Wealth Disparity

[Blackbird]

Seriously, this is getting ridiculous. Apple is the topic in these articles, but Apple is only one of many companies that are guilty of these practices.

Where Apple Products Are Made

Apple: We Have More Money Than We Need

So, Apple's got problems figuring out how to spend all that money? Here's a novel concept: how about you actually share some of your wealth with the workers that make your products and help you earn all that money? Instead of ruthlessly expanding your profit margins again and again, how about spreading that wealth out and, I don't know, ensuring that your workers aren't living in destitution? Make only a little money on the sale of each product and let your employees make more, then everyone can live comfortably.

In the present climate, all the wealth just goes straight to the top and stays there. It's absurd.

[Drum]

In the present climate, all the wealth just goes straight to the top and stays there. It's absurd.

It's not just the present climate, it's always been like this - but it gets worse and worse. It has to do with the way money has been designed.

[null1024]

Another suggestion of what to do with the cash was to buy Greece, which is currently experiencing a debt crisis, but Cook said Apple is not interested.

I am giggling like a maniac at the prospect that this could be a legitimate suggestion.

[Moniker]

Public companies should not engage in philanthropy unless such action is explicitly mandated by the shareholders. Otherwise, they should only pursue profits under the limits of applicable law.

I'll never understand why people constantly protest that it is the moral imperative of employers to ensure all the needs of their employees are met. No one is forced to work for apple.

[maxlords]

That just frightens me that that's a possibility!

[Ed Oscuro]

I'll never understand why people constantly protest that it is the moral imperative of employers to ensure all the needs of their employees are met. No one is forced to work for apple.

Ironically all the Austrian / neoliberal economists understand that a government can theoretically (though it doesn't happen) "crowd out" private industry, nobody ever suspects that private industry can crowd out democratic spending preferences.

They may be doing well today but in a down economy they can buy more with that money than they otherwise might. What Apple should do is invest some of that money in research. Just holding onto the money is essentially wasting it, especially when you consider inflation (although that's very low now, but again this is a trend that should not hold in an improved economy).

[BulletMagnet]

I'll never understand why people constantly protest that it is the moral imperative of employers to ensure all the needs of their employees are met. No one is forced to work for apple.

The line between "can" and "must", at least for most people, is always thinner than corporate types insist it is, and this become especially apparent when times get lean - sure, you can refuse to work for/buy from Wal-Mart because you dislike how it treats most of its work force, but when you've spent years' worth of time and money training to enter a career which suddenly starts laying off people due to forces beyond your control, it becomes a lot more difficult to turn up your nose at the few places which will consider hiring you off the street/carry stuff cheap enough for you to afford. Starting one's life completely over is only a real possibility for those who can afford to lose what they have on a whim in the first place.

[Moniker]

To be clear, my point isn't that corporations do no evil. My point is that instead of shaking their fists at dimly defined "corporate overlords" (not to suggest that you hold such an extreme view), people should take the power that they have and do something about it. Shareholders should demand policies consistent with their morals, and elect new management if it doesn't happen; consumers should vote with their wallets; citizens should demand an increase in the minimum wage from their representatives; employees should unionize or quit. Sadly the employees have the least power, but if they are working there, it must be their best option. It's the indolence of the same everyday people that enables the abuses they rail so ineffectually against. A public company has no intrinsic moral sense - its only function is to profit, and it's up to the owners to ensure that it does so morally.

Ironically all the Austrian / neoliberal economists understand that a government can theoretically (though it doesn't happen) "crowd out" private industry, nobody ever suspects that private industry can crowd out democratic spending preferences.

This is frequently cited, but I can't really buy the argument that people *have* to shop at Wal-Mart in order to stay afloat. When you live in a city, you often don't even have the option to shop there (or else you have to spend money on transport to get there); their groceries aren't considerably cheaper than your average supermarket, last I checked.

As far as Apple goes, they only sell luxury products, so that point isn't even important.

[neorichieb1971]

Fact :

Most shareholding companies only care about their shareholders. Even though they may have never met them or even know their names. The people they do know (their employee's) get treated like scum.

2 people recently left my work place, another is about to go. The ones that are left take up the slack, we ask for a raise and they say "its not in the budget". Well, it appears £75k+ just went straight into the shareholders hands. Of which I am not a member of that elite group.

Those rich people just look at that money. Money in rich peoples hands is useless. Its only purpose is to exploit those who have none.

Although my own personal situation is a bit of a silly one. Since even if i had 20x the amount of money I currently have It wouldn't change my life a bit. I'd be able to afford more luxerious holidays and perhaps a newer car. But to be honest I don't consider those things life changing in any way. My car works and sitting in some exclusive resort for £600 a week doesn't really get my heart thumping. I want a house, but thats going to require a lottery win. So i'm stuck in a rut.

I do acknowlege there are worse off people than me though. So I am happier than some.

[xbl0x180]

That's the thing, employees can't unionise in certain areas anymore. There's a push by rich people and their friends in Congress to ban unions

[Moniker]

That's the thing, employees can't unionise in certain areas anymore. There's a push by rich people and their friends in Congress to ban unions

This strikes me as unconstitutional. All you need to form a union is freedom of assembly. I'll admit to not really understanding the type of union that forces all employees to join if union-supporters gain a majority at a particular job site.

[Ex-Cyber]

As I understand it, it is still legal to form a union anywhere in the US, but some state laws are written to ensure that unions can have no real bargaining power. It's not legal anymore to force employees to actually join a union, but depending on the state it may be legal for the union-negotiated contract to require all employees to pay equivalent union dues. This is because the benefits of the contract apply to all employees (not just union members), and the union is required to represent all employees (not just members), thus if employees don't pay union dues the union is forced to provide that representation at its own cost.

[Ed Oscuro]

You know, I missed the biggest problem with Moniker's point, which is that he is making a straw man out of what people actually are upset about with companies. Nobody in the discussion is saying that employers should take care of every employee need. If they believe that, they're probably a Marxist who would prefer to nationalize the business and do away with private control altogether. What people are saying is that profit sharing is a good thing (and many Japanese companies during the miracle years believed and practiced this; the gap in wages between the lowest and the highest paid employees of some companies was kept to ten times).

I think a lot of people are pretty daft to not make the connection between the two parts of the argument, "you have to let a business decide for itself about profit sharing, or community reinvestment, or whatever we don't like, IF you want workers and society at large to be able to share in the company's success." Profit sharing doesn't follow from enshrining profit hoarding and the externalization of as many costs as possible as absolute rights for capitalists.

As far as Apple goes, they only sell luxury products, so that point isn't even important.

A cell phone isn't a luxury product at this point, though having the latest iPhone might be (I have a cell phone from 2006 whose voicemail I never clear out and which I only turn on to make calls). Even luxury products can impact the marketplace. The wealthiest earners tend to make all their money in just one year, and since the 1980s they tend to live off it year after year - so you have lots of people living pretty ridiculously lavishly without a stable source of income. So far you might be tempted to say "so what, they are going to bring themselves down," but recall that the magical power of markets means that everybody else gets affected, too. The wealthy alone have created a glut of private jets, and the banks don't foreclose on them (what are you gonna do with a private jet?), for example.

The story of the "High-Beta Rich" is treated in some more depth here

An alternate example could be a response to the angry caller to another NPR show, on privacy policies in the tech industry. To paraphrase, "Nobody is forcing you to use Google...in fact the Congressman [one of the panelists who was in favor of some regulation to keep companies from tracking data on children 15 and younger] forced Google to roll out stuff for schools for cheap." [In retrospect I'm not sure what he was on about, with that last point.] When you talk about Google, it's clear that size allows a lot of problems. They can bait-and-switch and just say "oops, we're too big, so we made a mistake, again" and their lackeys will just say "and we should just deal with it, that's the price of having a big successful business." Or they will invoke the magical power of markets as a panacea. The limits of freedom in the market are pretty clear in a monopolistic situation.

