I was being facetious. Of course I would do it for less, but I doubt my ET PM box will see any offers. That really isn't the point. The point is, when one person could satisfy the wage increase of 6 years for 780 people, still have nearly 10 million left from ONE years compensation, and refuses to give the work force even a nickel of the company profits, something ain't quite right with that picture.
Hehe, ok. It's capitalism, mate. His job is to get the highest return possible for the monies invested in CAT. If the competition is willing to give more to their labor, then he would have the luxury of doing the same.
I would argue that's not the primary purpose of capitalism. It's primary purpose is to grow the entire economy so that all who participate can prosper and grow. Not equally mind you, but there must be some sense of proportion to the growth between those at the top and those working their way up. What we have is a very few who have climbed the ladder and are now pulling it up behind them, leaving no chance for anyone else. That ain't capitalism, and what we currently have in place will eventually crush this economy.
The theory is that those good things come about as a secondary result of the primary goal of a profit on investment. Hence, trickle down, and/or a rising tide. If you make the secondary effects your primary goal, you're talking socialism.
When you have government debt funded(money printing) spending, directly or indirectly (through welfare payments to citizens), going into the pockets of these large corporations, the corporations don't need to be concerned about paying their employees a good wage so that they can buy their products. Sencario: I see a family of 6 at Wal Mart dressed in newish clothes buying $200 worth of food with a food stamp card. I notice their newish car has license plate tags that the father paid for with cash he got working at his $9 hour job cutting grass at the CAT headquarters in Peoria.
yeah yeah... Union shit.. blah blah.. My stepdad had to negotiate with the unions for a fortune 500 company.. he said one guy was screaming and pounding the table wanting to know what the pay would be if Good Friday fell on a Sunday..
Not sure what your (one?) point is here... a family getting food stamp assistance should not have "newish" clothes or car?
My point is that a guy who makes $9 and hour wouldn't be able to afford to buy new clothes for a family of 6 and a new car without debt funded (money printing) welfare payments. The money he spends on car and clothes likely will go into the pocket of a large corporation. The corporation gets revenue from workers that got money from the government welfare, instead of from wages that the corporation paid to the worker.