[LMB] OT: taxes vs wages
gpw at uniserve.com
Mon, 18 Feb 2002 15:24:20 -0800 (PST)
On Mon, 18 Feb 2002, Marna Nightingale wrote:
> Geoffrey Waigh wrote:
> > Yes, and certainly lower corporate taxes would provide a
> > bit more room for salaries.
> *sNert* Sorry, not laughing at you.
> Hasn't done anything so far. I always sort of love the theory that if
> corporations don't do something, it's because they're too poor, the poor dear
Yes, I agree with you and wholeheartedly on this issue. I was thinking it
would provide "room" for a few percent increase not the several-fold
increase to match the competition. Though as you point out cost of living
can make dramatic differences.
> The companies that didn't play that game are the ones who are
> recovering the fastest and coming up the strongest. My ex made the
> other call. He works for QNX, has done for fourteen years. They pay
> middling well, they don't lay off, they never did the 80 hours a week
> thing, they pay in money not options. It's treated him well, and he's
> happy and doing what he's good at. They're a good company, no-one's
> ever heard of them,
I've heard of them and their products. I wasn't aware of their work
Anyways, Jeff wondered about how companies that deprive themselves of
talent stay in business. Several of the companies I have worked for have
gone bankrupt or come close to it. Not necessarily because of the lack of
technical talent, but in some cases it has been a contributing factor.
Even without failing as a business, I've seen quite a few places run their
computers badly because they either have too few bodies or at least too
few that know what they are doing. Perhaps in each case managers have
done a careful cost/benefit analysis, but I seriously doubt it. Dilbert
resonates with too many people for a very depressing reason.