|
It's difficult to imagine anyone here in the United States that hasn't heard some news about the Occupy Wall Street protest movement. The demonstrations have spread to many other cities, and as of this writing, show little signs of abating in the near future. To begin with, let me state for the record that I am not a part of the Occupy Movement, but I also don't think they are completely wrong. They have some valid points, but I believe there needs to be a bit more clarity.
As I understand it, the grievances of the Occupy Movement are rooted in two basic problems. The first being the great disparity between executive pay and worker pay, and the second being the perception that the big corporations (represented by Wall Street) - in essence - own the politicians and hence the Government.
I won't dispute the validity of these situations. I have personally lived through a contract negotiation when the CEO and top twelve executives of the Company had raked in millions in bonuses that year, and had the audacity to tell the workers that they couldn't afford to give us a General Wage Increase. It was a slap in the face, considering that the workers were part of the reason for the successes that resulted in the bonuses, and yet, we were shut out in the sharing of the success. Yeah. I understand the frustration.
However, I would like to point out that hiring top executives for a corporation is much like recruiting star athletes for a professional sports team. The Board of Directors, elected by the stockholders (who are the collective owners of the company), seek the candidate that they believe will best lead the company in a successful direction, just as an NFL team will look for the star quarterback that they believe will take them to the Superbowl. It's a simple concept - success equals better earnings, and the stockholders have invested in the company in the hopes that their investment will result in a profitable return.
Before we start lumping those stockholders in the "1%" wealthy group, it should be noted that, while most of the major stockholders are financially well-off, there is also a large percentage of minor stockholders in almost every company that are middle-class working people. Their stock investment is often part of their retirement plan, that they have paid into. Many companies offer incentives or matching programs to encourage employees to own stock in the company, as this also adds an additional motivation to do a good job. If a substantial portion of my retirement portfolio is wrapped up in the success of the company I work for, then I have more reason to care about the long-term prospects for the company, beyond the regular paychecks I hope to earn from them. Yes, Charles Moneybags will earn a larger lump sum from the success of the company stock, but when he gains, I also gain. I'm not in the 1%, but I am vitally interested in how my retirement investment is going to do, and there are millions of other workers likewise vested in the corporate success.
But back to the recruiting of CEO's. Like any market commodity, a candidate for a position is worth only what someone is willing to pay them. I could demand $10 million a year for my services, but no company is willing to pay that kind of money for a technician. There are too many unemployed technicians out there, and loads of them would take my job at my current rate in a heartbeat. More than a few would jump at the chance to take it for less than I make right now, so my leverage at the bargaining table is not that good. Jobs that require minimal training and education, and which have a large potential pool of applicants, tend to pay less than jobs that are very skill intensive. The less people that can do a job, coupled with the demand for that skill set, determines a higher wage. Hence, an executive candidate with extensive education, and a resume of experience in other successful companies, can either demand more money, or will be a target of recruitment by other companies offering a better compensation package. The CEO that makes a boatload of money, does so because the Board of Directors wanted him or her that badly. Whether it seems fair or not, that's how supply and demand works. Until enough stockholders say, "enough," the trend in obscenely compensated CEO's will continue.
To be honest, though, I doubt most of us would refuse a huge wage increase, if someone decided we were worth trying to lure away from our current jobs. As high-minded as I might want to be, if some company contacted me, and offered me $250,000 a year to come work for them, there would have to be some mighty terrible conditions for me to remain at my current job. That's a huge percentage increase, and it would be very hard to turn down. I can't really blame an executive who gets offered millions, and agrees to take the job, any more than I can blame the quarterback who accepts millions to join an NFL team. If something made me that valuable to an organization, I don't think I'd argue with the money.
This leaves us with the problem of influence buying in our government, and on this, my biggest complaint about the Occupy Movement is that the focus is one-sided. For a corporation to buy a politician, there has to be a politician willing to be bought. It doesn't matter how much I'd like to buy a 20 Ghz computer CPU, if there isn't one to be found. Likewise, if our politicians were being honest and ethical, and insisting that they represent their constituents, the companies wouldn't be able to put Senators and Congress members in their figurative back pockets.
We can't do much about the corporations wanting to buy political influence, other than threatening to boycott their products if we learn of it (not necessarily a bad idea, when applicable). What we can - and should - do, is to start sending the message to our elected representatives that we will not tolerate electing them to do a job, and then having someone else subvert them from the job we sent them to do.
This point is vital, and so I'm going to emphasize it. OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS ARE SUPPOSED TO REPRESENT US. They are not supposed to represent their own agendas. They are not supposed to represent whoever happens to be the highest bidder. Just as importantly, they are not supposed to represent the party with which they are affiliated. If a Democrat Senator's constituents are opposed to a bill, but the Democratic Party is pushing the bill, the Senator's job is to vote against that bill. That's what the people who elected him to represent them want, and his job is to look out for their interests. If the Republican Party is opposing that bill, and a Republican Senator's constituents support it, her job is to vote for the bill.
The problem is, we keep electing people who represent their own ideas, their own party, their own biggest donors, and shove the constituents to the bottom of the queue. We know this, and, rather than telling them they have failed to do the job we elected them to do, we go ahead and vote them back into office, most often, just because they belong to the party that has the majority of registered voters in the area. Not because they've done a good job. Not because we believe they will do a better job than their opponent. Mostly, because we believe their opponent will do the same thing, only representing their party instead of ours.
It's time for us to throw away the two-party division, and start communicating to our representatives that we WILL vote for the other candidate, if this corruption continues - and then DO IT. Our representatives are much like an ambassador for a country. If President Obama sent a message to the Ambassador to Outbackistan, and said to tell the leaders of Outbackistan that the position of the United States was this, he would expect the Ambassador to deliver this message. If the Ambassador thought, "I don't agree with this, so I'm going to tell Outbackistan that instead," he would be recalled by the President, and another Ambassador sent in his place.
If the Incumbent won't represent us, we need to, in effect, fire him or her, and let them know WHY. Communicate to the replacement why their predecessor lost the job, and make it quite clear that we won't hesitate to replace them as well, if they likewise betray our trust. It will take time, and possibly several election terms, but sooner or later, the message will get across. We won't stand for a lack of representation. This Nation was birthed from the statement that, "Taxation Without Representation is Tyranny." Well, folks, guess what? We're getting back to taxation without representation, regardless of how much they tell us we're being represented.
The final problem with Occupy Wall Street is that it is presently only occupying a place. Rather than just camping out in parks or streets, the occupation needs to migrate to the minds of those who have the power to bring about the change. The Executives and the Politicians need a reason to be preoccupied with the movement. It needs to be more than an annoyance or an inconvenience - it needs to be a worry. It needs to hit them with a message they can understand, and that is, the corrupt status quo is going to change, one way or another. If they continue to treat the people that maintain this Nation as nothing but inconsequential numbers, the change is going to be painful for everyone. I see a lot of disturbing parallels between this movement, and the undercurrent of dissatisfaction and dissent that preceded the Bolshevik Revolution.
If history has taught us anything, it's that ignoring a problem doesn't make it go away, and that history has a nasty habit of repeating itself. This is one area where we don't want to repeat the mistakes of a hundred years ago in another country. The Bolsheviks brought about change the hard way, and despite what we might think of the Soviet system, many people suffered in the aftermath. We can learn the lesson. We can push for change in the better way, but it's going to take more than just dissatisfied people in the streets.
It's going to take the people in the offices to decide they would rather see the change the better way.
|