 |
Re: Economics or polemics?
Author: Economist
Date: 07-09-2015 - 17:21
BOB2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Interesting economic points...?
>
> So where exactly did you say you got your degree
> in economics?
>
> It's not the job of the union steward to run the
> company. It's the job of the union to represent
> their members through effective representation in
> collective bargaining to bring parity in
> negotiating power when seeking the highest level
> of wages, benefits, and working conditions in an
> often inherently asymmetrical market condition.
>
> It is the job of the management team to attempt to
> negotiate the most profitable deal in the labor
> market for the labor necessary to do the work
> necessary in order to maximize profits for the
> owners of the capital employing that labor.
>
> The long run equilibrium market condition from the
> interplay of these two forces would be the most
> mutually beneficial long run wage to both parties.
>
>
> The superfluous babblings about this labor
> management negotiating process to reach long run
> equilibrium wage levels which maximizes returns to
> both parties has nothing whatsoever to do with
> progressive taxation, income or benefit transfer
> programs, or anything whatsoever to do with the
> evil "gubmint" (Except that in our system we set
> the legal parameters for such negotiations through
> the rule of law...).
Jeez Bob2 come down from your ivory tower. You are right of course, but response reminds me of the simplistic law of supply and demand in my beginning econ courses. The real world is a bit more complex. But to give you a more substantial answer, the problem with excessive CEO compensation reflects corporate governance issues that corrupt supply and demand. Nobody really needs to be paid that much, but the members of corporate boards help each other. Best to fix corporate governance but that may not be easy. But in the progressive income tax we have an existing tool that might at least help get the process started. None of this is easy or simple.
-------------------------------------------------------
> Interesting economic points...?
>
> So where exactly did you say you got your degree
> in economics?
>
> It's not the job of the union steward to run the
> company. It's the job of the union to represent
> their members through effective representation in
> collective bargaining to bring parity in
> negotiating power when seeking the highest level
> of wages, benefits, and working conditions in an
> often inherently asymmetrical market condition.
>
> It is the job of the management team to attempt to
> negotiate the most profitable deal in the labor
> market for the labor necessary to do the work
> necessary in order to maximize profits for the
> owners of the capital employing that labor.
>
> The long run equilibrium market condition from the
> interplay of these two forces would be the most
> mutually beneficial long run wage to both parties.
>
>
> The superfluous babblings about this labor
> management negotiating process to reach long run
> equilibrium wage levels which maximizes returns to
> both parties has nothing whatsoever to do with
> progressive taxation, income or benefit transfer
> programs, or anything whatsoever to do with the
> evil "gubmint" (Except that in our system we set
> the legal parameters for such negotiations through
> the rule of law...).
Jeez Bob2 come down from your ivory tower. You are right of course, but response reminds me of the simplistic law of supply and demand in my beginning econ courses. The real world is a bit more complex. But to give you a more substantial answer, the problem with excessive CEO compensation reflects corporate governance issues that corrupt supply and demand. Nobody really needs to be paid that much, but the members of corporate boards help each other. Best to fix corporate governance but that may not be easy. But in the progressive income tax we have an existing tool that might at least help get the process started. None of this is easy or simple.
