One might further infer that, such incentives should have produced a highly efficient, well-balanced, stable and socially responsible market economy. An economy where employees, taxpayers and corporations are partners, working together for the benefits of all segments of society. Performing like Denmark, Finland, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and a few other countries that have been successful for decades.
Instead of emulating these countries‘ management style, in North America a new, semi-nomadic business model was introduced over the years, wherein near poverty line wages, reduced social benefits (if any), and high unemployment rates have become the norm. This new norm was adopted to gain a "competitive edge" on the global market and to attract more new business investments for Canada.
As a result of such policies, many companies settled for a while, enjoyed the benefits of grants, interest free loans, and access to low-cost utility rates, etc.. However, most of them eventually either sold out, closed down their operations, or even declared bankruptcy, leaving behind socio-econo-fiscal calamity.
Having learned from this cyclic experience, socially conscious governments in some parts of the world (many, many decades ago) decided to implement and maintain social security and welfare programs to ease the plight of the unemployed and low-income earning masses. While the establishment still prefers to refer to, “Small Business as the engine that drives the Canadian Economy", the reality is that most businesses find it impossible to compete with their foreign counterparts, whose manufacturing cost is 90% lower. Obviously, the officialdom hasn't been listening to the late Mary Kay, former CEO of Mary Kay Cosmetics, who on a few occasions expressed her views on this topic in the following manner, "In competition there are always winners and losers." And one might add that Canada, as a whole, is certainly not on the winning side.
Anna Zecconi, V.P. and owner of Galt Furniture in Cambridge, Ontario, expressed her sentiments a few years ago in the media by saying that, "We are an extinct species. Furniture manufacturers are closing every day. My company employs 15 people, down from 40, and it's hard for small businesses to compete with foreign companies that dump mass produced furnishings at discounted prices."
Small commercial businesses have similar problems; inasmuch as they also cannot compete with the so-called supermarkets’ operational costs. However, even supermarkets such as Zehrs and Loblaws are also losing out to the even larger, big box stores, like Wal-Mart.
In a "one on one" conversation, employees of these new superstores are complaining that, when these buy-outs and conversions take place, they always lose seniority, get less wages, and less benefits.
Generally speaking, employers and employees are literally in a deadlock situation. Employers claim, they cannot afford to pay "living wages", and employees, earning substandard wages, are shut out of the marketplace. When that happens, in the absence of a reasonable volume of consumer base, employers are advised that they can manage with less staff, which results in a higher rate of unemployment and even less consumption. Some say, it's a road to economic self-destruction.
Yet, according to news reports, many companies are engaging in a "cost optimization program", a.k.a a "headcount reduction", in the interest of improving the bottom line. There are even business consultants that are advising corporations on how to "manage human capital and technology more effectively in order to become more competitive."
So the question one might raise at this point, is this: All considering, is this really the best that the establishment can provide for all the stakeholders of this country? There is plenty of evidence to suggest that by applying the appropriate policies, this country's economic performance can be substantially improved for the benefit of all.
Read More
No comments:
Post a Comment