Would you give up a significant amount of your first world comfort to elevate the rest of the world?

[Rudy]

You said "country" (in bold), not government. Giving money to the government is equivalent to flushing it down the toilet.

LOL! Yea, I agree with you on that one but that is kind of the way we do things. It is the way.

 

[RealityNow]

Quit your whining and love your fellow man you little shit.

He can't !!!!! he gets a daily high through hate

 

[RealityNow]

1 John 3:17
But if anyone has the world's goods and sees his brother in need, yet closes his heart against him, how does God's love abide in him?


Deuteronomy 15:11
For there will never cease to be poor in the land. Therefore I command you, ‘You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land.’


Matthew 6:1-4
“Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. “Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.​

 

[skeptic llc]

It is usually advancements in technology rather than government policies that are the greatest forces in an economy. Containerships are what make outsourcing of production possible. Just in time shipping and inventory are made possible by containerships. Western companies could have outsourced the production of goods to developing countries 60 years ago, the problem was logistics. Containerships are what solved that problem.

Got it, interesting. I don't know anything about shipping; I had assumed (without considering) that it was just gradual decrease in shipping costs rather than a particular innovation.

 

[TurtleDude]

The standard of living for Americans has radically declined and will continue to. Of course, you as a white privileged old white man on fixed income are safe.

what???

 

[weaver2]

Some people seem like they will never be satisfied with the world because things are unequal. How many of us here on this forum are benefiting unequally from the first world? I know I am.

We like to call aggression of multinational corporations against weaker countries for their raw materials, capitalism. But, it is really government subsidized takeovers. So far the benefits have out weighted the costs and we continue to ignore what huge corporations are doing, enjoy the elevated life style and scream globalism when anyone tries to address corporations calling the political shots in a global economy. This is a political problem and the lives of populations pillaged by corporations and living in poverty cannot be solved by individuals giving up cheap gasoline, 60 inch TV's, winter heat and summer cooling. It is a global problem and needs global control of what is causing the inequality. Finding people willing to do that is the Herculean task of our elected officials. So far nobody has offered them any support.

Eventually the gross poverty of exploited populations will become too costly to bear and we will be forced to reckon with it. But right now we benefit from exploitation. There is no incentive for anyone to give up anything. It wouldn't amount to a fart in a whirl wind anyway. We could bicycle to the store, listen to the radio for entertainment, wear more sweaters in the winter and fewer in the summer and it wouldn't change anything. What would make a difference would be electing people that are willing stop global control by corporation.

 

[Surrealistik]

Of course, but it comes at the expense of people who aren't in the union and and to consumers. In other words, a labor union functions just like another other cartel.

No. The artificially high compensation is achieved by restricting the supply of labor. In case you don't realize it, that harms workers who aren't in the union.

Yes, where do you think that aggregate worker power comes from? Further, non-union workers are only harmed if they are in direct competition with unionized workers which is typically not the case; unionized workplaces, and indeed unions in general work on the basis of labour hegemonies as you've pointed out, which I personally have no problem with, because otherwise employers end up with vastly disproportionate power over the individual unless that individual is truly unique or exceptional which doesn't describe the vast preponderance of humanity. If you're speaking more generally of workers not affiliated with that workplace, it actually benefits the non-union worker in that A: he becomes more attractive to employers for not being affiliated with a union and B: Unions in aggregate effectively raise general wage and benefit expectations and standards.

Also, higher union representation in general tends to mean more egalitarian distribution of resources and wealth per the concessions they are able to negotiate. As to whether the consumer pays for this, that's actually a more complicated question that pertains to how much of the labour cost the employer intends to absorb vs pass on which in turn is dependent on the competitiveness of the market as well as marketing strategies. It also begs the question as to whether unions elevate general incomes above any increment in product/service costs due to their greater compensation and this generally tends to be true, particularly where unions are global (like Norway).

 

[skeptic llc]

Tax policy can actually greatly change this. We can for example put punitive taxes on online retailers to make their prices more expensive than brick and mortar ones.

Surprised to hear this from you. So you would support, e.g., jacking up taxes on e-commerce in order to indirectly support traditional retail establishments? If so, would your primary motive be citizens' quality of life or economic opportunity for those left out in the modern economy, or both, or other? It seems you would also be comfortable with what many would consider social engineering via tax policy, whether you would agree with that characterization or not -- true?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

So basically you a government-managed economy.

Every economy is government managed to a degree

 

[Patriotic Voter]

You have obstacles to overcome. But there are jobs out there, working on a computer from home. You don't even have to interview in person, just fill out the forms. Surely you can fill out a form.

I need a job developer who works for the county or state to help me start the process because of my disabilities. You may not understand this because your brain is anatomically and chemically normal. Send me a PM if you need detailed information I can''t say here for privacy reasons.

 

[Surrealistik]

I think that mostly it is just that highly developed countries are transitioning to a knowledge economy and not everyone is equipped for that. It's not just the top 1% that has moved away from everyone else in terms of wealth and income, it's the top 20%, those knowledge workers that are best equipped for what our economy is transitioning to.

As an IT professional, I can tell you that in the last few years there are more jobs for Software and DevOps Engineers than they are qualified people to fill them.

I would disagree. While I do think that there are issues with structural unemployment pertaining to a failure of developed countries to retool and retrain, and that this represents part of the overall problem, the probable fact is that there aren't enough IT/STEM jobs to truly offset these existing trends with depressive wages and benefits, even if every last country had a populace educated enough to occupy them. It seems rather unlikely that pretty much every developed country is failing to transition in this way. Moreover, the increase in wealth of the top 1% is truly exponential, including vis a vis those 20% of knowledge workers. Lastly, even IT and the like aren't immune to the wage and benefit depressive effects of expanded labour pools as I'm sure work Visas can attest.

Further, on that note, you might find this break down by the political economist Mark Blyth on the subject to be illuminating, where he breaks down the impact of labour globalization and the consequent distribution of wages, income growth and wealth:

 

[Waddy]

I need a job developer who works for the county or state to help me start the process because of my disabilities. You may not understand this because your brain is anatomically and chemically normal. Send me a PM if you need detailed information I can''t say here for privacy reasons.

Good luck to you.

 

[Taylor]

I am ashamed to live a life-stile built on the backs of slaves and foreigners.

...he typed into his iphone while gingerly sipping his gingerbread latte.

 

[weaver2]

Of course, but it comes at the expense of people who aren't in the union and and to consumers. In other words, a labor union functions just like another other cartel. No. The artificially high compensation is achieved by restricting the supply of labor. In case you don't realize it, that harms workers who aren't in the union.

For 50 years wages of corporate executives doubled, tripled and quadrupled and nobody complained about costs being passed on to the customer. Yet, when workers ask that wages at least keep up with inflation the outcry about consumer costs is deafening. So, conservatives think executive pay is magical and doesn't add to product costs while increased workers pay raises prices, causes inflation, destroys the economy and restricts growth of the corporation.

People purchasing products and services drive the economy. The more money workers earn, the more they have to spend and the more profits increase. Ford understood that concept and paid wages that would allow workers to buy the cars they made. Conversely, if all the profits go to executives and workers wages remain stagnant the only way a company can expand is if the population increases. Increase population =increased sales=increased profits. International corporations have been, consciously or unconsciously operating on that principle for the last 50 years. It's why ALEC supports the pro-life agenda. Some countries have reached the tipping point and the only thing those populations can do to improve their lives is to migrate to less populated countries where wages are fairer.

There are only two ways to keep international corporations from driving wages down and populations up: unions or government control.

 

[Waddy]

For 50 years wages of corporate executives doubled, tripled and quadrupled and nobody complained about costs being passed on to the customer. Yet, when workers ask that wages at least keep up with inflation the outcry about consumer costs is deafening. So, conservatives think executive pay is magical and doesn't add to product costs while increased workers pay raises prices, causes inflation, destroys the economy and restricts growth of the corporation.

