The CEO of Gravity, a credit card processing service, cuts his personal pay from a million dollars a year to give the minimum wage earners in his company $70,000 a year. The workers describe the raise as freedom, family starting and house buying ability. Could this be something to spark the economy if enough companies follow suit. Or should we give the top earners more tax breaks and wait for them to hire more people?
http://www.nbcnews.com/nightly-news/sea … 00-n341546
RH, i read this story and it is an anomaly within a world of business as usual. I would be impressed if American CEOs took one tenth of this effort in regards to its workers. What Gravity has done is to position itself as the equivalent to the one off color grain of sand among all the granuals found on Waikiki Beach. Gravity is doing pretty well, taking greed as a motive off of the table, how many companies are profitable enough to do this?
I wonder if he will have his job next year? Because cutting his own salary isn't going to do much towards doubling even 30 salaries to $70,000 per year, let alone giving 70 people a "substantial raise". $930,000/30 only equals $31,000 per person; it isn't enough to even double those few wages to make them $70,000.
Gravity is a privately owned company. Dan Price, a co-owner of the company also related in follow up stories that the difference between his cut in salary will be combined with shares of the companies profits to make the $70,000 base wage possible.
I did catch that profits would be affected as well as the CEO's salary. I'd have to say that if the company is making that kind of money to pay their CEO a M plus profits of multiple millions with only 70 employees it is rather special. And, unlike the large majority of businesses, could actually afford to pay wages like that.
Not unheard of in the dot com industry, but never seems to last, either.
I agree that $70,000 is a bit much for any company to sustain but maybe the credit card business is doing well beyond our ability to comprehend. I think the more relevant idea should be what are profits and CEO pay having an affect on the lesser employees in their companies. With the ownership of companies like Wallmart making and assessing huge fortunes while paying their employees minimum wages and reduced hours to avoid providing healthcare insurance is there any room in between? This is some of the Walton family breakdown.
Sam Walton had an estimated worth of $65 billion before he died. His descendants are as follows:
Christy Walton (daughter-in-law), $35.4 billion
Jim Walton (son), $33.8 billion
Alice Walton (daughter), $33.5 billion
S. Robson Walton (son), $33.3 billion
Ann Walton Kroenke (niece), $4.7 billion
Nancy Walton Laurie (niece), $4 billion
Total Walton family wealth: $144.7 billion.
This was built on the backs of minimum wage labor with little or no benefits.
No, this was based on the concept of supplying the public with the minimum cost products it could. Which the public ate up with a vengeance and didn't care that employees weren't paid much (few WalMarts pay only minimum wage, but it still isn't much).
And given the size of WalMart an accumulation of 150 B by the primary owners (who have other investments as well) over the time WalMart has been in business is not out of line. IMO.
While I recognize you would like to turn the Waltons into relative paupers, that isn't how the world works.
It is funny how you turn a phrase. I would not like to turn the Waltons into paupers. I was merely stating the obvious which you have trouble with. Walmart escapes paying people a decent wage because it can. Yes recently Walmart has increased their minimum wage scale slightly. However all the other things such as healthcare etc. are still atrocious. It does this by taking advantage of legislation that allows foreign labor pools to displace American labor pools trying to maintain their standard of living. In doing so it also monopolizes the market with cheap goods people who are trying to survive have to buy. Try and buy a cheap pair of shoes made in this country. The aim of NAFTA and the soon to be passed TPP is to drive globalization and effectively equalize the world's economies. It is a totally socialistic aim that has been working it's way into our banks and governments. So essentially we will eventually be competing to make cheaper goods and services than some of the poorest nations and economies of the world. Sam Walton figured it out a long time ago and exploited it as quickly as he could. But even the rise of Walmart is starting to slow as plans for smaller stores are on the horizon as profits are lessening because of slowing sales. You see the very people Walmart was serving through cheaper products are the ones who are losing their jobs due to it. You are correct that people are all too willing to belly up to the bar for cheap products because they are so short sighted to have allowed their government to sell them out and they don't realize what has happened.
