That's tangental...this was about overpiad execs somehow not being well off because some of them have less job security, nevermind their bloated perks. Bad deflection, don't become a goalie.
Your impossible to attain, regulation-free wonderland will just have corporations replacing any state for power, or joining with it to exert ultimate control. Nothing gained for anyone but corporate controllers, not even a hint of any real representation by people. Corporations are certainly no less corrupt than governments, just different corruption.
I had no idea that you were obsessed with such a tiny group of extremely wealthy corporate captains . . . you may as well aim your venom at the even more inbred political families such as the Kennedys, Bushes and Gores . . . comes to think of it, it seems that the clans that had commercial sucess once upon a time, eventually traded in their wealth for political power . . . wonder why? Perhaps political monopoly are easier to maintain than commercial monopolies?
The fundamental power of the state is the monopoly of violence and coercion. Free marketeers do not believe in violence or coercion, or monopoly for that matter. Your advocacy of state control and regulation on the other hand will inevitably lead to violent coercion, most probably wielded by the same group of elites who otherwise would have formed corporations in a more free society.
The severity of corporate corruption is not even close to that of government corruption . . . for one thing, no corporation wields the kind of power that governments wield. The very idea of corruption is arbitrarging of legal power . . . of which government bureacrats have much more than corporate bureacrats.
Since pure freedome of action unrestricted by any law is quite impossible, does that mean you are against the persuit of freedom itself? If you are not against freedom, why are you against freedom in economic life? In practical terms, economic freedom is the type of freedom that everyone really gets to exercise on daily basis.
Why does UAW "deserved" to be paid the way they are?
A simple solution to fight globalism is to pay UAW the same Ford/GM are paying for their Chinese counterpart. If you are a foreman, you get paid the same as a Chinese foreman in a GM plant. if you are a nut runner, you get paid the same the Chinese guy doing the same job.
1.4 billion people in China can live with it fine, and the 1.4 billion in India can live for half of that, why can't the UAW?
When the flood gate open, eventually the water level of both side will be the same. Or they say the world is flat. It is time to ask the question, why can't the UAW work for $5 an hour while the rest of the world can?
So now you're calling me obsessed to divert attention from the previous issue. Nice tactic.
What free marketeers believe has no impact on human nature or reality. Your impossible fantasyland will lead to a world completely dominated by corporate interests, creating their own violence and coercion.
In many ways, corporations are governments. So many of the same people in each. It's not going to change, even if Mises rises from the dead and rules the land.
What is the previous issue? You asserted that management jobs are not outsourced when production line jobs are . . . I countered that when a production line moves overseas, both the old management and the line workers have to find more profitable endeavors . . . so you narrowed down your "not being outsourced" critics to a few super-star execs . . . since the total number of these super-stars are very small, what difference does it make? Like mentioned before, even if GM CEO pay is reduced to zero with all the savings passed to every worker, the additional pay would be a few dollars a year. In other words, the whole issue you are raising is a diversion if your focus is on the few super-star execs. That being said, are you a supporter of foreign take-over of US companies? That's what outsourcing executive jobs mean, right? I'm actually not against that either, just not sure about you.
Free market is about avoiding creating special privileges for any particular participants. If you believe that in many ways corporations are governmetns, why are you advocating special priviledges? After all, that would far more likely benefit those in control of the governemnt. Are you really a closet "robber baron" in disguise?? ;-)
Non first world countries with high amounts of poverty, and intolerable social and environmental standards really aren't "the rest of the world".
But a pretty close proximation of it. The US, EU, Japan and the rest of G7 account for about 10% of world's population. Take out the US, EU, Japan and the rest of G7 account for about 6% of the remaining 90%. Not all EU nations are so-called 1st world either . . . some are more backwards than the parts of India and China that are actively engaged in trading with us.
The very top end of Indian and Chinese executives are actually very well paid, even by American standards . . . check out executives of Mittal Steal, Acer Computer, Lenovo-IBM, Hutchinson-Whompoa, Chery Motor, etc... Often more highly paid than their American counterparts. So out-sourcing these jobs may not save money at all.
The mid to upper level executive positions often face a linguisitic problem in outsourcing . . . but when outsourcing is possible, as in whole plant relocation, it is often done already. There is no union job protection in the executive suite.
There is a big advantage for would-be executives in the US, comapared to Indian and China: there are less red-tape regulations getting in the way of starting and running a business, and less need to play the corruption game to get by these same red-tapes. That's why there are far more immigrants starting new businesses in the US than the other way around for Americans in India or China. It would take exporting our political system to change that . . . as much as we'd like to see other countries embrace our values of democracy, transparancy, liberty, freedom and pursuit of happiness (i.e. free market) . . . the entrenched interests in other countries seem to be quite bent on preserving their regulatory monopolies.
Very much agree in sentiment. That's why jobs like foreman and nut runner, whose fruit labor can be replaced by wholesale shipment of products from regions of lower cost can not be sustained in high cost regions. The mechanism is no different from the fact that successful grape vineyard or orange groves do not exist in the middle of Manhatten even if theoretically growing both fruits are physically possible with green house and plant lamps . . . and potentially profitable if the city cracks down on fruit importation from California and Florida:-)
Free trade does not however lead to entirely equal global wage levels . . . for the same reason that wage levels in Manhatten is more than double that of West Virginia even though both use the same currency and there is no law interfereing trade between the two regions. There is an issue of natural barriers and transportation cost. That, and the fundamental Mises discovery that the effect of money on price levels propagates from its source in stages. Money is created in the Federal Reserve system, most importantly the New York Fed . . . that's why NYC has the highest wage and cost of living in the country . . . the effect of money (driving up prices) propagates slowly throughout the rest of the country and the rest of the dollar-denominated world. That's why those living in NYC can not profitably do jobs that can be easily replaced by some workers in other parts of the country.
Even in the time of real money, as in gold or silver coins, the wage level in London was nearly 10 times as high as the wage level in Vienna in the early to mid 19th century . . . because London was the center of global trade, whereas Vienna was land locked behind myriads of tarriffs and trade restrictions. The velocity of money was much higher in London. Of course, the job mix at the two locations would be quite different, aside from locally consumed goods and services.
Put it another way, people living at the centers of a trade system are given a natural advantage of opportunities . . . they are also faced with higher opportunity cost . . . therefore they have to do jobs that are of higher value to maintain higher standard of living compared to the rest of the trade system. Taking the US out of such a trade system would simply reduce the standard of living in the US.
Your wild assertation that execs don't have it so easy because of some lack of job security. Maybe it never happened. I never said anything about "management jobs", please don't make claims you can't back up.
Hiring cheaper-wage foreign nationals as execs is not allowing a foreign takeover. That's an inane argument, no basis in reality.
Free market IN THEORY gives no special privelege...IN THEORY. Reality and theory, please differentiate. Once you throw human nature into the mix, your (Mises) theory is junk. Someone WILL have control and WILL enact some level of regulation. Fact of life, love it or leave it.
Which EU nation commits as much in the way of human rights atrocities as China? Which EU nation has such a blatant disregard for environmental responsibility as China?
Any numbers about that executive compensation? Native born vs Chinese or East Indian expat as a whole? There's not much accountability in the "executive suite" either, and an awful lot of golden parachutes and other unjustifiable compensation.
You are going back and forth talking about two very different groups of people while using the word "execs." If by "execs," you are talking about the folks in management positions making $100-$200k a year, their head counts are still large enough to really matter for the economy, and their jobs are indeed insecure in the global competition. If on the other hand, by "execs" you are talking about the super-star managers making millions in the news every other week or so . . . their population is so low that your rants are a diversion indeed.
When you made it clear that you were talking about the super-star CEO's, filling those positions with foreign nationals in all likelihood would be the result of a foreign takeover. Take for example, how would GM CEO position (one that only makes lower single-digit million by the way, so the position barely qualifies as your multi-million super star CEO) be filled with a foreigner, unless it's some kind of take-over by, say, Renault or Toyota? a la Dr. Z at Chrysler. How would it be possible? What would be the advantage of hiring a foreigner CEO unless there is a need to bring a whole foreign team to run the company or having him/her report to a board that is made up most of Foreigners? Even if in the millions, the CEO pay itself is tiny compared to how much money is being moved around by that same person in the context of fulfilling his/her job obligations. Why would shareholders fill it with a foreigner unless the majority shareholders themselves are foreigners?
