 Mrq5The Fab Four
join:1999-08-21
Warren, MI
1 edit | Rich getting Richer What we see here is 1 serious side affect caused by the tech boom, over the last 20 years. Technology has allowed corps to produce more goods and services far cheaper. Tech advances also created a global shrinking, where it is easier and cheaper to produce goods/services farther (cheap labor). What this has left us with are fewer US middle-class workers required to produce the same goods/services. Tech and Manufacturing (ex. Cars) companies are producing far more than 20-50 years ago since there are far more potential consumers(6 Billion). Also the same companies were making profits with far more employees needed 20-50 years ago. The big diff now are the executive salaries. TECHNOLOGY HAS SHIFTED MORE LOOT TO THE EXECS/RICH. 20-50 years ago an exec salary would be 3-10X more than the employee. Now that all the US workers are no longer required exec salaries have skyrocketed 100X++ more than the employee.
For me this is an irony since I am employeed as a mid-level tech manager. Even still I can not ignore this obvious side affect of tech. |
|
|
|
 gaforcesUnited We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA | Once they kill off the endangered United States middle class worker, they can import from the third world to replace us, oh wait ... |
|
Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| reply to Mrq5
said by Mrq5:What we see here is 1 serious side affect caused by the tech boom, over the last 20 years. This is a hot button for me because the tech boom has made it easy for jobs to flow to the lowest cost center (at any moment) around the world. This is a wet dream for those who fancy themselves as Adam Smith free marketeers (invisible hand, etc.).
But, there's really nothing "free" or "invisible" about this. Americans are forced to pay for a higher standard of living (paying for sewers, refuse disposal, animal welfare, environmental protection. These aren't things we can "opt out of." But, when jobs go to India or China, we're told "it's just a free market, why do you expect a handout?"
There's nothing free about forcing you or I to pay for everything from food and drug quality laws to laws preventing you from pimping your 14-year-old daughter to supplement the family income. And then forcing you to compete with those who don't.
Recently the Bush administration balked at signing onto the kyoto(?) agreement because it would create an unfair competitive environment. It would have let other countries create more CO2 than the US. Isn't this qualitatively similar to the competitive environment American workers have faced for the past 20-30 years? You don't hear many politicians complaining about that. But, if the same thing affects corporations, suddenly all we hear about is how it's "unfair."
Another thing to consider is all the free-trade agreements. These are generally designed to impose industrialized/western business standards upon signatory countries to make it easier (more predictable) for western companies to do business. Everything from banking and taxation are moderated to our standards. But, very little concerning human rights, standards of living, etc. The result is that commercial and financial markets have the skids greased for their operations, and the labor market is left at a disadvantage. (The same kind of disadvantage President Bush objected to regarding Kyoto(?) when it affected businesses.).
Mark |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| reply to Mrq5
said by Mrq5:20-50 years ago an exec salary would be 3-10X more than the employee. Now that all the US workers are no longer required exec salaries have skyrocketed 100X++ more than the employee. This is a good reason to reject so-called "flat" or "consumption" taxes. A progressive tax is often the only way to have those who benefit the most from this society carry a proportionally greater cost of maintaining that society. Maybe there's no way to to force compensation caps, or moderate offshoring of labor. In which case, the only tool is a progressive tax rate.
Advocates of consumption taxes would say that those who earn millions a year will consume more. But, charging someone 30% on a used Yugo, and another person 30% on a $200k auto isn't progressive. Progressive taxation would tax 10% on the basics, and 90% (for example) on the extravagances (whether it's income or purchased products).
Mark |
|
Mrq5The Fab Four
join:1999-08-21
Warren, MI | reply to amigo_boy
Amigo,
You are correct! There are many benefits of the tech boom. Like you, the 1 side affect or "loophole" I hate is how the execs/rich have sucked dry the middle-class US worker. I dont claim to have a perfect solution but the problem needs to be addressed quickly. It does society no good that only a handful of people are building wealth. This will eventually create a society crisis as those on the bottom-end strugle to eat, shelter, cloth and survive. |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by Mrq5:I dont claim to have a perfect solution but the problem needs to be addressed quickly. I don't think there is a perfect solution. The socialized capitalism we have today is the result of 200+ years of learning the hard way. And it's still not perfect.
There may be no way to "fix" offshoring of the labor market (as a result of socially-inspired free-trade treaties designed to enhance financial and commercial markets at the expense of labor markets, which happen to be the vast majority of "society.").
There may be no way to force corporations to follow more equitable compensation structures (although that's a bit easier to do since they come to *society* for a gift: The artificially-created legal entity called the corporation, and we already apply requirements in return for giving it.).
To me, this all leads back to the value of progressive taxation. Those who benefit the most from our system carry a progressively greater burden for its cost.
Whether it's disproportionate compensation (while reaping the benefit of a social creation: the corporation), or the fruits of a highly socially-moderated (artificial, non-free) stock market, or being in a job that isn't subject to "offshoring" under unfair trade practices. We always hear those who fancy themselves "free-marketeers" exclaim "life isn't fair." I agree. It's not. But, when people are profitting from *socialized* capitalism (highly regulated and enhanced "free" markets), they *owe* more for that system. A progressive tax isn't fair either. So, get used to how "life isn't fair" (and how it cuts both ways).
This is the only reason I can think of to oppose a flat or consumption tax. It's an effective tool to recapture the disproportionate benefit people receive from society's moderations (enhancements and, for laborers subject to offshoring, non-enhancements) of the market. It would be awkward to do with a consumption tax. (Obviously a flat tax eliminates progressivity.).
Mark |
|
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy:There's nothing free about forcing you or I to pay for everything from food and drug quality laws to laws preventing you from pimping your 14-year-old daughter to supplement the family income. And then forcing you to compete with those who don't. Spot on! Superb analogy. |
|