Yet another example came up with the recent contraception coverage debacle. While Catholic institutions certainly have a right not to be forced to buy things they think they cannot, there is a right of people to not be pushed by the prejudices of their employer against coverage they need and might be said to already have paid for. The freedom of religion argument works both ways, really.

As I understand it, it is still legal to form a union anywhere in the US, but some state laws are written to ensure that unions can have no real bargaining power. It's not legal anymore to force employees to actually join a union, but depending on the state it may be legal for the union-negotiated contract to require all employees to pay equivalent union dues. This is because the benefits of the contract apply to all employees (not just union members), and the union is required to represent all employees (not just members), thus if employees don't pay union dues the union is forced to provide that representation at its own cost.

Right-to-work law
The intro two sentences from this Wikipedia article on "Right-to-work" laws (which, by the way, is a term as neutral as "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are meant to be) lay out the issue.

The real problem with a closed shop is that it does, indeed, limit freedom of association, but in practice so do "right-to-work" laws. Ideally (for employees) there could be choice amongst unions.

That there is not choice, for some employees, of unions can have perverse effects. Some years back (I had a source for this, can't find it now), one of the Japanese automakers (with plants in the US) stuck it to their union by giving a better deal than the union had asked for. It highlighted for employees that their union had been soft-pedaling on contracts, and for a while it was said that more people trusted the company than their union. (There was a reason that the company was annoyed with the union, and they took the opportunity to make them look bad - it was calculated). I want to say this is Toyota in 1998 but I'm not sure.

I am not terribly worried about the "free rider problem" here; although I would also not be shedding many tears if unionized workers had better contracts than those who were trying to free ride the union (so long as joining and quitting the union was truly free, to avoid other obvious chances at abuse).

[Blackbird]

Public companies should not engage in philanthropy unless such action is explicitly mandated by the shareholders. Otherwise, they should only pursue profits under the limits of applicable law.

I'll never understand why people constantly protest that it is the moral imperative of employers to ensure all the needs of their employees are met. No one is forced to work for apple.

Ok, so it's not an employer's moral obligation to provide a fair exchange for the work it profits from. Now, it's only goal is to single-mindedly pursue profit, to the exclusion of the public good. But this doesn't happen in a vacuum - by screwing over it's employees, this company now has a profit margin advantage against companies that compete while actually being moral. Now the moral companies must resort to the same tactics in order to remain competitive, or else face irrelevance. Suddenly, "no one is forced to work at X" doesn't work anymore, because it's a race to the bottom, and everyone is equally fucked no matter which company they work at (unless they become self employed, haha). Now, no one is looking out for the public good, you only have a group of wealthy people who are trying to make the most profit possible, and a group of marginalized poor who barely manage to meet their basic needs, let alone demanding moral improvement.

My point is that instead of shaking their fists at dimly defined "corporate overlords" (not to suggest that you hold such an extreme view), people should take the power that they have and do something about it.

I don't think the example I cited is "dimly defined". It is factual information that Apple has greater revenue than the US government and has just posted the second greatest quarterly profit in US history. It is also factual that the workers in their iPad 2 plant live in concrete boxes and cannot even make enough money to visit their children regularly. It is a reality that "corporate overlords" are hoarding ludicrous wealth while the people that work for them live in squalor. Shaking my fist is about all I can do to vent my frustration.

Shareholders should demand policies consistent with their morals, and elect new management if it doesn't happen; consumers should vote with their wallets; citizens should demand an increase in the minimum wage from their representatives; employees should unionize or quit. Sadly the employees have the least power, but if they are working there, it must be their best option. It's the indolence of the same everyday people that enables the abuses they rail so ineffectually against. A public company has no intrinsic moral sense - its only function is to profit, and it's up to the owners to ensure that it does so morally.

