The problem? THE STOCK MARKET & lack of single ownership
oldschool said:
Now days it seems employees are only pawns to generate huge salaries for corporate CEOs.
Agreed, & get used to it - as long as their is a stock market, all the shareholders want is "MORE PROFIT PER QUARTER"...
Sure, making money? It's PART of the "name of the game" in business, or why else be in it, right??
STILL - there's limits to how far it can go & the U.S. economy isn't what it used to be, because of it... read on:
Unions used to "level" that playing field, not anymore it seems, thanks to Mr. Reagan beginning the trend that "broke them" with the air-traffic controllers.
What I don't understand is, when you cut off disposable income from the end-user/consumer, who is going to be able to buy your product, especially if it is a "want" product, not a "need" one?
("want" products being products above & beyond food in your mouth & your electricity/gas bills)
The stock market IS the "problem" imo @ least folks - boards of directors (usually top investors & mgt.) scream @ mgt. "make us more cash, OR you too, are GONE!"... this begins your inevitable 'cost-cutting' cycle!
What is the EASIEST single thing to control? Wages & payroll!
(Layoffs/downsizings, in other words, are the usual gateway to this, & that means cutting yet again, more jobs, not just payrates).
What's that in turn cause & compound, again?
The inability to buy, due to lack of disposable income on the consumer/end-user's part...
Thus, THAT in turn, means no corporate inventories sell off either, & more of the same starts, yet again (layoffs, firings, etc./et all).
Too much "laissez-faire" doesn't take into account 1 part of human nature: GREED!
It harms the 'whole herd' in the end...
All these economists & their "service-economy" theories I used to tell my prof.'s in the early 1980's (when this whole lunacy started) would NEVER work out right in the end!
I.E. - most guys don't want to be a desk-jockey, for 1 thing, it's NOT for everyone. It's not a "lack of intelligence" either, it's more of a lifestyle choice (put your job down @ the end of the day, instead of stressing on it (this is part of what I HATE about what I do in fact)).
Plus, You can only have so many chiefs to far more indians, & somebody has to do actual production work AND IN YOUR OWN NATION (so the monies are spent back into the system, internally (you can't run a car/economic engine, w/out pouring gas into it @ times/disposable income)).
This basic simple concept's been lost (pay your workers well & by the largest number of them & they WILL spend on YOUR goods, YOUR COMPANY PRODUCES, allowing you to create & sell yet MORE inventories of product) & the world economic structure's had the wool pulled over its eyes with this latest way of doing things imo...
It's harmful in the end to the good of the whole.
I told my prof.'s this, had 1 actually threaten me with failure of his course for disagreeing with him, & in the end I did well, but made a wager with him that in 20-30 years time, the b.s. he read @ us in "theory" would fall apart in practice... & it surely has.
APK
P.S.=> The problem? The stock market... gone are the days of 1 single man owning & controlling a company as the PRIMARY & controlling stockholder! That type of guy actually wants to "build that better mousetrap" & has to answer to NOBODY... privately held companies have an advantage here imo, as far as longevity & stability.
Folks that control a company solely, imo, usually have it as a goal to keep that company around for their heirs too, & not just as a money maker in the short term.
(Bill Gates iirc, is example + exception to the 'current rule' of massive joint-ownership via stocks, & look HOW WELL Ms has done for 2 years under his wing/control - speaks for itself)...
E.G.-> Gates actually still gives a damn imo, & because it is HIS company!
(& not some card hand in the stock market lap being played out... which is ALL a company is in some investor's stock portfolio, & nothing more!)... apk