Your attack on Mises is once again another way of saying since perfectly free society without any laws is impossible, why don't we just abolish freedom altogether and establish slavery. You obviously don't know much about Mises and his theory if you think his failure is in not taking into account human nature. Mises' student Federick Hayek won Nobel Prize in Economics precisely because his and Mises' work in revealing human nature in economic behavior (Mises himself passed away the year before hence ineligible for Nobel prize). They argued in the 1910's, 1920's and 30's that neither socialism nor Keynnesian Economics would work when faced with human nature . . . as the world went on in the 30's-60's to embrace socialism and Keynnesian Economics, proving Mises and Hayek amply correct. Hence the Nobel Prize was awarded in 1974, the year after Mises died, to Hayek in recognition for their work on free market price and its root in subjective human preference. Government intervention in the market place would simply mess up the price signals in an otherwise relatively free market place (for the benefit of the intervenor/regulator), leading to massive misallocation of human and natural resources . . . the fundamental failure of both socialism and Keynessian Economics.
I'm not sure you are aware that EU expansion now includes countries like Romania and Bulgaria, where former communists are back as vialbe political forces after a decade in the wilderness (well, some the alternatives, the monarchs, would not exactly be a step toward democracy either). Environmentalism is not exactly big in those former soviet states. Besides, the criticism on China is a diversion tactic . . . you are not exactly supportive of import from India either. Debating EU itself is a diversion because even if all EU were ruled by a "people's democracy" under a green party, that's still only 5% of "the rest of the world" outside the US.
At the very top end of the pay scale that you are talking about, where super-stars are, the native-born vs. Chinese/Indian expat issue is not very relevant . . . simply because the population on that economic scale are quite mobile . . . often have been for generations. The self-made super-rich Chinese/Indians are often owner/founders of business that they run, so "unjustifiable compensation" theory would only be justified if you do not believe in private property rights. "Golden Parachute" is something set up between the employer and employee before employment is established . . . neither party has a gun or lead pipe pointed to their heads . . . so unless you think the whole western system of private property and contract laws are flawed (and prefer the old Chinese system of fiat law by the ruling elite in the names of "the people" or "mandate of heaven"), "unjustifiable compensation" is itself an unjustifiable characterisation.
What's funny brightness, is that the wealthiest country's per-capita have some form of socialism,or regulation. Doesn't this throw you "Mises theory" in the toilet ? :P
It's funny how you give a free pass to executive positions because they are "only taking a small chunk" in comparison. Well Fintail, and I still don't think it's right. I can say that about each individual UAW worker. Why does the UAW worker have to be put into a "hat" with all the others and have a price-tag attached stapled to it ? If you break it down per employee it really makes a CEO's wage stand out and you can't have that, right ? I also think Fintail, wasn't only talking about "suites" as being just CEO's GM, like any large corporation has around 500-600 money hungry hands taking large slices out of the pie, and what they take is often over-looked. However if you threw them all into a "hat" their price tag would be very significant also.
Is their even such a deserving canidate worthy of such a title ? Lee Iacocca I'd make a case for though.
I love how people in the buisness world affix titles, such as this to people for doing their job. :confuse: I suppose it's a way to grab more money from the coffers as hype builds. When people in the media hype a CEO, the CEO can then write his own ticket without resistance. Look at Neutron Jack, and his billion dollar retirement package. All Jack, did was move operations over sea's and destroyed peoples lives here in America. :sick:
15-year mortgages on cars? Heck, that day has already come per a friend of mine. He bought a Toyota Sienna minivan and the salesman said he could've financed the $42K van for as long as 15 years! Fortunately, my friend is a successful physical therapist with several offices and didn't have to go this route.
I'd go with all this "free-trade" stuff if I actually saw prices fall and that loaded Toyota minivan was like $4,200. If I could buy a decent house for like $40K rather than $400K or nice dress shirts for $.50 instead of $50.
I think a stipulation of Neutron Jack's retirememt should be that he live in one of those third-world countries to which he sent all the jobs. Oh, and if that country's people, tired of working like slaves for robber barons like you, have a revolution and you find yourself in an ox cart surrounded by a torch-carrying mob who wants your blood, don't bother calling the U.S. military to rescue you.
Oh the humanity! $720 a month for 72 months on a CIVIC?!?!? Was he like upsidedown on his last three vehicles and just kept rolling the note? I only paid $492 a month for three years on a 2002 Cadillac Seville purchased new!
Good thing I got my place before the real estate market went psycho. My mortgage is lower than most peoples' rent. I get offers for ridiculous home equity loans just about every week. Good thing I shred them. Some other folks would say, "Yayyy! Let's take out a HELOC and buy an RV the size of a SceniCruiser bus!"
We talk about the Wal-Marts of the world making insane profits on low-wage labor and cheap imported goods. They have NOTHING on the banks who coerce people into borrowing money they have no possibility of repaying.
Jack Welch formerly of General Electric. He was called "Neutron Jack" in reference to the neutron bomb. He mercilessly eliminated employees but left the buildings intact.
"What's funny brightness, is that the wealthiest country's per-capita have some form of socialism,or regulation."
rocky - as far as I know, ALL countries exhibit SOME degree of socialism or regulation.
BTW - don't confuse highest per-capita income with highest per-capita buying power or standard of living. Also, several of the countries with the higest standard of living spend virtually ZERO on national defense and/or have large portions of the governmental services paid for through a nationalized oil industry.
One can't make the assumption that their level of socialism is transferable. Apples to oranges.
What's funny brightness, is that the wealthiest country's per-capita have some form of socialism,or regulation. Doesn't this throw you "Mises theory" in the toilet ?
You are wrong on all accounts on this one. The former Soviet Union had far more socialism and regulation than the US. Even today, after decades of reforms, both Indian and China have far more regulations and socialism than the US. In China, private land ownership is still not legal. Medicine and education are guaranteed by the government in both China and India, and so is retirement . . . even to this day. After decades of reforms in their countries and decades of social engineering in this country, Indian and Chinese markets are still not as free as that of the US . . . although the contrast is less dramatic just as the gap in economic prosperity are closing at the same time. The comparison is rather striking in that all three countries follow the exact predictions made by Mises: more regulations more poverty, and less government intervention brings prosperity.
500-600 money hundry hands in a large corporation? Tell me one single large corporation that has 500-600 managers making millions each year in salaries and have guaranteed job security. Shoot, I want to be part of it. Not even employees at Microsoft are that lucky except for a couple years in late 90's with stock options, and the wealth in that bubble reached down to practically everyone, including the janitors at the company with stock options . . . nobody at Microsoft had job security any way.
You and Fintail are simply making things up as you go.
The term "super star CEO" is invented by the critics and commentators . . . to reflect the fact that they are on glossy magazine covers and hyped by the media, and paid accordingly, just like the pop singers and ball players. It's somewhat of a derogatory term, not something people actually want to call themselves.
Jack Welch's retirement package is not billion dollars a year regardless how you slice and dice it, or billion dollars in total in any realistic life time remaining of him . . . the guys is already approaching average longevity in age. He is kept on as a consultant for GE for $86k a year. That's correct, $86k a year in salary. Initially some outsized fringe benefits, such as apartment in NYC and use of company jet were promised in the package because of his staying on as consultant for the company . . . I'm not sure how these "benefits" transpired in the eventual settlement. That's for the man who over three decades created hundreds of billions of dollars of value for the shareholders, the actually owners of the company the last time I checked in the US. We are not living in a Socialist pre-reform China, where the workers were the theoretical owners of the business (the communist party bosses were in reality).
You answered your own question. Houses are not imported so that's a good mirror reflecting how far the dollar itself has fallen. Everything else would have gone up just as much if there were no cheap source of manufacturing like India and China to help us keeping inflation (barely) in check. Look at the price of oil and gold, they do not involve cheap manufacturing labor from India or China. The $42k loaded Sienna is really little over $2k in 1970 dollars (when gold was $35/oz, compared to today's $600/oz). The nice dress shirt would be $2.50 in 1970 dollars. Heck, you can find nice dress shirt for $15 in today's debased dollars, or 75 cents in 1970's dollars, if you know where to shop.