People purchasing products and services drive the economy. The more money workers earn, the more they have to spend and the more profits increase. Ford understood that concept and paid wages that would allow workers to buy the cars they made. Conversely, if all the profits go to executives and workers wages remain stagnant the only way a company can expand is if the population increases. Increase population =increased sales=increased profits. International corporations have been, consciously or unconsciously operating on that principle for the last 50 years. It's why ALEC supports the pro-life agenda. Some countries have reached the tipping point and the only thing those populations can do to improve their lives is to migrate to less populated countries where wages are fairer.

There are only two ways to keep international corporations from driving wages down and populations up: unions or government control.

You're not really understanding how executive compensation works. Most exec compensation is in the form of incentives and reaching goals. A sales exec compensation will be tied to sales goals, while a manufacturing manager might have cost containment goals. An exec might be hired to reduce payroll by 10%; and if that goal is met a nice bonus is paid out.
And yes, you do need consumers to buy those manufactured goods; but they don't have to be Americans. Often modern managers are hired because of their experience and expertise in global markets. The more product they sell in those foreign markets the bigger the compensation package.
So you move your manufacturing where overall costs (not just labor) are cheapest, and you target growing consumer markets (NOT America or Europe generally) that are just now emerging.
Would you rather own a cell phone company that sells only in the USA or a start-up cell phone company in Africa? Or India? Or China? Or Brazil?
Labor is becoming a commodity. It's all the same; so you look for where you can find it cheapest. That's why US companies hire so many foreign engineers, even though there are thousands of American engineers out of work.
Globalization has killed the union movement, except in things like domestic commercial construction. And that's simply because you can't offshore the building of new roads and office buildings. But almost everything else is mobile; it can be done anywhere. Unions cannot thrive unless they can control the available labor force. That's generally not possible anymore, except in those few exceptions like commercial construction.
Modern technology is making even the teamsters union obsolete.
The wealth gap will continue to grow; worldwide. Those who can manage modern technology (the technicians) and modern global business will do very well; everyone else is a commodity. Sorry, but that's just how it is.

 

[Surrealistik]

You're not really understanding how executive compensation works. Most exec compensation is in the form of incentives and reaching goals. A sales exec compensation will be tied to sales goals, while a manufacturing manager might have cost containment goals. An exec might be hired to reduce payroll by 10%; and if that goal is met a nice bonus is paid out.
And yes, you do need consumers to buy those manufactured goods; but they don't have to be Americans. Often modern managers are hired because of their experience and expertise in global markets. The more product they sell in those foreign markets the bigger the compensation package.
So you move your manufacturing where overall costs (not just labor) are cheapest, and you target growing consumer markets (NOT America or Europe generally) that are just now emerging.
Would you rather own a cell phone company that sells only in the USA or a start-up cell phone company in Africa? Or India? Or China? Or Brazil?
Labor is becoming a commodity. It's all the same; so you look for where you can find it cheapest. That's why US companies hire so many foreign engineers, even though there are thousands of American engineers out of work.
Globalization has killed the union movement, except in things like domestic commercial construction. And that's simply because you can't offshore the building of new roads and office buildings. But almost everything else is mobile; it can be done anywhere. Unions cannot thrive unless they can control the available labor force. That's generally not possible anymore, except in those few exceptions like commercial construction.
Modern technology is making even the teamsters union obsolete.
The wealth gap will continue to grow; worldwide. Those who can manage modern technology (the technicians) and modern global business will do very well; everyone else is a commodity. Sorry, but that's just how it is.

To be fair, it's not merely that globalization has invalidated unions; to be frank, the conditions still exist for unions to wield considerable power, albeit diminished. While it's true that their negotiating leverage has been reduced by globalism, they still have way more of it than an individual worker; for this reason, it's been corporate sponsored policy across much of the country to actively attack and legislate unions out of existence and otherwise marginalize and undermine them, along with complicit politicos being given all the right bribes (sorry, campaign contributions) and lobbying to effect this.