Unionizing isn't an option everywhere. Trying to unionize in China would likely get you shot. Unionizing isn't especially effective, either, when the poor so vastly outnumber the rich. Unionized employees can be ignored in many cases, because there are plenty of people waiting to snatch at -any- opportunity, no matter how desperate.

Shareholders have no incentive to demand morality, because they aren't running the company. It's the company's job to run the company, why should they care so long as their investment pays dividends?

Representatives have no incentive to help the citizens because the companies bribe, I mean, "contribute" to their campaign funds. Paid for representatives also marginalize the effect of unions by making the law overwhelmingly disadvantageous for them.

The only people that have any reason to demand morality are the consumers and the employees themselves, but these are the people with the least influence.

And here's the biggest problem - once the wealth is in the hands of the company, it will never return to the public. Any profit gained would be invested in actions that would generate more profit. Taxes? Nope, the company will just hike product prices and cut wages to amalgamate the cost, and the tax will be passed on to the consumer. Charity? Every once in a blue moon. Increased wages? Good luck with that, companies strive to pay the lowest possible wages that they can get away with, and they have all the leverage.

The only way a company actually loses money is when it's products don't sell and it's expenses outweigh it's gains. So long as a company is successful, the money always goes up, never down. Once it's up, it stays up, and it cannot be taken away from the company except by failure, which equally destroys everyone (because now the employees have no job at all).

[Ex-Cyber]

The real problem with a closed shop is that it does, indeed, limit freedom of association, but in practice so do "right-to-work" laws. Ideally (for employees) there could be choice amongst unions.

In principle, employees can choose between their workplace's union and a "one big union" (of which the IWW is the only extant example I know). I suppose that's not necessarily much of a choice, though.

[Ed Oscuro]

The real problem with a closed shop is that it does, indeed, limit freedom of association, but in practice so do "right-to-work" laws. Ideally (for employees) there could be choice amongst unions.

In principle, employees can choose between their workplace's union and a "one big union" (of which the IWW is the only extant example I know). I suppose that's not necessarily much of a choice, though.

Actually, there are four possibilities (of course, depending on where you are) where unions are involved. Again from Wikipedia:

*Closed shop
*Union shop (new employees must join after a while; theoretically employers could game this to employ scabs)
*Agency shop (employees pay a fee to unions for bargaining services)
*Open shop (can have a union)

[Blade]

...Nowadays, corporate entities and anything with extra cash should adopt a "Reduce, Re-use, Recycle" policy when it comes to money.

No money spent means no investments, no investments means no work, no work means even less money for everyone involved except the top 1%, and the economic system falls apart. When the system falls apart the value of the economy drops (i.e. the value of a $). When the economy's value drops, dollars aren't worth a dollar or even less, Yen won't be worth Yen, Euros won't be worth Euros.

The longer the old codgers hold a deathgrip onto that cash, the more there's no point in giving it any value.

And when that happens, people will just have to resort to the barter and trade systems all over again in order to survive...or start stealing things.

[BulletMagnet]

This is frequently cited, but I can't really buy the argument that people *have* to shop at Wal-Mart in order to stay afloat.

Wal-Mart themselves openly acknowledge this: when pressed about how most of their employees could possibly survive on the pitiful wages the company pays them, their response is "we keep our products' prices low enough that they can get what they need directly from us." In otherwords, a de facto resurrection of the Guilded Age practice of paying workers in "company store credits" in lieu of actual money, and forcing them to give an even larger portion of their income back to the company.

While we're on the topic, if there's any corporation whose employees seemingly have every motivation to organize and demand better treatment from their bosses it's Wal-Mart - so, if it's such an easy thing to do in this day and age, why haven't they?

[Ex-Cyber]

Actually, there are four possibilities (of course, depending on where you are) where unions are involved. Again from Wikipedia:

*Closed shop
*Union shop (new employees must join after a while; theoretically employers could game this to employ scabs)
*Agency shop (employees pay a fee to unions for bargaining services)
*Open shop (can have a union)

What I mean is that one could work in an agency or open shop as a member of a "one big union" like the IWW. I said it's not much of a choice because that kind of union generally doesn't have any bargaining power with any given employer; they're more oriented toward general class solidarity.