And it's funny how you fail to read, turning a statement into something it wasn't. I said that you would turn the Waltons into relative paupers; paupers when compared to what they are now. I also notice you totally failed to consider the size of the empire and it's age when deciding what is too much in the way of profits.
And we very much disagree on what a "reasonable" wage is: I find what they pay (in general) adequate for the training, abilities and skills of the employees. And the marketplace agrees or they wouldn't have any employees. See, the problem is that it isn't YOU that decides what a wage should be; it's a mutual agreement between employer and employee. Nothing at all to do with you.
Typical of your tough sh!# or die philosophies. Offering full time work (40 hours per week) would have little affect on a billion dollar empire. Get real man, paupers! The reason why they do this is to avoid overtime and healthcare benefits which you and I pick up through our taxes. Why would you want to fund the Walmart dynasties benefit package they so conveniently deny their low wage workers? It would not even dent their massive holdings.
We can never agree on a reasonable wage as long as you support overseas employment draining our jobs to profit the corporations even farther. Your take is "get a better job". I guess you have been out of the job market for awhile reasoning this way. The jobs for the middle class are disappearing at a increased rate as corporations buy more legislation to export more jobs.Training has nothing to do with making a wage that is determined by foreign low wage competition. Why do you think India is cashing in on the support services of the top computer sellers. Because they can get a person to work for less which improves their bottom line. This after we told all the kids to go get computer training at college level costs. Then we pulled the jobs out from under them.
Walmart is one of the most egregious employers in this country with chauvinist and oppressive wage to hour commitments to their employees. You ask why don't they find another job? Because there are no others available especially for older desperate workers and those that cannot afford the education to get out of there. Walmart exploits this situation continually. I refuse to shop at their stores with two within a twenty minute drive because of their hiring and import policies.
You are correct in that you and I will never agree on what a reasonable wage is. You demand it be based on the needs and desires of the employee while I demand it be based on the value (determined by the free market, not some government committee of bureaucrats buying votes) of work performed.
The answer, to you, is always so simple: give people whatever they want without ever having to pay for it. I disagree with that philosophy and always will.
Your scenario takes nothing into account. In the more than eight years since Congress passed the last increase, the buying power of the minimum wage has eroded by 17% and is currently at its second-lowest value since 1955. This is just the minimum wage. I am not talking about a living wage which is what you prefer to inject. America’s minimum wage was raised to $7.25 per hour on July 24, 2009. It’s still there. Unlike almost all other federal benchmarks, the minimum wage is not updated for inflation. The minimum wage reached its (inflation-adjusted) historic high in 1968, when it was raised from $1.40 to $1.60 per hour. Had the US income distribution and US standards of decency remained exactly what it was in 1968, the minimum wage would now be $21.16 per hour. Per capita real personal income excluding current transfer receipts has grown by 100.6% since 1968. We have not kept up with our so called standard of living as a result. Illegal immigration and trade concessions have kept the wage low as these people will work for anything because of the depressed areas they live and come from. The corporations have taken advantage buying deals to keep the greed coming. Your scenario of people in Walmart are paid what they deserve is rooted in the 1950's.
Thank you - you confirm exactly what I said. That it is not the value of work performed but the needs of the employee that you feel should set the wage. And which I disagree with.
Not the needs of the employee but the needs of the country to continue with any economic health. The less we pay our employees the less they spend. The less they spend the shrinking of the economy will and save for the phony Wall Street success is occuring. The more shrinking of the economy will provide less jobs. You really don't get the economic cycle do you? With the advent of the trade agreements we have essentially put this in hyper drive leaving most of the money at the top. It does not hurt them as things will become even cheaper including real estate which is the next frontier of conquest by the banks. They have gotten our money through bail outs and the next thing is our property. Your thinking is way behind the times as you think the minimum wages should stagnate while the cost of living triples and quadruples. This thinking is proving a failure with every passing day.
By your reasoning we should therefore devalue the dollar down to a penny and everyone can be rich with the huge number of "pennies" they will have to spend.
