What is the difference between corporate wage pressure and a lunch money bully?

[fromderinside]

Look at the smoke signals. We are about to inflict real work on environment, droughts are rampant in ME, we've used up our get out of disease card through bad use of antibiotics and we haven't found another one and and everybody hates everybody else very much. We are at the edge of destruction as the song read back in the sixties. Hell we're removing the need for workers so what are we going to do with humans in an economy that needs very little labor.

Seems to me some social solution needs be forthcoming if we are going to retain value in self. From my view the back is out, data specialties are dying, and service ist zer tote, and monetary/competition incentive is losing value. We need find other incentives like with the arts to sustain self worth. Right now we're demonstrating just how bad we are at communicating our value via the cloud. Seems to me some sort of incentive fosterer can be built by making those tools more art worthy. It needn't be religious but it does need be satisfying, rewarding and community sustaining.

 

[steve_bank]

It is way the free market system works. Wages and prices are set mostly by supply and demand. The system is driven by profit and return on investment. Competition leads to lower consumer prices by reducing cost of doing business.

The system is not to create jobs or provide income for workers, jobs are a consequence not a goal. The principle is a rising tide raises all boats, which has generally been true in the long term.


Today in the USA some companies push it o the limit. Amazon pushes warehouse workers physicals limits. Despite l its wealth a high percentage of full time Amazon workers are on some form of government assistance.

There is certainly abuse. Corporations do wield power. MS has bought out completion to destroy it. IBM the same in the past.

The system encoded in COTUS is intellectual property rights and the right to keep profit for yourself. The real question today is what is the purpose of the system. Should it directly provide for everyone? What should the limits of the free market system be?

Personally I do not think it will survive as is.

Who wants to invest in a house or a career if it can all be lost in an economic downturn.

 

[Harry Bosch]

It is way the free market system works. Wages and prices are set mostly by supply and demand. The system is driven by profit and return on investment. Competition leads to lower consumer prices by reducing cost of doing business.

The system is not to create jobs or provide income for workers, jobs are a consequence not a goal. The principle is a rising tide raises all boats, which has generally been true in the long term.


Today in the USA some companies push it o the limit. Amazon pushes warehouse workers physicals limits. Despite l its wealth a high percentage of full time Amazon workers are on some form of government assistance.

There is certainly abuse. Corporations do wield power. MS has bought out completion to destroy it. IBM the same in the past.

The system encoded in COTUS is intellectual property rights and the right to keep profit for yourself. The real question today is what is the purpose of the system. Should it directly provide for everyone? What should the limits of the free market system be?

Personally I do not think it will survive as is.

Who wants to invest in a house or a career if it can all be lost in an economic downturn.

Here's how it generally works: I need a couple more engineers. So, I've hired an HR firm to identify the market wage and benefits for engineers in our area. Then, most people don't want to move unless you pay them more. So, we'll offer the market wage + 10%. If we don't get enough applicants, we'll offer more.

 

[fromderinside]

I only worked trough post graduate headhunters that I knew and trusted when seeking a new position. Kind of a you feed me I'll feed you good old boy sort of arrangement. Only did it twice so it's isn't really trend worthy. It's a club at the level I was working. Market conditions minimally apply because things like being known, membership and published reputation factored into the mix. More like how daughters and sons of nobles found comfortable appointments back in the day.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Sure, but have people had the choice of how they survive at any point in history, in any society? That the situation can be otherwise is fantasy.

There is definitely an argument to be made that corporate power should be reeled in, but there are elements of truth to the competition argument.

Really? People oft don't have choice of how to survive. Effectively monopolies give one the choice to work for what is offered or lump it. People don't opt to die very often. Unless government intervenes in low market competition areas wages tend to fall. If one looks at all the states where Right-to-Work laws prevail, limiting the constraints labor applies to corporations you'll find lower wages in comparable industries than in state that support unionization. Unfortunately since these states are also anti-worker in every respect there are fewer parks, family services, social support and generally worse utilities, roads ,etc., than in Union states.

Note that the union jobs are mostly government. You're the one paying those higher wages with taxes.

 

[OLDMAN]

The only difference is usually there is a boss whose job it is to cut expenses and maybe his bonus is connected to it. They have all the power and usually are short sighted, because there is only one truth in business. There is no such thing as a successful business where the employees do not care.

