At what point will 'efficiency' and 'competition' kill us?

[Deja Q]

Per this article:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/05/04/09_wal-mart.html


Since 1973, workers have been compelled to work more and more and faster and more often and more and more and faster and more... meanwhile CEO pay has gone up exponentially while worker pay hasn't, apart from inflation (apart from what is about to happen in 2005).

And when will CEOs start feeling the efficiency pain? Too many couch sores?

[Selteri]

1. The problem is the attitude,

even my father had that attitude, that he'd earned his business up and that he could pay himself whatever he wanted out of his profits.

And he was more reasonable, only earning 30 times that which his employees made.

These CEOs think that they are owed these tremendous salaries by virtue of running the company, they don't think the people at the bottom of the spectrum are really getting as destitute as they are. They've fallen for the republican buy-line that people who aren't rich are lazy or stupid.

Welcome to the corporate plan of action, they have taken a mentally sick attitude and this will lead to no end of troubles.

[swag]

2. Sweatshop America is now

and Tom Friedman likes it!

[dcfirefighter]

3. This has been the history of all economic theories to date..

except one

Every technological advance has gone to the haves while the have nots have been forced to accept sustenance wages. The concept of sustenance wages has improved over time, but the fact remains the same.

Capitalism has improved our ability to create wealth, however, that wealth has been consistently conscripted by the few.

The strength of capitalism isn't the preferential treatment of capital over labor, but the emphasis of free market exchanges. In a truly free market, both parties of a trade benefit.

The weakness of capitalism, as we know it, is allowing the few to commandeer the commonwealth.

We need to shift taxes off of wages and productivity and on to exclusive rights. We need to recognize natural wealth, land values, and government granted exclusionary rights for what they are, and assess taxes against their market value.

Such a shift would encourage natural wealth to be used productively, rather than hoarded for some future speculative gain. Using it productively would increase employment. De-taxing employment by removing taxes on wages and, say the first $100,000 of income, and removing taxes from the products of labor, would also increase employment. Increased employment leads to higher wages.

Increased wages leads to higher land values, which is inflationary. Collecting taxes against land values equalizes this. It's a nice closed loop system.

[Jeramiah1]

4. Theory

dcfirefighter,Glad to see someone has got solution to fix The U.S figure it .To bad the ASSHOLE's in congress can't.

[Psephos]

5. A reasoned post n/t

[barb162]

6. not long; the ruthlessness and cutthroat attitude of CEOs

in this country and the Bush administration's tactics of aiding these CEOs in every way possible by gutting OSHA safety standards and reducing employer fines, reworking (read: understating) unemployment figures, etc., and patting them on the back in disposing of American workers, it won't be long. Another thing I find particularly appalling is the Bushies' attempts to say the American workforce needs more education, which of course is true in some instances.But the CEOs are getting rid of highly educated workers also and they don't want to talk about that. In other words, blame the American worker for the state of this abysmal economy and not being able to obtain employment. Over 400,000 tech jobs were shipped to Asia. I know so many highly educated tech people who had high paying jobs for years who are now working part-time at Home Depot.

[barb162]

7. and I omitted ...the CEOs will only feel pain from sunburn on golf

courses.

[Snap]

8. A slow death by dessication,

more, faster, easier. I spoke at a grazing conference a couple of years ago-"How to make your farm less efficient". The point of the discourse was; If you want to make a lot of money, farming probably isn't the way to do it. However, living and working on the land with animals, making food in a good way, is a wonderful way to spend your life. The conclusion was that piling up money at the expense of a beautiful life was a strange goal. (I'm not talking about all the people who don't have even the most basic food and shelter here.) There has occured this weird fundamental shift that measures everything against an industrial model; efficient=good, nothing else is even considered in the equation. I think the death of us comes from the drying up inside us of the juice that gives us joy, compassion, love, generousity, bravery, roll around on the floor laughter, the ability to call a spade a spade and ferret out the scoundrels, kindness, etc. etc.

[barb162]

9. good post; there was at one time what I would call "business ethics"

and it was fairly widespread but I haven't seen much of it in a few years now. It meant treating workers well, giving them good benefits, giving them time off if they needed it, it meant being honest with the workforce and customers, etc. There is so much less of this now in the American economy and there is less and less all the time.

[Snap]

10. Nobless oblige (sp?)

I would guess that much of what we used to see as business ethics had to do with a narrow sort of sustainability. A certain amount of grease was needed to keep the machine running, now the goals are so short term we don't even grease the wheels. Get the cream,leave what's left, and wander off to your own personal shangri-la.

[barb162]

11. Maybe it was some of that but there was also TRUE ethics. I

worked at this one place where the Chief Corporate Counsel offered his resignation because after he put a deal together he realized a few days later it MIGHT hurt our company as he had forgotten to put certain language in the deal. He told the CEO what he realized after the fact and said "Here's my resignation." There was also another time this same man was working on something where he had to keep thinking whether it was legal or not. He then realized if he had to keep thinking about that point he didn't want to do it at all; he didn't want to go there. And he didn't. Tell me where that goes on these days.

[Snap]

14. Yes, true ethics.

Sorry, I slid off into my own personal musings, self interest was my theme. There are many great examples of business ethics, and even today a few. I guess what I'm thinking is that good ethics also tend to grease the wheels. The principle goal is long term good results, and short term gain that harms the long term goals is not acceptable.
I really like the example that you use, this ethics that is brave and elegant.

Today: I have a friend who was running a company. He realized that when people worked the weird hours that they wanted, played the music that they wanted, rode bicyles during normal business hours, went swimming or whatever they felt like doing, their creative output was surperior to the old normal/ progressive company. The way he noticed this was not just in this happy vibe around the place, but in the bottom line. They got better projects and made more money.

[Cats Against Frist]

13. Business ethics is what's missing from the "personal responsiblity" cry

and what makes it ring hollow. Why should personal responsibility just extend to the worker? I think it should, and that workers and consumers should be a hell of a lot more educated, discriminating and responsible -- but there is nothing that should exempt businesses from "personal responsibility," which means treating workers fairly, creating responsible profit, giving back to the community, paying a fair share of tax, and owning up to shoddy products that hurt people.

It takes both sides to be "personally" responsible to make it work. If not, someone's getting exploited.

[Cats Against Frist]

12. I was inspired by something I heard from Brussels

one of the EU leaders was asked by a journalist, or something about why Europe wasn't totally kicking America's ass (which, to some extent, they are, anyway), and he said, "if we wanted to do that, we'd just work harder."

I was inspired by the balance of productivity v. a calmer, more enriched life. He just seemed resolved not to have to be "the best," in terms of wealth, power or productivity.

But then, France ended the 35-hour work week, because, it was claimed, it was actually increasing unemployment. So, there are other factors.

It's all so very confusing.