2013-08-03, 20:58 | Link #29821 | ||||||||
Meh
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You think the US is bad? try Taipei, where a modest apartment can costs upwards of $1mil+ USD, yet the average monthly income of young workers are barely $1k a month. Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||||
2013-08-03, 22:28 | Link #29822 |
books-eater youkai
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Betweem wisdom and insanity
|
Thousands rally to support embattled Tunisia government
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...9720BE20130804 NRA opens Midwest museum showing nearly 1,000 firearms http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...97207920130803
__________________
|
2013-08-03, 22:56 | Link #29823 | |
Logician and Romantic
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 43
|
Quote:
Wages have NOT moved, for the poor. While the rich are getting multiples of their past salaries. To say "you can't double everyone's salaries" is an out right dismissing of the issue, we are saying the record profits should have been used to raise salaries of the bottom of the ladder rather than go into huge bonuses of people who haven't earned them.
__________________
|
|
2013-08-04, 00:00 | Link #29824 | ||
Meh
Join Date: Feb 2008
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
2013-08-04, 00:21 | Link #29825 | ||
Logician and Romantic
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 43
|
Quote:
If companies want to move their company overseas, then hit them with tariffs when they want to sell the product back home. I am sick of all the claims that the companies can afford to throw massive bonuses at CEOs but not needing to pay their regular employees better. "Free Market" is a joke when it is about exploiting the workers. The workers deserve more, the workers deserve a raise. And when the workers can feed themselves, they can buy local products. Quote:
__________________
|
||
2013-08-04, 01:16 | Link #29826 |
My posts are frivolous
Join Date: Nov 2008
Age: 35
|
Imposing tariffs is not going to solve the problem of offshoring, and opens up a whole can of worms. First of all, it would be a breach of USA's numerous international obligations under the WTO (especially the GATT) and other treaties. Secondly, other countries will definitely retaliate with their own trade barriers, which will ultimately harm the US economy more in the long run.
__________________
|
2013-08-04, 01:38 | Link #29827 | |
Logician and Romantic
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 43
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2013-08-04, 02:13 | Link #29829 | |
Logician and Romantic
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 43
|
Quote:
Feel free to argue that companies in financial trouble be able to freeze salary increases. I won't oppose that. But if a company can grow and prosper yet refuse to reward their low rank employees, don't expect my sympathy.
__________________
|
|
2013-08-04, 02:29 | Link #29831 |
Logician and Romantic
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 43
|
Currently "Undeserving Higher Pay" goes to all the CEOs who burn their companies to the ground. The lower down the ladder people deserve to get paid more when the company is earning more money, but they don't. Because magically to pay employees less is considered a cost-saving, and that "saving" end up as CEO bonuses.
__________________
|
2013-08-04, 02:33 | Link #29832 |
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Dai Korai Teikoku
|
Exactly my problem with that kind of generalizing view: people are taking an extreme minority to be the norm. It's one of the worst fallacies one can commit, yet is done so easily it's quite sad.
But then, as I said, I'm not one of the masses, so perhaps my words mean nothing to most like it always has been. It's something that wouldn't change, unfortunately. |
2013-08-04, 03:00 | Link #29833 | |
:cool:
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Idaho
Age: 32
|
Quote:
As far as management earning more than their worth, that's quite the issue these days. The CEOs and their bonuses tends to be the image portrayed as the shining beacon of 'evil' to rally people. It certainly doesn't help that for all but the most mundane entry-level careers, college education is used arbitrarily to cull applicants. Incidentally, I'm not surprised that Sum is a manager. Edit: And now that I know more, it explains so much.
__________________
Last edited by Traece; 2013-08-04 at 03:13. |
|
2013-08-04, 05:35 | Link #29835 | ||
I disagree with you all.
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
That can't be all. The problem with just "minimum wages increase" is that you have more and more people on minimum wage as those catch up to their salary without them getting a raise.