 

[steve_bank]

The complete cycle. The wealthy don't sit on a vault of cash. They have to do something with it or it looses value from inflation.

It gets invested. Even a small savings account in a bank is put to work by the bank.

Your retirement plans are invested in future profit. Job and economic growth is fueled by investment.

The progressive public views on the wealthy are narrow and shallow, not that the wealth disparity is not a serious issue.

 

[fromderinside]

Note that the union jobs are mostly government. You're the one paying those higher wages with taxes.

A large proportion government union jobs are in maintenance and cleaning which are actually usually run by for profit businesses.

Only teachers in AFT are actually union members. NEA, not a union, but a teacher member accreditation and standards organization still represents teachers in many districts outside of the largest states so they technically aren't union employees. Also most scientific and engineering positions in government pay less than those run by private companies, 10 to 25% less without options.

And fair being fair, Private enterprise brings in six or seven times what the government taxes. We are a 20 trillion p/y country where the three richest corporations make more than the rest of the US population resulting in only a three or four trillion dollar tax base. Obviously being one of the 200 million who gross less than the top three companies means I'm not paying for much of anything. That's especially true when taxes that pay for income and benefits in education, day care, medical, expenses result in bankruptcy in those fields for millions every year.

 

[Metaphor]

In a thread in politics, it is being argued that corporations are moral to pressure workers to get them to work as hard as they can for as little money as the company can get away with. Whether that be by busting unions, or demanding wage secrecy, by depressing competition or by basically failing to compensate both line workers and middle class workers when they factually increase productivity, keeping the money in all cases for the compensation of executives or shareholders.

I wonder, in what way is this any different than a schoolyard bully using his strength to take your lunch money? You volunteer to give him you lunch money, right?

No. The situations are nothing alike.

A schoolyard bully will beat you up and then take your money. A corporation for whom you choose not to work will not beat you up and take your money. The corporation will do nothing to you, in fact.

 

[steve_bank]

My general response is that the economic system is not a social system. It has always been driven by profit going back to early civilizations.

Jobs and wages are a consequence of free market commotion not a goal.

Within the system a corporation has shareholders. It is not a simple issue.

Part of the problm is the obsession with absolute maximum prodictvity and efficiency. Part of it is that health care and housng under our free market paradigm has gotten out of hand.

Part of it is that technology and factory automation has reduced the need for skilled workers that made good wages. The economy runs on proucing massive amounts of goods we do not really need to live. Consumer drivem economy.


At this point I agree that a cap on earnings or something like that has to be enacted.


Our manufacturing capacity can provide a minimum living standard.

Besos going on a joy ride into space is grossly decadent. He is planning a commercial space station while on the ground working people can not afford housing. Billions are spent on pro sports stadiums.

Pro athletes make millions because supply is low for the labor. Actors and bands get rich.

It is the system, not just corporations.

Bullies act out of malice, coporations are driven by profit.

 

[Tigers!]

A few zeroes on the end of the amounts

 

[Marvin Edwards]

I'll try to give you a straight answer of what I see as the main difference:

- a corporation isn't an individual, a corporation is a collection of individuals who are forced to act in the interests of the corporation or else they risk their livelihood

The mistake is looking at corporations as something that can act ethically in the same way that an individual person can. Once you view them in this light, the question, and the behaviour of organizations makes a lot more sense. We can shame them all we want, but until they're restricted by policy nothing will change.

About 50 years ago, when businesses were converting manual procedures to computer operations, I was reading a book on systems analysis which suggested that the first thing that should appear in the proposal was a statement of how the business contributed to the welfare of the community, that is, how their products or services made life better for their customers, a statement of (moral) purpose, which would never say "making money".

 

[Elixir]

Threads like this (among other things) always confuse me. I'm almost certainly missing something from never having worked for a mega-corporation. Because my experience is unequivocal, finding that the competitive landscape includes employees, customers, suppliers, regulators and competitors, and acting honorably toward all of them is the shortest route to enduring success.
Yes, there are opportunities all along the way to forego honor and honesty, take the money and run, or to squeeze whatever blood can be had from the turnips that are employees, to shortchange vendors, stiff customers or defy regulators, but I have yet to see how that approach leads to desired outcomes in any but the shortest term.