There are solutions to this trend, with the most effective ones involving trade agreements that require meaningful minimum wage, environmental and labour standards to end the race to the bottom which has been responsible for so much of this disastrous outcome of neoliberal globalism, alongside global efforts to tackle tax evasion/avoidance, and local reaffirmation of unionization and tax fairness, mandatory E-Verify (and equivalents; if Trump were serious about stopping the illegals as opposed to a dog and pony show this would be one of his legislative priorities) to thwart the downward wage pressures exerted by illegals on the lower socioeconomic rungs, and the nullification of abusive labour outsourcing trends like work Visas.

 

[BahamaBob]

Got it, interesting. I don't know anything about shipping; I had assumed (without considering) that it was just gradual decrease in shipping costs rather than a particular innovation.

Shipping containers have been around for a hundred years. First introduced to haul luggage. Later greatly used to move logistics in WWII. While they make a difference they are not the main driver in overseas shipping. Shipping raw materials to manufacturing meccas and shipping finished products to consumers has been the norm since the days of the British Empire.

It is more widespread today for several reasons. Originally much of it was due to labor costs. However with the spread of automation, there is little labor involved in the manufacturing of anything any more. The biggest single factor now is EPA standards and associated costs. For example, in the US if you manufacture anything involving a haz mat strict application, handling, and disposal standards apply. Making it very expensive. In contrast, in China there are no standards. You apply it in the cheapest manner possible and dump the refuse in a landfill or river.

Another reasons for increases in shipping are people have more disposable income and mass communication. In the past, shipping mostly involved clothing, raw materials, food and energy. Now they ship all kinds of electrical gadgets, automobiles, and toys. Modern people hear about these items in ads and have the means to buy them, creating a demand.

 

[BahamaBob]

You're not really understanding how executive compensation works. Most exec compensation is in the form of incentives and reaching goals. A sales exec compensation will be tied to sales goals, while a manufacturing manager might have cost containment goals. An exec might be hired to reduce payroll by 10%; and if that goal is met a nice bonus is paid out.
And yes, you do need consumers to buy those manufactured goods; but they don't have to be Americans. Often modern managers are hired because of their experience and expertise in global markets. The more product they sell in those foreign markets the bigger the compensation package.
So you move your manufacturing where overall costs (not just labor) are cheapest, and you target growing consumer markets (NOT America or Europe generally) that are just now emerging.
Would you rather own a cell phone company that sells only in the USA or a start-up cell phone company in Africa? Or India? Or China? Or Brazil?
Labor is becoming a commodity. It's all the same; so you look for where you can find it cheapest. That's why US companies hire so many foreign engineers, even though there are thousands of American engineers out of work.
Globalization has killed the union movement, except in things like domestic commercial construction. And that's simply because you can't offshore the building of new roads and office buildings. But almost everything else is mobile; it can be done anywhere. Unions cannot thrive unless they can control the available labor force. That's generally not possible anymore, except in those few exceptions like commercial construction.
Modern technology is making even the teamsters union obsolete.
The wealth gap will continue to grow; worldwide. Those who can manage modern technology (the technicians) and modern global business will do very well; everyone else is a commodity. Sorry, but that's just how it is.

You are 100% correct. Executives are people who put themselves in position to make money by creating revenue or saving money for the companies they work for. The company I worked for did the same thing for the workers. We set production goals and if they met or exceeded them they got an incentive check.

In truth, big government is the reason for many executives getting high pay. If you have the clout to deliver a lucrative government contract it makes you valuable. Hunter Biden is an example of this.

 

[mrdeltoid]

I put "other". I'm not interested in elevating other countries, while cities in the U.S. are as bad as third world countries. Elevate THEM, with the tax money they take, and I'd think about it.

 

[aociswundumho]

People purchasing products and services drive the economy. The more money workers earn, the more they have to spend and the more profits increase. Ford understood that concept and paid wages that would allow workers to buy the cars they made.

First of all, the suggestion that Ford raised wages in order to allow his workers to buy the cars they made is absurd on its face. If Ferrari paid all of its workers enough to afford a $250,000 car, they'd be out of business in a week. Or look at it the other way - if the Ferrero Group only paid their workers enough to afford a jar of Nutella, they wouldn't have any workers at all.

