I Wonder Why?

Why do better living standards of one group of workers always need to be lowered instead of those of another raised?
Auto workers in Detroit were living better than auto workers in Tennessee. Why do their living standards need to be brought down to the level of the Southern workers instead of the Southern workers brought up to the Detroit level? An argument is that the Northern wages are too high to compete. Somehow good benefits such as paid health insurance, pensions, freedom from abuse by management and good wags have been painted as unpatriotic. Workers in the “real American” part of the country would not expect such unreasonable terms.

Why do worker’s wages and not executive’s need to be reduced to stay competitive?
I saw an interview a couple of years ago where the guy heading up new product development for GM was bragging about the fact that beside him having a helicopter, his wife has one also. And by the way, they have a jet (though I think it is one for the both of them). Why are the costs for the sake of competition not taken from the salaries of the top executives and why are good benefits for workers wrong and great benefits for executives not? (I am not begrudging them their wages or the ability to spend them as they will, I question squeezing those at the bottom when times get tough. When our company was on the brink of collapse as the “dot com bubble” was bursting, we froze wages for everyone and cut wages for the executives with those with the highest wages getting the largest percentage cuts. And by the way, the difference between the CEO and floor sweeper was no more than a factor of 10, not 500.) The argument is that they have these great skills and if not paid huge sums they will not work. GM did not do so great under their leadership. Many Wall Street bankers did an even worse job and not only have retained their wages but have received increases.

Why is only labor and not businesses and investors asked to contribute to reducing the deficit?
Conservative governors vilify the sellers of labor (in this case public workers, particularly teachers) but don’t ask the buyers of labor (businesses) or investors to do their share. Yes; deficits can be remedied by cutting costs but they can also be eliminated by raising revenues. The argument is that if taxes are raised on businesses, they will leave the states and investors will change their investing strategies, thus eliminating jobs. Almost a decade of tax cuts introduced under the previous administration did not create jobs so one might expect raising them to the level before the cuts might not reduce jobs. Certainly reduced estate and gift taxes can’t be argued on the basis of job creation and are essentially a means of further concentration of wealth in the hands of the already wealthy.

Why is a union threatening to strike any different than a business threatening to leave or an investor to not invest in a way that benefits society?
In the case of Wisconsin, not only did the unions not threaten to strike but agreed to reductions in compensation while businesses and investors were not even asked to do their share, but received tax breaks increasing the deficit. The excuse for this was that businesses would leave and thus a loss of jobs so they were not asked or expected to share the burden.

Why is distribution of wealth bad and consolidation good?
In the last several decades there has been a major redistribution of wealth from the working poor and middle class to the wealthy. The “supply side” argument is that wealth “trickles down” and the rich are the creators of wealth. That being the case we need to make sure they can stay wealthy for our own good and further more they are the hard workers building our great nation so they should get the greater piece of the pie. (2/3 of the US GDP is personal consumption with less than 1/5 government spending. Spending is what creates jobs. Factories are holding on to cash because they don’t see customers. Investors invest in businesses that can show them customers. Customers come first then investors. The recent boom was caused by the consumer borrowing and buying, encouraged by investors making money from each transaction). The irony is that a significant portion of people working for wages supports this notion. They have been convinced that entrepreneurship is noble and our American identity while working for wages is coarse and somewhat foreign. Wealth is accessible to everyone if only they make a strong effort. Though technically true (I am an example of this) there are only so many openings for pro athletes, inventors and CEOs. As more wealth is concentrated in the hands of a smaller portion of the population, their advantage grows and opportunities for others shrink.