While we're on the topic, if there's any corporation whose employees seemingly have every motivation to organize and demand better treatment from their bosses it's Wal-Mart - so, if it's such an easy thing to do in this day and age, why haven't they?

I suppose this is meant as a rhetorical question, but in case anyone is unaware, for starters:

1) Anti-union propaganda is part of the standard employee training (among other things: portraying union organizers sort of like drug pushers out of a 80s/90s anti-drug PSA, who will trick you into joining a union via card check).

2) When a Wal-Mart store actually did unionize, Wal-Mart responded by closing the entire store (since it would have been blatantly illegal to simply fire the employees for unionizing).

As for people needing to shop at Wal-Mart, one wrinkle to the issue is that in some areas it's the only place left that maintains enough inventory for people to actually get everything they need without driving down the highway to the next bigger city. It might not affect a large portion of the country's population, but it's an issue for some people.

[Moniker]

I want to reply more thoroughly to Ed & blackbird at some point, but haven't the time at the moment.

While we're on the topic, if there's any corporation whose employees seemingly have every motivation to organize and demand better treatment from their bosses it's Wal-Mart - so, if it's such an easy thing to do in this day and age, why haven't they?

If you've read the book "Nickeled and Dimed" the author began to do exactly that, but then quit instead and went to finish her book. Possibly there are enough potential Wal-Mart employees to take the place even if the entire staff quits. I couldn't say with any certainty. I have trouble believing, though, that the labor supply is perfectly inelastic even in unskilled variety that populates Wal-Mart.

[Blackbird]

Yeah, my bad >_<. It kind of turned into a tl;dr post there.

[xbl0x180]

Actually, there are four possibilities (of course, depending on where you are) where unions are involved. Again from Wikipedia:

*Closed shop
*Union shop (new employees must join after a while; theoretically employers could game this to employ scabs)
*Agency shop (employees pay a fee to unions for bargaining services)
*Open shop (can have a union)

What I mean is that one could work in an agency or open shop as a member of a "one big union" like the IWW. I said it's not much of a choice because that kind of union generally doesn't have any bargaining power with any given employer; they're more oriented toward general class solidarity.

While we're on the topic, if there's any corporation whose employees seemingly have every motivation to organize and demand better treatment from their bosses it's Wal-Mart - so, if it's such an easy thing to do in this day and age, why haven't they?

I suppose this is meant as a rhetorical question, but in case anyone is unaware, for starters:

1) Anti-union propaganda is part of the standard employee training (among other things: portraying union organizers sort of like drug pushers out of a 80s/90s anti-drug PSA, who will trick you into joining a union via card check).

2) When a Wal-Mart store actually did unionize, Wal-Mart responded by closing the entire store (since it would have been blatantly illegal to simply fire the employees for unionizing).

As for people needing to shop at Wal-Mart, one wrinkle to the issue is that in some areas it's the only place left that maintains enough inventory for people to actually get everything they need without driving down the highway to the next bigger city. It might not affect a large portion of the country's population, but it's an issue for some people.

There used to be general stores where those walmarts sit, but they were driven outta biz because of the low prices from the products made by Chinese slaves

[PC Engine Fan X!]

This is frequently cited, but I can't really buy the argument that people *have* to shop at Wal-Mart in order to stay afloat. When you live in a city, you often don't even have the option to shop there (or else you have to spend money on transport to get there); their groceries aren't considerably cheaper than your average supermarket, last I checked.

Even Target entered the grocery business in early 2011 with it's revamped Target stores selling grocery items that are priced comparably within the same prices as the grocery stores (but they aren't union either). In order to accomodate selling grocery items at the smaller Target locations (aside from the Super Target stores), the sale aisles were made smaller (which really isn't a good thing but that was the major trade-off issue in order to accomodate necessary spacing needed to sell groceries -- either do that or do some major construction remodelling to the overall store structure to increase retail flooring space would be the more expensive alternative if it needed be).

