Originally Posted by Buehler445
At my core, I'm a freemarket guy. If a guy can go out and get a better living for himself, he should be able to do just that.
If a company believes a guy can make them, or perhaps save them a bunch of money, they should be able to go get that guy.
At my core I don't want the government running business. What if a company puts more money into R&D, capital improvements, technology, or any number of non-employee expenses, I don't want some dude making a chart that shows a business is spending much more in other aspects, claiming that the company should be paying it's employees more.
Look, if a company thinks a guy is worth the money, let the company go get him and let the guy get paid. If he ****s it up, the company can fire him. The business made a bad decision and has to deal with dent that it put in profitability.
As long as there is competition, I don't have a problem with it. And therein lies the problem I have with government running shit. There is no competition to keep the government accountable for performance.
I don't really disagree with any of that, but true, unrestrained capitalism has never existed anywhere, and when it comes closest to existing, you get a truly ****ed up environment, workers who are completely abused, etc.
Laws can't mandate this stuff, but it constantly encourages/discourages behavior. Over the past 30 years, it hasn't been doing a very good job, IMHO, in keeping the middle class middle, so to speak, which is a systemic problem.