"Stephen Young" wrote in message
news
Harold and Susan Vordos wrote:
snip
Management allowed wages to get this high because of their own
GREED. Blue collar employees DO NOT run the company.
I agree, but I'm afraid I'd have to say that unions have played a huge
role
in where we are today as well. They've encouraged workers to demand
more
pay, often for less effort, and have driven wages to the point of no
longer
being competitive in a reasonable world market. Couple that with ever
escalating medical costs and the incentive for industry to abandon the
American worker is greater than many can resist. Like it or not,
there
will be equilibrium-----it's being driven by us, the people.
I'm not sympathetic towards management. I'm totally revolted by the
income
of many of these dudes. When we contribute to any charitable
association,
one of the things we research is the pay scale of the CEO. If they're
making a ton of money, our contributions go elsewhere. I don't have a
clue what we can do about the money they receive, but I don't like it
any
better than you do.
How do we address this problem?
Harold
You've addressed this already. You want to see workers get their wages
in line with a "living wage" right? Why not expect this from our
leaders? Lead by example - what a joke - "Do as I say, not as I do". You
think corporate & government leaders are going to give up their
outlandish pay, pensions, bonuses, financial loopholes, etc.? Fat
chance. I dare say it will take a revolution to do this.
The top of the food chain in the capitalistic world we live is the
investor. Corporate & fund managers feel driven to report astronomical
yearly growth numbers. It's artificially too high - heard of Enron,
Worldcom, etc.? It seems possible to me that this system could have
limits or at least some functional checks & balances. I feel that no
manager should have his raises/bonuses directly tied to the AMOUNT of a
business's financial growth. Greed makes this a collision course to a
failed endeavor.
Many of us have 401K's to help us think we'll have something for our
retirement. We are all at the top of the food chain in this regard. Sure
I'd like my money to do well but not at the cost of imploding the
system. I'm not greedy & don't want constant double-digit growth reports
from my investments. No system could support itself this way for long.
The entire time I've been in a 401K system (about 13 years now) I have
been amazed at the monumental growth of mutual funds, stocks, etc. It's
no wonder the rich get richer with this system. It seems doomed to fail.
We're in lock step, Stephen. Just because I don't single out management
doesn't mean I endorse them. All of us have to take a realistic look at
the scene and make decisions accordingly. If we hope to have jobs in this
country in the future, everyone needs to re-evaluate their position.
Frankly, if people can't live reasonably on $50,000 year, they're doing
something wrong. I have no respect for folks that are knocking down
hundreds of thousand per year, generally at the cost of others doing
without. It's the one thing that prevents us from donating to *any*
charity. If the CEO makes big bucks, we're out.
Do people really need a new car every year? A 6,000 square foot house?
Several trips to Hawaii annually? Three boats? Is paying more than
$4.00 for a cup of coffee really necessary? Bottled water, when it's been
proven time and again that it is generally no better than that which comes
from one's tap? Cigarettes @ $4+ per pack, only to destroy one's health?
Humans suck. They do most things for the wrong reasons, and have a
dreadful value system. We all need to experience some hard
times-----hard enough to shake us back to reality. Life can be rewarding
and interesting without trying to keep up with the guy next door, or trying
to impress him with our outlandish life style.
I live a humble, frugal life, and I'm content. Trust me, it can be done.
Harold