Those unions watching out for their workers...

[TeddyReceptus]

It's amazing seeing how the revolution occurred when the lower - class weren't being treated fairly while it was deemed "fair" for the oligarchs and others on the very top to hoard so much and say it was meant to be that way.....and that's something folks need to be aware of as being inherently unstable.

I have a friend who once pointed out that "income inequality" wasn't a real issue, that it was merely people's perception. And we see that many times repeated on this board.

However, I reminded my friend, that regardless of how insubstantial an "impression" is it is inherently destabilizing as you point out here.

The top earners in a company, the CEO's and executives forget that apart from being that public face for the corporation to Wall Street or investors, they are also avatars to the employees of what the company values.

When the company says to the workers: "you are not important enough to worry about, but we simply have to lard millions upon millions of dollars on this man or that woman" it will ultimately tell in the quality of the work.

How many corporations today can truly boast that their employees are PROUD to work where they do and would stick with that company if another offer came along?

It's getting to be fewer and fewer. The employer teaches the employee that there is nothing sacred about them, and the employee teaches the employer that they are just another "paycheck", just another "Brand".

And brands can disappear.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Income inequality is a problem only for people who think that wealth is gained at someone else's expense, that there is a static amount of money out there.

 

[variant]

Income inequality is a problem only for people who think that wealth is gained at someone else's expense, that there is a static amount of money out there.

If that isn't the problem then why aren't the gains in our society filtering down to the people who do the work?

 

[TeddyReceptus]

Income inequality is a problem only for people who think that wealth is gained at someone else's expense, that there is a static amount of money out there.

This sounds like a great recipe for hyperinflation!

So do you think that we should just print more money so people on the bottom will feel better?

LOL! (Guessing you didn't quite think through that statement first).

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

If that isn't the problem then why aren't the gains in our society filtering down to the people who do the work?

International competition for labor. You got a fix for that?

 

[SonOfTheWest]

I know an American writing a case study on this on corporate mismanagement.

 

[whatbogsends]

Income inequality is a problem only for people who think that wealth is gained at someone else's expense, that there is a static amount of money out there.

No, the problem is that the primary ways people are making large amounts of money is by extracting value from those who produce it. Value add entrepreneurs like Bill Gates are the distinct minority among the extremely wealthy. Donald Trump isn't adding value - he's gone bankrupt multiple times, but was clever enough to move assets around so that, despite negatively impacting creditors and investors multiple times, he was able to shift his assets into protected areas. It's not adding value, it's gaming the system.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Proof that wealth is created is in our GDP. Inflation adjusted GDP has been growing for a very long time.

 

[Thekla]

I know an American writing a case study on this on corporate mismanagement.

Good case study for the topic

 

[variant]

International competition for labor. You got a fix for that?

If that is the case then we can quit the talking point that a rising tide lifts all ships.

Income inequality is certainly a problem when those who have will mercilessly use the leverage of foreign workers on those who have not.

Remember who I was replying to and what they were saying:

Income inequality is a problem only for people who think that wealth is gained at someone else's expense, that there is a static amount of money out there.

No, it is a problem for all of us because it will both destabilize the economy and make most of us into little more than slaves.

The race to the bottom is a global war on working people for the benefit of very few. It is an effort to maximize profit at the cost of the basic principle of fairness as the gains from industry will be seen by fewer and fewer.

And, It will dog us for a generation.

 

[TeddyReceptus]

International competition for labor. You got a fix for that?

So a CEO (living in America) running a corporation gets a 60% pay raise while his workers are asked to take 6 year pay freeze is an unavoidable consequence of international competition for labor?

A CEO (living in American) running a corporation gets a 200% bonus taking his pay up to >$1 million for a year during the worst economic downturn in the last 70 years and further gets performance bonuses for raising the stock price by laying off American workers is an unavoidable consequence of international competition for labor?

A CEO (living in America) running a corporation gets a couple million dollars a year in perqs/pay even when the stock price of the company plummets and talk starts up about seeking cheaper labor and lower human resource OPEX costs and that's an unavoidable consequence of international competition for labor?

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

So a CEO (living in America) running a corporation gets a 60% pay raise while his workers are asked to take 6 year pay freeze is an unavoidable consequence of international competition for labor?

