People criticize welfare on the grounds that it removes the penalty for failure. It doesn't really, just lessens the impact very slightly. Well, absurdly high pay and golden-parachute severance packages definitely remove the penalty for failure, which has encouraged and rewarded very risky behavior. Now everyone is paying the price ... except the people responsible. Let's not do this again.
CEO Pay Packages -- Say on Pay
People criticize welfare on the grounds that it removes the penalty for failure. It doesn't really, just lessens the impact very slightly. Well, absurdly high pay and golden-parachute severance packages definitely remove the penalty for failure, which has encouraged and rewarded very risky behavior. Now everyone is paying the price ... except the people responsible. Let's not do this again.
-
Content notes for "The Little Shadow Across the Grass"
These are the content notes for " The Little Shadow Across the Grass." Read about the Grunge. The Ghost Dance was meant to " roll…
-
Setting notes for "The Little Shadow Across the Grass"
These are the setting notes for " The Little Shadow Across the Grass." Read about the Blackfeet Reservation. This map shows Glacier…
-
Character notes for "The Little Shadow Across the Grass"
These are the character notes for " The Little Shadow Across the Grass." Many of the character names came partly from Blackfeet…
April 16 2008, 15:34:14 UTC 13 years ago
wrong. And the rich keep on getting richer. And the gap between the poor keeps getting wider and wider. There's no end in sight that I'm aware of. Its a nice idea you are talking about. Just hope it works...
April 16 2008, 16:06:36 UTC 13 years ago
Deleted comment
April 24 2008, 05:28:41 UTC 13 years ago
To solve a huge tangled problem, pick it into small pieces. CEO salary is a loose end that can be grabbed hold of fairly well.
Deleted comment
April 24 2008, 21:09:55 UTC 13 years ago
That's an example of what typically goes wrong in problem-solving these days: people look at the wrong end of the issue. Most people shop at Wal-Mart because they can't afford to shop elsewhere, not because they really like the store or its policies. Trying to discourage them from shopping there is thus futile; and simply banning the stores would be harmful to low-income people.
The trick is to address the underlying need that drives the problem, and that means backtracking to find it. People shop at Wal-Mart because they're broke. They're broke because they're unemployed, overemployed, and/or forced to buy services (such as health care/insurance) beyond their means. So we need to focus on creating more jobs -- safe, meaningful jobs that pay a living wage; watch the coming boom in green-collar jobs for opportunities. We need to make sure there are alternatives to shopping at Wal-Mart, which means encouraging the growth of competitors: other supermarkets, farmer's markets, etc. and preferably ones that provide good jobs. We also need to see about making basic services affordable or free to people who need them.