If someone is buying a loade Sienna at $42k, he is certainly not poor. Having the option of financing it for 15 years just make it more affordable to lower income folks. Nobody is required to take that option.
Well, that kind of mentality was what keep those third-world countries dirt poor . . . even those once upon a time had glorious civilization with higher living standards than the rest of the world.
I don't go back and forth - you deflect. If you lack understanding, it's not my problem. Get some sleep.
Foreign takeover = foreign ownership and control. Farming out some glorified exec positions to cheaper workers is not giving up ownership, no matter how verbose you think you can reply.
" Why would shareholders fill it with a foreigner unless the majority shareholders themselves are foreigners"
Amusing. Are you admitting that the whole thing is just a good old boys club (as it is)? One would think they'd do it to get the same talent for less money, the same way they don't bat an eye at eliminating other jobs. But if they can employ some cronies, they'll do it.
Your whole "why don't we just abolish freedom" cop out is ANOTHER deflection on your part, to distract people from the fundamental flaws in Mises theory. Please, take a debate class instead of gleaning insight from google. Mises little fairyland would simply put corporate entities in the same power as states. To deny that Mises fantasy wouldn't be railroaded by human nature is both dishonest and criminal. Show me where he accounts for humanity. His solution would ultimately end up with the robber barons - and likely shrill puppets like yourself - dangling from a noose. Maybe that wouldn't be so bad after all. Your agenda will never succeed.
I'm aware of an awful lot more than you, and it comes through with each post. Are you comparing Romania and Bulgaria to China? Even in those admittedly underdeveloped countries, the disgusting human rights atrocities and criminal environmental conditions don't exist as they do in China. Why is criticism of China a crime here? You guys can't stand it, can you? I'll take India over that repressive evil regime any day.
Your second rant is amusing...you can't justify anything, so you turn it back on me. It has nothing to do with "private property rights" (especially in a stock-issuing company) and everything with being able to justify your actions. Shameful. You just can't air a negative about any top exec, likely because in your world you think you are one of them. Yeah, I bet you run a business.
I don't go back and forth - you deflect. If you lack understanding, it's not my problem. Get some sleep
I just got up after two naps, but thanks for your concern. If you claim not to be going back and forth, please tells us which group you are talking about when you use the word "execs": (1) the "super star CEO" who makes millions; or (2) the 500-600 managers in a corporate flow chart that makes perhaps $100k - $200k on average.
Not even RockyLee seems to get whom you are talking about.
Farming out some glorified exec positions to cheaper workers is not giving up ownership, no matter how verbose you think you can reply.
How many do-nothing exec positions with millions of dollars pay each year are out there? What do most execs do? Make decisions about the company, right? They are the ones actually in control of the company on the daily operation, aren't they? What good does ownership do if the owners have to put what they own in the hands of someone who they can not trust?
Are you admitting that the whole thing is just a good old boys club (as it is)?
No. I'm sure there are management talents all over the world, however if they do not speak the same laguage (down to idioms as a native speaker would) and share a similar understanding of their surroundings as the shareholders, especially the board, there could be a lot of communication headaches down the road. The shareholders are not running a public insitution . . . they do not have to play affirmative action when choosing CEO's . . . it's their right to pick a person that they can trust. In most cases, foreign CEO's are not brought in unless the company is taken over by foreigners . . . just common sense. It's like, sure, some other leaders of the world might be a better leadership material than Bush (Blair coming to mind), but what are the chances that we'd have a Blair running the White House? On the other hand, we can have foreigners staffing the kitchen etc. in the White House so long as they have clean background.
But if they can employ some cronies, they'll do it.
That's how the politics of regulation works . . . committee members being often the cronies of higher echelon politicians. In the market place however, if appointing incompetent cronies run the risk of losing money.
Your whole "why don't we just abolish freedom" cop out is ANOTHER deflection on your part, to distract people from the fundamental flaws in Mises theory.
Not at all. Economic freedom is the most basic form freedom that people get to exercise on daily basis. You kept saying "fundamental flaws in Mises theory" . . . pray tell, do you even know what Mises theory is, and what are these flaws that you are talking about?
Mises little fairyland would simply put corporate entities in the same power as states.
You are so wrong it's not even funny. Mises was very much against letting Corporate interest run the state.
To deny that Mises fantasy wouldn't be railroaded by human nature is both dishonest and criminal. Show me where he accounts for humanity.
Mises is against violence and coercion as manifest in any power of the State. Mises' fundamental theme is respect for individual choice and freedom (Classical Liberalism, in the European use of the word "Liberalism" not the statist bastardized word used in the US). How can you have respect for humanity without respect for individual human beings?
His solution would ultimately end up with the robber barons - and likely shrill puppets like yourself - dangling from a noose. Maybe that wouldn't be so bad after all.
Gee, why am I not surprised by the ghoulish visions that aspiring statists have. The fundamental problem with socialist utopists is that they think little of everyone else, holding themselves to be smarter than everyone else. It should be noted that just like the socialists revolutionaries that mostly ended up on the Guillotine in the French Revolution, the overwhelming majority of the original Bolshevik leaders, who probably thought themselves smarter than everyone else and that a centralized state power would only eliminate their class enemies, ended up being victims of the State Power that they created, just like Mises predicted. Out of the dozen-plus original Bolshevik leaders, only Lenin escaped murder by the state he created by dying of complications from assassination attempt; all the rest except Stalin were killed on Stalin's orders and kangaroo trials, and Stalin himself died under suspicious circumstances. That is the ghoulish fate that ultimately face the blood-thirsty statists who think they are smarter than the free market place.
Ceucesku of Romania was one of the most monsterous dictators in Europe in the second half of the 20th century, and some of his cronies are still active in Romania politics. In any case, EU accounts for only 6% of the remaining 90% of "the rest of the world" outside the US. You are free to criticize China all you want, just don't be blind to what the alternatives are.
Are you supporting import from India? I'd be fine with that. The thing is, for all your venom criticizing China, you are against importing from India too, despite that country being the largest democracy in the world. Goes to show that all that criticism of China was little more than a diversion.
No I don't thnk I'm a "super star exec" . . . not even close. Running a business and strive to provide value to consumers is not exactly a sin. Once upon a time, it was a mortal sin in communist Russia and China . . . even they realize now how silly that was. So tell me, why is "golden parachute" automaticly "unjustifiable" if it is agreed to between the employee and employer ahead of time as part of the employment agreement, with neither party under duresss?
"Are you supporting import from India? I'd be fine with that."
What's interesting is that in all the months that this (and numerous other related issues) has been discussed, I've got a good idea of what fintail is against.
But, outside of a bloody revolution, I'm not sure just what fintail is FOR?
"If you claim not to be going back and forth, please tells us which group you are talking about when you use the word "execs": "
See, you defined it for me by claiming they have it not-so-easy because of a claimed lack of job security. So, shouldn't you be answering your own question?
" They are the ones actually in control of the company on the daily operation, aren't they?"
How many top execs have total control, with decisions that cannot be vetoed?
"The shareholders are not running a public insitution"
Shareholders have no real say...it's all a corrupt little corporate board.
" just common sense"
Bah, it's one crony capitalist looking out for the other. Good old boys club. Notice how much recycling of garbage goes on in the upper ranks of the corporate world?
"Mises was very much against letting"
Why can't you fathom this? What Mises was for or against has NO BEARING on what reality will produce.
As I have said a million times, what Mises was for and what reality will bring are not one in the same. You preach as if though you have a doctorate in economics, even though it becomes obvious you do not. How dare you ask anything of anyone when you bring nothing of substance yourself. You still can't show how Mises accounted for human nature...you claim what he was "for" and "against" with your stolen-from-wikipedia insight, but you never answer anything else. Spare me your credential-free history lesson. You're just pushing a warped political agenda with no chance of real-world success. There's no evidence of a "free market place" in the real world...regulation is everywhere, and there's nothing you can do to escape it. You're going to be in for a wake up call sooner or later, and you're going to hate it.
A regime of 20 years ago has little to do with the conditions of today, as it was ousted in 1989. You imply that Romania and its neighbors are still somehow like the repressive and brutal regime that is China. It's insane to even hint at such a comparison. You should become more informed.
