Interesting article you posted there Rob... a subject which can lead to a wide range of issues.
I'll put my opinion forward and say that some of the salaries the top-executives is rather.. umm.. eye-opening to the average Joe. But the other part of me (the pro-glo-balisation side) accepts the arguement presented in this article about managers operating in a much more challenging and dynamic business environment which calls for greater skills in managing everything from the global direction of the business to what their competitors down the road are doing. On top of that there's also the risk of getting it wrong and possibly putting the company in ruins (no need to mention the host of corporations that have gone belly-up due to poor/criminal management). It's not globalisation that caused these companies to falter, but rather the pressures placed upon managers in not falling behind in the pursuit of global competitiveness. So in say that, I guess I can understand the millions being thrown at these top-exec's.
I agree with the article that protectionism is not the answer. It's counter-productive both in terms of company profits and more importantly it's counter-productive to the benefit of innovation that competitive pressures bring.
Quote:
|
Instead, the way to ease globalisation is the same as the way to ease other sorts of economic change, including the impact of technology. The aim is to help people to move jobs as comparative advantage shifts rapidly from one activity to the next.
|
Nice theory... but if only labour was that mobile. Competitive advantages can change very quickly as company's focus on providing something unique yet valuable to the consumer. This can change in a matter of days if need be, ...but it's certainly not possible to shift people from job to job that quick. And even if workers within an organisation could be shifted from one line of work to another, you can guarantee that their level of specialisation in their new job will be low. It will take time for them to become highly productive as workers, and time is also a key drawback in terms of training. By the time these workers do become specialised in their tasks, the HR manager will very quietly post a message on the company intranet stating these workers will again be changing their job description to fulfill a new corporate direction.
Mass redundancy will also not work due to the cost of the undertaken, and then the time and monetary cost of hiring new workers and training them as well as instilling a sense of organisational culture.
Quote:
|
It means an education system that equips people with general skills that make them mobile. It means detaching health care and pensions from employment, so that every time you move your job, you are not risking an awful lot else besides. And for those who lose their jobs—from whatever cause—it means beefing up assistance: generous training and active policies to help them find work.
|
Sounds like the government will be paying a lot of money to fund these theoretical ideals. .. and how does the article propose the government pay for all this? ..ah yes,... increasing TAXES. But wait, there'll be public outcry and groaning when a tax hike is announced, so eventhough it's for the peoples' benefit, society's not willing to pay for it.
Also, this idea of spreading money more evenly between the rich and poor via taxes.. well as much as we'd like the poorer people of society to improve their standard of living, the average Joe likes the fact that they are a class above other people (even if average Joe doesn't admit it, it's a psychological form of self-satisfaction, even a sense of self-achievement).
Globalisation is a fact of life nowadays. Blame it on the internet, blame it on profit-maximizing transnational corporations, or just go on and blame it on President Bush.... it doesn't matter who/what you point the finger at, this is the world we live in, and the quicker people accept that the boundaries between countries are continually diminishing, and that economic prosperity is good for all citizens, the sooner they'll realise that globalisation has many positives to offer them.
The best way to solve all this bitterness against globalisation is realisation. Explaining to people what globalisation can bring them could well be the key .. but I will admit that I follow a more business/economic line of thinking.
I look forward to others discussing in this thread..
