Choices made by business leaders yesterday affects what is happening today. These leaders only see the present and the near future, but don't imagine anything long term. They do craft business plans for that but honestly does it make sense that ten, fifteen, twenty years these plans all go exceedingly well? Probably not, so they innovate to make things work out. Yet, that innovation is only helpful for the present, and like a butterfly flapping its wings in China, you can never predict the repercussions of innovation will spread.
The pension plan was meant to ensure that the workers of a company was guaranteed a level of income well he retired. Health plans were also provided by the business leaders. These benefits to the worker were meant to stave of some form of social care and socialism by the government. It forced the business to be the ones granting workers benefits. The business leaders smiled because it weakened the worker's leverage. They are now dependent on the benevolence of the business leader who can hire or fire your and provide the benefits.
Yet, these obligations are too generous, and the business leader doesn't want to spend money on them. It makes them unprofitable.
Years ago, the Democratic president wanted to provide universal health care to the US. It was business leaders who didn't want to push for it. "We will end up losing money to ne'er do wells who don't work for us," they reasoned. Now they are coming to the government because they can't afford paying obligations that could've been ameliorated by universal health care. Couldn't these business leaders foresee that the obligations would've been spread around to every business and that their costs would've come down? Could they not see that having the burden of paying health care costs is making them uncompetitive with foreign companies who have their workers subsidized by government providing benefits? Are these business leaders smart?
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/08/28/060828fa_fact
The pension plan was meant to ensure that the workers of a company was guaranteed a level of income well he retired. Health plans were also provided by the business leaders. These benefits to the worker were meant to stave of some form of social care and socialism by the government. It forced the business to be the ones granting workers benefits. The business leaders smiled because it weakened the worker's leverage. They are now dependent on the benevolence of the business leader who can hire or fire your and provide the benefits.
Yet, these obligations are too generous, and the business leader doesn't want to spend money on them. It makes them unprofitable.
Years ago, the Democratic president wanted to provide universal health care to the US. It was business leaders who didn't want to push for it. "We will end up losing money to ne'er do wells who don't work for us," they reasoned. Now they are coming to the government because they can't afford paying obligations that could've been ameliorated by universal health care. Couldn't these business leaders foresee that the obligations would've been spread around to every business and that their costs would've come down? Could they not see that having the burden of paying health care costs is making them uncompetitive with foreign companies who have their workers subsidized by government providing benefits? Are these business leaders smart?
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/08/28/060828fa_fact
Labels: egg on the face, lotd, the market