Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
I suppose the argument goes something like this: for companies to be competitive, salaries cannot rise much faster than productivity, at least not in the long run.

That's perfect narrative logic - superficially convincing, but lacking real predictive power or insight.

What if the argument went like this: for companies to be competitive, salaries should be larger to create larger disposable incomes, increase the national tax base and boost both personal and public discretionary spending?

Or like this: for companies to be competitive, shareholder and management compensation should be limited in the short term, to maximise investment and shareholder return in the medium and long term?

Some or all of these could be true. Have they ever been tested?

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Wed Dec 22nd, 2010 at 06:31:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:

Display:

Top Diaries

Occasional Series