Tonight, on the way home from my t'ai chi session in Round Rock, I heard a little of Clark Howard's radio show on KLBJ, our local Fox affiliate.
I don't know for sure if I've ever heard his program. I gave up talk shows long ago, when they all appeared to begin to cater to the non-thinking "dittohead" community. It appears that Howard had conducted a poll of his listeners, and was quite surprised at the results.
When asked if they would prefer that a company that was in financial trouble should "cut everyone's pay by 10%, or lay of 10% of employees and keep the remaining workers at their regular pay", an overwhelming majority of those polled chose the former.
I do not follow economists very diligently, so I do not know if he's right or not, but Mr. Howard said that most economists feel that the latter is better for business.
What if, perhaps, those economists are wrong? I do not give a lot of credence to meteorologists either.
When I mentioned this radio poll to my wife, her reply was, "If the company can continue its operations just as well with only 90% of personnel, they must have been badly structured in the first place." I think that I've never heard more wise and prophetic words on the subject, yet they're so simple in concept that almost any child would certainly speak them in response to the same query.
When George W. Bush, several months ago. said "We need a strong economy. A strong economy attracts capital", it made me mad. I could not help myself. Attracting capital is not the PURPOSE of an economy, no matter how important it might be to that economy. The bottom line is not the most significant factor of any economy, it's what it does for its participants. And anyway, an economy's most valuable assets (capital) are those who provide tangible product, not just cash.
It would seem to me, after almost thirty years of trying what was once called "voodoo economics" by a presidential primary candidate who shall remain nameless, an economy that worships stockholders should be declared a lost cause. Perhaps it has already declared itself a lost cause. Time will tell, and time's awasting.
It also made me mad when so many of the radio talk show hosts made fun of Hillary Clinton's book titled "It Takes A Village". The society in which I grew up followed that concept. Where have we gotten ourselves off to? In the country of my youth, I'll swear that it seemed natural for the community to work together.
In this village which we call The United States of America, why can't we decide to work together for the betterment of our country?
I, of course, am always right, but I'm willing to listen to the views of others, just to test my own convictions, and to perhaps enhance my experience. Does anybody ever do that any more????
2 comments:
I did hear that bit of Clark's show too, and I thought the same thing. Keeping everybody MOSTLY employed seems better than 10% of the people becoming NOT employed...
I think it's a matter of perception. We've been through a time when it appears that supporting the bottom line is the most important thing in life.
I have to admit that income is important, but why can't it be realized that the efforts of humans are needed to create that income. It doesn't just happen through the electronic transfer of digits.
And what's the point of having a "big box" full of cheap merchandise if there's no one with an income to buy it.
Post a Comment