 

[rousseau]

Threads like this (among other things) always confuse me. I'm almost certainly missing something from never having worked for a mega-corporation. Because my experience is unequivocal, finding that the competitive landscape includes employees, customers, suppliers, regulators and competitors, and acting honorably toward all of them is the shortest route to enduring success.
Yes, there are opportunities all along the way to forego honor and honesty, take the money and run, or to squeeze whatever blood can be had from the turnips that are employees, to shortchange vendors, stiff customers or defy regulators, but I have yet to see how that approach leads to desired outcomes in any but the shortest term.

Here's the thing. You're sitting in a board-room making a decision with 20 other people, and massive amounts of money on the line. You have two choices: path of least resistance, or fight against overwhelming unanimity to make a decision that is unpopular, and risks your professional reputation. I've been there.

This is why corporations appear to act unethically, it's built into the way they function. They don't 'decide' in the same way an individual would.

Now, one could argue that they need to make better self-interested decisions, which is true, but that would necessitate people who actually knew what they were doing, and what those decisions were.

 

[rousseau]

Bullies act out of malice, coporations are driven by profit.

Yea, I think people need to let go of the idea that corporations / individual people work in the best interests of the group as a whole, and start from there.

In a very real way for-profit corporations are like a tribe that exists to contribute to the survival of it's members by profiting from the environment. Exclusive membership, extrude those who don't contribute, more pie for those who contribute more. I'd argue this isn't something that can be changed except via government restriction.

But unfortunately corporations now have significant leverage over government.

 

[Elixir]

Threads like this (among other things) always confuse me. I'm almost certainly missing something from never having worked for a mega-corporation. Because my experience is unequivocal, finding that the competitive landscape includes employees, customers, suppliers, regulators and competitors, and acting honorably toward all of them is the shortest route to enduring success.
Yes, there are opportunities all along the way to forego honor and honesty, take the money and run, or to squeeze whatever blood can be had from the turnips that are employees, to shortchange vendors, stiff customers or defy regulators, but I have yet to see how that approach leads to desired outcomes in any but the shortest term.

Here's the thing. You're sitting in a board-room making a decision with 20 other people, and massive amounts of money on the line. You have two choices: path of least resistance, or fight against overwhelming unanimity to make a decision that is unpopular, and risks your professional reputation. I've been there.

This is why corporations appear to act unethically, it's built into the way they function. They don't 'decide' in the same way an individual would.

Now, one could argue that they need to make better self-interested decisions, which is true, but that would necessitate people who actually knew what they were doing, and what those decisions were.

That's a really good insight IMHO. The most people I ever had to manage was about 140, and that was an entire sales force. Decisions in that Company were made by a couple (the owners) and handful of trusted employees, not a boardroom of 20 people with divergent interests. Most recently I had two partners and a peak number of about 25 employees. So when big decisions had to be made, it never involved more than the three partners and 2-3 managers. It was usually just one of us owners making day-to-day operational and tactical decisions. Sometimes managers' input was key, but there was never any question that the partners had the last say. That kind of structure goes away somewhere shy of $100m revenue in a Company like ours (manufacturing and distributing), and with it goes the disciplined behavior that only a shared vision can produce. In its place, the bottom line for the quarter displaces the original vision as a priority.

 

[rousseau]

Threads like this (among other things) always confuse me. I'm almost certainly missing something from never having worked for a mega-corporation. Because my experience is unequivocal, finding that the competitive landscape includes employees, customers, suppliers, regulators and competitors, and acting honorably toward all of them is the shortest route to enduring success.
Yes, there are opportunities all along the way to forego honor and honesty, take the money and run, or to squeeze whatever blood can be had from the turnips that are employees, to shortchange vendors, stiff customers or defy regulators, but I have yet to see how that approach leads to desired outcomes in any but the shortest term.

Here's the thing. You're sitting in a board-room making a decision with 20 other people, and massive amounts of money on the line. You have two choices: path of least resistance, or fight against overwhelming unanimity to make a decision that is unpopular, and risks your professional reputation. I've been there.

This is why corporations appear to act unethically, it's built into the way they function. They don't 'decide' in the same way an individual would.

Now, one could argue that they need to make better self-interested decisions, which is true, but that would necessitate people who actually knew what they were doing, and what those decisions were.

