The deadlock that has existed in the California legislature for a generation reflects a lack of clear vision on the part of both Democrats and Republicans. Republicans, who in general regard government as out of control, have successfully pushed anti-tax polices to "starve the beast", most notably the 2/3 vote requirements imposed first by Proposition 13 and later by other propositions. Their policies have managed to cripple many public services without impacting the real major problem with government, the lack of public control over public salaries and pensions.
Democrats, on the other hand, have castigated Republicans for destroying public services, but been unwilling to address the problem of public employee compensation practices.
We cannot solve the problems in California without getting rid of the 2/3 vote requirements in Proposition 13 and other anti-tax adoptions, but we also cannot go on allowing average public sector compensation to greatly exceed average private sector compensation.
We need someone to step forward and develop a grand bargain for California that does some things like:
1. Repeals all 2/3 vote requirements, and precludes future adoptions imposing any higher vote requirement than the percentage of votes that approve the adoption.
2. Links public sector total compensation to average private sector total compensation, but with mean, median and mode tests that flatten the overall salary range. Public sector managers should not be using comparison to private sector salaries to drive their salaries up into the hundreds of thousands of dollars.
3. Requires all public programs to be tested for effectiveness every 5 years and reauthorized every 10 years.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Americas most dangerous
When the Gallup Poll asks Americans which presents the greatest danger to America, big government, big business or big labor, somewhere around 60% of Americans choose big government, 20% chose big business.
My first reaction was what planet are these people living on? What is the evidence that big government is dangerous? Wall Street just blew up the whole world economy, leaving millions of American's out of work, with lost retirement benefits and foreclosed houses. The last time we had a similar economic catastrophe it was also Wall Streets doing (the great depression). Its hard to blame big government for either of these events since those arch enemies of big goverment, Republicans, were in control of government both times for the decade leading up to the collapse (although Republicans are very creative is weaseling out of responsibility). Although certainly government contributed due to the tentacles big business has that can manipulate government to their ends.
After the last economic blow up Social Security and Medicare are all many people have to make it through their older years. What's big business done for them lately?
The sobering reality is that what people believe isn't based in reality. The same marketing expertise that convinces people to pay $5 for a tube of tooth paste that is no better than the $3 generic alternative, has been used by supporters of the big business viewpoint to sell voters a fictional reality.
(Poll results reported on NPR/(Marketplace, 12/14/11)
My first reaction was what planet are these people living on? What is the evidence that big government is dangerous? Wall Street just blew up the whole world economy, leaving millions of American's out of work, with lost retirement benefits and foreclosed houses. The last time we had a similar economic catastrophe it was also Wall Streets doing (the great depression). Its hard to blame big government for either of these events since those arch enemies of big goverment, Republicans, were in control of government both times for the decade leading up to the collapse (although Republicans are very creative is weaseling out of responsibility). Although certainly government contributed due to the tentacles big business has that can manipulate government to their ends.
After the last economic blow up Social Security and Medicare are all many people have to make it through their older years. What's big business done for them lately?
The sobering reality is that what people believe isn't based in reality. The same marketing expertise that convinces people to pay $5 for a tube of tooth paste that is no better than the $3 generic alternative, has been used by supporters of the big business viewpoint to sell voters a fictional reality.
(Poll results reported on NPR/(Marketplace, 12/14/11)
Sunday, January 22, 2012
Things Republicans could do to make me take them seriously - Public / Private partnerships
In a democracy laws are often compromises that are less about finding the best solutions than they are about giving everyone something to make them happy. So we end up with laws that don't work for anyone except the special interests who know how to work them. One common compromise has been to make government programs "public private" partnerships. Generally that means private folks put up some money and take home any profits the entity produces, while public entities absorb the losses.
Public private partnerships are almost always a disaster for taxpayers.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac grew out of a pragmatic desire to allow more people to own homes. But some in Congress who were representing the interests of Financial institutions used their influence to give Financial institutions a cut of the action. The public private hybrid managed to have the worst characteristics of both and the best characteristics of neither.