Actually, most grocery items are cheaper at Winco & Wal-Mart due to them being able to sell them cheaper than at the union grocery stores (i.e. Safeway, Ralph's, Lucky's, Raley's, Bel-Air, Von's, etc). However, both Winco & Wal-Mart lack the personalized customer service that the union & non-union grocery stores provide to customers. Take good care of your customers, or else, they'll shop elsewhere.

Even Costco operates union stores, hence why they're closed on all the major holidays. And get this, union Costco employees still get paid on the major holidays anyways.

Back in the early 1990s, some grocery chains with both non-union & union stores would be closed on Christmas Day, but nowdays, it's becoming the norm to have grocery stores open for business even on that significant day. Whatever it takes to remain in business.

Grocery Factoid: For every dollar spent in the grocery business, less than one cent is earned back as profit. So you can see how slim the profit margins really are regarding the grocery business.

PC Engine Fan X! ^_~

[Mischief Maker]

Watch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UGC2nLnaes

The promise (however fleeting) of possibly taking the top dog slot and never wanting for anything ever again is far more likely to inspire young ambitious employees to work themselves to the bone for your benefit than a steady job where everyone is treated equally.

Key word: young.

[Moniker]

Disclaimer: In writing this, I'm starting to get the sense that I'm neither educated nor informed enough in these matters to argue effectively. But who knows, maybe I'll stumble upon some wisdom...

What people are saying is that profit sharing is a good thing (and many Japanese companies during the miracle years believed and practiced this; the gap in wages between the lowest and the highest paid employees of some companies was kept to ten times).

I think a lot of people are pretty daft to not make the connection between the two parts of the argument, "you have to let a business decide for itself about profit sharing, or community reinvestment, or whatever we don't like, IF you want workers and society at large to be able to share in the company's success." Profit sharing doesn't follow from enshrining profit hoarding and the externalization of as many costs as possible as absolute rights for capitalists.

If I'm reading you correctly, you're saying that profit sharing is incompatible with profit hoarding, which makes sense. Profit hoarding is a practice intended to be economically counter cyclical, as a sort of buffer. But you're saying that profit sharing isn't good business, I'd have to disagree. Certainly not in all cases, but giving an employee a share in a company boosts performance incentive. Obviously there'd be a point of diminishing returns, and both profit sharing and profit hoarding must needs hit an equilibrium to maximize productivity and longevity.

Although I can't find the relevant information at the moment, IIRC Southwest Airlines strikes this kind of balance - hedging for fuel and a progressive employment system.

I guess where we differ is that a company's aim shouldn't necessarily be to share the wealth with employees and society, although profitability is not necessarily at odds with those aims.

Ok, so it's not an employer's moral obligation to provide a fair exchange for the work it profits from. Now, it's only goal is to single-mindedly pursue profit, to the exclusion of the public good. But this doesn't happen in a vacuum - by screwing over it's employees, this company now has a profit margin advantage against companies that compete while actually being moral. Now the moral companies must resort to the same tactics in order to remain competitive, or else face irrelevance.

I don't agree that the single-mindedly pursuit of profits is mutually exclusive with the public good. While profit-sharing probably won't do Wal-Mart much good (although there's nothing to prevent employees from purchasing stock), generation of wealth is an unqualified good even if the prospects of bottom-level employees don't rise with the company. The exception to this is monopoly, which seems to be the main criticism levied at Wal-Mart. If that is truly what's going on, then the government should step in. I guess I draw my personal line here: if a company's actions do nothing to make employees' lives worse (than if they weren't employed there), then their practices are acceptable.

