Re: What happened to Japan?

From: Johnny 5 (johnny5_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 07/23/04 

Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2004 02:06:15 GMT

"Jim Blair" <jeb@wisc.edu> wrote in
news:cdp8ih$j9h$1@news.doit.wisc.edu:

>>....Companies like Walmart and McDonalds consistantly
>> report record profits the workers consistantly don't share in those
>> profits.
>
> Workers get wages, shareholders get profits. And in many companies,
> workers are also the owners. One year when I worked for a private
> company I made close to as much money from stock options as I was paid
> in wages.

That is the problem though, 20-30 years ago CEO's and board members
didn't get as much money as they do now. Effectively the owners and the
workers are so divided in big companies now, with the workers sharing
very little in the profits that the stock options for management and
dividends for shareholders take. You are the enemy of the worker with
your stock options, the shareholder is the enemy of the worker with thier
dividends. Who really did more for building the company? Who did the
Lion's Share of the work? Why does the rich ceo and his golden parachute
get the LIONS share? This wasn't as big a problem 20 - 30 years ago was
it?

http://www.pacificnet.net/~johnr/cgi/aesop1.cgi?sel&TheLionsShare

The Lion's Share

  The Lion went once a-hunting along with the Fox, the Jackal,
and the Wolf. They hunted and they hunted till at last they
surprised a Stag, and soon took its life. Then came the question
how the spoil should be divided. "Quarter me this Stag," roared
the Lion; so the other animals skinned it and cut it into four
parts. Then the Lion took his stand in front of the carcass and
pronounced judgment: The first quarter is for me in my capacity
as King of Beasts; the second is mine as arbiter; another share
comes to me for my part in the chase; and as for the fourth
quarter, well, as for that, I should like to see which of you will
dare to lay a paw upon it."

  "Humph," grumbled the Fox as he walked away with his tail
between his legs; but he spoke in a low growl.

        "You may share the labours of the great,
        but you will not share the spoil."

http://www.hotboards.com/plus/plus.mirage?who=pkarchive&id=
3994.8863888396941

By 1990, we had entered on the era of astonishing returns to top
corporate management. There was every reason to rid a company of the need
to pay dividends on the quarter. Rather earnings could be used to bolster
the size of the company or support stock option grants either of which
can vastly enrich top management. This was the top management era.

Corporate management became increasingly influential through the 1980s,
corporate Directors were increasingly beholden to management. When
management and directors are one and owner's [shareholder's] concerns are
set increasingly to the side, earning will be used increasingly to reward
management.

The questions you ask are interesting. Through the 1980s as corporate
size grew significantly there was a distincing between ownership and
management. Managers were the controllers, and as controllers they were
able to seat Directors who would be and were beholden to them. Find me a
Disney Director who is not a buddy of Michael Eisner. Roy Disney is gone
from the Board. So you have Directors who cater to managers, and to
management is where much of earnings my go rather than directly to
shareholders.

So the way I see it we have 3 entities, workers, managers, shareholders,
in the past they were probably more connected - but today in the age of
mega multicorps - they are further and further divided - with the workers
at the bottom - the shareholders a little higher up - and ken lay taking
the LIONS SHARE.

>> Family incomes - another deceptive number. When today households
>> routinely have two and sometimes three jobs to compare it fairly to
>> the single worker families of the 60's one would have to double the
>> income of the single worker family - wonder how it would compare
>> then.
>
> So the wife should stay home and dust and clean and look after the
> kids? Sounds like our Johnny.

I am glad mom stayed home and raised me instead of doing the 9-5 at work
all day - the gubbment and daycare is never gonna raise your kid as good
as you can - or do you believe the movie logans run is right when it
shows the little clone babies being raised by strangers?

> Yes, but not because foreign kids have pushed them out. We import
> foreign students into our graduate programs BECAUSE not enough US kids
> major in science to fill the graduate programs. The US kids COULD, but
> they don't. They study Women's History or "The Oppression of
> Minorities by Capitalism" or whatever, instead of science and math.

You have hit it on the head as it concerns my old city, it went through a
phase of hard science in the late 80's - then the politial science
lefties starting getting all these women studies programs and african
american programs etc etc and the president of the college encouraged
this because he was getting new money from the state for all this leftist
psuedo crap - and voila, a school that had lots of people - americans,
black, white, man, woman that were doing HARD science, suddenly turned
into this liberal arts crap and the only people willing to do the hard
science anymore was the imported chinese and indians who didn't learn all
that bull***. While sole and mia and blu cantrell were taking the
oppression of womens courses and chatting up brittney at starbucks in
between thier shopping runs at the mall, little slant eye was spending
lots of time in the library reading SCIENCE journals. It made me want to
puke. All work and no play makes johnny go crazy though right? hehe

>> They can't compete without a stable family life and an even playing
>> field. The stable family has disappeared at the same rate as the
>> increase of dual worker families and single parent familes.
>
> But the studies I see say kids with mothers who work outside the home
> do BETTER than those with stay-at-home mom's. The "problem" is not
> the working mother but the absent father.

