Touche', nice subject derail, and nice jab at the party. But as usual, throwing money at a problem agency that doesn't have a funding problem isn't going to fix the issue.
So you think some of the regulatory agencies haven'y been underfunded and then gutted to try and compensate?
FDA is having difficulty meeting the high expectations of all its constituencies because of an ever-expanding portfolio of oversight and regulatory responsibilities, coupled with depleted resources and a decimated work force. The need to establish a host of new rules and policies to implement FDAAA makes matters worse, at least for the short run.
The situation has become so serious that John Jenkins, director of CDER's Office of New Drugs, is giving review division chiefs leeway to "reduce work as needed on a case-by-case basis," even if that means missing user fee review deadlines. Jenkins explained to reporters that his office cannot keep up with growing requests to meet with sponsors, to provide special protocol assessments for innovative therapies, to fulfill information demands from Congress, and still meet stated user fee timelines. Jenkins noted that there is "no specific end date" to the possibility of missing Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) deadlines because it may take years to hire all the necessary personnel to remedy the situation.
An Underfunded FDA Fights Back - Under fire, FDA is taking steps to regain its stature as an effective science-based regulatory agency. - BioPharm International
Report: FDA underfunded, understaffed - FiercePharma
Food safety inspectors struggle with swelling volume of imports | News for Dallas, Texas | Dallas Morning News | Mexico News
FDA Fails to Protect Americans from Dangerous Drugs and Unsafe Foods ~ Newsroom ~ News from CSPI
Bush Administration Undermines Public Protections with Executive Order Amendments
President signs directive to second-guess regulatory decisions: As if slashing the budgets of U.S. regulatory agencies including the EPA and the Food and Drug Administration weren't enough, George W. Bush signed another executive order that increases Administration influence, installing political appointees to head the agencies—often representatives from the very industries they are charged with regulating. According to the New York Times, "The White House will thus have a gatekeeper in each agency to analyze the costs and the benefits of new rules and to make sure the agencies carry out the president's priorities. This strengthens the hand of the White House in shaping rules that have, in the past, often been generated by civil servants and scientific experts."
Those are just a few of many.
Go back and read the last posts and get yourself up to speed with the rest of the discussion before you please. If you're still confused you can google the pro-American campaigns that the auto industry has put out for years now.
Nice attack, but I did read the entire thread up to where I posted. As I said, "I thought "look for the union label" was first
but no matter. I am still confused as to what point you're trying to make. You prefer a foreign car and...?"
So what is your point? You failed to answer the actual question.
Oh, you brought up the word "harder" which makes for a good class warfare opener. Appropriate subject is, is the work more "critical". Then the answer is yes.
R&D guys get paid a pretty heft amount of cash compared to line guys. But R&D puts out alot of ideas and concepts. The CEO's are the ones that have to decide which one is more financially viable for the company. R&D isn't "in house" as much as it used to be either. Lots of subcontractors are brought in these days.
Fine, you think that a CEO's job is critical enough to justify such huge gaps in compensation between themselves and the lowest paid worker? How did business ever function in the past?
If you just consider the average compensation (wages plus benefits) of full-time year-round workers in non-managerial jobs - roughly $40,000 - CEO pay is more like 270 times bigger than the average Joe's. That's still a far cry from days gone by. In 1989, for instance, U.S. CEOs of large companies earned 71 times more than the average worker, according to the Economic Policy Institute.
The IPS/UFE report also compared U.S. CEO pay to that of leaders in other fields and other countries. The top 20 CEOs of U.S. companies made an average of $36.4 million in 2006. That's 204 times that of the 20 highest paid U.S. military generals, and 38 times that of the 20 highest-paid non-profit leaders. They also made three times more than the top 20 CEOs of European companies who had booked higher sales numbers than their U.S. counterparts.
The pay gap numbers don't include the value of the many perks CEOs receive, which averaged $438,342, according to the report. Nor do they include the pension benefits CEOs receive.
Great analogy, unfortunately its the shareholders that are the ones asking for the food since they're the ones investing money into the company.
Of course, but it gets skewed by CEO/BoD compensation. Shareholders (major investors) want bigger returns if CEO's are going to be paid so much. You seem to be happy to ignore the past in favor of the way things are run today but isn't that sorta the problem we are discussing? We allowed corporations to go crazy because we have been jumping from bubble to bubble with drastic recession in between all so we can feed our greed and now we've got a HUGE recession going on and people are starting to look at our debtors society. I mean people run up their credit cards on crap from wal-mart just so they can have more. I never had my own TV in my room when I was a kid, how did I ever manage to make it through the day... :roll: it's greed. We've been told that the more you have the better life will be, even after 9/11 the President just said to go shopping.. :doh
As I mentioned above, I'm all for kicking these guys to the curb for a crappy job they've done and many companies would do just that. Good experience corporate management is a competitive arena much like an American Football freelance draft. You have put out some sweet deals to get those star players but be willing to trade them if they end up sucking. Thats the one big problem here. Instead of a lower end trade off these guys get some big severance packages. That part needs to change.
But the comparison you make is weak. How do the CORPORATIONS that run those football teams get that money? By raising ticket sales and ancillary sale of food and merchandise. So WE pay more to see the players. But you're right, we need to change that. And of course let's not forget that WE buy our 2 year olds $300 shoes... The whole country needs an attitude change. But advertising really does work and the more you tell people they need more stuff, the more they believe it. It's a vicious circle but the loser is always the consumer.
Yup we bring up China because in a global market they could stand to supercede us in manufacturing if they get their act together anytime soon.
Because we moved our manufacturing there so that corporations could make more money, putting Americans out of work. But that's ok, they make the stuff cheaper (price and quality) so we buy more and more of the garbage that used to be made here. China isn't seeing this great economic boom because they came up with great things we need, they are booming because we gave them the specs and said, "make it cheaper".
Something plausible within the next 20 years. If the Big 3 haven't restructured to be competitive against the other auto manufacturers AND the future Chinese then they're just money sinkholes of walking dead.
Yeah, but what's the first thing the republicans go for? Worker compensation. Sure, make the car in TN. where they don't have a union... that means lower compensation. Why is that the right way to go? Right, because in your next paragraph you explain that worker compensation is the major drag on a companies finances.
I hate to sound cold but employees always have been and always will be a liability on the books of any business. Until you accept that point you'll never really understand how economies work.
I understand and accept that just fine. So what? You HAVE TO HAVE workers just like you HAVE TO HAVE a CEO. It's a business expense.
That they've decided to make their livelihood dependent on the income of a single business/industry doesn't matter. They are a self determined entity which can relocate to a new job, switch to working for a competitor, re-educate to a new industry, or start their own businesses.
This is the republican mantra. It sounds good in theory but it's proven to be bull**** in the real world. Doesn't stop repubs from saying it at every opportunity just to reaffirm the notion in the public consciousness. The truth however is that people have roots in their communities and not everyone is financially willing or able to just pack up and move off to another city for $2/hr more... My family has lived as farmers in southern Il. since 1835 on the same land. I was the first of my line to leave the farm. It's easy for me because I joined the military but my cousins can't just pack up and move their families. I happen to have a more adventurous spirit or whatever and believe me, there have been tough times when I wished I had that family and community support. Not everyone can do that.
Businesses don't have those options without a complete restructuring and devaluing process. But then chpt. 11 gives that option.
It's the same for workers but on a smaller scale. The scale however is equivolent. Families don't have those options without complete restructuring and devaluing. You know, family structure, community value... Bankruptcy is much harder on a family than a business. Thanks Republicans for taking care of the credit card and finance companies by changing bankruptcy laws to screw the people and benefit the corps...
