We get defensive Astroturf:

[pecunium]

In response to this post Underpaid "freelance" work, from six months ago I got (today) someone trying to slip in the last word (which tells me it was probably found in google somehow).

It was, of course, anonymous, and so remains screened. The gist of it was, "dude... we can hire Indians to work for pennies, why should we pay you a living wage?"

I am so not surprised.

Comments

[5251962.livejournal.com]

Uuugh. Few months back there was a bunch of this on Craigslist, here locally- people hiring contractors to do serious work, offering like, nothing for it. You see it all the time with art and writing, as well, but there were a number of really understandably angry responses to those ads.

One of the companies I contract to (Without saying much about what I do) did this, in a sense. The pound used to be just over twice the dollar when I started with this company. Well when it sank like a stone, people started bailing fast. So, rather than offer some kinda recompense for those of us who remained loyal- our higher ups simply hired on people with no experience, trained them, and they happily work for lower pay. (Because 1. they don't know any better, and 2. OMG, work at home, legit! YAY!)
Thing is, because the turnover is so high, they flooded us, in addition to not bumping up anything, sooooo, the little bit of money we made dropped even further because there were more on spreading it around.
I went from making about 23 and hour to 8 an hour, in the span of four months, but couldn't quit because we needed the money. It sucked.
it's starting to rise again and I actually have other stuff going on, but GOD I hate hearing, "Well someone else will work for less!"

Sure they will, and those of us who are loyal get screwed, and then we get to see the slipshod kinda crap work the ones who do work for less do.

[don-fitch.livejournal.com]

Yup, totally unsurprising. For most business models nowadays, everything seems to be The Bottom Line -- maximum profits, minimum expenses, _this_ Quarter. I guess CEO Schools still do a good job of teaching how to get enough money to retire comfortably on, and then get out just before the business goes bankrupt. It seems to be part of the Third-World America our country has become.

[libertango.livejournal.com]

"For most business models nowadays, everything seems to be The Bottom Line -- maximum profits, minimum expenses, _this_ Quarter."

The problem, of course, is so often maximizing profit this quarter means giving up maximal profit in later quarters. It leads to less money being made by the companies concerned.

Why there aren't more shareholder lawsuits over such naked breaches of fiduciary duty remains a mystery.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

Because they are dismissed. The real problem is a small wording change to the SEC regulations for publically traded companies (back in 72-74: Nixon was still president, as I recall).

The wording was changed from a duty to strive for a reasonable return, to a duty to strive for maximum return. Since the only measure which matters, on that scale, is the quarterly, someone who is complaining they aren't seeing a greater return decennially (or even annually) will be dismissed.

Because the number of people who do file because they aren't seeing the profits they think they can get...

Costco has, about once a year, to make a defense against charges they pay too much in salary and benefits. It's pretty much down to a drill, the shareholders compare Wal-mart's labor/inventory costs, per quarter, to Costco's.

The Costco lawyers whip out the charts, graphs and spreadsheets which compare Wal-Mart's training costs (for turnover), loss to shrinkage (which, as you know Bob, is mostly caused by employee theft), customer loyalty/dollars spent, etc., to show that they are, actually, providing better service to the shareholder.

But the battle comes around on the guitar, again, and again.

[don-fitch.livejournal.com]

My guess is that the major shareholders nowadays go along with it because they make their profits from trading shares whose value depends mostly on the recent, current, or projected next-quarter's profits, so they hire CEOs who maximize these. They also cause the corporation to hire better (more expensive) lawyers than the other stockholders can afford.

My current gripe (or one of them) is that this concept of Corporate Dictatorship by the CEO supported by a small Aristocracy of big shareholders seems to have crept into our National Government. But then, I'm one of those weird people who think that Government should _not_ be run like a Business -- that it ought to be run for the benefit of the customers, as it were, rather than to profit the owners.

[redrose3125.livejournal.com]

Ah, but as a citizen, I am one of the owners!

In agreement about the fact that a government is not a business, and that it shouldn't be.

[zeeth_kyrah]

The owners are the ones who buy and sell the business, and sadly, that leaves out the people whom that business ostensibly serves.

[redrose3125.livejournal.com]

I was thinking of the owners as the people who hired and fired employees, and made major decisions.

[don-fitch.livejournal.com]

Technically, yes, we voters are the owners, and can refuse to re-hire, in the next election, those legislators with whom we are displeased.

In actual operation, however, the candidates who spend the most money in the campaign almost always get elected, and the people/institutions/corporate entities that contribute large sums of money to the candidates have much more influence than ordinary people like us (assuming that you're not in a position to direct thousands of dollars into any candidate's coffers).

(And yes, I think The System is broken/defective -- and the only people who could repair it got (& remain) where they are because it's the way it is. I can't help but think of the Japanese word _komatta_, which would be applicable to such a situation; it's written with the ideograph of a tree, completely enclosed -- roots, trunk, & branches -- in a box.)

[redrose3125.livejournal.com]

No argument from me that the system is currently broken, and it will be very hard to fix.

[songblaze.livejournal.com]

There's another problem here - the rule of 'business judgement'.

The board of a publicly traded corp actually has a huge amount of leeway given to what they say is their best business judgement. Obviously this can't include actual illegal practices, but choices to maximize profits in one way rather than another do fall under that catagory - whether or not it works.

Ah, the things law school teaches you about how companies can escape responsibility for shit. *sigh*

[libertango.livejournal.com]

"The gist of it was, "dude... we can hire Indians to work for pennies, why should we pay you a living wage?"
"

The quick and dirty answer: Price indicates demand. Indians work for pennies because no one wants their labor. Americans work for the rates they do because everyone wants theirs. Next?

So many fish; such a small barrel; such a big gun.

[antonia-tiger.livejournal.com]

Just checked the original article, and the examples there were presented by the advertisers as a form of creative writing.

Now, assume for the moment that standards of education are not a factor: can foreign workers do the job adequately? It's quite possible that you can find Indians who will write better English than some Americans, but what's the cost of finding them?

Even if the slipshod reputation of the US educational system can be accepted, it's not afflicted every American.