Printable View
Market value is, of course, relative. That was Anthony's whole point!Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
The whole point of a union is for labor to band together and exert its power. This is exactly the same thing as what a corporation does for capital. Why can capital do it and labor can't?
No, you build a product and market it properly so people actually WANT it and they will show up to buy it. This is why people with the scratch show up to buy BMW's. If Ford had made Lincoln LS as good as M3's they wouldn't have such issues with their labor costs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Cheapest labor on the planet doesn't mean shit when your product won't sell.
Big three bled marketshare for 30 years, you can't pin this down on pricey labor. Especially since the UAW made concession after concession for those 30 years.
I guess you define disgusting level of salary as a blue collar schlep earning enough to comfortably support his/her family.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Good companies can focus on both halves of the profit equation at the same time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bojack
If it's above market value for his skills, absolutely. And the same measuring stick applies all the way up the chain.Quote:
I guess you define disgusting level of salary as a blue collar schlep earning enough to comfortably support his/her family.
They can, but the company can also choose to throw them all out the door.Quote:
Originally Posted by Diff-chan
The "market value" of your equation is flawed. Companies actively drive down the cost of labor as cheap as they can without being fined or sent to jail. The work force has no real leverage - in non-academic terms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Companies take advantage of an imbalance in the marginal value of a dollar to drive down wages. That $1 is worth a lot more to me when I have $0 and the company has thousands or millions or billions in revenue. That's the point of a union, and I think it is why our country had broad-based, shared prosperity when we had stronger unions.
There's no state of nature here. Today's weak labor force is not inherently better or closer to some platonic ideal of a job market. It's just what it is as a result of companies wielding their influence over the market and policymakers.
Good companies have excellent relations with their labor and do not fear union problems. Unions do not guarantee lack of competitiveness in a business. Most times a business is doing well, and the unions simply exert desire to not see all of the gains of their productivity go to the shareholders and C execs. Then when management fucks it all up the empty suits point fingers at the unions like the sad sack pussies most white collar types are. Big 3 vs. UAW is the most glaring example of this of all time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Where's this magic book that lists all these FMV's for given labor skills? "Market value" is an easy way for people to deny guilt over paying people shit and exploiting them. Why are people of your beliefs so blind to the moral hazard and so eager to felate management and capital?Quote:
If it's above market value for his skills, absolutely. And the same measuring stick applies all the way up the chain.
As for the measuring stick going both ways................ maybe you actually believe that. When you finally start complaining about golden parachutes and insane executive compensation for companies that are falling apart as hard as complain about welfare abuse I may start to believe you. Till then this is how you present yourself.
CEO demands a raise. Great it's what he deserves cuz he works hard!
Factory worker demands a raise. HOW DARE THAT ASSHOLE!
CEO pay is what it is because of friendly boards, lack of oversight, etc. Companies form "compensation committees" that hire consultants at absurd prices to "analyze the market" (which is already screwed up) and then end up paying their guy more. It's just a circle of bullshit, but it could, I guess, be defined as "fair market value" for the CEO. The point is that the CEO exerts influence and leverage, which is exactly what regular folks cannot do in this system.
From 1973 to 2011, CEO compensation rose 725%.
From 1973 to 2011, average worker compensation rose 5.7%
That seem fair and equitable?
For years I've wondered why it seemed like no companies took a long view towards business. Everyone was all about the quick buck. Now I understand why. When someone came up with the bright idea of tying a CEO's wage to share performance, they sealed the fate of quality business practice and sustainable future growth.
That someone would not only stifle the compensation growth of the workforce under him but also cut that workforce back to nothing solely to boost his own personal gain is disgusting.
Yet it happens all the time and as long as the right palms in government keep on getting greased, nothing will be done to stop it.
And keep in mind that is from a much higher starting point. If both CEO and worker pay increased, say, 30%, the gap would've still gotten larger.