Ford raised wages to stop high turnover:

At the time, workers could count on about $2.25 per day, for which they worked nine-hour shifts. It was pretty good money in those days, but the toll was too much for many to bear. Ford's turnover rate was very high. In 1913, Ford hired more than 52,000 men to keep a workforce of only 14,000. New workers required a costly break-in period, making matters worse for the company. Also, some men simply walked away from the line to quit and look for a job elsewhere. Then the line stopped and production of cars halted. The increased cost and delayed production kept Ford from selling his cars at the low price he wanted. Drastic measures were necessary if he was to keep up this production.

That level of turnover is hugely expensive: not just the downtime of the production line but obviously also the training costs: even the search costs to find them. It can indeed be cheaper to pay workers more but to reduce the turnover of them and those associated training costs.

The Story of Henry Ford's $5 a Day Wages: It's Not What You Think

There's an argument you see around sometimes about Henry Ford's decision to pay his workers those famed $5 a day wages. It was that he realised that he should pay his workers sufficiently large sums to that they could afford the products they were making. In this manner he could [...]

www.forbes.com

 

[Waddy]

To be fair, it's not merely that globalization has invalidated unions; to be frank, the conditions still exist for unions to wield considerable power, albeit diminished. While it's true that their negotiating leverage has been reduced by globalism, they still have way more of it than an individual worker; for this reason, it's been corporate sponsored policy across much of the country to actively attack and legislate unions out of existence and otherwise marginalize and undermine them, along with complicit politicos being given all the right bribes (sorry, campaign contributions) and lobbying to effect this.

There are solutions to this trend, with the most effective ones involving trade agreements that require meaningful minimum wage, environmental and labour standards to end the race to the bottom which has been responsible for so much of this disastrous outcome of neoliberal globalism, alongside global efforts to tackle tax evasion/avoidance, and local reaffirmation of unionization and tax fairness, mandatory E-Verify (and equivalents; if Trump were serious about stopping the illegals as opposed to a dog and pony show this would be one of his legislative priorities) to thwart the downward wage pressures exerted by illegals on the lower socioeconomic rungs, and the nullification of abusive labour outsourcing trends like work Visas.

Looks like we have some common ground. My wife worked for a big national union for over 30 years, as a health and pension plan manager. Aside from the health and pension plan, the union had little to offer it's members. OSHA has taken over the fight for safe working conditions, and other federal agencies have authority over labor practices. So it's not much of what unions do anymore. And they are trying to shift training programs over to community colleges to have taxpayers pay for apprenticeship training instead of the companies. (Right now, usually, a company sponsors an apprentice). That's why most unions oppose universal health care. My wife said to me many times the unions needed the health plans to retain members. Having said that, shortly after she retired the union turned over the entire health and welfare (pension) operation to a contracted non-union company and let go over 150 union (OPEIU) office workers, who made an average of about $50K per year to an operation paying non-union workers just over minimum wage. They said it was a "cost saving" move. I'm sure it was. Keep in mind this was a UNION doing this. To other union people.
I do agree that trade agreements need to be more balanced and fair to American based companies. But that ship has sailed. As illegal immigration resumes under Biden-Harris, and China resumes business as usual, you will see much more downward pressure on wages; except the highly skilled technicians that can keep the technology up and running. They will do fine.

All my grown kids have highly technical jobs that really can't be eliminated. My youngest son manages several dozen highly skilled IT people and it's database. He doesn't even look at college degrees anymore when he interviews. He looks at what the person can actually do. And the right person gets paid very well. My son says he pays so well because if he doesn't, somebody will steal them away....like he did.
The world....the entire globe...is becoming haves and have nots. Divided into two unequal camps by skill sets. Those with the right skill sets will do very, very well. Those who lack the skills, or who are just average, are a dime a dozen.
There is no government program that will change that.

I'd add one more thing. The way marriage has changed has a lot to do with income inequality. In the old days kids married much younger, before careers were established, and often the wife stayed home and raised the kids. More often than not, only one of the parents was real smart, and the intelligence of the kids was probably mixed a lot. Today, as I have seen with my own kids, they wait until careers are made and then marry another real smart person making very good money. And the kids usually turn out extra smart, and will get the best educations money can buy. My oldest son's wife is a lawyer. My daughter's husband is an airline pilot, and my youngest son's wife is a veterinarian. Smart kids are getting married later, to other smart kids. This trend does not bode well for future income equality.

