Stefan

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: Stefan

Spasibo tovarish! Now please to tell of strong emotional reaction you suffer.

Not as good as your earlier trolling.
Too short and too obviously just a personal insult directed only at me.
Even the insult is rather low quality, bordering on the childish.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Stefan

Is mistake, comrade. Forgive please Russian to judgment.

Жить стало лучше, товарищи. Жить стало веселее.

[vt]

Re: Stefan

Well Liz Warren is russian the controlcrat party who knows where:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/...oos-hard-left/

[dcarrigg]

Re: Stefan

VT, that plan just changes corporate board structures to be more like Germany and give workers a seat at the table. The National Review article you posted is histrionic. It's okay to oppose the idea. But Williamson is super dishonest about what he's arguing against. It's death panels all over again.

Here's the bill explained in her own words in the Wall Street Journal.

[vt]

Re: Stefan

Everyone's fighting the last war. Most are discussing the last economy.

We are no longer a manufacturing economy only. We are a knowledge economy, moving more and more that way rapidly

http://cepr.net/blogs/cepr-blog/the-...jobs-in-graphs

http://www.nickmilton.com/2016/06/wh...knowledge.html

Warren's added control mantra is for a bygone era. We are having fewer rote tasks and more creative problem solving.

This will only accelerate faster as AI and other technologies rapidly become mainstream.

You can't herd cats and you certainly can't herd tigers. Floating knowledge teams tackling specific projects and coordination of new ventures bring about a completely different and more cooperative relationship between managers and staff. Your assets walk out the door each evening. You have to work together.

Governments trying to intervene in this process can only reduce any progress.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Stefan

Governments trying to intervene in this process can only reduce any progress.

Government already intervenes. Right now, as it stands, the law creates a corporate fiduciary duty to shareholders only and corporations are chartered with a structure that allows shareholders to vote on boards of directors. Changing that arrangment to be more like Germany, where 1/3 of the boards of directors are elected by employees instead of shareholders is not radical government intervention. It's simply changing the government rules that are already intervening. Let's not forget, without government, there are no corporations. Corporations are a legal fiction.

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: Stefan

Everyone's fighting the last war. Most are discussing the last economy.

We are no longer a manufacturing economy only. We are a knowledge economy, moving more and more that way rapidly

http://cepr.net/blogs/cepr-blog/the-...jobs-in-graphs

http://www.nickmilton.com/2016/06/wh...knowledge.html

Warren's added control mantra is for a bygone era. We are having fewer rote tasks and more creative problem solving.

This will only accelerate faster as AI and other technologies rapidly become mainstream.

You can't herd cats and you certainly can't herd tigers. Floating knowledge teams tackling specific projects and coordination of new ventures bring about a completely different and more cooperative relationship between managers and staff. Your assets walk out the door each evening. You have to work together.

Governments trying to intervene in this process can only reduce any progress.

Thanks vt, those are great points. There is another view of things, though.

First, there is about zero chance that Senator Warren's idea will become law, and she almost certainly knows that.
Like so much proposed legislation these days, this is a PR move to bring an idea into discussion.

I am one of these knowledge workers you describe, and my experience does not show that managers behave in the best interest of their staff, and many are not one bit interested in a more cooperative relationship. If we tilt the table a bit towards the wage earner and away from the wage payer that seems good to me.

Back when I was the owner who paid the wages we owned just a tiny firm with only a few employees, and we all got along just great. But we were a tiny firm, and if I drove away one of our engineers it would be hugely damaging to me while I had to personally pick up the work and do it while trying to find a replacement engineer. But in big firms with many thousands of employees, staff are fully expendable and the management ranks are riddled with truly horrible bosses. Senator Warren's proposal only applies to corps with gross sales over a billion dollars a year, the giant firms.

Senator Warren also raises here the idea of corporate person hood that recently granted all the individual rights of natural people to paper business contract "people". More specifically she points out that those corporate rights seem to be absent any corporate responsibility.

You paint a picture where everyone plays nice and gets along for the common good. That ain't the world we really live in.

[vt]

Re: Stefan

I worked for a large corporation for 25 years, and while not in management, I was a top revenue producer with others.
I left 20 years ago and have done a much better job for customers.

