Robert Reich in his book Beyond Outrage: What has gone wrong with our
democracy, and how we can fix it, has a great bit at the end of his book
related to the Citizens United court decision. If we want citizens to
voluntarily make the pledge of allegiance to our country and if corporations
are people, then should they not voluntarily make a pledge of allegiance as
well?
Here is his idea of how that pledge could
look:
Our corporation pledges
allegiance to the United States of America. Top that end:
We pledge to create more jobs in
the United States than we create outside of the United States, either directly
or in our foreign subsidiaries and subcontractors.
We further pledge that no more
than 20 percent of our total labor costs will be outsourced abroad. If we have
to lay off American workers at a time when we’re profitable, we will give those
workers severance payments equal to the weekly wage times the number of months
they’ve worked for us.
We pledge to keep a lid on
executive pay so no executive is paid more than fifty times the median pay of
American workers. We define “pay” to include salary, bonuses, health benefits,
pension benefits, deferred salary, stock options, and every other form of
compensation.
We pledge to pay at least 30
percent of money earned in the United States. We won’t shift our money to
offshore tax havens, and we won’t use accounting gimmicks to fake how much we
earn.
We pledge not to use our money
to influence elections.
I
think that is impressive and think how our country would improve if such a
pledge were made and followed. It also seems reasonable that we should expect
this type of commitment from our corporations.
#1 and #2 are pretty hard due to government policies (overtaxation, overregulation, forced unionization) that encourage companies to offshore jobs.
ReplyDeleteIt might be a "cinch" if these bad government policies were changed, though.
The massive "severance payments" asked for is an unearned handout. Since money doesn't grow on trees, it would have to be paid for, most likely with cut wages or benefits.
The "lid" one is downright silly, since it makes no sense other than to pay people for the actual value of their work. And some work is worth a lot more than others. If a company wants to pledge to hand out pay without regard to work, it is self destructive.
"We pledge to pay at least 30 percent" is senseless too.
The last one about "influence elections." is downright outrageous if it is using left-newspeak which seeks to censor and condemn people merely speaking out on issues as "influencing elections". I would hope that people in companies would exercise fully their right to speak out on elections and issues.
I would hope that no company adopts these self-destrucive policies.
Except perhaps the first two, which would be easy to comply with if the government stopped forcing companies to offshore in the first place.
But even then, several of them are jingoistic, "America First" isolationist-leaning. Ignoring the fact that some people in other countries do some things better than Americans.
Most interesting comments. I'm not sure if you would love to live in the 19th century but you sound like it often. You also seem to have a fondness for the early history of our country but we live in an entirely different world than then.
DeleteWho decided the "actual value of people work"? I think there should be a connection, but who is to decide? Social value ought to have a bearing here. And by what stretch of the imagination can you justify CEO salaries and demean people who work at the poverty level. That is easy to define, the ability to have food, shelter and clothing and some savings for the future and improvement.
I believe in a world market but your last paragraph goes beyond credulity. Reich speaks of what is good for our country and that is sensible, pragmatic, and even patriotic.
You appear to consistently promote anarchistic ideas as though the government is inherently evil. I believe the founding fathers (and mothers) had wonderful ideas, that worked well in the beginning, had growth problems as the country grew and capitalism lacked controls, prospered when the government played its appropriate role at the beginning of the 20th century, and has fallen away again with 19th century ideas and modern robber barons of the era that Reagan began.
A student of economic history can see these things fairly easily, even in the midst of the irrational rhetoric of the nay sayers and the ideologically extremely who think Ayn Rand is more than just an interesting read.
Some promote ideas for progress others just tear now and seek to take us back to a Social Darwinism that is unethical, uncaring, and elitist.
And an addendum.... again, no, what I propose and defend is not a view of "anarchism" at all, no more valid than a claim that the ACLU opposing Obama on drones is anarchistic at all.
DeleteAnd the term "social darwinism", like the mention of Ayn Rand, is way out of place here.... if i might add, proposterously so.
"Ignoring the fact that some people in other countries do some things better than Americans." Like healthcare.
ReplyDeleteIt's true, BB. looking for as objective a listing as possible... Place like Singapore, Mexico, Thailand, Panama, and other countries.
Delete"...government is evil..."
ReplyDeleteNo, it is not evil. But you do need to realize that those who rule, even elected officials, are not omniscient gods, nor should they be allowed to be omnipotent. The founding fathers recognized this when they wrote the Bill of Rights. They understood human nature, and the nature of power. And no, these ideals and concerns are not out of date at all. If anything. they apply now more than ever. And this includes concerns over ignorant and arrogant elites forcing their personal shopping preferences on everyone against their will and against their interest by pushing policies that are against free- and fair- trade.
"...robber barons..."
Sorry, the term does not apply whatsoever here, especially to those who are not robbing anyone, and are paying people a fair wage (even if outsiders completely ignorant of the matters involved don't like it). If you want to know about the real robber barrons, read here, here, and here. They actually rob.
"...Ayn Rand.."
