Look, I will agree with some earlier posters on one thing: wage stagnation is a real problem. THANK WASHINGTON D.C. for the policies that drive this stagnation.
Correct. A LOT of the problems with our current labor market can be traced back to them. By the same token, they're also the (spit!) solution. Mostly by getting out of the way.
Note: We were in something of a hard spot though. Our main other choice was to go extremely protectionist, because short of that China's industrialization was always going to be a major spot of wage depreciation.
Good news though, they've caught up enough that they're no longer dragging us down(as much!). As they continue to advance from now on they'll be putting less and less pressure on depressing our wages(by producing goods cheaper than we can), so they should start rising again. Manufacturers are already 'insourcing' more and more frequently, bringing manufacturing back to the USA.
People "usually" get paid what their job is worth.
Right now it's more that people are paid, not what their job is worth, but a tiny fraction of it because businesses pay what they can get workers for, so long as the worker is worth more than their pay.
Running a major corporation is worth more than work as a janitor that cleans out that corporation's ash trays. It's also worth more than flipping burgers at Jack's.
True, and I have no problems with paying executives more, indeed, even most liberals don't have a problem with this. This guy is considered extreme even by them.
Where the problem with CEO pay comes in is when a business falls into what I'll call the 'star athlete' mindset.
Imagine that you're a manager for a sports team. Win the season and prestige, money, and all will flow into your pockets. Don't win, and well, you know. But there's a limited pool of players, and if player A is the best at the game(ever!) and you don't get him, he's going directly to one of your competitors. The result is a bidding war for player A's services, and they often get into a bidding war and lose perspective that Player A, as awesome as he is, might not actually be 'worth' that much money. He could end up hurt in the first game, not live up to his promise, etc...
CEOs today, at least the excessively paid ones, often sell themselves like the sports player - and they get paid millions for often what's often NOT millions towards the bottom line of the company.
Executives like Steve Jobs have their place, they do exist, but they're a lot rarer on the ground and harder to spot than the athletes. You can often get a CEO that's more competent, more solid, at an OOM less pay & benefits.
In a way people in the workforce today have it very well.
I think that most are viewing the post-WWII period as the 'high point', not pre-WWII labor standards.
It indicates nothing of the kind. No, people do not deserve financial stability. They do deserve the opportunity to create such stability for themselves through skill development and work.
Then they need to be given the opportunity for said skill development, which businesses are less willing to provide than ever, preferring to moan about not being able to do things like find welders with 5 years of experience for within pennies of minimum wage. By the same token, you also need the jobs to be in place for them to work.
It used to be that joining the military was a good way for an uneducated person to earn a living, learn a trade, etc... We talk on this board how there's too many people being college educated today, and not enough skilled people.
Given all the above, I have a few suggestions:
1. People being stuck with part time work because then the employer doesn't have to provide heatlhcare is a problem, mostly imposed by the government. I suggest we get rid of the healthcare requirements and such, so that rather than being stuck at 20-25 hours/week at minimum wage, they can at least get 40. That's more efficient for the worker. If that's not possible, put a stipulation in that if you don't provide 'full time' benefits, the minimum wage is now $2.80 or so higher per hour. (based off of individual coverage averaging
$5615 a year)
2. Start up some sort of federal program that employs people, and teaches them a trade in exchange for 2-6 years of work. Sure, that means that federal buildings and such will eventually have been put together and maintained mostly by workers who are still learning, but that's an acceptable trade, I think.
3. Restructure aid programs, wherever possible, to ensure that somebody working is better off than not working. A person working 20 hours/week, even(especially!) at minimum wage, should still see noticeable improvements in their life from such work, rather than the present problem of them often being worse of, financially speaking.
You want to know why prices are so high? The government requires it.
Despite all the new requirements, the amount of labor required in a new pickup is actually less than the '73 one.
As for the backing camera, well, one of my coworkers lost their 3 year old daughter to a backing accident. :(
And the other safety features also generally save money through reduced injury - what you'd save on a '73 vehicle's manufacturing price you'd more than end up paying in increased insurance costs.
