have provided the freedoms we enjoy and celebrate together, today.

Here’s the link to that John Wayne video, hoping that it may help inspire this new commitment in each of us: https://www.facebook.com/thisblewmymind/videos/623005504464850/.   As John Wayne said, “It just might work.  But we’ll never know unless we give it a fair try.” 

Happy Birthday, Americans all!

Rebuilding a Prosperous Middle Class – The Key to Long Term Economic and Job Growth

As the 2016 campaign season heads towards the first state primaries, we will (hopefully!) begin to hear more details about the candidates’ approaches to the number 1 issue on the minds of the voters … Rebuilding a prosperous middle class. 

Both major parties and all candidates seem to agree on the need to address the issue of income inequality.  Of course, they do not agree on the best ways to approach “solving” the problem.  The Democrat candidates vigorously address this as an issue of economic “fairness” that is best corrected by increasing taxes on high income earners to provide funds for long term investments in education and infrastructure programs, and in legislation to increase the minimum wage.  Republican candidates vigorously address this as an issue of too much restriction on business growth by high business taxes, mandated business costs like health care, and too many government regulations. 

I believe that both these approaches are wrong … because both parties and all candidates are missing the following key points:

1. A prosperous and growing middle class is the single most important key to long term economic growth, which provides the resources for higher job growth and wage growth.  Nearly 70%-75% of our economic growth comes from consumer spending (from middle class incomes).
2. All of the resources for government income through taxes and for middle class income though wages come from one source – profitable commerce.

So, both parties, all candidates and certainly all voters should then be focused first on policies that support the continuation of profitable growth in the private sector.  For without commercial profit, there is no resource for hiring and paying employees and there is no profit for government tax revenue on both company and employee income or investment returns.

The key economic issue is not income inequality, but it is the issue of declining middle class incomes.  This is less an issue of “fairness” than it is an issue of “what works”!  No other single issue, such as tax policy or government regulation, has anywhere close to the impact on economic growth that middle class spending (and thus income) represents. 

The main reason why the recovery has been slow from the 2008 recession is the long term (nearly 20 year) decline in middle class incomes that has persisted throughout the recovery.  By the way, the decline in middle class incomes is not a government policy issue – that is, it is not the result of bad tax policy.  It has been the result of conscious decisions made by the private sector, especially since companies have been achieving record levels of profits since the official end of the recession.  So no government policy is going to “solve” the problem unless it directly addresses the cause.

What is needed, then, is a government policy to ensure middle class income growth AND to support continued profitable growth of the private sector.  We will not succeed by policies to attempt to grow middle class income that undermine the profitability of the private sector.

What would the key elements of such a policy need to include?  Consider the following suggestions:

1. We should structure tax policy to minimize the fixed costs of businesses, which will undermine profitability during the downswings in business cycles.  Requiring companies to provide a proscribed level of health care benefits for employees, or to pay employees a certain wage, or to enact higher business taxes, all undermine profitability and add fixed costs to businesses.
2. The key issue is not whether or how much profitability companies make, but HOW the profits are used. So tax policy should be structured to provide positive incentives for the use of profits to increase middle class incomes and to make investments in business growth, and to provide DISincentives for the use of profits that don’t address these needs.  

      A tax policy for business that provides both these goals would include a low base tax              level on profits for business, before allowing for any directed use of the profits by the    company.  Additional taxes would be levied based on the following uses of profits:

1. Profits used to support a sharing of profits with all employees in a narrow range of allocated amounts between the executives and the employees would not be subject to any additional tax. If the profit allocation plan was deemed to be too heavily weighted to a limited number of senior level executives at the expense of the employees, then that portion would be subject to a significant tax premium.
2. Profits used for investing in expanding the business, making the business more competitive, training and developing the skills of employees, etc., would also not be subject to any additional tax.
3. Profits used to buy back a company’s stock would be subject to a significant tax premium.  Billions of dollars in profits that followed tax cuts in 2003 have been invested in buying back stock. This does not create any additional jobs, increase middle class incomes, open any new markets, or make our companies more competitive.  It does, however, tend to drive stock price artificially higher than the level of company earnings would otherwise determine. This tends to benefit the senior executives accumulating stock option grants, which is today by far the major source of compensation for senior executives, not their salaries.

Tax policy that does not tie tax benefits DIRECTLY to the goals of the policy is a useless policy.  When we reduce taxes in the "hope" that businesses will invest the higher profits in business expansion, wage growth or new hiring, without tieing the tax benefit to those actions, we have not generally seen the results we expected or needed.

The best approach to achieving both of the key goals to economic growth … profitable businesses and higher middle class income … is profit sharing with all employees.  When businesses are doing well, achieving record levels of profit, then the employees would all share in this outcome.  When the businesses are not doing well, their base profitability would still be maintained to sustain employment and investment.

When unions achieve a guaranteed wage structure and guaranteed benefits, they are also guaranteeing that their jobs and benefits will be in jeopardy in the long term.  After a basic level of wage and benefit levels are provided that enable the company to be competitive and grow, additional wage and benefit levels have to be tied to profit levels.  The fate of the auto industry should have taught all of us that basic lesson over the past decade or more.

Procter & Gamble started sharing profit with all employees in the 1880’s.  They have consistently been one of the top companies in terms of business performance over the last 130 years. If the auto industry leaders in the early 1900’s had initiated profit sharing, the history of the economic success of that industry might have been quite different.

I hope that this discussion will begin to stimulate a broader public discussion of the benefits of profit sharing with all employees as the key approach to achieving long term economic and job growth.  If you agree that this discussion has value for the political debates taking place in this election year, you can help raise awareness of this thinking by sharing your thoughts on your social media connections, by liking our Facebook page and joining our Linked In group.