I'd have to say that one of us doesn't understand the economic cycle - that increasing costs increases prices which increases costs which increases prices. And that applies to labor as well as anything else. It's called "inflation", and I've seen enough in my lifetime to know that it isn't a good thing.
If I'm "behind the times" thinking that price should equate to value, you're dreaming pie-in-the-sky to think that price (value) should equate to need. It's a liberal attitude that is, and will continue to, destroy our economy.
The market is not free. It has been rigged by powerful, monied interests to favor corporations over people. The regulatory counterbalance that once existed has been gutted. Unions, which arose because of the atrocious treatment endured by workers, have been marginalized.
Your argument about the free market was once a rational one. Not any more. Time to acknowledge the world has changed here in the good ol' US of A.
Have you proof of price collaboration between competing companies, then, that is known but not prosecuted?
What an extremely narrow question, as if that is the only way the system can be rigged.
You only need look at the rise of the big box stores who have through trading with foreign labor companies overtaken so many of the smaller stores. This is a direct result of which she speaks. I know, I know, you need a smoking gun with a simple and direct line to deduce the concept. If that were the case they would not have gotten away with it so complicitly with the government.
What? "Rigged" means buying low and selling high? It means a profit under competitive circumstances?
I suppose she's right then - the system is rigged. But don't worry - it's being taken down and replaced with a different "rigged", where everyone gets what they want for whatever they can afford. That won't last long, either (it never does) and we'll be back to price/value once more.
I have to ask you what you base your figures on given you feel Walmart workers earn the wage they are paid? Who is in competition with who? Is it the Walmarts of the world who run the competition out of business by purchasing overseas to the fault of undercutting wages in the US? Your idea of competitive price value is based on foreign labor markets. Funny, I did not know were such a proponent of globalization?
"Walmart has suddenly closed for six months its store in Pico Rivera, California, that’s been a center of recent protests and organizing by workers demanding better wages and benefits. Walmart says it’s not retaliating against the workers; it’s just fixing a plumbing problem at the store. Yet, curiously, Walmart hasn’t requested any plumbing permits from the city. Walmart is telling its 533 Pico workers if they want to continue working for Walmart they can apply to another Walmart store but will lose any pay-grade raises they’ve accumulated so far and will have to start from scratch as new employees. Pico Rivera City Manager Rene Bobadilla says he’s surprised at the suddenness of the closing. "It's the first time I've encountered this. It is not a normal thing to happen." Walmart is also temporarily closing four other Walmart stores around the nation for “plumbing problems.”
Retaliation against workers for trying to form a union is illegal under the National Labor Relations Act, but is difficult to prove. And the worst that can happen is the NLRB requires an employer to reinstate affected workers and pay them back wages." - Robert Reich from his website.
This is how Walmart feels about competitive wages. They are sliming their way along trying to use the weakened job market to continue their sales figures.
What - there is no competition for the positions at WalMart (that you insinuate are all overseas?) Funny, they always seem filled, so someone is wanting them...
As far as labor unions being competitive; competitive with exactly what? Themselves? The very basis of a union is to eliminate competition, not encourage it. Unions are legal monopolies, nothing more. "Buy your labor from me or don't buy it at all" is the concept behind a union - competition is not the smallest part of that. Companies are legally forced to compete against other companies, even to the point they will be broken up if there is insufficient competition, but not unions. That's what they're for - to eliminate competition.
I guess you didn't catch the part about closing for six months
Surely if there is competitive hiring available they could just go ahead and either let then collect unemployment o r just fire all 523. But wait how can they collect unemployment with less than full time employment? Oh yeah Walmart figured that in as well. You seem to have a vedette for unions. I guess you haven't gotten a 5 day work week or been guaranteed workman's compensation or maybe a paid holiday or vacation? Unions made these things possible. They also were a check on the system for unscrupulous employers who put harsh conditions with low wages. But wait congress through campaign donations sent the unions jobs overseas where their governments lock their workers up that result in massive loss of life in fires. No bathroom breaks either. But I guess that is okay as long as you get your cheap products. Your idea of a union is to eliminate competition is rather odd. It chooses no business but an industry to represent. To make sure things are equal among union members is the thrust. Buy your labor from me is assured to make employers pay and treat their employees fairly not preference business'.
