(Continuing from this post.) Chapter 5 is on the intrinsic inequities of corporate structure. He
said to be fair equality was never part of the structure in the first
place, just making money. And that they do produce jobs, at least
provide minimum wage, and produce goods and services useful to the
economy. They can also include other options like fair labor policies
and environmental concerns (triple bottom lines), but that is generally
limited to smaller, private companies. The larger corps become, and
especially if they are publicly traded, the less likely will they
include such other options. And it is the latter that are of concern.
Corporate
profits go to the owners and shareholders only, not the employees,
other than their salary. Raises in salary used to be tied to performance
and productivity, but as studies have shown, productivity keeps
increasing and salaries have stagnated. And ofttimes shareholders are
not at all involved in a corp, but just speculate on it with little to
no interest in its products, services and especially its employees. If
enough speculators own enough of a corps stock then they can pull it out
at any time, thus creating financial havoc for the employees. This is
especially true if stock prices are unethically and/or illegally
manipulated, apparently the rule rather than the exception these days.
Remember 2008? It's still going on.
Corps also benefit from
government subsidies and tax breaks, meaning mooching of the people's
hard-earned money. And of course they get these breaks (aka welfare) due
to large contributions to influence government. They also get us to pay
for the externalized costs of their pollution, as well as food stamps
and other services to their minimum wage employees, who cannot afford
them. As legal entities they immunize the managing individuals from
legal liability, thus creating a moral hazard. They exploit the
intellectual commons, as whatever innovations they make are supported by
and based on public education and government research. Apple is one
example of the latter. Almost everything they sell had it origins in
government research, from microprocessors to memory chips. Yet Apple
feel no allegiance whatsoever to our government or our people, saying it
will take its jobs overseas because it can make more money. And yet
when Apple's products are pirated they expect the government to protect
their property rights, again the people's money.
And of course
corps take full advantage of the natural commons, like water, plants,
minerals etc. Not satisfied with that though they must privatize as much
of that commons as possible for further profit, meanwhile expecting
free water for their huge agribusiness and computer chips company. And
when they pollute the commons they should be charged fees for cleanup,
as well as to compensate the rest of us for having to live with it. And
how about sharing their wealth made from our commons? Alaska for example
pays every citizen for oil extracted in their State. What a concept!
Then
there is the issue of executive pay, which is now about 325 times
greater than the average worker. A ratio that is the height of income
inequality not seen since the depression. Such disparity is a direct
result of giving less to those who produce the wealth, the workers, and
more to those that often fail their companies, as in the financial
crises. Executives of the Wall Street banks got huge bonuses for
crashing their companies and the entire economy! Even when an executive
does produce more wealth for his company, does he really deserve so much
more that in fact requires that less be given to the workers? That is,
in fact, one way they increase their share, but cutting into the wages
and benefits of the worker. And in this job market they can get away
with it; take it or go unemployed so we can complain about you mooching
off society and cut you off at the knees there too. And/or just move the
jobs overseas where they can pay far less and not worry about health
benefits or worker safety standards.
I forgot that also in chapter 5 he claimed that big business interests have deliberately lobbied with big money to denude unions, specifically so as to reduce or eliminate benefits and drive down wages. And they've been successful. See this graph on union decline directly correlating to middle-class income decline: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/18/union-membership-middle-class-income_n_3948543.html
ReplyDelete