What you describe no doubt is the most economically efficient system. As a conservative, I see economic efficiency as an important goal, but it is not a religion. There are other things to consider. The most obvious is what happens to workers who get fired or laid off later in life? People who put in 25 years on a production line or some such soul-numbing work. What are they supposed to do Get a job at Starbucks as a barrista? Many of these people will never get another job and will end up being more or less permanently on welfare. I see that as an external cost of the company's employment policy. We don't let them dump raw waste into a river, because it's not fair that someone else have to pay the cost of the cleanup. Is it fair for them to be able to dump their longtime employees on us? Of course, this very concern is why workers join unions. But havng to deal with a union is very disruptive and economically inefficient. I think we would be better off with less unions and some more rules about arbitrary layoffs and redundancy benefits.
While I agree in theory, and wish this were the way it worked.. it really isn't the market which solely determines compensation anymore. I think you'll agree that legislation, taxation, and regulation all help to make the free market, not so free. Also, they have the (hopefully) unintended consequence of raising the cost of living for everyone. A producer is not going to absorb additional costs, but instead pass them along to the consumer.
We need "smart and efficient and fair" tax code, "smart and efficient and fair" regulations and "smart and efficient and fair" government leaders, I don't see that happening.
The pattern was... cities rotted by giving out by financial mismanagement. politicans who created big, unaffordable giveaways to public unions, freeloaders and non citizens. screwing the hardworking productive base?
I'm not trying to come across as religious about it, I simply see it as better in every way. I think it is fair for an employer to cut an employee whenever they determine it necessary. An employee who has had a steady job for 25 years should have his expenses pretty well taken care of. That this individual would end up on welfare is not a given if he/she lives within their means. Also, this is the purpose of unions. I have no problem with parts or an entire workforce banding together to make demands of their employer. I have a problem with unions lobbying lawmakers for fixed compensation, or to lock out competitors. And situations like the UAW demanding unionization of say, dealers at a casino. lol what the hell does the UAW have to do with that? IMO, unions should be formed by employees at the place of their employment ONLY. If a union was formed and they successfully demanded a pension for example, then this 25 year employee would be retiring with something. One other thing, if there was no welfare, then the employee wouldn't be dumped on us. I know that's the way it is now.. but it wasn't always. And I do believe that the federal govt should not be involved. To clarify, they (feds) shouldn't be involved with any social program and instead of trying to fix these run away trains they built, I think their time would be better spent trying to figure a reasonable way out.
Do you really want to go back to the days of robber barons, company stores, union busting bosses and unsafe work places. I think America became great in the last century with the rise of the prosperous middle class.
Didn't I just say I support the right of a labor force to unionize. I just don't support these corrupt, power-hungry unions that exist right now. It's identical to my feelings on the federal government, I know it's necessary and I don't despise the fed govt.. just what it's become.
A flat tax is not a fair tax. (Too easy to hide income.) Only a consumption tax is a fair tax. www.fairtax.org