 

[skeptic llc]

Shipping containers have been around for a hundred years. First introduced to haul luggage. Later greatly used to move logistics in WWII. While they make a difference they are not the main driver in overseas shipping. Shipping raw materials to manufacturing meccas and shipping finished products to consumers has been the norm since the days of the British Empire.

It is more widespread today for several reasons. Originally much of it was due to labor costs. However with the spread of automation, there is little labor involved in the manufacturing of anything any more. The biggest single factor now is EPA standards and associated costs. For example, in the US if you manufacture anything involving a haz mat strict application, handling, and disposal standards apply. Making it very expensive. In contrast, in China there are no standards. You apply it in the cheapest manner possible and dump the refuse in a landfill or river.

Another reasons for increases in shipping are people have more disposable income and mass communication. In the past, shipping mostly involved clothing, raw materials, food and energy. Now they ship all kinds of electrical gadgets, automobiles, and toys. Modern people hear about these items in ads and have the means to buy them, creating a demand.

All seems to make a lot of sense.

 

[weaver2]

First of all, the suggestion that Ford raised wages in order to allow his workers to buy the cars they made is absurd on its face. If Ferrari paid all of its workers enough to afford a $250,000 car, they'd be out of business in a week. Or look at it the other way - if the Ferrero Group only paid their workers enough to afford a jar of Nutella, they wouldn't have any workers at all.Ford raised wages to stop high turnover:

Forbes' does not disprove Henry Ford's labor policy by equating it to Boeing paying worker salaries high enough they could buy a 737. It is a ludicrous comparison as is your Ferrari example. Ford was an idealist, and passionately believed that well paid workers improved society, and helped secure democracy and capitalism. His own words suggest that keeping turnover down was only a part of the reason why he believed in a living wage.


It is high time to rid ourselves of the notion that leisure for workmen is either 'lost time' or a class privilege. This is not to say that leisure may not be dangerous. Everything good may also be dangerous-if mishandled. When we put our $5 minimum wage for an eight-hour day into effect in 1913, we had to watch many of our men to see what use they made of their spare time & money. We found a few men taking on extra jobs--some worked the dayshift with us & the night shift in another factory. Some of the men squandered their extra pay. Others banked the surplus money & went on living just as they had lived before. But in a few years all adjusted themselves & our supervision was less needed.

Of positive industrial value is leisure because it increases consumption. Where people work longest & with least leisure they buy the fewest goods. Business is the exchange of goods. Goods are bought only as they meet needs. Needs are filled only as they are felt. They make themselves felt largely in leisure hours. The man who worked fifteen & sixteen hours a day desired only a corner to lie in &, now & then, a bit of food. He had no time to cultivate new needs, hence he had only the most primitive.

When, in American industry, women were released from the necessity of factory work & became buyers for their families, business began to expand. The American housewife, as household purchasing agent, has both leisure & money, & the former has been just as important as the latter in the development of American business. The five day week simply carries this further. The people who work only five days a week will consume more goods than the people who work six days a week. People who have more leisure must have more clothes. They eat a greater variety of food. They require more transportation facilities. This increased consumption will require greater production than we now have. Instead of business being allowed up because people are 'off work', it will be speeded up because people consume more in their leisure than in their working time. This will lead to more work & this to more wages.

Thus the result of more leisure is the exact opposite of what most people might suppose. Management must keep pace with this new demand--& it will. It is the introduction of power and machinery by manufacturers that has med the shorter day & the shorter week possible. That is a fact which working men must not forget. The eight-hour day was not the ultimate, & neither is the five day week. It is enough, however, to manage what we are equipped to manage and to let the future take care of itself. It will anyway. That is its habit. But probably the next move will come in the direction of shortening the day rather than the week."