I fully agree there are bad managers. and have seen it in person in dealings with top management at over a dozen public
corporations. I've also seen some damn good to spectacular managers.

The problem with giving workers a third of the vote is that this does not recognize reality.

Some large companies have leaderships that took great personal and financial risk to start and build them. There are other stakeholders. Customers are major forces and if they are not taken care of they vote with their dollars. Governments and
taxing authorities also have there part and control.

The issue at hand is workers. Some like DC and you suggest they have a vote on the board. Well as workers they may have a vote as stock owners through retirement plans and stock options. They have a vote as to who is on the board and can join with other shareholders. Management typically has a lot of stock but only a small percentage of total.

Workers are provided job opportunities and paid competitive wages and benefits, especially in this tightening job market.
They can quit and go to work for a competitor, start their own business like I did, and maybe improve their lot some where else. Workers also have human resources that can look into management misdeeds or even get some managers replaced or demoted if investigations warrant it.

With all these safeguards I don't see the need to introduce other constraints. Maybe in the economy of 50 years past, but even then strong unions existed to represent them.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Stefan

I worked for a large corporation for 25 years, and while not in management, I was a top revenue producer with others.
I left 20 years ago and have done a much better job for customers.

I fully agree there are bad managers. and have seen it in person in dealings with top management at over a dozen public
corporations. I've also seen some damn good to spectacular managers.

The problem with giving workers a third of the vote is that this does not recognize reality.

Some large companies have leaderships that took great personal and financial risk to start and build them. There are other stakeholders. Customers are major forces and if they are not taken care of they vote with their dollars. Governments and
taxing authorities also have there part and control.

The issue at hand is workers. Some like DC and you suggest they have a vote on the board. Well as workers they may have a vote as stock owners through retirement plans and stock options. They have a vote as to who is on the board and can join with other shareholders. Management typically has a lot of stock but only a small percentage of total.

Workers are provided job opportunities and paid competitive wages and benefits, especially in this tightening job market.
They can quit and go to work for a competitor, start their own business like I did, and maybe improve their lot some where else. Workers also have human resources that can look into management misdeeds or even get some managers replaced or demoted if investigations warrant it.

With all these safeguards I don't see the need to introduce other constraints. Maybe in the economy of 50 years past, but even then strong unions existed to represent them.

Like I said before, vt, the good news is that you're winning. All your preferred policies are already implemeted.

The only caution I'll give you is the one I've given before. Be rigid and force the majority to suffer more and more and fall further and further behind at the same time you give more and more wealth and positions of power to inheritors and reward bloodlines and compound interest over merit and hard work, and soon enough the corporations and the government will be run by idiots with pure bloodlines, and smarter, harder working, poorer peasants they Lord over will grow to resent their ever worsening deal until we hit a breaking point.

You're getting exactly what you want and everything you want in the short term. But by punishing people who work for a living and rewarding people who don't, you're making the whole system more brittle with each passing day. Inflexible domination inevitably leads to rebellion. You can't have the folks at the top keep taking a larger and larger share of the pie every year and have nobody notice.

[Mega]

Re: Stefan

[vt]

Re: Stefan

DC, The savings ethic and compound interest is available to anyone.

The capital gains advantage is available to anyone who saves, after income has been taxed please note, and takes the risk of holding risk assets over some times many years.

The inheritances that concern you came after either gift tax (see Romneys' children's trust) or estate and inheritance taxes. No one is avoiding taxes.

The problem is some seem to not look at the actual facts before they criticize.

While we were not rich, my blue collar family worked hard for many hours, did not waste money, saved, and invested a little.
I worked from 14 on and still am, while receiving social security.

Why do you wish to further tax those that have also worked hard, contributed maybe by creating jobs, saved, and compounded. And by smart decisions too may have accumulated $10 or more million dollars. They are already paying the most taxes so those at low income can have a safety net.

Where were these arguments 10 years ago?The previous administration did nothing to investigate and indict those responsible. No one went to jail.

The previous was supposed to take taxpayer money to create jobs and stated they were going to build infrastructure and hire Americans to do the construction at high wages. Instead the money bailed out some of the banksters and some went to political payoffs to supporters.

[dcarrigg]

Re: Stefan

DC, Where were these arguments 10 years ago?The previous administration did nothing

http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...s-for-the-rich