"you are against importing from India too"
I am? Care to ante up a quote, or is this more substance-free blather from our supposed business owner? I'd much rather do business with India than China, there's at least a hint at human rights in the former. You just can't stand to see China bashed.
Yeah, I bet you strive to provide value. Funny stuff. Does a golden parachute "add value"? How can it be justified? How does it benefit the company or so-called shareholders in any way? How is it not just a perk given from one crony to another? I've been asking the question, please refrain from answering questions with more questions.
This is really pointless. Everyone has their own opinion and words will not change it. It's like trying to convince someone to change their religion by writing a letter. Waste of time.
I think we can all agree we are not happy to see ANYONE losing their job - no matter WHERE they live. People are people. They all have to survive - and don't want to worry about feeding their family and providing them a safe place to sleep. These people who work at the automakers - be it China, USA, Japan all want to better their lives and their family lives. I'm in the IT field - my company has for the first time in it's 10 year lifespan hired oversea's contractors - from Mexico and Serbia of all places. Sure I hate to see the jobs not go to people locally who may be out of work, but at the same time these contractors have families too. This has made me consider what else I would like to be doing in life and start looking for ways to achieve it. I will probably be the next one to not be able to get employment in my current field.
I *DO* worry about my 3 young boys, but I have put myself in a position to know they will be fed and will have a house - we have lived WAY under our means for the past 12 years in order to get like that for just such a time as when my employment might be in jeopardy, and I can see that payoff coming now, when I don't worry about losing my job.
I *DO* worry about my kids' future employment, but things will change and there could be other industries we haven't even dreamt about yet. Somehow people get by for the most part - maybe not in the way they WANT to - but they do manage and will.
"Good, you took it as a joke...I thought it might be taken seriously."
Ha! Are you kidding? Personally I think that 95% of your bluster is done purely for effect. I think you're having as much fun in here as anybody elese....;)
"What am I for? Accountability, responsibility, and transparency."
Thanks for the honest reply, devoid of ideological rancor. But then who's NOT for accountability, responsibility, and transparency?. Does it apply just to the corporate world, or does it apply to labor and all of politics as well?
BTW - How is 'accountability, responsibility, and transparency' any different from 'ethics'? After all, if you are for these things, then (from my perspective) you are after the very things that would make a TRUE free market work.
If the UAW workers are getting pay $60-$80K a year just to tighten bolts and nuts (which is ridiculous to me by the way) the companies will be forced to find other cheaper alternatives. Right now that alternative seems to be China and India but 20 years later it could be Africa. I seriously don't see the future of blue collar jobs in US unless the workers agreed to give up some rights.
Like some other poster said, rather than to fight the obvious trend why don't we spend more time and energy on re-train ourselves and better prepare the next generation to face the future change. Some may not see a future of automobile industry here in US but in my eyes I see it is moving toward to the right direction. More and more R&D and design centers are popping up left and right because of the endless supply of highly qualified engineers and designers coming out from our numerous world-class universities. Because of those institutions America is able to attract many top-notch prospect students (most of them from India and China) to come here to study and the really capable ones often will be offered a chance to stay (and they usually do). What we really need to worry about is not losing assembly plants to China but how to prepare our kids to stay competitive against their Chinese and Indian counterparts. America is not and SHOULD NOT be the factory of the world but rather be the leader in advanced technologies. That, my friend is what had made America strong and will continue to be.
Of course I'm having fun...I think most of us are. If I was upset or really getting personal, people would know it. But, I always wonder when someone will be set off.
I wish some of the insane Misean ideology would cease too. The fantastic theories of a group of people traumatized both by 1920s hyperinflation and by a bloody first half of the 20th century can only be used so much. I just see no allocation given to the human impact, and because of this it's insane to see these theories preached as a valid solution.
The words I mention, which indeed are part of 'ethics', should exist everywhere. Labor, politics, corporations. In some places those aspects exist much more than in others. In some ways they are improving as time goes on...but not in all ways. They don't exist perfectly, but they could be a lot worse.
A true free market is a beautiful thing, in theory, and it does contain what I mention earlier - in theory. But theory won't reflect reality once people become involved. If we could all become robots, it'd be a great idea. Unfortunately, that's not going to happen. Economists all too often fail to account for humanity.
The duty of a CEO is to maximize shareholders wealth. He did that quite effectively from 1981 to 2001, the years he was CEO of GE, if you had purchased 10K of GE stock it would have been worth 800K! Corporations are designed to create wealth not jobs - per se.
See, you defined it for me by claiming they have it not-so-easy because of a claimed lack of job security. So, shouldn't you be answering your own question?
Pathetic diversion tactic, and you know it. I and Rocky both assumed that you were talking about the mid-to-upper level managers who made $100-200k at first, hence my point that they do not have job security at all . . . then you did a bait and switch on what you meant by "execs" by claiming they make millions and have golden parachute. These are two very different groups, although neither has job security per se. So which group did you point your finger at? Perhaps you don't even know? Your just love to throw aimless diatribes.
How many top execs have total control, with decisions that cannot be vetoed?
Execs are endowed with power to commit the company to a large number of obligations . . . including hiring, firing, buying and selling. Not all of which can be vetoed by the board. Companies have been sued by the actions of their execs on numerous occasions . . . that's why the boards need someone they can trust to be the CEO.
Shareholders have no real say...it's all a corrupt little corporate board.
The board members are the shareholders, often the largest shareholders. Boards are elected by the shareholders. If you think representative election processes are inherently flawed, why would you have any faith in the democratic political process that would have been used for coming up with regulations? Oh, wait, perhaps you are thinking the regulations ought to be handed down by the Great Socialist Party of Finatailism? And everyone should obey it like a slave or be hanged?
You still can't show how Mises accounted for human nature...
Obiously you never read anything from Mises or Hayek. The cornerstone of all Mises' work was the book called "Human Action," originally published in 1949. Go order one from Amazon. Mises and Hayek were the first ones in the economic profession in the 20th century to elaborate on why human nature (self interest) doom any government intervention in the market place (left and right) to failure.
There's no evidence of a "free market place" in the real world...regulation is everywhere, and there's nothing you can do to escape it.
There is no purely free society anywhere, so why aren't you advocating slavery for all? Well actually you are, your fight against economic freedom is a fight against freedom in general.
Exactly! The jobs that we can not even dream of today are what will enable our children to have much higher standard of living than their contemporaries in other countries.
How many people dreamed of high paying jobs in the software and networking/internet, back in 1966? or even 1976?
Job transition is something we need to embrace, not afraid of . . . change is what makes us more productive. If every country in the world can make Model-T and we are stil making Model T today, how the heck can we maintain higher standard of living than the rest of the world? It would hardly matter if we pay our workers $1 million a day to make Model T . . . $1 million would just be worthless paper.
No diversion, just like in every other aspect of life, you don't get it. I will repeat for you...you claimed these so-called men don't have it easy because of a claimed lack of job security. I claimed their massive perks/golden parachutes more than make up for it. Right there, your group has been defined. I can't dumb it down for you any further.
"Not all of which can be vetoed by the board. "
Numerous examples?
"Boards are elected by the shareholders."
Boards are elected by themselves. There's no representation for anyone but the biggest players, the same scenario that would play out in your little Misean fantasyland. Corporate powers would simply replace statist powers. Easy.
"Go order one from Amazon." = "I am unable to explain as I have no clue what I am talking about". If you think human nature "dooms" regulation, but it won't doom some glorious fairytale free market, I want to know what you're smoking.
Your freedom argument is trite and irrelevant. Please refrain. Your fight for a Misean free market is a fight that you will never win and hopefully will carry to your deathbed. Economic freedom...such hyperbole. You've really been brainwashed while reading those books while you gained no credentials.
You should at least go read what the Austrian School of Economics is before offering us your critiques. Mises published his first book on money, price and market mechanism in 1912; even Hayek was converted from a young aspiring socialist to an Austrian School economist by Mises before what you ascribed supposed traumas that led to "Misean Ideology." In fact, Hayek advised the Austrian government on fiances after WWI, and the little rump of the former Austro-Hungarian Empire avoided German-style hyperinflation in 1923 despite losing the war just like Germany did and being far more severely dismembered than Germany was. Remember, Hitler's political career got nowhere in Austria before he came to power in Germany. In other words, Mises and the Austrian School of Economics not only existed but were put to good use before your alledged reasons for the founding of the theory.
