Termyn8or
Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline
|
Let's take two almost parelell scenarios that are going on today, before our eyes.
We have auto industry problems and bank problems. On the most simplistic level most people do not pay cash for a new car, so that means borrowed money, also most people do not pay cash for a house either for example. That means more borrowed money.
In both banking and the auto industry the bigwigs seem to never lose. Their money comes first. Let me tell you, I know a Woman who tried to run a small business that way and guess what, she couldn't keep employees. Pay was late or non-existent, because she took care of herself first. These were hard to get skilled employees and if her Husband, the owner of the business wasn't in jail he probably would have smacked her. He has his own asshole ways to be sure, I mean REALLY sure, but when he owed you money it was there. He knows who it is who generates the income, so that comes first. He is out now and the business is again healthy, because payroll comes first.
Are you getting my drift ? Pay the people dammit. My own boss has been losing money for the last couple of months, but everybody's pay is there.
In big business it is said that the law of gravity is defied. Loyalty, when it goes up it does not come back down. I don't see much in the way of evidence to the contrary.
A golden parachute is not all that different than a privtely funded pension. They bitch about execs taking a vacation as soon as they get the bailout money, but to see all sides those trips may have been planned years in advance. Also on the other side, banks say that they are not charities, even though charity on the part of an unconstitutional government is what bailed them out. It could be argued that now is the time that they are most in need of profits. To make money. If you bail them out and expect them to lose money, what do you think will happen ?
I do look at both sides of an issue, and any company bailed out had better make money, and fast. Make it a loan, after all money is actually a loan anyway, but make them pay it back. I have not heard much talk of that, in fact when Chrysler got bailed out years ago I have never heard a word about whether they paid it back. I thought it was an understanding that they would, but did they ? And are these new sharks going to have to pay it back ?
The thing is though, there needs to be a fundamental shift in the approach to business. You can't give someone $30,000 per years plus unlimited medical care for life after they swept the floor at your factory. You might be able to swing the thirty grand, but one guy can empty your pockets real fast when it comes to medical. We need to reevaluate just what we CAN do, rather than what we want to do.
If I owned a business when I pay, I would give you all your money now, and in fact that is what I want. You don't need to hold it for me. Give me all my money now. If I can't work anymore and I have nothing saved, I die. You owe me for the work I did and nothing more.
Banking and the auto industry are crucial as well as interdependent, so why burden them to support people who are no longer working. If you gave them all their money in the first place they might be able to take care of their own retirement. Really, if you pay them a thousand dollars a week, they are lucky to take home half of that.
Now who created that situation ?
T
|
Surprising ? Get a grip - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread