Stop buying Coca Cola and Asprin

So while the executives buy Mercedes and BMWs and vacation in the warmth of the southern climates, the workers should accept the fact they will be earning less in order to promote corporate earnings. Or should the profits sometime in the future be shared with those that slave to benefit the corporate gods? Minimum wage does one thing it reminds those that don't have to worry about the price of milk, what that actual cost is.

 

Should they? Ofcourse not.

Yet the world isn't a fair place... and very few countries can afford an increase of wage. The only thing that would bring such change to third world countries is a revolution, and ofcourse... the US will stop any such attempt.

 

No, they have to accept the reality of their economic plight, which is:

a) The economies of these states are underdeveloped. At the moment, they have little capital investment which seriously underscores their productivity, with productivity being the fundamental cause of economic well-being. Thus, they are relegated to selling unskilled labour (in manufacturing terms - the agricultural/natural resource side of the equation being ignored for the moment).

b) There exists huge competition for the relatively few unskilled labour jobs. With such an excessive supply of labour, wages are going to be low. Simply raising the minimum wage, or otherwise increasing the cost of labour, is going to drive investment away.

The fact is, it isn't up to the rich nations to develop their economies for them. They have to institute the required, and sometimes difficult to swallow, policies that will benefit them in the long-run, instead of some "quick fix" policies that will only render them less competitive.

It isn't impossible to develop an economy even without significant natural resources. South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Singapore have shown that it can be done.

Lets look a little further at some of the policies South Korea used. They picked certain industies to develop, namely electronics and automobiles. The automobile industry was chosen because SK had a decent supply of steel to work with. They then threw up protective tariffs to develop their own automobile sector (the infant-industry argument shown in tariffs) and then, when it was competitive internationally later (after the required education/skills/technology existed) they rejoined the market. Real wages increased after this, not the simple nominal wage increase you would see by simply raising minimum wage.

 

I'm afraid I have to agree with B.S. Rubin; the US is not going to allow any government in Central America that would actually help the plight of the poor. We've stopped every attempt to do so for the past 100 years, with the only failure being Cuba.

 

The cold war is over, mang.

It is pretty hard to justify now - the Monroe doctrine is dead.

 

It's not countries that pay wages but the corporate bosses. If the consumer would boycott goods manufacturered through cutthroat means, owners would have to pay a living wage, and that doesn't translate to 17 cents an hours. Let's not confuse countries with companies....who's interest are we really protecting?

 

Let's consider the inflated wages of executives, athletes and media "stars" like Imus...what makes them so valuable? It certainly makes them feel like they can get away with murder, rape and disgusting behavior.

Why not lower the overhead of companies by lowering the inflated upper level salaries?

 

Which is why it's even worse; we now have no opposition. Before, it was fear that the governments would be influenced by the Soviets and become "leftist" (i.e., communist) and therefore hurt our corporate profits. Now we reign unchallenged.

 

The marginal benefit is higher, and marginal benefit is equal to marginal cost.

It's the same reason that a diamond is worth more than freshwater, regardless of the fact that you need one to survive and not the other.

It's the principal-agent problem again. Paying upper-level management more in performance bonuses and larger salary ensures they do the best they can with your money.

 

LOL! You're joking, right? HAHAHAHAHA

 

Zzz money doesn't come from nowhere. Those pennies the miners are earning, as sad as it may be, are about how much as those miners and their work are literally worth.

 

diamonds are only valuable because chicks want em and there is a monopoly on them.
no matter how useless or expensive, anything a woman cant live without is bound to make any person that has to pay for it broke.

 

Not really... but if you want to think that then thats your mistake, its not even worth explaining the truth to it to you.

 

This can only mean one thing:

We have to kill all the women on earth in order to save the poor underpaid ethnic people!

 

Or you could take the none gay approach and just boycotte buying them for the Mrs.

But I'm sure that you would much rather play catcher so I'm sure thats why you justify your reply.

 

I know plenty of "chicks" that don't care for diamond, perhaps, you'd like to rephrase that.

 

Personally, I find diamonds to be too gaudy.

 

If men weren't constantly trying to bribe us to have sex with them we would never have known about diamonds. It's not like WE went digging in the ground for them...:tongue:

 

Actually it's the fact that those in the upper eschelons determine the amount of compensation for any job. Who gets more....why they do, because they determine where the overhead is distributed. Nothing is in/ensured. Look at Enron and Worldcom.

Diamonds, gold...if you are starving and don't have toilet paper to wipe your butt, they don't amount to much.

 

Perhaps if they and other laborers stopped working the employers would find out just how much their labor is worth.