"True free market" is not necessary before free-market action takes place (just like complete abolishment of all laws is not necessary for the exercise of Freedom of Speech). Free-market action takes place every time two adults make an exchange with each other without coercion by either party or a third party. Such simple human behavior hardly needs any political justification (although it took a long time before the economic profesison came up with the economic rationals, namely "laws of diminishing return" and "subjective utility"). What does require a theory to justify is imposing government regulations on such simple voluntary actions between adults. So far, there is no satisfactory theory proving that any regulations/government interventions are immune to being corrupted by specially privileged market participants in charge of crafting and enforcing such regulations and interventions. That's the human nature issue (subjectivity and self-interest) raised by Mises. It's rather ironic that you critize Mises, of all econmists and philosophers out there, of being unable to account for human nature. Obviously, you never read Mises.
Deja Vu. Social critics were bemoaning the massive job loss in the early 80's, being shipped over seas, just before the information technology took off. Luck would have it . . . it was also about job losses in the auto industry (to Japanese imports and automation) besides even older industries such as steal making.
In many ways, the laid-off auto workers of the early 80's were what enabled companies like DEC to find employees quickly and relatively inexpensively. My wife's grandma moved from a shutdown GM plant to DEC, so did many of her colleagues.
So, in other words, your initial statement misled both me and Rocky. Both of us initially thought you were talking about the mid-to-upper management making $100-200k. That group does not have job security. As for the tiny groups with "massive perks and golden parachutes" . . . that group is tiny in number . . . Like mentioned before, even if we pay Wagoner absolutely nothing, passing all the savings to every worker, that would translate to few cents a day each. If you are entrusting someone with handling hundreds of millions of dollars if not billions just to fulfil their job description, should you pay more to get the folks who can make you more money or pay less to get the candidates that you are not familiar with?
"Not all of which can be vetoed by the board. " Numerous examples?
The GM board would love to veto all the UAW contracts the CEO's ever entered the company into. They can't. Toyota is being sued to the tune of some hundred million dollars for the action of their former North American chief (for sexual harrassment); I'm sure the board would love to be able make it all go away by vetoing his action retroactively. GM and Ford got hit by safety class action suits numerous times for executive decisions made in the past; the board would love to get scotch-free if they could veto retroactively . . . None of that is possible. CEO's make decisions on behalf of the company on regular basis; that's why shareholders want CEO's that they can trust.
Boards are elected by themselves. There's no representation for anyone but the biggest players, the same scenario that would play out in your little Misean fantasyland. Corporate powers would simply replace statist powers. Easy.
Boards are elected by shareholders, and get voted on every business day in the stock market. Shareholder revolts happen quite often, more often than political revolts by people feeling themselves under-represented in the political process.
"Go order one from Amazon." = "I am unable to explain as I have no clue what I am talking about".
Not at all. It would just save us some time and forum space if you would just read and find out what Mises and Austrian School of Economics stand for before you offer your critiques.
If you think human nature "dooms" regulation, but it won't doom some glorious fairytale free market, I want to know what you're smoking.
Free market action is the voluntary exchange between two adults. It requires no political justification. Why the government regulators should be involved in such a transaction however does require a political justification. If you believe that human nature dooms regulations . . . let free market handle itself is the only alternative left. Your objection to free market shows that you do not think regulations are doomed failure due to human nature (self-interest on the part of the priviledge market participant, the regulator) . . . that requires some serious proving regardless what you have been smoking.
Is this even remotely automotive related? It's getting nasty and personal, and way off the topic of the UAW and automakers. This topic is in serious jeopardy of joining the ranks of IDLSWDY.
if you don't know what that means, type "i love" in the search box, and you'll get there
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name. 2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h) Review your vehicle
Since both GM and Ford are losing market share, billions of dollars every year and on verge of bankruptcy; how are they suppose to turn it around without cutting cost (cheaper labor)?
I am just curious because although I don't agree on American buying American but I sort of do think that if circumstances allowed, it's probably better off for our economy to keep the jobs here rather than sending them to China and India. However, with what the UAW demanded and the situation GM and Ford are in there is no way (at least to me) that the big 2 will be able to survive under extreme competition with the current UAW work force.
I would like to listen to the solutions from Rocky and fintail on this issue because seems to me they got this all figured out.
Comments
Your impossible to attain, regulation-free wonderland will just have corporations replacing any state for power, or joining with it to exert ultimate control. Nothing gained for anyone but corporate controllers, not even a hint of any real representation by people. Corporations are certainly no less corrupt than governments, just different corruption.
The fundamental power of the state is the monopoly of violence and coercion. Free marketeers do not believe in violence or coercion, or monopoly for that matter. Your advocacy of state control and regulation on the other hand will inevitably lead to violent coercion, most probably wielded by the same group of elites who otherwise would have formed corporations in a more free society.
The severity of corporate corruption is not even close to that of government corruption . . . for one thing, no corporation wields the kind of power that governments wield. The very idea of corruption is arbitrarging of legal power . . . of which government bureacrats have much more than corporate bureacrats.
Since pure freedome of action unrestricted by any law is quite impossible, does that mean you are against the persuit of freedom itself? If you are not against freedom, why are you against freedom in economic life? In practical terms, economic freedom is the type of freedom that everyone really gets to exercise on daily basis.
A simple solution to fight globalism is to pay UAW the same Ford/GM are paying for their Chinese counterpart. If you are a foreman, you get paid the same as a Chinese foreman in a GM plant. if you are a nut runner, you get paid the same the Chinese guy doing the same job.
1.4 billion people in China can live with it fine, and the 1.4 billion in India can live for half of that, why can't the UAW?
When the flood gate open, eventually the water level of both side will be the same. Or they say the world is flat. It is time to ask the question, why can't the UAW work for $5 an hour while the rest of the world can?
What free marketeers believe has no impact on human nature or reality. Your impossible fantasyland will lead to a world completely dominated by corporate interests, creating their own violence and coercion.
In many ways, corporations are governments. So many of the same people in each. It's not going to change, even if Mises rises from the dead and rules the land.
Funny...if one said pay a domestic ivory tower exec the same as a Chinese exec...there would be outrage.
Free market is about avoiding creating special privileges for any particular participants. If you believe that in many ways corporations are governmetns, why are you advocating special priviledges? After all, that would far more likely benefit those in control of the governemnt. Are you really a closet "robber baron" in disguise?? ;-)
But a pretty close proximation of it. The US, EU, Japan and the rest of G7 account for about 10% of world's population. Take out the US, EU, Japan and the rest of G7 account for about 6% of the remaining 90%. Not all EU nations are so-called 1st world either . . . some are more backwards than the parts of India and China that are actively engaged in trading with us.
The very top end of Indian and Chinese executives are actually very well paid, even by American standards . . . check out executives of Mittal Steal, Acer Computer, Lenovo-IBM, Hutchinson-Whompoa, Chery Motor, etc... Often more highly paid than their American counterparts. So out-sourcing these jobs may not save money at all.
The mid to upper level executive positions often face a linguisitic problem in outsourcing . . . but when outsourcing is possible, as in whole plant relocation, it is often done already. There is no union job protection in the executive suite.
There is a big advantage for would-be executives in the US, comapared to Indian and China: there are less red-tape regulations getting in the way of starting and running a business, and less need to play the corruption game to get by these same red-tapes. That's why there are far more immigrants starting new businesses in the US than the other way around for Americans in India or China. It would take exporting our political system to change that . . . as much as we'd like to see other countries embrace our values of democracy, transparancy, liberty, freedom and pursuit of happiness (i.e. free market) . . . the entrenched interests in other countries seem to be quite bent on preserving their regulatory monopolies.
Free trade does not however lead to entirely equal global wage levels . . . for the same reason that wage levels in Manhatten is more than double that of West Virginia even though both use the same currency and there is no law interfereing trade between the two regions. There is an issue of natural barriers and transportation cost. That, and the fundamental Mises discovery that the effect of money on price levels propagates from its source in stages. Money is created in the Federal Reserve system, most importantly the New York Fed . . . that's why NYC has the highest wage and cost of living in the country . . . the effect of money (driving up prices) propagates slowly throughout the rest of the country and the rest of the dollar-denominated world. That's why those living in NYC can not profitably do jobs that can be easily replaced by some workers in other parts of the country.