That's a really good insight IMHO. The most people I ever had to manage was about 140, and that was an entire sales force. Decisions in that Company were made by a couple (the owners) and handful of trusted employees, not a boardroom of 20 people with divergent interests. Most recently I had two partners and a peak number of about 25 employees. So when big decisions had to be made, it never involved more than the three partners and 2-3 managers. It was usually just one of us owners making day-to-day operational and tactical decisions. Sometimes managers' input was key, but there was never any question that the partners had the last say. That kind of structure goes away somewhere shy of $100m revenue in a Company like ours (manufacturing and distributing), and with it goes the disciplined behavior that only a shared vision can produce. In its place, the bottom line for the quarter displaces the original vision as a priority.

An interesting, and extreme case of it was when I was with 3M Canada about six years ago. The company globally was huge, IIRC in the ballpark of 100k employees worldwide. From the inside pretty much everyone in management had their hands tied, and had to go with the flow of the company structure and overarching policies.

What was even more interesting is that at some point to appease shareholders they made access to full-time employment (as opposed to contracts) very hard to obtain. What'd you see is lines of families / friends getting long-term jobs, and profiting off the historical strength of the company.

Incredibly uninspired leadership, and everyone (in my generation) that I worked with hated it and eventually left.

 

[Elixir]

An interesting, and extreme case of it was when I was with 3M Canada about six years ago. The company globally was huge, IIRC in the ballpark of 100k employees worldwide. From the inside pretty much everyone in management had their hands tied, and had to go with the flow of the company structure and overarching policies.

What was even more interesting is that at some point to appease shareholders they made access to full-time employment (as opposed to contracts) very hard to obtain. What'd you see is lines of families / friends getting long-term jobs, and profiting off the historical strength of the company.

Incredibly uninspired leadership, and everyone (in my generation) that I worked with hated it and eventually left.

That IS interesting! In fact 3M was one of our vendors, with whom I had some go-rounds. At first they didn't want to open us up. Then there was a personnel change and the new person opened us up with minimums (which we had offered his predecessor), then we were re-classified and asked to buy through distribution, but finally they opened us up with full credit but for a more limited line. So we shopped around them for most stuff we would have liked them to supply, but happily accepted our access to the few things that we couldn't replace with equal quality from other vendors (e.g. Durapore tape). Since we had started as an internet vendor, we had to re-dedicate space in our manufacturing and shipping facility to retail, and take pictures of it to prove we had a brick and mortar operation... even though that never amounted to even one percent of our sales... never did see a single field rep for 3M in the 8 or so years I dealt with them.

 

[bilby]

The problem comes as a company gets too big for the CEO to understand in detail every minute aspect of the decisions made by his subordinates.

Once that happens, he is forced to concentrate his attention on only those parts of the company that appear to be struggling compared to the rest; And his only indication of who is struggling is the figures supplied by his managers.

The managers do NOT want to be the focus of the CEOs attention. They want to be noticed ONLY by virtue of their ability to prevent their areas of responsibility from underperforming. Good figures mean promotions and bonuses. Bad figures mean those things go elsewhere, and consistently bad figures mean you get sacked in favour of someone who claims to be able to generate better figures.

And so everything is subordinate to the figures supplied to the CEO's office and/or boardroom. Whatever doesn't help improve those KPIs, and more importantly the bottom line, doesn't matter at all. If there's no 'orphans crushed under the jackboots' KPI, then it doesn't matter how many orphans are crushed. And if there is such a KPI, all that matters is reporting a good figure. Reporting an honest and accurate figure would a nice thing to be able to do, but it's really not a viable way to run a division. Far better to report a figure that looks good, and to expend some effort on ensuring that you have an excuse for any "errors" that will deflect blame onto a subordinate, in the unlikely event that someone decides to audit your reports.

 

[Elixir]

Far better to report a figure that looks good, and to expend some effort on ensuring that you have an excuse for any "errors" that will deflect blame onto a subordinate, in the unlikely event that someone decides to audit your reports.

Wow. That’s even more cynical than my view. Our reporting HAD to be accurate, top to bottom, because we were positioning the Company for sale; no prospective buyer was going to take our word for anything. One mantra we impressed upon managers was “run fast with bad news”. Sweeping it under the carpet was never done more than once, f’ya know what I mean.