A CEO (living in American) running a corporation gets a 200% bonus taking his pay up to >$1 million for a year during the worst economic downturn in the last 70 years and further gets performance bonuses for raising the stock price by laying off American workers is an unavoidable consequence of international competition for labor?

A CEO (living in America) running a corporation gets a couple million dollars a year in perqs/pay even when the stock price of the company plummets and talk starts up about seeking cheaper labor and lower human resource OPEX costs and that's an unavoidable consequence of international competition for labor?

You failed to address my question. Good chart to show the correlation of CEO pay to the S&P 500, which is how it should be.

 

[variant]

Proof that wealth is created is in our GDP. Inflation adjusted GDP has been growing for a very long time.

It is.

And people who work for a living are currently not sharing in the growth that they help drive.

 

[TeddyReceptus]

You failed to address my question. Good chart to show the correlation of CEO pay to the S&P 500, which is how it should be.

So the people who actually do the bulk of the work to make the companies successful shouldn't likewise track with S&P performance?

That's not America. But it is someplace I suppose.

 

[[serious]]

The Hostess liquidation offers us a great opportunity to see liberal ideology work. One of our liberal friends or a consortium thereof should buy of the hostess brands and facilities, pay themselves what they believe is proper for management and owners, pay the workers "the value of their work" and show us how successful their ideology can be. But we won't be holding our collective breaths

So let's get this straight, the argument in the thread has been that a number of factors including changes in the industry, increasing costs of inputs, and yes, gross mismanagement led to the second, and apparently final, bankruptcy. As the unions had already made deep concessions, the failure over the past decade cannot by laid at their feet.

Your response is assume that the management is conservative leaning and ask if liberal management team could rebuild a failed company.

It's like a drunk driver, having crashed his car, belligerently asking if a sober driver could then drive the totaled wreck the rest of the way home any better.

I very much wonder if mach actually reads the same thread the rest of us do.

 

[TeddyReceptus]

You failed to address my question.

ACtually I already addressed the question a couple times in this thread.

It involves changing corporate conceptions of "success" down from "massive income generation for only the top and shareholders" as well as changing our attitudes as Americans to purchase things at reasonable cost. *ie shaving a buck off those tube sox at the expense of a large number of Americans is a very short term view.

Americans want immediate gratification. Whether it's at the consumer level who wants a top-quality item at bargain basement prices (no matter the ancillary costs) or the CEO who wants to make his or her nut and get out with a giant platinum parachute.

And, also, my post did address your point explicitly: it is a false conception that the problems with worker pay are solely due to competition from global workforces. Since the Boards have the ability to NOT ship the jobs overseas.

It is a choice they make. Profit over the health of the country that often times gave these corporations their start.

 

[TeddyReceptus]

And people who work for a living are currently not sharing in the growth that they help drive.

No, no they do not.

Welcome to THE GILDED AGE!

Suckers!

 

[mathetes123]

So a CEO (living in America) running a corporation gets a 60% pay raise while his workers are asked to take 6 year pay freeze is an unavoidable consequence of international competition for labor?

A CEO (living in American) running a corporation gets a 200% bonus taking his pay up to >$1 million for a year during the worst economic downturn in the last 70 years and further gets performance bonuses for raising the stock price by laying off American workers is an unavoidable consequence of international competition for labor?

A CEO (living in America) running a corporation gets a couple million dollars a year in perqs/pay even when the stock price of the company plummets and talk starts up about seeking cheaper labor and lower human resource OPEX costs and that's an unavoidable consequence of international competition for labor?

Then why doesn't the labor guy just get a job as a CEO?

 

[PreachersWife2004]

heres a very interesting read...

Daily Kos: Inside the Hostess Bankery

 

[TeddyReceptus]

Then why doesn't the labor guy just get a job as a CEO?

Gosh! That's such a great idea!

In America of the Future all people will be CEO's. If you can't become a CEO then you are a loser who deserves to live in squalor!

What a great idea!

That worked really, really well for France pre-1787! Those poor people should just have become French royalty! Why were they so weak and pathetic?

And it really worked out well for French Royalty.

I guess this whole "20th Century Experiment in Fairness" that we call America is just a blip on the radar screen. I'm so glad it's over.