Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Green Blog

Let GM and the other failed auto giants go under

In reality, all economies seem to work that way.

But do you really think that this is a sound economic model? Do you really think that it’s in the best interests of the majority of the population?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But do you really think that this is a sound economic model? Do you really think that it’s in the best interests of the majority of the population?

The capitalist model itself is a sound model. What is not sound, is the lack of oversight in the banking and finance world. As some of the current events show the same applies in all forms of government. The current issues in the auto industry are due to corruption and incompetent management, ever China suffers from some of the same problems. So the form of government itself is not the issue but the application of rules and regulations that should protect not only the average citizen but even the businesses as well. Trying to pretend its the "form of government" just gives those responsible an "out" that they do not deserve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The capitalist model itself is a sound model. What is not sound, is the lack of oversight in the banking and finance world.

Additional oversight may stop abuses of the market, but it would not stop money being channelled from the bottom of the pyramid to the top.

Take a random 100 Americans with a combined wealth of $10,000 (to keep the math simple). 5 of those Americans will share about $5,000 between them - $1,000 each; the other 95 will share the remaining $5,000 between them - about $50 each. And the split is even more inequal in some other countries.

The fact is that there is only so much money to be shared around, and way too much of that money is channelled to those at the top of the pyramid. The playing field needs to be levelled. Salaries should be capped and additional taxes imposed on the super-rich. The money saved should be used to increase the incomes of the bottom and mid-level earners and to better support health, education and other essential services.

I'm not suggesting that everybody be paid an identical wage or that our economic systems should prevent people from becoming wealthy; I'm simply suggesting that the money needs to be shared out in a way that benefits the majority of people, not the minority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Additional oversight may stop abuses of the market, but it would not stop money being channelled from the bottom of the pyramid to the top.

I'm not suggesting that everybody be paid an identical wage or that our economic systems should prevent people from becoming wealthy; I'm simply suggesting that the money needs to be shared out in a way that benefits the majority of people, not the minority.

"Channelled" is a nice sounding word but that is not the way any system works. Sharing money only sounds nice, in reality, you are talking about a welfare system where money is not given to people who are having a hard time finding a job, but just given to people on the theory that just because they are there they are "owed" money. You will find that it would become a mess to please anybody. The people who are getting money for nothing, would always demand more and the people that you are stealing money from will resist it more. Income redistribution sounds nice from a "feel good" standpoint and when you are trying to "buy votes" but making it work will always fail. It should be "work redistribution", that way you give people an option, if you work you get paid, if you are too lazy to work, then you don't get paid. <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not suggesting that people be given for nothing. On the contrary, I think that the majority of countries need to completely overhaul their welfare systems to make unemployment a much less attractive option. What I am suggesting is that we need to ensure that the money is shared evenly. I do not think that a single, standard wage should be applied to all workers, but nor do I think that CEOs should receive multi-million dollar compensation packages – compensation packages which are, in one way or another, paid for by Joe Public.

I can only assume that you must be one of the 5% as, if you were not, you’d see a real problem with this ...

Take a random 100 Americans with a combined wealth of $10,000 (to keep the math simple). 5 of those Americans will share about $5,000 between them - $1,000 each; the other 95 will share the remaining $5,000 between them - about $50 each. And the split is even more inequal in some other countries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not suggesting that people be given for nothing. On the contrary, I think that the majority of countries need to completely overhaul their welfare systems to make unemployment a much less attractive option. What I am suggesting is that we need to ensure that the money is shared evenly. I do not think that a single, standard wage should be applied to all workers, but nor do I think that CEOs should receive multi-million dollar compensation packages – compensation packages which are, in one way or another, paid for by Joe Public.

I can only assume that you must be one of the 5% as, if you were not, you’d see a real problem with this ...

Take a random 100 Americans with a combined wealth of $10,000 (to keep the math simple). 5 of those Americans will share about $5,000 between them - $1,000 each; the other 95 will share the remaining $5,000 between them - about $50 each. And the split is even more inequal in some other countries.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

I can only assume that you must be one of the 5%
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Wrong far from the 5%! I too see a real issue with CEO's that receive mega-million dollar packages for failure to produce value, but, that has nothing to do with the issue. The danger with the concept of "wealth redistribution" is that it is welfare by any other name and its hard to overhaul a welfare system if you are increasing the $$ value of being unemployed. The only true way to accomplish "wealth redistribution" is to increase the salaries of those on the lower end of the chain while decreasing the salaries at the top. One of the issues is paying managers "bonuses" regardless of value produced.