Absolutely none of which has anything at all to do with the topic; how labor compensation should based on value received rather than need. Somehow you've lost the whole topic and gone off on a rant about WalMart buying materials produced overseas and, somehow, that means there is no competition to be a cash register operator in the US. I'm just not seeing the connection, whether unions are involved or not.
I asked you what a value based wage looks like to you in case you forgot. I was also responding to your rant against unions. We can go wherever you want. Just answer a few of the questions based on your opinions.
Sorry - I must have missed your question. All I caught was a discussion on the evils of WalMart.
Value, being based on the free market and requiring competition, is what a product (including labor) is priced at. If the value of a WalMart greeter is minimum wage, then that's what they should be paid. If, on the other hand, there are few greeters to be found then the value will go up (simple economics) and that's what they should be paid. Notice that nowhere in there is any requirement that the needs of the prospective greeter be considered at all.
And I didn't rant about unions; I responded with fact after unions were presented as a competitive method of determining value. They aren't.
So what of the products that are sold? Is the labor to be competitive on a.domestic or global platform to determine the wages paid?
As far as your explanation of unions I suppose you are entitled to your opinion. If you claim it to be a fact I can come up with just as many opinions to claim iit fallacy.
Same for products. Labor OR products is to be competitive in a local market, with "local" meaning as far as people/companies will go to get work/labor or products. Which means, of course, that some Americans are competing against the world for the work, although such things as transportation, infrastructure, etc. have to figured into the equation as well. If we the people weren't happy with that arrangement we wouldn't be buying imported goods that are also made in the country.
If you think you can show that unions provide competition in the labor market, have at it. My (limited) experience in the construction industry is that the only jobs union shops can get are either huge (needing large numbers of workers) or government financed where the law requires that union wages be paid. Outside of that union workers typically have no work at all. We are also seeing a drastic fall in the percentage of unionized labor, and the biggest single cause is that it is not competitive and cannot survive where competition is the determining factor. When laws are passed favoring the unions, they provide for higher wages (for their members) and higher prices for everyone. When they are not, or when competition is determining, the provide mostly a nice living for the politicians running the unions.
So you are in favor a globalized work force?
Once again your opinion with regards to the unions. I have been in the trades for over forty years and been in unions and out of unions. The reliability and qualifications offered by the union workers was by far the most economical by the experience provided let alone the language barrier now all to often seen on the jobsites. Either you find apprentice level incompetence on the job site or workers who are there in body only. I have been on jobsites in the past where whole jobsites are abandoned when an ICE van shows up. Kind of hard getting your job done when nobody is there huh? What do you think that does to costs.
We already have/i] a globalized work force in a great many instances. It comes with buying imports; something every nation on earth does as no nation can produce [i]all of what it needs. Or has all the resources it needs.
Yeah, I know the quality of union work. My friend joined the union just to work at one specific location. His job lasted about 2 months, whereupon the union contractor was booted out - seems they had set themselves up to install only 100' of conduit per day per man (norm would be over 1,000 and I've done as much as 10,000' in special circumstances). And about half the time the night crew would take down what the day crew put up even at those low levels. I've even worked with union workers in a non-union shop, and found their work very lacking. Especially when nearly a month's worth had to be ripped out and re-done after they figured out they were scheduled for layoff.
There are good and bad in every situation, but with the known union propensity for managing to keep poor workers on the job I'd have to go with non-union for quality. The union is quite capable of it, but too lazy to do it while the non-union is just as capable but more interested in cutting costs in order to make a profit off the low bid that got them the job.
And yes, I've seen an entire crew desert when immigration shows up. Nearly put the company out of business, and I could do nothing but laugh. Comes from hiring illegals - something unions are now doing more and more in my area to try and rebuild their membership.
You still won't answer the question. Are you in favor of a globalized workforce? I know why you are not answering the question. Are you afraid?
