<p>
</p>
<p>MomofWildChild - you are hilarious, you really are. </p>
<p>After all, you said it yourself - regular people are hurting terribly, with housing equity values sundered, unemployment hovering around 10% with only minor reductions projected in the near future, and overall work hours and pay vastly reduced. </p>
<p>Yet the inconvenient, yet undeniable truth that you apparently didn’t know (or didn’t want to know) is that corporations are generating record profits - a fact that has been extensively covered in every single business publication throughout the past year.</p>
<p>Yet despite all of that, you continue to defend the corporate sector? Come on, really? Why doesn’t the corporate sector rehire the millions of Americans that have been laid off in the past few years? Why don’t they restore the work-hours and bonuses of pre-recessionary days? After all, it’s not as if they couldn’t afford to do so, again they’re making record profits. </p>
<p>Now, you say that you work for a corporation that does care of its employees. Fine, fair enough, I’ll take you at your word. {Heck, I don’t even know which company it is, nor do I care.} But be that as it may, the fact remains that many other companies are clearly not taking care of their employees. After all, if the corporate sector is generating record profits, those profits aren’t just disappearing into thin air - they must clearly be going somewhere. Which begs the questions - where are they going, and why isn’t some of it accruing to labor? </p>
<p>Like I said before, I can understand that if the corporate sector performs poorly, many employees will lose their jobs or have their pay reduced. But why should this also happen when the corporate sector is performing at a record pace? It seems to me that if corporate profits are high, employees should share in that success through greater hiring and greater pay for those who are hired. To be clear, I’m hardly avaricious - I fully recognize that other stakeholders such as investors also will share in those profits. But employees should share as well.</p>
<p>Otherwise, I see no way to avoid the notion that the corporate sector, as a whole, does not treat its employees well. That’s not to say that certain corporations do so, but it must also mean that the sector as a whole does not. That is part and parcel of the central point of my posts on this thread: the corporate sector is not really the most desirable place to work, precisely because it doesn’t treat its employees well. If they did, then you would expect them to offer record pay & employment in accordance with their record profits. </p>
<p>MomofWildchild, what I find most mystifying indeed is why you would continue to take the side of the corporate sector. They’re earning record profits - higher than what they made before the crash - while refusing to share any of those gains with employees, **and you defend that practice? ** Why? </p>
<p>I don’t want to believe that you’re nothing but a corporate shill, but your robust apologia for the corporate sector does beg the question: exactly whose side are you on? If you’re on the side of the employees, then I think you should join me in asking why doesn’t the corporate sector improve the desirability of its jobs, particularly in light of the high profits it has been enjoying?On the other hand, if you’re actually on the side of the corporations, then your all of your posts make perfect sense. But if that’s the case, then I think it’s only fair that you admit as much. </p>
<p>**Nevertheless, at the end of the day, the inescapable fact is that employees are hurting badly while the corporate sector is doing very well, and if you truly and honestly see nothing wrong whatsoever with that combination, I suppose there’s nothing left to say. **</p>