Replies

"Think how many people are working because of Walmart and ,despite the resentment about Chinese imports,all the money saved by the shoppers."

With respect, the numbers don't seem to bear that out. Studies done by state labor departments have typically found that when a Wal-Mart moves into a community, for every 1 job they create, they displace 3-5 local jobs, jobs which typically paid better and offered things like health care and other benefits. In other words, Wal-Mart destroys more jobs than it creates and the jobs it creates are less well compensated.

On the other hand, I do certainly agree that wealth is needed to generate jobs and that individual financial incentive plays a key role in driving business - although I may not be as conservative as some here, I'm be no means a Communist, either! :-) At the same time, I have to ask how much incentive there has to be to get the job done. In Europe, CEOs typically earn between 10 and 15 times the average salary of their workers. I dunno, that seems like a bunch of extra money to me. I'd sure be more motivated and work harder if I could increase my earnings by 1,000-1,500%, wouldn't you? In the US right now, the average CEO compensation package is over 400 times that received by their employees. 400 times?! Does one really need to make that much more than everyone else in order to be motivated?

The stockholders and the board must take care of that,as it is they who have a voice in the matter.

Surely you would not suggest government control over salary?

Does one really need to make that much more than everyone else in order to be motivated?

Another aspect is the freedom of choice. If CEO salaries really bothers you, don't contribute to their wealth. Don't consume their products. Contact the shareholders and board of directors and put pressure on them.

But I have to ask this question: why does it bother you? If a person is rewarded extremely well for risk taking and being a good steward of the resources of the corporation, why is that a problem?

A wage earner will earn far less comparatively, but risks far less as well. An entrepreneur risk far more comparatively, and stands to earn far more in return.

Studies done by state labor departments have typically found that when a Wal-Mart moves into a community, for every 1 job they create, they displace 3-5 local jobs, jobs which typically paid better and offered things like health care and other benefits. In other words, Wal-Mart destroys more jobs than it creates and the jobs it creates are less well compensated.

Do these studies account for what is done with the money saved by Walmart's customers?

With respect, the numbers don't seem to bear that out. Studies done by state labor departments have typically found that when a Wal-Mart moves into a community, for every 1 job they create, they displace 3-5 local jobs, jobs which typically paid better and offered things like health care and other benefits. In other words, Wal-Mart destroys more jobs than it creates and the jobs it creates are less well compensated.

I don't know if you have taken economics yet, but if you have you should realize that this is exactly the way it should work.

Wal-Mart is not in the business of creating jobs. Wal-Mart is in the business of distributing consumer goods. The compete with other distributors of consumer goods (Target, Sears, etc.). If they are more efficient at their business than others they will be able to offer lower prices and they will gain market share.

How is their efficiency measured? Well, the bottom line is that it is measured by comparing the amount of goods they distribute to the resources they consume to do it. Resources are things like capital (land, buildings, vechcles, etc.) and labor inputs.

If Wal-Mart is more efficient than other distributors they will require fewer inputs, which in this case means less labor. It just stands to reason that when Wal-Mart starts distributing consumer goods in a community, the overall labor for this activity will decrease. There will be fewer jobs.

Short-term it would be much more comfortable for the displaced workers if Wal-Mart never showed up on the horizon and they kept their inefficient jobs. Long-term, the entire country is healthier and more competitive with Wal-Mart because we can divert that labor to more productive uses.

Does one really need to make that much more than everyone else in order to be motivated?

The question is moot. It assumes a false premise.

The purpose of people who are in business is to make money, not motivate anyone else.

"In Europe, CEOs typically earn between 10 and 15 times the average salary of their workers."

Why is Europe relevant?

What mechanism, following our constitution and laws, would be employed to deter Walmark, from expanding their business, and from competing?

Why are the small companies owed anything? Why should consumers pay higher prices, in order to prop up inefficient companies?

Remember buggy whips?

With respect, the numbers don't seem to bear that out. Studies done by state labor departments have typically found that when a Wal-Mart moves into a community, for every 1 job they create, they displace 3-5 local jobs, jobs which typically paid better and offered things like health care and other benefits. In other words, Wal-Mart destroys more jobs than it creates and the jobs it creates are less well compensated.

That, my friend, is called efficiency. It is a GOOD thing. When more cars can be built by fewer people in less time, then the wealth of the entire nation grows. Again, that is a GOOD thing! It frees up human capital to do other things (further diversifying and expaning the national economy), it brings prices down (greater supply = lower cost), and it even helps the environment (less energy generation required)!!!!

Liberals always whine about the individual who may be inconvenienced by the success of the national economy, yet they never bother to think that the individual can, like any freaking mammal, ADAPT to its circumstances! Humans even have the ability to CHANGE their circumastances!!

How is it that liberals (who think of humans as less able than mammals) are able to garner so many votes? Oh, that's right, plenty of Americans are happy to simply live as sheep.

"In the US right now, the average CEO compensation
package is over 400 times that received by their employees. 400 times?! Does one really need to make that
much more than everyone else in order to be motivated?"

This situation will not survive much longer, and the adjustment will be due to the free market. I know you see it as some sort of moral failure that we let CEOs make that much money, when in reality it's not a moral issue at all, and the situation will correct itself due to foreign competition.

Outsourcing has gone from moving the lowest-level jobs overseas to the current situation where the higher level jobs are being shipped offshore. But there is one more level of outsoucing to take place: The next outsourcing we will see will be companies, not just employees, and then there will be whole industries (this has already happened, I'm just saying it will be more pronounced) which will move offshore. Companies can be started elsewhere and they won't have to pay CEO's outrageous salaries, increasing the efficiency of the operation dramatically.

This is how capitalism works. It finds the inefficiencies and turns them into positives. During the transition, though, there is great turmoil and lots of people's lives affected. You say, "but there's an alternative". Not really. You can't let the inefficiencies of a system remain forever. Eventually the structures will fall down.

You want to talk about wealth inequity? Go visit Europe sometime. Look at all the castles, palaces, and fine estates over there. This is because the vast majority of the capital in those countries was held in a very few hands, namely the nobility, for centuries. You may think our system is extremely inequitable but we have comparatively few castles and estates in this country, and the wealth is spread around a greater number of people.

Also, you want to talk about inequity? Why is it that the bottom half of income earners pay NO income tax? Does that seem equitable to you? If so, why? Those people are using the same services as the wealthy, yet they pay nothing for the use of the services. Fairness goes both ways, not just one.