As far as union labor I live and work in Maryland. A right to work state that has weak unions. In some of the bigger jobs in DC and Baltimore you find the unions especially helpful in mobilizing large work crews and if you are displeased with an individual for shoddy workmanship he can be quickly replaced. I don't know about Iowa but here the illegals have a hard time getting into the union because if found out the union comes under scrutiny for it and it profits no one as scale wages are what prevent it. Why hire an illegal when you have to pay him or her the same as a legal worker. Your premise does not make sense nor is accurate.
I prefer to not hire union members as I don't have the volume to warrant such a risk and my jobs are a lot smaller. When I do bring in help I start basic shop help at $15.00 per hour. I do this because it gives the worker a lot of incentive to show up on time, not drunk and ready to work. I have found if you pay them less they are not focused on the work but more on their problems.
Of course I answered it: a global workforce is already in place, competing with local labor, in may instances. It is necessary in today's world. And yes, overall I support it under the theory that bringing the rest of the world up to our living standards is the best choice in the long run.
Which is what I said about the unions; their biggest strength is a large workforce and not competition. Illegals; it is only in the last few years I've seen much of that in the unions. It is done (IMO) to increase the union strength and income, and is at least somewhat effective there. My own trade (electrician) didn't see much if any as the training is difficult and long, but easier trades to get into is seeing more and more illegals on union books.
Unless "basic shop help" means pushing a broom, that sounds like a good wage to me. Probably too good, but then I'm in Idaho (low wages overall), not Maryland. Both are right to work, but I'm pretty sure that average wages are higher there (they were when I left Virginia 20 years ago), as is the cost of living. Basic, semi-skilled help seems to be around $12 here with only the broom-pushers (put them to work with 30 minutes "training") getting less. $10 is about bottom for anything requiring much training or knowledge and then mostly the bottom line shops.
“And yes, overall I support it under the theory that bringing the rest of the world up to our living standards is the best choice in the long run.”
I knew you would say that! Since the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was signed in 1993, the rise in the U.S. trade deficit with Canada and Mexico through 2002 has caused the displacement of production that supported 879,280 U.S. jobs. As a result, NAFTA tilted the economic playing field in favor of investors, and against workers and the environment, resulting in a hemispheric “race to the bottom” in wages and environmental quality. How is this equalizing the standard of living? The trade deficit that nobody wants to talk about because in fact, most U.S. exports to Mexico are parts and components that are shipped to Mexico and assembled into final products that are then returned to the United States. The number of products that Mexico assembles and exports—such as refrigerators, TVs, automobiles, and computers—has mushroomed under the NAFTA agreement. Many of these products are produced in the Maquiladora export processing zones in Mexico, where parts enter duty free and are re-exported to the United States in assembled products, with duties paid only on the value added in Mexico. The share of total U.S. exports to Mexico that is represented by Maquiladora imports has risen from 39% of U.S. exports in 1993 to 61% in 2002.2 The number of such plants increased from 2,114 in 1993 to 3,251 in 2002 (INEGI 2003a, 2003b). The corporations have cleansed the high labor cost out of the process by paying Mexican labor $1.50 per hour and returned the product duty free and pocket the difference.
It gets better. Since NAFTA began, nearly 300,000 family farms in Mexico have been put out of business. The lack of work is forcing Mexican workers to seek employment and better opportunities elsewhere to support their families. The United States is where they set their sights; the number of Mexicans migrating each year to our country has more than doubled. In 1993, there was an estimated 3.9 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. By 2011, that number exploded to an estimated 23 million. How is this helping other countries raise their standard of living anywhere near ours? The corporations keep pocketing the difference in unparalleled wealth.
http://economyincrisis.org/content/disa … mmigration
“Anyone taking an objective look at the recent experience in Mexico would have to conclude that NAFTA is not bringing up standards of living in the three countries involved.”
Rep. Phil English (Pennsylvania) U.S. House of Representatives
http://www.culturaldiplomacy.org/pdf/ca … mexico.pdf
Any objective look at the real figures shows what a colossal failure NAFTA has been for the working man and what an absolute victory it has been for the corporations.This is just one of the NAFTA trading partners. Wait until they fast track the TPP which will open the countries and labor market to an estimated 90,000,000 new workers under free trade jobs!
You're kidding, right? Giving jobs to Mexicans that would otherwise not have one, or putting American dollars into Mexico, will not raise the standard of living there? Taking jobs from Americans and giving them to Mexicans (putting the Americans on the dole) does not bring the respective standard of living closer together? You've got to be kidding - even a rabid socialist can do the math here.
I'm not saying that it isn't painful, I'm not saying that there isn't a better, less painful, way. I'm saying that whether we like it or not we are in a global economy and had better learn to adjust accordingly. I'm saying that if the global standard of living was even closer to ours (as opposed to equal) we'd not be shoveling "free" money their way all the time, or jobs either. I'm saying that only by helping others to produce, instead of simply supporting them forever, can we live with ourselves.
Because at the bottom of it all I believe in helping others. Not simply giving money to them, but teaching them to earn their own - to become productive in their own right. And after it's over we'll all find a better world to live on. We did it in this country - we raised our productivity beyond anything our ancestors could imagine - and the rest of the world needs to to do the same. They cannot do it by plowing the fields with oxen.
Or we can keep our riches for ourselves while the rest of the world exists in hovels eating moldy rice and letting their children die from contaminated water.
No! You've got to be kidding me. The data clearly shows the money went to the top! Your defense of NAFTA is very altruistic of you to give away others jobs to support some theory but it is misled and misinterpreted. Equalizing the standard of living is a joke. The links I showed you are in a direct correlation of the decrease of income for middle class Americans and abject poverty for Mexicans. The illegal immigration has spiked since NAFTA's inception and you want to continue this race to the bottom to be fair and hopeful that it will work over the long haul. What about your something for nothing theories? We are giving away the jobs for Mexico's best interest? You my friend have not only swallowed the Kool Aid but it has poisoned your brain if you think any corporation is into NAFTA to raise anybodies standard of living but their own. I knew it would go this way as you did say it was your theory. Your theory?
You're now claiming that the Mexican labor force worked for free: that they drew no paycheck. I do not believe you.
You can claim that doubling (or tripling or quadrupling) Mexican pay rates does not raise their standard of living, but I don't believe that, either. That corporate profits rose as well does not preclude Mexican wages rising.
Yeah, the illegals in the country fell during the recession when there were no jobs on either side of the border. That situation has changed, and so has the influx of foreign citizens trying for jobs in the US. Your point seems to be that it is a direct result of NAFTA, but it's far more likely that as the jobs fell so did the border crossings, as the jobs rose, so did the crossings.
You refuse to read the links I offered as you make based on your opinion and not the facts presented. It is obvious with the ridiculous stories you are trying to offer. At NAFTA’s start date, nearly one quarter of Mexico’s active labor force was involved in the agricultural sector — about
8 million people. Under NAFTA this number fell to approximately 6.5 million by 2003. How did this offer a better wage. The main reduction came from corn which the US flooded their market with driving thousands OUT OF BUSINESS. I can't spoon feed you the whole of it especially when you offer opinions and theories as a retort. You have no idea what you are talking about. Just a little effort on your part could be very enlightening. But instead you want to defend an opinion that has no basis in reality.
How did it offer a better wage you ask? Because grubbing roots out of the ground doesn't pay, that's how. Factories pay much better, so the farm workers move to the factories. Again, this should be obvious to even the socialists - people go where the money is.
On the other hand, that Mexico imported corn from a country that could produce it cheaper than that isn't much of a shocker. It's how international trade (or any trade, for that matter, not price regulated by government) works. You're now whining that NAFTA kept American workers employed, while other countries lost jobs - make up your mind!. And yes, that's exactly how it works - in the long run everyone benefits although there are massive growing pains along the way. The labor shifted to the US to grow corn while other jobs migrated to Mexico because it was cheaper there. The US is hurt in the short term, but what happens in 30, 40 years when Mexican wages rise to near equity with the US?