Higher Education and Health Care are two other areas Congress has melded an amalgam of government functions with profit motivated private business. For the last three decades costs for both have risen much faster than inflation, as our systems are subject to few of the controls of the marketplace.
History seems to have demonstrated that if we think some problem needs to be addressed by a Government program, it should be government only program, Public/private partnerships are a bad idea for everyone but the investors who will be milking the taxpayers.
Public private partnerships are almost always a disaster for taxpayers.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac grew out of a pragmatic desire to allow more people to own homes. But some in Congress who were representing the interests of Financial institutions used their influence to give Financial institutions a cut of the action. The public private hybrid managed to have the worst characteristics of both and the best characteristics of neither.
Higher Education and Health Care are two other areas Congress has melded an amalgam of government functions with profit motivated private business. For the last three decades costs for both have risen much faster than inflation, as our systems are subject to few of the controls of the marketplace.
History seems to have demonstrated that if we think some problem needs to be addressed by a Government program, it should be government only program, Public/private partnerships are a bad idea for everyone but the investors who will be milking the taxpayers.
Monday, January 16, 2012
Making Democracy more fair - Super Majorities defeat Democracy
A couple years ago big business interests hired sharp lobbying groups to put a measure on the California Ballot that would insulate them from paying fee's to cover the costs of damage caused by their business operations. The lobbying groups, with millions of dollars to work with, qualified a measure for the November 2010 California Ballot, Prop 26, that expanded the 2/3 majority vote requirement enacted by Prop 13 in 1978 to cover fee's imposed on business to prevent or clean up damage their business operations cause. They probably chose the November 2010 election carefully, as a off year election where turnout would be low, so their advertising dollars needed to sway fewer voters.
In the November 2010 election in California there were 23.5 million persons in California who were eligible to vote. 17.2 million were registered. Less than 10 million voted on Prop 26. 4.92 million voted for the proposition, 4.27 million voted against it. It was a approved by a margin of 52.5% to 47.5%.
The 2/3 vote requirement, since it was first enacted in 1978, it has proven to be an almost insurmountable barrier to legislative action on almost everything. Yet this 2010 law imposing a virtually impossible 2/3 majority requirement on legislative imposition of fee's was approved by only 52% of the voters voting, and about 20% of the residents of the state eligible to vote.
Prop 13, which created the 2/3 vote requirement in 1978 was also passed by a relatively small majority of the voting population. There were 15 million possible voters in California in June of 1978, a little less than 10 million were registered to vote, 4.3 million voters voted for Prop 13, 2.3 million voted against it. Only 43% of the eligible voters actually voted, somewhere around 28% actually voted in favor of Proposition 13.
I am not arguing that a low turnout affects what passes and what doesn't pass, if people chose not to vote we have to go with the choice of the people that did turnout. What I am arguing is that no vote should be able to impose higher approval requirements on future enactments than the percentage by which the enacting law was passed.
The Prop 13 2/3 vote requirement was particularly anti-democratic in its effect on local governments. The requirement was created in Statewide elections but applies to local governments. San Francisco and Kern Counties both voted against Prop 13, yet now they are required to get a 2/3 majority vote to impose local taxes or fees.
Lets talk partisan politics for a moment. The 2/3 tax requirement is generally favored by anti-tax Republicans, in particular big business, who are a minority of voters. They have recognized it is a way to leverage their votes so their votes count more than people who put a higher stock on good government. As long ago as the 1930's they managed to get a 2/3 vote requirement to impose taxes on Banks. It took decades to get that law changed to a simple majority vote.
We need to put a provision in the Constitution that no provision of law can impose a higher percentage vote requirement than the percentage of voters that approve the law.
In the November 2010 election in California there were 23.5 million persons in California who were eligible to vote. 17.2 million were registered. Less than 10 million voted on Prop 26. 4.92 million voted for the proposition, 4.27 million voted against it. It was a approved by a margin of 52.5% to 47.5%.