I would challenge your studies, from my own experience and observations
of my peers back at school, having 2 parents was a good thing - and
having at least ONE who was always there for you sure was rewarding.

Diversity is good up to a point, having 2 parents gives more diversity in
your upbringing. Having at least one parent RAISE you rather than
daycare, tv, radio, marketers made for a better citizen from what I saw -
the kids who had been brought up by daycare and tv instead of an actively
involved parent or parents who took a lot of time with that child just
weren't as good noble people in my observations.

> I am all for giving those who want more, the opportunity.

Sole and mia and blu cantrell wanted more shopping malls and latte, yet
you complain our hard science education has suffered, you can't have your
cake and eat it too right?

> Bring back the Draft?

*** that ***, what a way to die, being forced to kill people because
the leaders didn't want to work for peace and then getting blown up -
horrible.

>> We need to extend public education to 2 years of college or trade
>> school.
>
> For those who want it? Or just to keep those who disrupt high school
> classes
> around for 2 more years?

Haha, I probably would have dropped out of highschool if it wasn't for
the class clowns keeping me laughing. They made me want to go to school.
Education and learning was secondary. I watch oreilly, but dennis miller
and jon stewart too, 1 dry news guy to 2 funny news guys - draw your own
conclusion. If learning was boring and not fun, it seems to me the human
tendency is to follow the fun.

Most people are willing to pay more to be amused than to be educated.
~Robert C. Savage, Life Lessons

>> Not a good thing - no one to raise the children.
>
> Kids raised by 2 working parents are not the problem.

It is so rewarding to know someone is there for you besides tv, and
nintendo and daycare, it makes you want to give back yourself later on
that you were given so much - these people I see that had no stay at home
parent, I feel they are just inherently more self serving and selfish -
they just don't have that plains indian benevolence. More a ruthless
competitive ideaology. I just saw a special on national geographic,
TABOO: the exploitation of children, in some country - I think it was
Nepal - they sacrifice a child's happiness so she can serve as the living
god of the people, and in bolivia I think they had these 12 and 13 year
old kids working in the silver mines because they could make such good
money, the poor kid was in there crying - heck look at our own culture,
gary coleman or shirley temple - how much of thier formative childhoods
and happiness were robbed because they had to PERFORM so the show could
go on?

>> >>...It's time to put that puppy to bed once and for all. Not once
>> >>has a raise in the minumum wage decreased the availability of jobs
>
> Oh?
>
> http://www.mackinac.org/article.asp?ID=356

Right, Mises makes this point, minimum wages get in the way of the free
market. We have the PROBLEM I talked about earlier though - the LIONS
share - the ceo's and management, the shareholders, and then the workers.

Back in the day, probably more in alignment than today - the fox and the
lion and the jackal got closer division of the stag - but not today - Ken
lay is getting it all.

How bout doing some research for all us members of the group - take the
dow 30 of 1970 and the dow 30 of 2004 - what was the division of income
of the multicorps back then between worker, shareholder, and management -
compared to what it is today? I want to believe that workers got more of
the pie back then, and today they are getting less - but I could be
wrong. The population shock of the baby boom made more workers back then
than owners probably, that trend is reversing though, as the baby boomers
age, they are holding more shares and working less - so in the past where
there were more workers to shareholders - that is changing perhaps with
the population shock of the babyboomers.

> So you can keep your video movie longer than you promised, (screw
> those other
> people waiting for it) and the find a lawyer to get you some money for
> doing that?
> It figures.

Look that whole PARADIGM is COUNTERPRODUCTIVE, we have the net now, most
homes in america have net access and could get cable boxes with on the
fly downloading - there is no need to waste trees and space distributing
entertainment in that form anymore, it is OLD HAT. It is just so these
big multicorps can pay MORE money to MANAGEMENT, same for the record
industry, the LIONS share does not go to the artist - but to the MIDDLE
MAN, his time has come and gone, if he won't leave willingly - he must be
FORCED out. 

-- 
Government policy in interest rates, and on finance generally, has been 
marked by vacillation, wishful thinking, electoral expediency of the most 
shameful type towards the end of last year, contortions and 
contradictions, all to accommodate the redneck economics of the National 
Country Party. (Harsard Aug.27 1981)