Even in the time of real money, as in gold or silver coins, the wage level in London was nearly 10 times as high as the wage level in Vienna in the early to mid 19th century . . . because London was the center of global trade, whereas Vienna was land locked behind myriads of tarriffs and trade restrictions. The velocity of money was much higher in London. Of course, the job mix at the two locations would be quite different, aside from locally consumed goods and services.
Put it another way, people living at the centers of a trade system are given a natural advantage of opportunities . . . they are also faced with higher opportunity cost . . . therefore they have to do jobs that are of higher value to maintain higher standard of living compared to the rest of the trade system. Taking the US out of such a trade system would simply reduce the standard of living in the US.
Hiring cheaper-wage foreign nationals as execs is not allowing a foreign takeover. That's an inane argument, no basis in reality.
Free market IN THEORY gives no special privelege...IN THEORY. Reality and theory, please differentiate. Once you throw human nature into the mix, your (Mises) theory is junk. Someone WILL have control and WILL enact some level of regulation. Fact of life, love it or leave it.
Any numbers about that executive compensation? Native born vs Chinese or East Indian expat as a whole? There's not much accountability in the "executive suite" either, and an awful lot of golden parachutes and other unjustifiable compensation.
When you made it clear that you were talking about the super-star CEO's, filling those positions with foreign nationals in all likelihood would be the result of a foreign takeover. Take for example, how would GM CEO position (one that only makes lower single-digit million by the way, so the position barely qualifies as your multi-million super star CEO) be filled with a foreigner, unless it's some kind of take-over by, say, Renault or Toyota? a la Dr. Z at Chrysler. How would it be possible? What would be the advantage of hiring a foreigner CEO unless there is a need to bring a whole foreign team to run the company or having him/her report to a board that is made up most of Foreigners? Even if in the millions, the CEO pay itself is tiny compared to how much money is being moved around by that same person in the context of fulfilling his/her job obligations. Why would shareholders fill it with a foreigner unless the majority shareholders themselves are foreigners?
Your attack on Mises is once again another way of saying since perfectly free society without any laws is impossible, why don't we just abolish freedom altogether and establish slavery. You obviously don't know much about Mises and his theory if you think his failure is in not taking into account human nature. Mises' student Federick Hayek won Nobel Prize in Economics precisely because his and Mises' work in revealing human nature in economic behavior (Mises himself passed away the year before hence ineligible for Nobel prize). They argued in the 1910's, 1920's and 30's that neither socialism nor Keynnesian Economics would work when faced with human nature . . . as the world went on in the 30's-60's to embrace socialism and Keynnesian Economics, proving Mises and Hayek amply correct. Hence the Nobel Prize was awarded in 1974, the year after Mises died, to Hayek in recognition for their work on free market price and its root in subjective human preference. Government intervention in the market place would simply mess up the price signals in an otherwise relatively free market place (for the benefit of the intervenor/regulator), leading to massive misallocation of human and natural resources . . . the fundamental failure of both socialism and Keynessian Economics.
At the very top end of the pay scale that you are talking about, where super-stars are, the native-born vs. Chinese/Indian expat issue is not very relevant . . . simply because the population on that economic scale are quite mobile . . . often have been for generations. The self-made super-rich Chinese/Indians are often owner/founders of business that they run, so "unjustifiable compensation" theory would only be justified if you do not believe in private property rights. "Golden Parachute" is something set up between the employer and employee before employment is established . . . neither party has a gun or lead pipe pointed to their heads . . . so unless you think the whole western system of private property and contract laws are flawed (and prefer the old Chinese system of fiat law by the ruling elite in the names of "the people" or "mandate of heaven"), "unjustifiable compensation" is itself an unjustifiable characterisation.
It's funny how you give a free pass to executive positions because they are "only taking a small chunk" in comparison. Well Fintail, and I still don't think it's right. I can say that about each individual UAW worker. Why does the UAW worker have to be put into a "hat" with all the others and have a price-tag attached stapled to it ? If you break it down per employee it really makes a CEO's wage stand out and you can't have that, right ? I also think Fintail, wasn't only talking about "suites" as being just CEO's GM, like any large corporation has around 500-600 money hungry hands taking large slices out of the pie, and what they take is often over-looked. However if you threw them all into a "hat" their price tag would be very significant also.
Rocky
I love how people in the buisness world affix titles, such as this to people for doing their job. :confuse: I suppose it's a way to grab more money from the coffers as hype builds. When people in the media hype a CEO, the CEO can then write his own ticket without resistance. Look at Neutron Jack, and his billion dollar retirement package.
All Jack, did was move operations over sea's and destroyed peoples lives here in America. :sick:
Rocky
I'd go with all this "free-trade" stuff if I actually saw prices fall and that loaded Toyota minivan was like $4,200. If I could buy a decent house for like $40K rather than $400K or nice dress shirts for $.50 instead of $50.
Good thing I got my place before the real estate market went psycho. My mortgage is lower than most peoples' rent. I get offers for ridiculous home equity loans just about every week. Good thing I shred them. Some other folks would say, "Yayyy! Let's take out a HELOC and buy an RV the size of a SceniCruiser bus!"
We talk about the Wal-Marts of the world making insane profits on low-wage labor and cheap imported goods. They have NOTHING on the banks who coerce people into borrowing money they have no possibility of repaying.
rocky - as far as I know, ALL countries exhibit SOME degree of socialism or regulation.
BTW - don't confuse highest per-capita income with highest per-capita buying power or standard of living. Also, several of the countries with the higest standard of living spend virtually ZERO on national defense and/or have large portions of the governmental services paid for through a nationalized oil industry.
One can't make the assumption that their level of socialism is transferable. Apples to oranges.
You are wrong on all accounts on this one. The former Soviet Union had far more socialism and regulation than the US. Even today, after decades of reforms, both Indian and China have far more regulations and socialism than the US. In China, private land ownership is still not legal. Medicine and education are guaranteed by the government in both China and India, and so is retirement . . . even to this day. After decades of reforms in their countries and decades of social engineering in this country, Indian and Chinese markets are still not as free as that of the US . . . although the contrast is less dramatic just as the gap in economic prosperity are closing at the same time. The comparison is rather striking in that all three countries follow the exact predictions made by Mises: more regulations more poverty, and less government intervention brings prosperity.
500-600 money hundry hands in a large corporation? Tell me one single large corporation that has 500-600 managers making millions each year in salaries and have guaranteed job security. Shoot, I want to be part of it. Not even employees at Microsoft are that lucky except for a couple years in late 90's with stock options, and the wealth in that bubble reached down to practically everyone, including the janitors at the company with stock options . . . nobody at Microsoft had job security any way.
You and Fintail are simply making things up as you go.
Jack Welch's retirement package is not billion dollars a year regardless how you slice and dice it, or billion dollars in total in any realistic life time remaining of him . . . the guys is already approaching average longevity in age. He is kept on as a consultant for GE for $86k a year. That's correct, $86k a year in salary. Initially some outsized fringe benefits, such as apartment in NYC and use of company jet were promised in the package because of his staying on as consultant for the company . . . I'm not sure how these "benefits" transpired in the eventual settlement. That's for the man who over three decades created hundreds of billions of dollars of value for the shareholders, the actually owners of the company the last time I checked in the US. We are not living in a Socialist pre-reform China, where the workers were the theoretical owners of the business (the communist party bosses were in reality).
If someone is buying a loade Sienna at $42k, he is certainly not poor. Having the option of financing it for 15 years just make it more affordable to lower income folks. Nobody is required to take that option.
Foreign takeover = foreign ownership and control. Farming out some glorified exec positions to cheaper workers is not giving up ownership, no matter how verbose you think you can reply.
" Why would shareholders fill it with a foreigner unless the majority shareholders themselves are foreigners"
Amusing. Are you admitting that the whole thing is just a good old boys club (as it is)? One would think they'd do it to get the same talent for less money, the same way they don't bat an eye at eliminating other jobs. But if they can employ some cronies, they'll do it.
