|
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
2. Living wage - though not necessarily applicable to the oil companies, I do think it's interesting to see some corporations give a big fat "whaaa!" on it, which to me is a bit strange given their fat fucking CEO payouts. Granted, I concede living wages aren't the sure-fire answer to ending poverty, nor are they likely applicable to every/many situations. But I really do hope that giant corporations paying out oodles of bucks to their CEOs cease shedding tears if they are required to pay their workers a few more $. |
Hyopthetically, let's look at this from a different angle. Suppose a "living wage" were implemented. I have no idea what the living wage would be. What government hack-group is going to come up with some "official" study complete with fancy actuarial tables and whatnot? Is it higher in some parts of the countries than others? How is it calculated? Regardless, I am operating on the assumption that a "living wage" would be something significantly higher than minimum wage. Anyway, I digress...
Suppose you implement a mystica "living wage." I believe that in your heart you are wanting to basically pull (I really wanted to say take) from the top and help the bottom. But what happens when the higher wage costs hit everyone at the lower and middle-end, that aren't making billions in profits annually. There are many that barely operate in the black, and many that aren't even that lucky. At the margin, how many businesses could theoretically be put out of business? How many employees might not be hired because the incremental payroll costs are somehow a deal-breaker? Not to mention the potential for more of that hated outsourcing nonsense!
More abstractly, but certainly pertinent...if you implemented some new "living wage," how much could it potentially hurt the profit margins of the weaker players? How much might their stock value go down to reflect the higher cost of business? How much wealth might be destroyed in your mission to fight poverty? Might you hurt some of the very people you are trying to help?
Here's a quick (and probably not thoroughly thought out) idea:
What about greater accessibility to warrants and options for all employees? Sure, they won't ever amass as many as the C-level folks do in their carefully constructed, golden-parachute laden, legally iron-clad contracts, but they are more likely to work harder for the company, as well as likely be more loyal (i.e. a long-term employee), if he/she has greater ownership in the company. Workers will be better motivated and will be more productive. So, at the margin, productivity goes up, turnover goes down, labor costs go down and profitability could actually go UP! Additionally, the lower employment costs will help curb inflation (at the margin). Yay capitalism!
Of course they need to be properly accounted for and issued so as not to invite fraud. A company might choose to award them based upon performance benchmarks being met, certain criteria being met, etc. In theory it could amount to something significant over time.
And the playing field could be leveled ever-so-slightly...
I'd say that's one idea that (in theory) illustrates clear benefits over a government mandated solution. One major caveat however, is that it requires a very amicable invisible hand!
See--I'm all for everybody getting a bigger piece of the pie (or at least a bigger dinner), I just don't necessarily agree with how to get there. Now...what to do about the leftover folks that wouldn't likely be eligible for something like that. I suppose you would suggest a tax or some other method of income re-distribution?
What a ramble!
Last edited by Shakka on Apr-11-2007 at 02:49
|