You don't have a clue. You are making stuff up rather than looking at the links. Or maybe you have and are still making stuff up. You are extrapolating things from your imagination. The bottom line from the links is NAFTA has not standardized or helped either country. The corporations who bought this legislation are the only ones who have gained. But then you don't know because you are just theories and opinions.
Oh? And what did I make up?
That American corn growers kept working?
That Mexican factory workers made money?
That factory wages are higher than growing corn?
What did I make up?
Your conclusions to the reasons behind what was explained through the links. Really? What are you afraid of? Learning that there is something different going on than you perceive?
Is there a reason you didn't answer the question? And are you aware that reasons are not effects? I fully understand that sometimes the reasons for an action are not the best, but also that the results can be beneficial, at least to some degree.
And did you know that protectionism is seldom successful in the long run? That the motives (reasons) may be good and honorable but that the results are nearly always negative?
Your question of whether the agricultural jobs lost transferred over to factory jobs is in the text of the links. The skills required to do agricultural work did not allow most to make the switch. They immigrated to the US to partake of the opportunities of a larger job market and benefits within their own skill set. When NAFTA came into effect the average manufacturing job wage Mexico dropped from $5.00 PER DAY to $4.00 PER DAY. This in direct conflict with the standards of practice tenet in the NAFTA agreement.If you were a corporation paying $10.00 -$12.00 PER HOUR to an American worker what would your choice be? Really are you too lazy to read the links offered or do you just want to continue your questioning me to make this as clunky as possible?
I think it is a noble idea to want to buy the world a coke and live in perfect harmony but the Pollyanna approach to ruining our economy through trade deficits that are washed of domestic labor costs and only for corporate profits is the result. You want to bring the great recession into this but it did not happen until 2008. NAFTA came about in 1994. The difference in the quality of life standard in the US and that of Mexico are at two ends of the spectrum to make a comical plea of raising the Mexican quality of life anywhere close to the US's. We sacrifice our very existence with this corporate answer and bull$#*& deflecting their agenda.
This is simple math if you will. Less jobs mean less purchasing power which means contraction of the economy. Contraction of the economy provides lower wages and reduction in quality and standard of living. Henry Ford in an effort to keep his employees from jumping from one car manufacturer to the other to make better wages over doubled the minimum wage of his employees. This was also to make the car more affordable to the workers that were making the cars. Simple math and a cycle the corporations have broken by going to foreign labor pools.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 … rofit.html
We are proving year after year that we must have two working in the household and many hold two jobs to keep up with the race to the bottom of the wages paid in the US to compete with those overseas. This is just too simple. Eventually the top 1% will own everything in this scenario.
Wait until you get a load of the TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership). This will allow corporations to ignore patent and intellectual property issues as well as arbitration of issues not allowed to be defended in a court of law. This is the nail in the coffin whereby America can survive on her innovational and technical skills.
If you wish to sleep through this one it may be too late.
"This will allow corporations to ignore patent and intellectual property issues "
Seems you need to read your own links (https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp) - I can't find a single thing that indicates that even MAYBE corporations will be allowed to ignore patent and intellectual property issues. Rather, it strengthens them.
Pleas quote, if you can, where that is show to be true. You might also include quotes from other things you don't like about the TPP, with reasons why. I can't find much there to dislike!
Then you are doomed as the rest of the progressive movement to globalized currencies and economies. At first glance it seems that the parent and intellectual properties have greater protections, but the arbitration is decided by the corporate lawyers who have the final say above the courts of the offending parties. These patent protections are especially troubling when it comes to big pharma. The drug companies can sue the panel to deny medicine in third world countries based on infringement charges without any proof in a court of law. I forgot, it's tough s#!& for those people to you. You have had the wool pulled over your eyes with the premise of pure capitalism and a free market being the end all cure all.
None of which is in that link, and I do not choose to believe the doom sayers over common sense - your hatred of large companies has overridden yours as far as I can see.
It's also a little difficult to understand how you know all of this from a "secret" document.
