Corporations are whining to the government for bailouts and whining to the consumers through the media to get out and shop and spend money to strengthen the economy. The reason for the entire recession, and for most, if not all recessions, depressions, and various other “downturns” or “slowdowns” or “adjustments” throughout history, is GREED. Greed is short sighted. Greed shoots itself in the foot.
It works like this:
The people with the wealth and power, namely the government, the money lenders, the manufacturing and retail industries, etc…, grow accustomed to their levels of wealth and power rather quickly, and always want MORE.
More wealth and power can be gotten fairly, though not easily, by innovation and hard work and good deeds. Providing ever better products and services wins new customers who are undecided or who support the competition, and increases the loyalty of already supportive customers. Giving back to employees improves morale and thus increases productivity. Helping the community with charity and projects increases brand awareness and provides a positive image that attracts new business from consumers and other businesses.
However, the easiest, and the far more often practiced methods of acquiring more wealth and power are decreasing wages, salaries, benefits, and number of workers, and increasing the work/jobs done by each worker and increasing prices for the consumers. In this way, you get something while giving nothing.
The problem with these selfish, greedy methods of gaining wealth and power are that they are not sustainable; they only works for a finite period.
When you lower incomes and increase costs for long enough, the consumers start to spend less, participate in boycotts, and/or are simply unable to afford goods and services.
When businesses complain and whine about things like slow Christmas sales seasons, they should keep in mind that if they had not kept laying people off and paying people less and giving people less sick time and less health care and then firing them for missing work when sick or injured, then more people would have jobs, more people would have better jobs, and more people would have more disposable income, and thus more people would be shopping and spending more money, and thus sales would be better.
Corporate America would have us believe that they lowered wages and raised prices to make up for slow sales, but how likely is it that everyone would have stopped spending money on things we want and need if we all still had the money to do so?
This blame-throwing game resembles the old riddle of “which came first, the chicken or the egg?” It doesn’t help anybody. You can’t just ask people who don’t have jobs and money to go out and shop. You have to give them jobs and pay them enough, and then they can shop.
Any company that says it can’t afford to keep it’s employees or pay them adequate wages because of slow sales should take a look at their executive’s salaries. Maybe if they trimmed some of that FAT, they could keep their workers on, and their workers could afford to shop, and the economic engine could keep turning!
Or maybe inspiring sales is just about marketing…An article on Newsweek entitled “Is The Mall Dead“ got me thinking. The article talks about how traditional malls are closing down around the country, and fewer new ones are being built each year. I have noticed in the Dallas / Fort Worth metroplex here in Texas that malls have had slow business and have been failing for at least a decade, but especially the last few years. I have noticed, however, that “outlet” malls, which advertise neverending sales where the prices never really seem to change but the advertising does, seem to be doing well and cropping up everywhere. So, I say, to revitalize the failing “malls”, just turn them inside out! Take the metal fire exit doors and cement walls from the back/outside of the mall, replace them with fancy glass walls and doors, put up signs that say “whatever sale” and/or “entire store up to X %” off, and the customers will flock to them!
The Huffington Post has published an article entitled “What Barack Obama should learn from Dick Cheney“.
The article makes some good points about what Cheney-esque procedures could help him influence policy in various positions and branches of the government.
I have to speak out about the scary prospect of Obama actually mimicking any actual Cheney policy:
Cheney is as much the face of evil as the Emperor on the Star Wars movies. He’s a rich angry old man who doesn’t care about the environment or anybody who is not rich and white. He is the true leader of our country. Dubya is a simple-minded figure head for Dick and papa Bush’s other friends in government and private industry. Cheney and his secret underground government are all about allowing Haliburton and other offensive “defense” contractors to build a financial empire across the world by whatever means possible. And if you disagree with him, he’ll shoot you in the face.
Hopefully, Obama won’t learn anything from this demon.
It’s no surprise that companies are looking online, primarily at search engines and social networks, to find out more about job applicants, especially when we have more job seekers than jobs at present.
There is a good and bad side to this.
On the one hand, if someone has content or links to content involving subject matter which can reasonably identify them as a threat to workplace harmony and safety, like swastikas, confederate flags, rape and/or snuff films, child pornography, glorifying of guns, knives, or other weapons, etc…, then I feel that it’s fair to use this information to make a hiring decision, to prevent possible harassment, discrimination, verbal abuse, and assault amongst employees.
On the other hand, while there is really no way to track or prevent or prove it, those responsible for hiring can use a person’s online presence as an indicator of their personality to discriminate against them wrongfully. If someone’s hobbies or attitudes, or more importantly, their politics or religion, differ from those of the company or more specifically, of the persons sorting through applicants and/or making the hiring decisions, being different can mean not getting the job.
I suppose, in some instances, this could also work to one’s advantage. In certain cases, a person might be hired BECAUSE they had sexy photos of their self online, or because their hobbies or beliefs were shared by someone in the hiring process, but this too would be discrimination; against the other applicants whose profiles online were less appealing.
The very nature of the Internet allows for anonymity and/or alternate identities, and a great many people use this feature to their advantage. However, even if a person used a nickname / pseudonym / handle / address that did not give away who they really are, offline, their identity might still be found if their real name or a personally identifying email address were used to create the account.
I have never been posted to the Internet anonymously or with an alternate identity. Everything I have done online, since I first used the web and email in 1995, has always been with my real name. This is because I am proud to live in a “free” country, where I have freedom of speech, religion, and the press. I have never been ashamed of or guarded with my opinions. I am sure I am not alone in this feeling. There are other people who use their real identities online. As time goes on, and the country gets split more and more between radical extremists of different types, and less accepting of honesty and opinion and more worried about “political correctness”, I have more concerns, if not even regrets about my policy of truth.
If you blog, or chat, or network, or post pictures, music, or movies of your art, or of yourself and/or acquaintances engaging in any activities or expressing any opinions or beliefs online, you are bound to be found offensive to someone, somewhere, and it just might prevent you from getting jobs, and in some cases, even cost you one you already have.
Big Brother IS watching.
Credit is Corporate Terrorism
Do you have the mark of the beast?
It’s everywhere you want to be.
Don’t leave home without it.
It’s the mark that pays you back.
Priceless…
C’mon! Live above your means.
Become an indentured servant for life.
Support the money lenders.
You may already be approved!
Old white people are dying off, and latinos, blacks, and liberal young whites are taking over. Amen. Change may be possible, even in Texas. Read More…
Apparently, Obama, who just got elected and has not taken any executive actions yet, is responsible for the economic recession we’ve been experiencing for some time now, among other things. Nutjobs like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are projecting the misdeeds and failures of the Bush administration and the private sector economic powers onto the newly elected Democrat. Read More…
Jack Cafferty’s page on CNN has a great dialog going on between posters about changes needed to our voting system: http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2008/11/04/change-the-way-we-elect-the-president/
This blog has moved to mark.baland.net/blog.
|