A real problem with the concept of "money is shared evenly" is the false assumption that all contribute evenly and I can assure that is a totally false concept in and of itself. No society can survive if all are paid the same regardless of them working or not or the false assumption that all work has the same value. <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only true way to accomplish "wealth redistribution" is to increase the salaries of those on the lower end of the chain while decreasing the salaries at the top.

Erm, which is exactly what I said:

The money saved should be used to increase the incomes of the bottom and mid-level earners and to better support health, education and other essential services.

The danger with the concept of "wealth redistribution" is that it is welfare by any other name and its hard to overhaul a welfare system if you are increasing the $$ value of being unemployed.

While I do think that welfare rates should be increased (for genuine cases of need), I also think that welfare systems should be radically overhauled to make being workless a much less attractive proposition. There should be compulsory work schemes, more comprehensive validation of claims of being unable to work due to ill health, penalties for people who become pregnant while receiving welfare (you can have as many children as you like, but don’t expect the state to support them) and, in appropriate cases, compulsory rehabilitation.

The minimum wage should also be increased. In Kansas, the basic MW is $2.65 with hours in excess of 46 being paid at one and a half times that rate ($3.95). This means that the MW for a 50 hour week is a paltry $137.70. Shocking!

I am not suggesting that Bill Fuld, CEO of Lehman Brothers, should have his $45 million compensation package reduced to the same level as a burger cook in McDs, but the gap should undoubtedly be closed. That said, in Fuld’s case, maybe he does deserve to paid at the same rate as a whopper-flipper!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess none of you have been unemployed or so sick you haven't been able to work lately? It's not something you can make a living out off. It's just an ugly idea some people have that sick and unemployed people somehow have chosen being so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>It's not something you can make a living out off.<<

Oh, but it is. Not much of a living, maybe; but a living nonetheless. Especially when the welfare is paid in addition to some other fraudulently non-declared source of income.

>>It's just an ugly idea some people have that sick and unemployed people somehow have chosen being so.<<

Complete hogwash! In every country that has a welfare system, that system is abused. That's not to say that there are not valid claims (there are), but there are also enormous numbers of false or fraudulent claims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>It's not something you can make a living out off.<<

Oh, but it is. Not much of a living, maybe; but a living nonetheless. Especially when the welfare is paid in addition to some other fraudulently non-declared source of income.

>>It's just an ugly idea some people have that sick and unemployed people somehow have chosen being so.<<

Complete hogwash! In every country that has a welfare system, the system is abused. That's not to say that there are not valid claims (there are), but there are also enormous numbers of false or fraudulent claims.

"enormous numbers of false or fraudulent claims" - 10-4 that is part of the problem. In the US in certain areas it borders on criminal fraud. The same child being counted by multiple mothers to increase the amount of welfare. And, as you said, some people do not have an issue living on the welfare dole. Most are also involved in some form "cash only" work on the side that never gets reported. On the other side there are many that thru no fault of their own find them selves out of a job and they deserve all the help they can get. "out sourcing" is destroying many economies because it not being used to grow a business but only to reduce cost, in some cases to the point of destroying the long term life of the business. At some point, governments may have to tax outsourced jobs to force companys to retain the skill sets needed to keep a business viable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>In the US in certain areas it borders on criminal fraud.<<

In the majority of countries, it is a criminal offence punishable by a fine or imprisonment or both.

>>out sourcing" is destroying many economies because it not being used to grow a business but only to reduce cost, in some cases to the point of destroying the long term life of the business. At some point, governments may have to tax outsourced jobs to force companys to retain the skill sets needed to keep a business viable.<<

Tax a company that chooses to offshore a portion of its operations and you run the risk of that company offshoring its entire operations. Offshoring is an inevitability and it's nothing new. In the UK during the 1800's, the Luddites resisted automation in the weaving industry fearing that it would lead to job losses, yet that automation actually made the industry so efficient that it resulted in jobs being offshored from India to the UK. Swings and roundabouts. Countries and companies that embrace offshoring will prosper; countries and companies that attempt to resist it will suffer.