If I were to make all my claims from one document I would be in the all or nothing category you would make me out to be. The problem is that taking away the sovereignty of the individual countries as you seem to agree with the TPP you sacrifice your freedoms to those who are not in your control and in most cases not working in your best interests. I don't understand your aquiescence to others who's socialist and in some cases communist philosophies work towards taking more than just your money.
Remember when most big companies didn't care about the environment? Then customers started caring about the environment, and suddenly companies started promoting how 'green' they were.
In economics the concept of 'consumer sovereignty' is about how consumer preferences influence the production of goods and services. I think consumer preferences can not only determine production of goods and services, but also how a company operates beyond that.
Boycotting is one method, but that is an example of negative reinforcement. Studies have shown that positive reinforcement is much more powerful in influencing behaviour than negative. Rewarding companies that act in a socially responsible way is positive enforcement. For us customers, that means giving them our business, and encouraging others to give them our business.
That principle can be extended to those who represent the public in local government. The business in this story is in Seattle. Does the state of Washington process payments? Is the company it uses as socially responsible as Gravity Payments? If not, why not ditch them when it comes time to renew the contract and go with this company instead? It's public money, so the public can decide which businesses to give it to if it really wants to.
And therein lies the problem. Unless the public makes it voice heard, nothing will change. CEOs of companies can be catalysts of social change, but lasting change will only come, in my opinion, when consumers start to understand that within a capitalist society, the consumer is king. People need to embrace that power and start using it.
I am afraid that waiting for the public to react to corporate greed is going to go like waiting for politicians to stop taking bribes. The politicians are making great strides in accommodating their handlers with more free trade agreements in the TPP. This piece legislation will finish what NAFTA started, effectively opening the Pacific region up to an additional 90 million low cost workers to compete with US workers jobs.
This is where political activism plays a part. There need to be individuals willing to take up a cause, and thankfully there are, but not enough. There's a great book 'The Age of Acquiescence' that looks at how and why American resistance to the 'establishment' has simply vanished. It's an interesting read. Demonstrates the need for people to be organised, vocal and active within society.
That is the strength of a capitalist market, it must eventually respond to market pressures. A business must eventually answer for its public image or take actions to improve that image. Market pressures eventually decide who survives and prospers and who does not.
UNLIKE - Governments that need only appear active during campaign season and mobilizing true believers is usually all that is required to retain office. There is precious little dynamism in politics compared with capitalism. All one has to do as a politician is sew up key constituencies that are passionate or have money, or in the case of the homosexual lobby - both.
Demagogues are eventually revealed in the market place. In politics, they are prosper.
Good for him. If it works and his company survives and prospers, good. He may choose to sell off the company someday, I wonder if he will find a buyer under those terms. Perhaps everyone should take note, there is no government involvement in his decision.
I love it when people do this - it shows such humanity . Of course ,--- he already made his millions---- and anything at all looks better than a rich man at the throne .
by Barefootfae4 years ago
Once again there is a call to raise the minimum wage.Now....common sense and a little education will tell you that when you raise the minimum wage, prices go up to compensate. Also, you stand the chance of having a nice...
by Stacie L3 years ago
November 18, 2013 | Wal-Mart doesn’t pay its employees enough of a wage so that they can afford to buy quality food for Thanksgiving. So one store in Cleveland had a novel idea: launch a food drive...
by rhamson3 years ago
A one percenter from Seattle named Nick Hanauer published a piece in Politico Friday warning his "fellow zillionaires" that a revolution à la France 1789 is coming to the United States if America's wealthiest...
by Josak5 years ago
Wages have not been keeping up with the cost of living for a long time now in the US and the primary reason is the weakening of the unions, the problem really began during the presidency of Ronnie the union buster...
by A Thousand Words3 years ago
There's no one to step on/take advantage of anymore?Capitalism is defined as:- free-market system: an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods, characterized by...
by awesome776 years ago
The minimum wage is a joke and I think it should be abolished. Let the market system determine what the wages should be!I know, some of you will scream and holler, but as a former retail business owner, it undermines...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.