Quote:
You want to give more power to the tenants? See to it more housing becomes available. Quote:
Last edited by Anh_Minh; 2013-08-04 at 07:34. |
||
2013-08-04, 06:07 | Link #29836 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
|
Quote:
Senior management remuneration, involves fairly trivial amounts when compared to the total wage bill of any major company. They are just one group of employees who have thrived in the current economic climate due to their strong bargaining position. It's a symptom of economic inequality but not the cause. Globalization, increased competition, deregulation and weakened unions have reduced the bargaining position of many (not necessarily low skilled) workers. As a result the owners of capital (shareholders, private owners) were able to increase their slice of the pie. |
|
2013-08-04, 07:18 | Link #29837 | ||
廉頗
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Massachusetts
Age: 34
|
Quote:
Quote:
Further, your hypothetical story just doesn't mesh with what I've seen in reality. There are several things wrong with your scenario. Let me give you a real-life example of two properties I manage. One is in Dorchester, one of the poorest areas of Boston (possibly the poorest, or second only to Mattapan). The entire building is rented out to subsidized, poor tenants. To clarify, this isn't a government funded building. It's not government sponsored subsidized housing. It's just a normal building, but the vast majority of applicants to any given vacant apartment will be section 8 tenants who have their rent paid in full each month, often for years with no end in sight. The rents in this building average to about $1200 a month. Some tenants work, some appear to be the 'parasites' of the section 8 system and spend their time on nefarious activities. Then there's another building out in suburbia in a fairly small town by east Massachusetts standards. This building has significantly lower rents, usually around $700 a month (the "guiding hand" of capitalism is at play here, as there are different upper rent limits for these different markets). The building, in my opinion, is nicer, though not really due to any favoritism by management. The building in Dorchester was actually completely renovated to the studs 10 years ago, whereas the suburban one has not been completely renovated since the 80's (capital improvements have been made every few years, but no gut renovation), but is still in nice condition. You may guess that this has to do with, frankly, slovenly living style by the poor tenants in Dorchester (trash frequently has to be picked up off the ground in common hallways, etc). The suburban building is located close by to the train that shoots you right in to the center of Boston in approximately 30 minutes. The Dorchester property, despite being in Boston, is not particularly close to any employment center and is actually about a 10-15 minute walk to the subway. You might get to your hypothetical job in Boston more quickly, but not by much, and you'd end up spending the same amount to use a monthly pass for the public transit system. Not to mention the obvious fact that the suburban property is in a nice, quiet area and the urban one is in a high-crime area. So yeah, on the ground, things look a bit different from the picture you're painting in hypothetical land. Rents are definitely determined by their market (based on good ole' supply and demand). There are definitely opportunities for poorer tenants to migrate to different, cheaper areas, in my experience (their subsidies ARE transferable to different towns in the same county, at least in MA, btw). Also, and I understand that perhaps MA is above the bar in this regard, there are consistent livability inspections by various government agencies in any apartment building above 9 units. You either make the necessary repairs and implement capital improvements every few years, or they will come in and force you to. It's that simple. This also costs money, and no, you can't simply tack on extra rent every time you make improvements to your building. You can raise rent when the market rate allows it and if you try to fight against this, then you will have persistent vacancies. It's not irony. I brought up the feudal era purposely. There have been a gargantuan number of changes to the system since that era. I haven't even touched upon how skewed the court system is in favor of tenants, either (ones who don't pay anything, at all, damage your unit, etc)... |
||
2013-08-04, 08:48 | Link #29838 |
"Senior" "Member"
Join Date: Jan 2012
|
About "simply raising the wages of all low-end workers in big companies":
I hope you are not serious about that... You should know that that would essentially annihilate every small company nearby because the smaller companies would not be able to keep up with the wages and every worker would leave for the bigger one. That is why in Germany there are certain "market regulations" and because of those you cannot simply raise or lower wages as you see fit.
__________________
|
2013-08-04, 09:13 | Link #29839 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Age: 38
|
Quote:
For example, you sign a lease for $1k a month. Week later, this doubling happens. You still only pay $1k a month for that year (or two, however long the lease is), though you have twice as much money, effectively cutting your liabilities in half. This is all, of course, assuming the price of everything pretty much doubles at the same time as well to compensate for the doubling of wages so as to prevent economic collapse. In other words, after that first year or two there wouldn't really be a difference. But it's okay to generalize anyone who isn't upper management as doing work undeserving of more money? Nice hypocrisy there. |
|
Tags |
current affairs, discussion, international |
Thread Tools | |
|
|