Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If I had a magic wand and could get rid of one thing, it would be labor unions. They greatly enhance the corporate decision to outsource because they greatly increase the wage and productivity gap between the U.S. and overseas labor.
It's called killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.
I wish I didn't have to shop at Walmart but I've been unemployed for 16 months now and the cost of driving to a better store many miles away is not in the budget. I live in rual NE GA right now and we have very few choices.
If I had a magic wand and could get rid of one thing, it would be labor unions. They greatly enhance the corporate decision to outsource because they greatly increase the wage and productivity gap between the U.S. and overseas labor.
It's called killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.
How about using that magic wand to get rid of both unions AND corporate CEOs who "earn" more than 300 times what the average worker earns in those companies? The CEO who outsources to improve his/her bottom line?
Interesting thread topic, but I will cut to the chase. I usually don't shop at Wal-Mart because:
1) They sell crap (plastic China-made Halloween pumpkins for $0.59, anyone?);
2) They offer a very limited selection of any particular item, and those selections are crap;
3) Did I mention, they sell crap??
I learned a long time ago to buy few things, but buy quality that will last.
For example, years ago I bought a soft attache bag for $50. My bro-in-law laughed and said, "Hey, I can get one of those for $15 at Wal-Mart." "Go head," sez I.
Years later, my bag is still going strong. In fact, when the main zipper went bad, I threw the bag into a box and shipped it to the headquarters of the company and they sent back the bag with a new zipper, and NO invoice. (I also did this with one of their $15 fanny packs; they sent back a NEW fanny pack, and NO invoice.)
After going through several $15 Wal-Mart bags, year after year (1 year = 1 bag), my bro-in-law wizened up and starting buying quality. In fact he now owns more items from that particular company than I do. My original $50 bag is still going strong and being used daily, after 20 years!!
I shgop there because tehy carry the same thigns as other stores at lower prices.I couold careless about as they cared about everyone else when they had the upper hand;nothing.
How about using that magic wand to get rid of both unions AND corporate CEOs who "earn" more than 300 times what the average worker earns in those companies? The CEO who outsources to improve his/her bottom line?
You make a lot of assumptions.
Many CEO's don't make a bajillion dollars a year. And if a company is profitable and the employees are fairly paid (the vast majority of companies fit into this description) why shouldn't the CEO make millions of dollars a year? Are you suggesting that the employee who works in the copy center should make the same saalry as the CEO?
I do believe that CEO's and Boards of Directors who commit fraud, run companies into the ground, use TARP funds, etc. shouldn't be getting huge salary and bonuses (although some declined a salary and only took $1 annually for insurance purposes). But to make a sweeping statement that implies all CEO's are overpaid is ridiculous.
Socialism doesn't work, it never did, it never will. The worst thing you can do is to cap salaries of the best and the brightest, and/or pay people for breathing. If there's no incentive for financial gain, human nature is to be lazy and reticent. The UAW in Detroit was a good example of Socialism that was an epic failure.
Annerk, I agree with most of your post... The military is a pseudo-socialist society as well. In fact, a good friend of mine and I were talking about writing a paper on it if we ever get around to it. You have the constant free-rider problem that exists in a socialist society (someone else will always pick up the slack). Yes, there is the possibility of promotion and higher salary, but nevertheless, you can serve 20 years and not accomplish a whole lot.
I would argue the point about CEO's of companies using TARP funds, though. Companies receiving that assistance (keeping in mind that I mostly disagree with TARP, bailouts, and stimuli) are in trouble and need the best they can get. The market has decided on salaries and benefits for CEO's of different sized corporations. Offering a lower salary will likely turn away the best possible candidates who may decide to go elsewhere or simply wait. Further, the question is to what extent any given firm receiving these funds is in trouble because of their own actions as opposed to being caught up in a struggling market? In that case, too, the CEO can't necessarily be faulted.
I am opposed to price controls of any kind (including salary caps and minimum wages). Any kind of government control of CEO salaries is a bad idea. The vast majority of economists will agree that price controls are not a good idea.
As I said, though, I agree otherwise. You're 100% right on about socialism.
Annerk, I agree with most of your post... The military is a pseudo-socialist society as well. In fact, a good friend of mine and I were talking about writing a paper on it if we ever get around to it. You have the constant free-rider problem that exists in a socialist society (someone else will always pick up the slack). Yes, there is the possibility of promotion and higher salary, but nevertheless, you can serve 20 years and not accomplish a whole lot.
I would argue the point about CEO's of companies using TARP funds, though. Companies receiving that assistance (keeping in mind that I mostly disagree with TARP, bailouts, and stimuli) are in trouble and need the best they can get. The market has decided on salaries and benefits for CEO's of different sized corporations. Offering a lower salary will likely turn away the best possible candidates who may decide to go elsewhere or simply wait. Further, the question is to what extent any given firm receiving these funds is in trouble because of their own actions as opposed to being caught up in a struggling market? In that case, too, the CEO can't necessarily be faulted.
I am opposed to price controls of any kind (including salary caps and minimum wages). Any kind of government control of CEO salaries is a bad idea. The vast majority of economists will agree that price controls are not a good idea.
As I said, though, I agree otherwise. You're 100% right on about socialism.
The CEO's of the companies that got TARP funds shouldn't neccesarily lose actual salary--but to get bonus money when the company is doing poorly (and the rest of the worker bees were told they weren't getting bonuses or raises) is just wrong. Bonuses should be tied directly to the financial health and profitability of a company. Period.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