If anything is strainds credulity in here, it is somehow associating me with Ayn Rand.... when I favor a strong means-tested public safety net, and a lot of strong and meaningful restrictions and regulations on companies, such as non-discrimination, laws against fraud and for disclosure, ADA, FMLA, etc.
"...Who decided the actual value of people's work"
This isn't rocket science. It shouldn't be, anyway. to anyone who has ever been involved in these matters. The actual value is determined by the people involved. No one else is qualified or even informed enough to say anything.
"...poverty wage..."
Go ahead and try to tell me what this is. It will be so much harder than you think.... and you will find out that the term really has little meaning.
"...anarchism..."
This is real rich, seeing my views which oppose the ruling elites from meddling in matters they know nothing about, while supporting a massive amount of society control, and the "Bill of Rights" as anarchism.
As for my last paragraph, that was my strongest. Anti-worker activist Robert Reich's views against free and fair trade with foreign countries are indeed a form of jingoism. Sorry, it's the sort of patriotism we don't need. Patriotism is best served ad doing the best, not by doing a lousy job and beating up (figuratively or worse) those who do things better than us.
Reich speaks in favor of what is bad for our country, and it is not anything pragmatic and sensible.
Value of people's work ""...Who decided the actual value of people's work"
ReplyDeleteThis isn't rocket science. It shouldn't be, anyway. to anyone who has ever been involved in these matters." It
can approach areas of rocket science . In places I worked, there were numerous skill levels; in addition to the fixed & variable business costs vs profit margin, the HR folk performed yearly studies of competitor wages, similar position pay, area pay/std of living. Among the many hats I wore, was preparation of an annual budget which was based on a product cost deck. One of the variable costs was labor, overtime vs std hrs v number of workers v benefits v
productivity-which varied from janitor to researcher. Sort of a fair attempt to standardize the simple concept of labor seeking the highest wage and business seeking the cheapest labor. Left me thinking that there are over performers and under performers at every level that defy
the standards..and the subsequent leveling by termination/promotion. I suppose if one is hiring a kid to mow the lawn, the value of labor is 'simple', though.
Should that kid mowing the lawn be paid $10 an hour? Or more? The wage level for this is surely below the level that those fixated on "poverty wages", "living wages", etc have arbitrarily set.
DeleteGuess it depends a bit on a kid looking for spending money or someone who makes there living doing that; I pay one of the later. This site might be helpful
Deletehttp://livingwage.mit.edu/
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMy goodness what a tsunami of words this little piece created.
ReplyDeleteYou, dmarks, say you don’t believe government is evil, but your words often sound that way, when you with regularity demonize politicians and their corrupt policies (in your opinion) of government. Sorry, it just comes out that way to my ear. As to “robber barons” I was speaking more historically of folk like Carnegie, Rockefeller, and others who used the power and money to drive others out of business; those who created monopolies which hurt the economy then, and now. The Ayn Rand reference was extrapolated from what I see as your alignment with Paul Ryan’s positions; perhaps unfair. I’ll stand by my poverty level income description; compare it to Wikipedia if you would like, but most folk have a good idea of what it is. As for anarchy that reflects to view you seem to present in being anti government so much of the time. It is also about time you define “ruling elites.” So much of this seems like the rhetoric of the Tea Party which relies more on inflammatory words rather than reasonable debate. Painting Reich as a jingoist seems a bit of a stretch not fitting of extreme patriotism, chauvinism and nationalism. His books seem sensible solutions to national problems we currently have. At least I’m glad I gave you the opportunity to vent even though I think you logic is flawed. Such is the spice of life.
Now to value of people work worth. BB-Idaho I like your pragmatic definition of how that works in the marketplace and think it has value. But I think it falls apart when you look at CEO salaries and the like. Then there is the whole issue of social value beyond market value. Is a business CEO of such greater value than that of those workers in their company to justify the differences in pay or that a good educator that there are such extremes in the remuneration? Are surgeons of more value than family doctors, even if the market will bear their fees? I think training, experience, and proven expertise is important in assessing one economic value. But given those assumptions folk in my occupation (excluding the bible college or internet diploma clergy) who have education and training equivalent to doctors and lawyers are decidedly underpaid from that standpoint. I’m not lamenting here, I knew what I was getting into though we clergy (aside from RC clergy) do not take vows of poverty; but given our training our pay is not commensurate with others of similar ilk. The same is true for most of the helping professions though they have improved over the years. And then we have the whole area of professional athletes some of whom get ridiculously high salaries and other destroy the bodies and are no paid nearly enough.
Part of these bizarre salary and benefits inequities have led to the increasing move of wealth to the few ultra elite of our country.
I wonder what I can throw out next to create a furor among our small group?
“Everything is changing. People are taking their comedians seriously and the politicians as a joke.” ~ Will Rogers.
“Life is far to important a thing every to talk seriously about.” ~ Oscar Wilde
“I would like to take you seriously, but to do so would be an affront to your intelligence.” ~ George Bernard Shaw.
"when you with regularity demonize politicians and their corrupt policies (in your opinion) of government."