Your whole "why don't we just abolish freedom" cop out is ANOTHER deflection on your part, to distract people from the fundamental flaws in Mises theory. Please, take a debate class instead of gleaning insight from google. Mises little fairyland would simply put corporate entities in the same power as states. To deny that Mises fantasy wouldn't be railroaded by human nature is both dishonest and criminal. Show me where he accounts for humanity. His solution would ultimately end up with the robber barons - and likely shrill puppets like yourself - dangling from a noose. Maybe that wouldn't be so bad after all. Your agenda will never succeed.
Your second rant is amusing...you can't justify anything, so you turn it back on me. It has nothing to do with "private property rights" (especially in a stock-issuing company) and everything with being able to justify your actions. Shameful. You just can't air a negative about any top exec, likely because in your world you think you are one of them. Yeah, I bet you run a business.
I just got up after two naps, but thanks for your concern. If you claim not to be going back and forth, please tells us which group you are talking about when you use the word "execs":
(1) the "super star CEO" who makes millions; or
(2) the 500-600 managers in a corporate flow chart that makes perhaps $100k - $200k on average.
Not even RockyLee seems to get whom you are talking about.
Farming out some glorified exec positions to cheaper workers is not giving up ownership, no matter how verbose you think you can reply.
How many do-nothing exec positions with millions of dollars pay each year are out there? What do most execs do? Make decisions about the company, right? They are the ones actually in control of the company on the daily operation, aren't they? What good does ownership do if the owners have to put what they own in the hands of someone who they can not trust?
Are you admitting that the whole thing is just a good old boys club (as it is)?
No. I'm sure there are management talents all over the world, however if they do not speak the same laguage (down to idioms as a native speaker would) and share a similar understanding of their surroundings as the shareholders, especially the board, there could be a lot of communication headaches down the road. The shareholders are not running a public insitution . . . they do not have to play affirmative action when choosing CEO's . . . it's their right to pick a person that they can trust. In most cases, foreign CEO's are not brought in unless the company is taken over by foreigners . . . just common sense. It's like, sure, some other leaders of the world might be a better leadership material than Bush (Blair coming to mind), but what are the chances that we'd have a Blair running the White House? On the other hand, we can have foreigners staffing the kitchen etc. in the White House so long as they have clean background.
But if they can employ some cronies, they'll do it.
That's how the politics of regulation works . . . committee members being often the cronies of higher echelon politicians. In the market place however, if appointing incompetent cronies run the risk of losing money.
Your whole "why don't we just abolish freedom" cop out is ANOTHER deflection on your part, to distract people from the fundamental flaws in Mises theory.
Not at all. Economic freedom is the most basic form freedom that people get to exercise on daily basis. You kept saying "fundamental flaws in Mises theory" . . . pray tell, do you even know what Mises theory is, and what are these flaws that you are talking about?
Mises little fairyland would simply put corporate entities in the same power as states.
You are so wrong it's not even funny. Mises was very much against letting Corporate interest run the state.
To deny that Mises fantasy wouldn't be railroaded by human nature is both dishonest and criminal. Show me where he accounts for humanity.
Mises is against violence and coercion as manifest in any power of the State. Mises' fundamental theme is respect for individual choice and freedom (Classical Liberalism, in the European use of the word "Liberalism" not the statist bastardized word used in the US). How can you have respect for humanity without respect for individual human beings?
His solution would ultimately end up with the robber barons - and likely shrill puppets like yourself - dangling from a noose. Maybe that wouldn't be so bad after all.
Gee, why am I not surprised by the ghoulish visions that aspiring statists have. The fundamental problem with socialist utopists is that they think little of everyone else, holding themselves to be smarter than everyone else. It should be noted that just like the socialists revolutionaries that mostly ended up on the Guillotine in the French Revolution, the overwhelming majority of the original Bolshevik leaders, who probably thought themselves smarter than everyone else and that a centralized state power would only eliminate their class enemies, ended up being victims of the State Power that they created, just like Mises predicted. Out of the dozen-plus original Bolshevik leaders, only Lenin escaped murder by the state he created by dying of complications from assassination attempt; all the rest except Stalin were killed on Stalin's orders and kangaroo trials, and Stalin himself died under suspicious circumstances. That is the ghoulish fate that ultimately face the blood-thirsty statists who think they are smarter than the free market place.
Are you supporting import from India? I'd be fine with that. The thing is, for all your venom criticizing China, you are against importing from India too, despite that country being the largest democracy in the world. Goes to show that all that criticism of China was little more than a diversion.
No I don't thnk I'm a "super star exec" . . . not even close. Running a business and strive to provide value to consumers is not exactly a sin. Once upon a time, it was a mortal sin in communist Russia and China . . . even they realize now how silly that was. So tell me, why is "golden parachute" automaticly "unjustifiable" if it is agreed to between the employee and employer ahead of time as part of the employment agreement, with neither party under duresss?
What's interesting is that in all the months that this (and numerous other related issues) has been discussed, I've got a good idea of what fintail is against.
But, outside of a bloody revolution, I'm not sure just what fintail is FOR?
See, you defined it for me by claiming they have it not-so-easy because of a claimed lack of job security. So, shouldn't you be answering your own question?
" They are the ones actually in control of the company on the daily operation, aren't they?"
How many top execs have total control, with decisions that cannot be vetoed?
"The shareholders are not running a public insitution"
Shareholders have no real say...it's all a corrupt little corporate board.
" just common sense"
Bah, it's one crony capitalist looking out for the other. Good old boys club. Notice how much recycling of garbage goes on in the upper ranks of the corporate world?
"Mises was very much against letting"
Why can't you fathom this? What Mises was for or against has NO BEARING on what reality will produce.
As I have said a million times, what Mises was for and what reality will bring are not one in the same. You preach as if though you have a doctorate in economics, even though it becomes obvious you do not. How dare you ask anything of anyone when you bring nothing of substance yourself. You still can't show how Mises accounted for human nature...you claim what he was "for" and "against" with your stolen-from-wikipedia insight, but you never answer anything else. Spare me your credential-free history lesson. You're just pushing a warped political agenda with no chance of real-world success. There's no evidence of a "free market place" in the real world...regulation is everywhere, and there's nothing you can do to escape it. You're going to be in for a wake up call sooner or later, and you're going to hate it.
"you are against importing from India too"
I am? Care to ante up a quote, or is this more substance-free blather from our supposed business owner? I'd much rather do business with India than China, there's at least a hint at human rights in the former. You just can't stand to see China bashed.
Yeah, I bet you strive to provide value. Funny stuff. Does a golden parachute "add value"? How can it be justified? How does it benefit the company or so-called shareholders in any way? How is it not just a perk given from one crony to another? I've been asking the question, please refrain from answering questions with more questions.
After Rocky gets out, of course.
That won't help you. Don't you know that BS floats?
Seriously, what are you for?
What am I for? Accountability, responsibility, and transparency. Comparing like for like. No wild theory with nothing to substantiate it.
I think we can all agree we are not happy to see ANYONE losing their job - no matter WHERE they live. People are people. They all have to survive - and don't want to worry about feeding their family and providing them a safe place to sleep.
These people who work at the automakers - be it China, USA, Japan all want to better their lives and their family lives.
I'm in the IT field - my company has for the first time in it's 10 year lifespan hired oversea's contractors - from Mexico and Serbia of all places. Sure I hate to see the jobs not go to people locally who may be out of work, but at the same time these contractors have families too. This has made me consider what else I would like to be doing in life and start looking for ways to achieve it. I will probably be the next one to not be able to get employment in my current field.
I *DO* worry about my 3 young boys, but I have put myself in a position to know they will be fed and will have a house - we have lived WAY under our means for the past 12 years in order to get like that for just such a time as when my employment might be in jeopardy, and I can see that payoff coming now, when I don't worry about losing my job.
I *DO* worry about my kids' future employment, but things will change and there could be other industries we haven't even dreamt about yet. Somehow people get by for the most part - maybe not in the way they WANT to - but they do manage and will.
Ha! Are you kidding? Personally I think that 95% of your bluster is done purely for effect. I think you're having as much fun in here as anybody elese....;)
"What am I for? Accountability, responsibility, and transparency."
