Author Topic: Someone tell me how "Free Trade Agreements" are a good thing? (Read 6457 times)

capt. apathy · « **Reply #60 on:** November 10, 2003, 08:37:20 PM »

I do remember one from back in the 80's, when corporate America was telling workers we should be more like the Japanese, (or at least the things they found in Japanese culture that where favorable to them)

one article I was reading at the time pointed out that maybe that would be a good thing as the CEO of the average Japanese communes (at that time, I have no idea if it is still true), made about 10-15 times the average wage in his company. while the American CEO averaged about 1000-1500 times the average wage of all his employees(average was figured after subtracting the CEO and his salary from the figure, so his wages didn't artificially inflate the average worker wage)

unfortunately this was before the option of saving a link to statistics I found interesting so no I don’t have a link, a byline or a video tape of the news program I received the info from.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #61 on:** November 10, 2003, 08:42:54 PM »

http://www.aflcio.org/corporateamerica/paywatch/pay/index.cfm

Urchin · « **Reply #62 on:** November 10, 2003, 08:46:06 PM »

It doesn't have a thing to do with anything, I just found it disgusting.

Your example is fine, but writ large the companies ARE telling people how much they are going to work for. You will not find a starting job at any business around where I live that pays more than $9.00 an hour. For example, my friend just got a job as a programmer. The starting pay - $9.00 an hour. And thats professional work, he went to school to learn that. The average worker hasn't got a helluva lot of choice about what he is going to make- he is going to take SOME job somewhere for ~$8.00 an hour. Granted, that is entry level work, I believe entry level managers at most retail places start at ~30K a year or so, less if it is a small store, slightly more if it is a large one. Unfortunately, I despise managers and I think I'd rather eat a gun than take a job as a retail manager someplace.

Urchin · « **Reply #63 on:** November 10, 2003, 08:48:41 PM »

Good info Grun, looks like my professor underestimated slightly with the starting ratio... I couldn't remember what he said the ratio was now though.

That kind of thing simply disgusts me, sorry. Maybe it is wrong to be disgusted by that, maybe I should be happy for the guy, but I look at a salary of $17 million a year and I see being able to pay all the average workers in my state enough to live without having to work two jobs.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #64 on:** November 10, 2003, 08:52:21 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Urchin
It doesn't have a thing to do with anything, I just found it disgusting.

Your example is fine, but writ large the companies ARE telling people how much they are going to work for. You will not find a starting job at any business around where I live that pays more than $9.00 an hour. For example, my friend just got a job as a programmer. The starting pay - $9.00 an hour. And thats professional work, he went to school to learn that. The average worker hasn't got a helluva lot of choice about what he is going to make- he is going to take SOME job somewhere for ~$8.00 an hour. Granted, that is entry level work, I believe entry level managers at most retail places start at ~30K a year or so, less if it is a small store, slightly more if it is a large one. Unfortunately, I despise managers and I think I'd rather eat a gun than take a job as a retail manager someplace.

Couple of things:

You are not happy with the $9 wage. Would you be happy if the government mandated a $15 wage level? Beacuse then the employer would have incentives to cut back on hours as the pay rate impses a greater cost on him.

You say you dont want to be a manager. This means you are deciding to willfully limit your earning potential - its kinda irrational.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #65 on:** November 10, 2003, 08:59:07 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Urchin

That kind of thing simply disgusts me, sorry. Maybe it is wrong to be disgusted by that, maybe I should be happy for the guy, but I look at a salary of $17 million a year and I see being able to pay all the average workers in my state enough to live without having to work two jobs.

Like I said CEO pay is questinable and controversial especially when not met with performance. However if the oewners find value in their work then they have right to pay them what they want.

Some time ago I was very upset with the high salaries paid out to actors and athelets - but if you think about it in most cases they earn it all by providing entertainment value to many people in exchange for money, lots and lots of it. So they earn their wages. So I'm not so angry about it now.