Subject: Labor; Industry; Prosperity; Wealth
Source: Ford News, p.2. "Mr. Ford Explains the Five-Day Week"
Date: 10/15/1926

 

[weaver2]

You're not really understanding how executive compensation works. Most exec compensation is in the form of incentives and reaching goals. A sales exec compensation will be tied to sales goals, while a manufacturing manager might have cost containment goals. An exec might be hired to reduce payroll by 10%; and if that goal is met a nice bonus is paid out.
And yes, you do need consumers to buy those manufactured goods; but they don't have to be Americans. Often modern managers are hired because of their experience and expertise in global markets. The more product they sell in those foreign markets the bigger the compensation package.
So you move your manufacturing where overall costs (not just labor) are cheapest, and you target growing consumer markets (NOT America or Europe generally) that are just now emerging.
Would you rather own a cell phone company that sells only in the USA or a start-up cell phone company in Africa? Or India? Or China? Or Brazil?
Labor is becoming a commodity. It's all the same; so you look for where you can find it cheapest. That's why US companies hire so many foreign engineers, even though there are thousands of American engineers out of work.
Globalization has killed the union movement, except in things like domestic commercial construction. And that's simply because you can't offshore the building of new roads and office buildings. But almost everything else is mobile; it can be done anywhere. Unions cannot thrive unless they can control the available labor force. That's generally not possible anymore, except in those few exceptions like commercial construction.
Modern technology is making even the teamsters union obsolete.
The wealth gap will continue to grow; worldwide. Those who can manage modern technology (the technicians) and modern global business will do very well; everyone else is a commodity. Sorry, but that's just how it is.

I am fully aware of how executive level jobs are compensated. Every statistic shows that these salaries are detrimental to society and wage workers.

A large, well educated middle class that understands the controls that keep government and business honest is essential in order to maintain the fairness and freedoms of a democracy. An economy where corporate power is allowed to drive down wages, hold government hostage and confiscate wealth is not OK just because your kids are so far doing well. When executive pay is measured in millions while worker's pay doesn't cover living expenses for even one person democracy is being destroyed. The trappings of democracy may linger but essentially what you have is a oligarchy usually referred to as a Banana Republic.

You dismiss the labor of the "have nots' as work anyone can do and worthy of less than subsistance pay. If you look at statistics you will find that the 'have nots' are working, at jobs that are essential: garbage collection, bed making, dish washing, ditch digging, baby sitting, day care, LPN, receptionist, waiter, stock-boy, teacher aid, lawn-mowing, night watchman, etc. The list is long. And the pay is demonstrably unfair.

A democracy is a fragile thing. To survive and thrive people must be treated fairly (not equally but fairly) at the same time it gives everyone the freedom to work up to their ability.

 

[BahamaBob]

I am fully aware of how executive level jobs are compensated. Every statistic shows that these salaries are detrimental to society and wage workers.

A large, well educated middle class that understands the controls that keep government and business honest is essential in order to maintain the fairness and freedoms of a democracy. An economy where corporate power is allowed to drive down wages, hold government hostage and confiscate wealth is not OK just because your kids are so far doing well. When executive pay is measured in millions while worker's pay doesn't cover living expenses for even one person democracy is being destroyed. The trappings of democracy may linger but essentially what you have is a oligarchy usually referred to as a Banana Republic.

You dismiss the labor of the "have nots' as work anyone can do and worthy of less than subsistance pay. If you look at statistics you will find that the 'have nots' are working, at jobs that are essential: garbage collection, bed making, dish washing, ditch digging, baby sitting, day care, LPN, receptionist, waiter, stock-boy, teacher aid, lawn-mowing, night watchman, etc. The list is long. And the pay is demonstrably unfair.

A democracy is a fragile thing. To survive and thrive people must be treated fairly (not equally but fairly) at the same time it gives everyone the freedom to work up to their ability.

Total BS. First of all, corporate workers make twice as much as non corporate workers and they have better benefits. That is due to the leadership from the corporate leaders. Second, no one is locked into a low paying job. It is quite simple. Improve your job skills, improve your education = more and better paying job opportunities. Fact is, life is hard. It is even harder if you are stupid. Third, treating people fairly is not giving them compensation that they have not earned at the expense of those who have earned it.