Note too that offshoring is often about more than cutting costs. Visit the US campus of Microsoft or any other major technology company, and you'll find that there are numerous non-US workers. Those workers are not there because they are cheaper than US workers, they are there because they are better than US workers. Like many other western counties, the US needs to invest more in education in order to produce people with better skills. Once that happens, companies will have less incentive to import workers and/or to offshore jobs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>In the US in certain areas it borders on criminal fraud.<<

In the majority of countries, it is a criminal offence punishable by a fine or imprisonment or both.

>>out sourcing" is destroying many economies because it not being used to grow a business but only to reduce cost, in some cases to the point of destroying the long term life of the business. At some point, governments may have to tax outsourced jobs to force companys to retain the skill sets needed to keep a business viable.<<

Tax a company that chooses to offshore a portion of its operations and you run the risk of that company offshoring its entire operations. Offshoring is an inevitability and its nothing new. In the UK during the 1800's, the Luddites resisted automation in the weaving industry fearing that it would lead to job losses, yet that automation actually made the industry so efficient that it resulted in jobs being offshored from India to the UK. Swings and roundabouts. Countries and companies that embrace offshoring will prosper; countries and companies that attempt to resist it will suffer.

Note too that offshoring is often about more than cutting costs. Visit the US campus of Microsoft or any other major technology company, and you'll find that there are numerous non-US workers. Those workers are not there because they are cheaper than US workers, they are there because they are better than US workers. Like many other western counties, the US needs to invest more in education in order to produce people with better skills. Once that happens, companies will have less incentive to import workers and/or to offshore jobs.

"Those workers are not there because they are cheaper than US workers, they are there because they are better than US workers" In 90% of the companies that I work with that statement is NOT TRUE, they are there because they are CHEAPER but that is not "off shoring" that is the issue. Offshoring is when the send an entire corporate function to say India, the people in India's ONLY value is CHEAP. Many offshore call centers for example have people that have a hard time understanding your language and most are reading from a script, vary from the script and they suddenly have computer problem and ask you to call back later, the ding the company twice, once for the first call and the second time if you call back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>> In 90% of the companies that I work with that statement is NOT TRUE, they are there because they are CHEAPER but that is not "off shoring" that is the issue. Offshoring is when the send an entire corporate function to say India, the people in India's ONLY value is CHEAP.<<

Do you bitch and complain when Nissan builds a US car factory? Do you bitch and complain when McDonalds opens a “restaurant†in another country? Do you bitch and complain when an overseas company opens a branch in the US? Do you bitch and complain when Dell sells its computers in other countries? No? Then why the heck should you bitch and complain when a US company decides relocate a portion of its operations? Do you want US companies to be able to compete internationally on a level playing field? Or would you prefer to see them made non-viable by an additional tax burden? Would you prefer US companies to be able to reduce costs by offshoring in the same way that other companies in other countries can reduce costs by offshoring? Or would you prefer them to become non-competitive?

I mentioned previously that, "during the 1800's, the Luddites resisted automation in the weaving industry fearing that it would lead to job losses, yet that automation actually made the industry so efficient that it resulted in jobs being offshored from India to the UK." But that's not where the story ends. Industry in Asia eventually caught up and the jobs that had been offshored to the UK ended up being re-offshored back to India. For decades, we have seen a steady relocation of manufacturing jobs from the US to China and other countries where products can be made for a reduced cost. Has that led to mass unemployment in the US? Nope, the US economy has continued to expland with jobs being created in other sectors. Now some of those jobs are being relocated and, as happened with displaced manufacturing jobs, will be also be replaced with jobs in other sectors.

The point here is that offshoring is an economic inevitability and there is nothing that countries can do to prevent it without impacting on the ability of companies to compete in international markets.

>>Many offshore call centers for example have people that have a hard time understanding your language and most are reading from a script, vary from the script and they suddenly have computer problem and ask you to call back later, the ding the company twice, once for the first call and the second time if you call back.<<

Yup, and the same can be said for many US-based call center staff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not true, most US-based call centers are staffed by people that speak and understand English.

I can only assume that you have never had to deal with Dell's (US-based) call center staff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can only assume that you have never had to deal with Dell's (US-based) call center staff.

Every time I have called it has been the call center in India, some dip-shit that calls himself "Bob" who clearly is Indian who know nothing and has no way of finding out any information unless I first provide him with it - catch 22. :info:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0