Now its not a perfect analoghy as the CEO is only one person in an organization of many but its still valid point to consider. The people wjo sign their checks consider it worthwile.

but I look at a salary of $17 million a year and I see being able to pay all the average workers in my state enough to live without having to work two jobs.

This is scary and unproductive thinking. But lets say you did implement it, where would you put the cap on socially acceptable income?

Also how would you incentivise capable entreprenours to start their own businesses and create jobs if their own income or ownership stake (wealth in stock equity) was artificially limited.

Fourther how would you stop these people from leaving your area to go elsewhere and start their business in an area with no such restrictions.

In the same light how would you stop job seekers from following them there?

Would you build a wall? Restrict immigration rights?

Hooligan · « **Reply #66 on:** November 10, 2003, 09:01:11 PM »

Urchin:

Since I am warming to the subject...

Imagine that one of these companies with the grossly overpaid CEO is called the "Army of France" right before the battle of Austerlitz.

The CEO is named Napolean and he makes over 200 times what a private makes.

1) Maybe the board should just fire his bellybutton and hire 200 more privates. The additional firepower could possibly be the greatest thing that ever happened for the French Army.

2) Maybe the board should just can Napolean and put Ney in his place (who only costs 25 times what a private costs).

Upon reflection I suspect that both of these choices would be very poor.

My point is that whether or not a CEO is overpaid depends entirely on who that CEO is.

I have no opinion on whether or not CEOs in general are overpaid since I hardly consider myself qualified to judge. Furthermore I don't care. And I don't care because the workings of the marketplace will take care of it over time.

Not all CEOs are of uniform quality or paid uniformly. Some are very good and some are very bad. Over time, the free market will tend to reward efficient companies (i.e. in this case companies not overpaying their CEOs) and punish innefficient ones. Innefficient companies will be forced by their competitors to become efficient (i.e. cut costs, particularly the paycheck of that overpaid doofus in the penthouse office) or to go out of business. Investment money will flow to efficient (i.e profitable) businesses and away from inefficient ones. The system is hardly perfect but in the long run innefficiencies are rather ruthlessly dealt with, which is why we are not all driving Model-Ts, and why the price of computers continues to go down while they advance in power and sophistication.

The only other alternative is to allow some higher political authority (usually with a title like Commisar) in their infinite wisdom to plan the system out so that there is a fair and equitable distribution of work, proceeds and so forth. The alternate system has some minor problems in that is always ultimately involves concentration camps, universal poverty and Beria raping your sister. And the indonesian shoe workers all starve because you can't afford to buy sandwich meat much less running shoes.

Hooligan

Animal · « **Reply #67 on:** November 10, 2003, 09:02:14 PM »

My argument falling a apart? Not at all, you are just avoiding my point and trying to discredit it with a single line.

Crazy how some people are blind enough to advocate such corporations. Whats next, a conversation on how awesome the RIAA and Microsoft are.

See you on another thread.

capt. apathy · « **Reply #68 on:** November 10, 2003, 09:06:11 PM »

Quote

You will not find a starting job at any business around where I live that pays more than $9.00 an hour.

go vist your local trade unions and see which ones are taking in apprentices. stating wages for our apprentices is about $20 per hour plus full benifits, schools paid for, regular raises (about $1 per hour for every six months, assuming that your school work is done on time, you don't blow off school, your on the job training is advancing your skills at something resembling a reasonable rate),

all you have to provide is a decent work ethic, show up for work/school, and be on-time every day, pass the piss test once per year and whenever your name gets pulled for a random, and have some loyalty to the other guys in the union who freely give you their knowledge so you can have a chance to earn a living wage.

sometimes the loyalty thing is a written agreement and sometimes it's just understood, but it is expected that under no circumstances will you use skills taught to you by union members to work in a non-union job. in effect using the gift they gave you to compete directly with them for their wages. they looked after you when you where ignorant, you look after them when they are old.

