Quote:
Originally Posted by Flint
Why is this a statement with no explanation? Why "should" a person who has worked hard and made smart decisions in order to provide for their family be punished for their hard work and sacrifices? If you set up the system: "the harder you work, the less you can keep" what would happen?
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Flint
Why is this a statement with no explanation? Why "should" a person who has worked hard and made smart decisions in order to provide for their family be punished for their hard work and sacrifices? If you set up the system: "the harder you work, the less you can keep" what would happen?
|
The following stats come from a frankly liberal web site edited by Steve Kangas.
However, Kangas cites a wide variety of sources for his research - from the extreme right wing (Christopher Jencks, a controversial researcher in the ‘70’s), to middle of the road, slightly right leaning Business Week to the liberal Claude Fischer’s book, Inequality by Design..
Quote:
One major factor in determining who becomes successful is inheritance. In 1989, one third of all Americans who earned more than $1 million began with an inherited fortune. (3) But even more widespread is the practice of "living inheritances" -- the advantages passed on from parents to their children while still alive. Examples include wealthy families sending their kids off to college, providing venture capital for their start-up businesses, and otherwise granting them every advantage in a competitive world.
The social aspect of wealth accumulation can be seen in the following statistic: between 1975 and 1992, the amount of national household wealth owned by the richest 1 percent rose from 22 to 42 percent. Does this mean the richest 1 percent suddenly became twice as smart or productive? Does this mean that someone in the top 1 percent is 71 times smarter or more personally productive than anyone in the bottom 99 percent? Of course not. Social factors must be responsible for such tremendous differences, even if these are simply the dynamics of the market. What this means is that conservative talk of "merit" is misguided, and not a little ironic.
|
The following table is from Business Week – not exactly a hotbed of left wing thought.
CEO pay and other trends (original figures have been converted into constant 96 dollars)
1990 1995 Percent Change
Average CEO Pay 2.34 million 3.86 million +65%
Average Worker Pay $27,615 $27,418 -0.6%
Coorporate Profits 212 billion 317 billion +50%
Worker Layoffs 316,047 439,882 +39%
Note that company profits went up by 50% but the compensation of CEO’s rose a full 15% higher than that – to 65%. I think EVERY worker’s pay should be tied to the company’s profits. Even if only CEO’s reap the benefit of increased profits via increased pay, why they should they have gotten and additional 15% increase. Flint can sing the blues for these CEO’s all he wants, but, personally, I won’t be sending them CARE packages any time soon.
Also from Business Week:
Quote:
|
Greater inequality has become a clear disincentive to workers, who are working harder, producing more, yet seeing stagnating wages and greater prospects of being laid off. The following sentiment, from a United Technologies middle manager who has seen his company downsize by some 30,000 employees in the past six years, is typical: "I used to go to work enthusiastically. Now, I just go in to do what I have to do. I feel overloaded to the point of burnout. Most of my colleagues are actively looking for other jobs or are just resigned to do the minimum."
|
I don’t care how much “merit” the guy at the top has. If the managers who work for him are incompetent or lacking in some way, the corporation is not going to do nearly as well. Middle managers work their tails off – the good ones do, anyhow. And their reward is income stagnation or worse yet, they get laid off.
Flint may call it “merit.” I call it greed.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-richmerit.htm