ReplyDeleteNot so much opinion, but objective fact heeding the definition of corruption. I don't call them demons, but I accurately describe what they do. And yes I do have a problem with those who do a lousy job while making princely sums at taxpayer expense.
Detroit City Council members, for example, as I learned today on NPR, get paid over $4000 per hour of work.
"I was speaking more historically of folk like Carnegie, Rockefeller, and others who used the power and money to drive others out of business; those who created monopolies which hurt the economy then, and now."
Really? Carnegie Steel is history. Rockefeller's oil company is one of many.
"The Ayn Rand reference was extrapolated from what I see as your alignment with Paul Ryan’s positions"
Rand would probably roll over in his grave at Rand's increased budget spending, including his strong defense of social "safety net" programs.
"...perhaps unfair."
Inaccurate more than unfair. Forgive my ignorance of all things Rand, but wasn't she completely opposed to all government aid to the poor?
"I’ll stand by my poverty level income description"
And what is it exactly?
"As for anarchy that reflects to view you seem to present in being anti government so much of the time."
Again, I didn't think that defending the basic human rights in the Constitution was any sort of anarchy.
"It is also about time you define “ruling elites.”
Those who rule. Is this one so hard?
"So much of this seems like the rhetoric of the Tea Party which relies more on inflammatory words rather than reasonable debate."
The Tea Party relies more on informed, positive solutions to real problems than on anything else. But some do find the facts, and the idea of defending our freedoms to be an inflammatory act.
"Painting Reich as a jingoist...."
Reich did himself with his America-first economic nationalism/isoloationism.
"... seems a bit of a stretch not fitting of extreme patriotism, chauvinism and nationalism."
His views on trade, presented here, do fit this.
"His books seem sensible solutions to national problems we currently have."
I don't think anything that smacks of protectionism, "America first", and crushing free-and-fair trade is sensible. But that is my opinion. Colored by the fact that I have worked with and talked to these "foreign devils"... those disliked by Pat Buchanan and Robert Reich... for years.
“Everything is changing. People are taking their comedians seriously and the politicians as a joke.” ~ Will Rogers.
That describe the rise of Jon Stewart and "The Daily Show" perfectly. But personally I think he is over-rated, and someone who thinks that saying the F-word is a good substitute for real humor or insightfulness.
CEO pay: A US Army Lieutenant General is responsible for 40,000 troops. Pay is $161,280 a year (plus $3000/yr for
ReplyDeletefamily separation. Seems like a good starting baseline to me.
My view of the Tea Party is tainted by the local
ReplyDeletegroup; two of the leaders collect full government disability. As for their informed solutions, I know one is a part-time evangelical
preacher and subscribes to any and all conspiracy theories. I wish they would get real jobs....
I really should have said that my view is "tainted" by the local tea party rallies. Very big among the themes in the signs were stopping corporate welfare, stopping the bailouts, and auditing the Fed. While there were no racist signs, they did go overboard on Obama = Socialist. And the minority contingent of the crowd was a little higher than I tend to see in the general population (outside the rally).
ReplyDeleteAs for "CEO pay: A US Army Lieutenant General is responsible for 40,000 troops...", fine with me if that is recommended in a letter to shareholders of a company with a CEO and 40,000 employees. I just wouldn't want a law to enforce that... unless the company is getting bailouts or perhaps even government contracts.
-
I will not bother with a point by point rebuttal of dmarks remarks as think it would be a waste of time but I will make a few comments. Being a wordsmith most of my life I work hard to use words precisely and without spin for good communication. I try to do the same in these articles. For example, “demonize” does not mean one is a demon but highly derogatory in remarks and that is true of my of what dmarks says; also why say ruling elites when rulers would do or more accurately – elected leaders. When I put things in historical context it is for informational reasons, again to be clear in what I am trying to communicate; and what I said is historically accurate. The poverty is as I have described previously as being unable able to provide food shelter and clothing plus growth and the internet reference fleshes that description more fully. I seriously doubt that you would find very many folk who would support your use of jingoism in describing Reich and his views; it is an overreach.
ReplyDeleteYour statement, “I don't think anything that smacks of protectionism, "America first", and crushing free-and-fair trade is sensible. But that is my opinion. Colored by the fact that I have worked with and talked to these "foreign devils"... those disliked by Pat Buchanan and Robert Reich... for years.” I find completely incomprehensible.
Finally, a joke is a joke. Will Rogers was a great wit, comedian, and political pundit who loved taking his shots at folk but good naturedly. John Stewart is very much like a Will Rogers of our era. A friend of my tried to excuse Rush Limbaugh’s rhetoric as being a comedian; I disagree, there is just too much meanness there to be funny. I see him in the same way as I enjoyed the wit and insight of Mort Saul, another thinking man’s comic.
I very much like the values expressed in BB-Idaho’s CEO pay guidelines. My experience with Tea Party members and evangelical preachers is also very similar. I have always preferred problem solvers to chronic complainers, “they doth protest too much.”
Fair enough.
ReplyDelete