with the slowdown in construction and manufacturing jobs in the 80's they took in very few apprentices in most unions (since there wasn't usually enough work to keep the members they had employed). this left a situation when I got at the end of 88 where they realised the average age of a worker was 54 years old. and depending on how many years you had worked and how many hours worth of contributions you had paid in you could draw your full pention if you retire at 58.

so as we went farther into the 90's the work increased and the number of qualified workers dropped as the older ones retired.

when I started my apprenticeship your average west coast local had 3-5 aprentices at any given time. right now (with about the same number of total members) we have about 25 or so, and some nearby locals have well over 30.

most unions are really hurting for new aprentices with a logical mind, decent math background, reasonably machanicly inclined, and not affraid of hard work.

BTW- union wages in your part of the county are about 2-4 dollars more(with some issolated areas being $9-12 dolllars more but this is the exception). generally east coast locals have a better pension and anuity rate also.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #69 on:** November 10, 2003, 09:06:32 PM »

You keep changing your argument after every criticizm I make or hooligan makes.

And now you decide to run away from the thread...

Curval · « **Reply #70 on:** November 10, 2003, 09:08:04 PM »

Wow Hooligan, well put. Really well put.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #71 on:** November 10, 2003, 09:08:46 PM »

Urchin will love unions.

Hooligan · « **Reply #72 on:** November 10, 2003, 09:09:12 PM »

Urchin you wrote:

Quote

but writ large the companies ARE telling people how much they are going to work for.

Think about this statement. This is completely wrong. If the companies have the power to mandate wages, why aren't they mandating $.03 an hour? Even with minimum wages, why is it even a penny above minimum wage? The answer is simple: If they pay $8.00 an hour, they don't get enough workers. If they pay $9.00 they get enough.

When Beria comes to your door with a couple of armed goons and tells you that you will work for Walmart for $9.00 an hour (and btw where is your sister), then I will agree that someone is mandating wages. Fortunately however that is not the system of government under which we live (Grun lives in CA I think so I cannot speak authoritatively for him).

Hooligan

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #73 on:** November 10, 2003, 09:11:27 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hooligan
(Grun lives in CA I think so I cannot speak authoritatively for him).

Hooligan

Choking on my dinner...

Hooligan · « **Reply #74 on:** November 10, 2003, 09:53:12 PM »

Animal:

I am curious. How exactly is Nike so evil? Between the part where they build a factory in Indonesia and pay their workers more than any other employer in the vicinity, and the part where the shoes reach the local Footlocker store some great evil is apparently being perpetrated and I am missing it completely. If some international conglomerate opened up a business competing with your employer and tried to woo you away with a 50% salary increase and improved working conditions, would this be equivalently evil? What am I missing?

I am no great fan of Nike’s (I bought New Balance as you recall). Having had some experience with large bureaucracies I detest them wholeheartedly. The Nike Corporation would certainly qualify in this regard and I will not be going out of my way to become more closely acquainted. One thing that I will say in Nike’s favor however, is that my association with them is strictly voluntary. I can choose to buy my running shoes from somebody else or not to buy running shoes at all. Other bureaucracies are not so kind. Unlike say those ****heads at the Sahara DMV in Las Vegas, for whom gross incompetency is apparently a hallowed tradition. All-in-all Nike really doesn’t seem so bad to me. I’ve never seen them invade Poland, force anybody to buy shoes at gunpoint, or send anybody off for political re-education. I find it odd that people who detest corporations wish to call in governments to right perceived wrongs. Governments are far more hideous bureaucracies than Nike will ever be. And you don’t even get the option of “shopping” elsewhere. The bastards come after you with guns if you fail to pay them exorbitantly for products of dubious quality which they often fail to deliver.

Maybe I am missing something and Nike is morally fixed somewhere in that dark region between Darth Vader and Mandobile. In that case, don’t buy their shoes and don’t work for them.

Hooligan