If the scenario is more like this: Wal-Mart rolls into town; low prices put everyone else out of business; unskilled laborers have no choice but to work for Wal-Mart; their standard of living decreases as compared to before Wal-Mart's arrival. Then, yes, there's a problem. But I believe it is a legal one. There are provisions in law against price gouging and the like. And if current law does is inadequate to the situation, then it is the citizen's duty to lobby for reform. Corporations may contribute to political campaigns, but they don't vote.

[Mortificator]

Megacorporations increase the human suffering and decrease the human freedom in the world, but they don't vote, so it's all good.

[Estebang]

Megacorporations increase the human suffering and decrease the human freedom in the world, but they don't vote, so it's all good.

Except the US Supreme Court has declared them to be people, at least so far as they can funnel millions of dollars into campaign fundraisers.

[maxlords]

Megacorporations increase the human suffering and decrease the human freedom in the world, but they don't vote, so it's all good.

Except the US Supreme Court has declared them to be people, at least so far as they can funnel millions of dollars into campaign fundraisers.

Something that should DEFINITELY be reversed.

As an aside...does anyone else get bothered by the fact that most Supreme Court Justices are entirely political apointees rather than neutral? Even though they don't have any oversight and should technically be neutral they aren't....it's kind of disturbing.

[Ex-Cyber]

As an aside...does anyone else get bothered by the fact that most Supreme Court Justices are entirely political apointees rather than neutral? Even though they don't have any oversight and should technically be neutral they aren't....it's kind of disturbing.

What's the alternative in procedural terms, though? Having them be elected would make them even more political, not less, and how would you ensure that any committee/board/whatever in charge of vetting them would be less political than the Senate Judiciary Committee?

[DEL]

Wealth Disparity certainly is a sick situation. I'll let others talk about the feasability of unions.

In terms of workers being kept on subsistence wages, surviving from month to month. I just worked for an American company for the last year and a half. The structure of the Euro arm of this company was this:
_____________________________^_____________________________
170 worker drones, all on the same 'survival' wages and that tiny pyramid in the middle of the troops is the management of just 5 people.
The skilled worker drones were just a number, each one of no importance. The hiring and firing rate was astronomical . For instance, they hired 14 new people in sales. After just 9 months only 4 were left and now there are 3.
The old corporate strategies of the 90s where hiring and retention of good staff were promoted as 'good for your business', has now been replaced by a new ethos where 'the Company is all important' and the staff are all completely replaceable.

xbl0x180 wrote;

There used to be general stores where those walmarts sit, but they were driven outta biz because of the low prices from the products made by Chinese slaves

Good point
"Globalization will be the end of mankind" Michael Crichton wrote, & I'm seeing his point all over.
I've seen large bookseller chain WHSmith stack newly released Harry Potter books up to the ceiling and sell them at a loss, just to kill off the smaller independant book stores.

I've seen huge DIY chain B&Q give a backhander to CHI's local council in London to get rid of an independant Chinese & Japanese mall with many family run stores (China City/Yaohan Plaza), so that they could plant another generic B&Q megastore on top of them. They closed all the businesses down and the kicker was that in the end they never even bothered to set up the store. So it lies dead. Family businesses gone.

I've seen many UK businesses outsource to India because it increases profits. But it also denies UK workers jobs.

As Banksy highlighted in one of his pieces, Tesco have taken offshore funds to new levels by sectioning off an island as tax havens called Tesco A, Tesco B, C & D.

Buying groups formed by mega corps are in many industries, keeping a strangle hold on 'approved' suppliers. Food superstore chains and sports retail chains are good examples of this.

I guess the list is endless.
--------------------------------------

Going back to the disparity
Some random facts

* Listed off Google: 42 percent of financial wealth is controlled by the top 1 percent
Which means 99% of us are scrabbling around for just 58% of financial wealth. The 42% just isn't available to us.
* Or - I've also heard 75% of financial wealth is controlled by the top 1%
ergo - 99% of us are scrabbling around for just 25% of financial wealth.
* Nice fact to enjoy - The top 1% call us 'the great unwashed'
So they view us as ants, which is heartwarming.