Thanks for the honest reply, devoid of ideological rancor. But then who's NOT for accountability, responsibility, and transparency?. Does it apply just to the corporate world, or does it apply to labor and all of politics as well?
BTW - How is 'accountability, responsibility, and transparency' any different from 'ethics'? After all, if you are for these things, then (from my perspective) you are after the very things that would make a TRUE free market work.
Like some other poster said, rather than to fight the obvious trend why don't we spend more time and energy on re-train ourselves and better prepare the next generation to face the future change. Some may not see a future of automobile industry here in US but in my eyes I see it is moving toward to the right direction. More and more R&D and design centers are popping up left and right because of the endless supply of highly qualified engineers and designers coming out from our numerous world-class universities. Because of those institutions America is able to attract many top-notch prospect students (most of them from India and China) to come here to study and the really capable ones often will be offered a chance to stay (and they usually do). What we really need to worry about is not losing assembly plants to China but how to prepare our kids to stay competitive against their Chinese and Indian counterparts. America is not and SHOULD NOT be the factory of the world but rather be the leader in advanced technologies. That, my friend is what had made America strong and will continue to be.
I wish some of the insane Misean ideology would cease too. The fantastic theories of a group of people traumatized both by 1920s hyperinflation and by a bloody first half of the 20th century can only be used so much. I just see no allocation given to the human impact, and because of this it's insane to see these theories preached as a valid solution.
The words I mention, which indeed are part of 'ethics', should exist everywhere. Labor, politics, corporations. In some places those aspects exist much more than in others. In some ways they are improving as time goes on...but not in all ways. They don't exist perfectly, but they could be a lot worse.
A true free market is a beautiful thing, in theory, and it does contain what I mention earlier - in theory. But theory won't reflect reality once people become involved. If we could all become robots, it'd be a great idea. Unfortunately, that's not going to happen. Economists all too often fail to account for humanity.
Pathetic diversion tactic, and you know it. I and Rocky both assumed that you were talking about the mid-to-upper level managers who made $100-200k at first, hence my point that they do not have job security at all . . . then you did a bait and switch on what you meant by "execs" by claiming they make millions and have golden parachute. These are two very different groups, although neither has job security per se. So which group did you point your finger at? Perhaps you don't even know? Your just love to throw aimless diatribes.
How many top execs have total control, with decisions that cannot be vetoed?
Execs are endowed with power to commit the company to a large number of obligations . . . including hiring, firing, buying and selling. Not all of which can be vetoed by the board. Companies have been sued by the actions of their execs on numerous occasions . . . that's why the boards need someone they can trust to be the CEO.
Shareholders have no real say...it's all a corrupt little corporate board.
The board members are the shareholders, often the largest shareholders. Boards are elected by the shareholders. If you think representative election processes are inherently flawed, why would you have any faith in the democratic political process that would have been used for coming up with regulations? Oh, wait, perhaps you are thinking the regulations ought to be handed down by the Great Socialist Party of Finatailism? And everyone should obey it like a slave or be hanged?
You still can't show how Mises accounted for human nature...
Obiously you never read anything from Mises or Hayek. The cornerstone of all Mises' work was the book called "Human Action," originally published in 1949. Go order one from Amazon. Mises and Hayek were the first ones in the economic profession in the 20th century to elaborate on why human nature (self interest) doom any government intervention in the market place (left and right) to failure.
There's no evidence of a "free market place" in the real world...regulation is everywhere, and there's nothing you can do to escape it.
There is no purely free society anywhere, so why aren't you advocating slavery for all? Well actually you are, your fight against economic freedom is a fight against freedom in general.
That was funny!!!
How many people dreamed of high paying jobs in the software and networking/internet, back in 1966? or even 1976?
Job transition is something we need to embrace, not afraid of . . . change is what makes us more productive. If every country in the world can make Model-T and we are stil making Model T today, how the heck can we maintain higher standard of living than the rest of the world? It would hardly matter if we pay our workers $1 million a day to make Model T . . . $1 million would just be worthless paper.
"Not all of which can be vetoed by the board. "
Numerous examples?
"Boards are elected by the shareholders."
Boards are elected by themselves. There's no representation for anyone but the biggest players, the same scenario that would play out in your little Misean fantasyland. Corporate powers would simply replace statist powers. Easy.
"Go order one from Amazon." = "I am unable to explain as I have no clue what I am talking about". If you think human nature "dooms" regulation, but it won't doom some glorious fairytale free market, I want to know what you're smoking.
Your freedom argument is trite and irrelevant. Please refrain. Your fight for a Misean free market is a fight that you will never win and hopefully will carry to your deathbed. Economic freedom...such hyperbole. You've really been brainwashed while reading those books while you gained no credentials.
What's the next pie-in-the-sky savior for the future?
"True free market" is not necessary before free-market action takes place (just like complete abolishment of all laws is not necessary for the exercise of Freedom of Speech). Free-market action takes place every time two adults make an exchange with each other without coercion by either party or a third party. Such simple human behavior hardly needs any political justification (although it took a long time before the economic profesison came up with the economic rationals, namely "laws of diminishing return" and "subjective utility"). What does require a theory to justify is imposing government regulations on such simple voluntary actions between adults. So far, there is no satisfactory theory proving that any regulations/government interventions are immune to being corrupted by specially privileged market participants in charge of crafting and enforcing such regulations and interventions. That's the human nature issue (subjectivity and self-interest) raised by Mises. It's rather ironic that you critize Mises, of all econmists and philosophers out there, of being unable to account for human nature. Obviously, you never read Mises.
In many ways, the laid-off auto workers of the early 80's were what enabled companies like DEC to find employees quickly and relatively inexpensively. My wife's grandma moved from a shutdown GM plant to DEC, so did many of her colleagues.
"Not all of which can be vetoed by the board. "
Numerous examples?
The GM board would love to veto all the UAW contracts the CEO's ever entered the company into. They can't. Toyota is being sued to the tune of some hundred million dollars for the action of their former North American chief (for sexual harrassment); I'm sure the board would love to be able make it all go away by vetoing his action retroactively. GM and Ford got hit by safety class action suits numerous times for executive decisions made in the past; the board would love to get scotch-free if they could veto retroactively . . . None of that is possible. CEO's make decisions on behalf of the company on regular basis; that's why shareholders want CEO's that they can trust.
Boards are elected by themselves. There's no representation for anyone but the biggest players, the same scenario that would play out in your little Misean fantasyland. Corporate powers would simply replace statist powers. Easy.
Boards are elected by shareholders, and get voted on every business day in the stock market. Shareholder revolts happen quite often, more often than political revolts by people feeling themselves under-represented in the political process.
"Go order one from Amazon." = "I am unable to explain as I have no clue what I am talking about".
Not at all. It would just save us some time and forum space if you would just read and find out what Mises and Austrian School of Economics stand for before you offer your critiques.
If you think human nature "dooms" regulation, but it won't doom some glorious fairytale free market, I want to know what you're smoking.
Free market action is the voluntary exchange between two adults. It requires no political justification. Why the government regulators should be involved in such a transaction however does require a political justification. If you believe that human nature dooms regulations . . . let free market handle itself is the only alternative left. Your objection to free market shows that you do not think regulations are doomed failure due to human nature (self-interest on the part of the priviledge market participant, the regulator) . . . that requires some serious proving regardless what you have been smoking.
if you don't know what that means, type "i love" in the search box, and you'll get there
MODERATOR /ADMINISTRATOR
Find me at kirstie_h@edmunds.com - or send a private message by clicking on my name.
2015 Kia Soul, 2021 Subaru Forester (kirstie_h), 2024 GMC Sierra 1500 (mr. kirstie_h)
Review your vehicle
Since both GM and Ford are losing market share, billions of dollars every year and on verge of bankruptcy; how are they suppose to turn it around without cutting cost (cheaper labor)?
I am just curious because although I don't agree on American buying American but I sort of do think that if circumstances allowed, it's probably better off for our economy to keep the jobs here rather than sending them to China and India. However, with what the UAW demanded and the situation GM and Ford are in there is no way (at least to me) that the big 2 will be able to survive under extreme competition with the current UAW work force.
I would like to listen to the solutions from Rocky and fintail on this issue because seems to me they got this all figured out.