The 2/3 vote requirement, since it was first enacted in 1978, it has proven to be an almost insurmountable barrier to legislative action on almost everything. Yet this 2010 law imposing a virtually impossible 2/3 majority requirement on legislative imposition of fee's was approved by only 52% of the voters voting, and about 20% of the residents of the state eligible to vote.
Prop 13, which created the 2/3 vote requirement in 1978 was also passed by a relatively small majority of the voting population. There were 15 million possible voters in California in June of 1978, a little less than 10 million were registered to vote, 4.3 million voters voted for Prop 13, 2.3 million voted against it. Only 43% of the eligible voters actually voted, somewhere around 28% actually voted in favor of Proposition 13.
I am not arguing that a low turnout affects what passes and what doesn't pass, if people chose not to vote we have to go with the choice of the people that did turnout. What I am arguing is that no vote should be able to impose higher approval requirements on future enactments than the percentage by which the enacting law was passed.
The Prop 13 2/3 vote requirement was particularly anti-democratic in its effect on local governments. The requirement was created in Statewide elections but applies to local governments. San Francisco and Kern Counties both voted against Prop 13, yet now they are required to get a 2/3 majority vote to impose local taxes or fees.
Lets talk partisan politics for a moment. The 2/3 tax requirement is generally favored by anti-tax Republicans, in particular big business, who are a minority of voters. They have recognized it is a way to leverage their votes so their votes count more than people who put a higher stock on good government. As long ago as the 1930's they managed to get a 2/3 vote requirement to impose taxes on Banks. It took decades to get that law changed to a simple majority vote.
We need to put a provision in the Constitution that no provision of law can impose a higher percentage vote requirement than the percentage of voters that approve the law.
Monday, January 9, 2012
The relationship of government employees to the private sector
There is a problem inherent in all government - the motivational factors that control private enterprise are not present in government enterprise.
In private enterprise the funds available for salaries are dependent on how well you do what you do. If you are successful at the enterprise generally you generate more income. If you make bad decisions or lose focus on what you need to do that fact will be brought to your attention by a loss of income as customers turn elsewhere.
But by its nature government decides how much money government needs and then assesses taxes or fees to produce the money and then decides how to spend the money.
We are all familiar with the most glaring examples of this tendency - dictatorships around the world where the government primarily serves to enrich those in control. But even democracies have the same problem. We are experiencing that fact right now with much of the developed world wrapped up in huge budgetary problems due to the tendency of governments seeking to remain in power to be reluctant to tax, but happy to hand out benefits to public employees who are potential voters.
Here is a statistic I find illustrative of the problem. According to census bureau figures the Metropolitan area with the highest household income in the country is - Washington D.C. What puts Washington above even Silicon Valley? Well for starters the average federal employee makes more than $126,000 a year in combined salary and benefits. Couple that with the fact the town is full of lawyers (1 in every 12 city residents is a lawyer) and that government work is very lucrative (young attorneys make an average of $186,000 a year in Washington compared to the national average of $123,000).
Here is what makes sense to me. We should be lobbying at the local, state and national level for a Charter or Constitutional amendment that links the salary and benefits of government jobs to the average salary and benefits in the private sector. Say 98% of the private sector average for equivalent work. We also cap government salary at some multiple of the average private sector salary, rather than allowing government managers to drive their pay up to extraordinary levels by comparing themselves to salaries in the private sector.
Despite what economist think, not all people are motivated by money. Many people, once they have achieved a basic level of economic comfort and security, are motivated by service, by the opportunity to do good things for others. Those are the people we want in government, and they sometimes get pushed aside by people motivated by money. Let those motivated by money pursue their ambitions in the private sector.
(Statistics taken from a Bloomberg News Article published in the San Francisco Chronicle business section, page D5, October 20, 2011)
In private enterprise the funds available for salaries are dependent on how well you do what you do. If you are successful at the enterprise generally you generate more income. If you make bad decisions or lose focus on what you need to do that fact will be brought to your attention by a loss of income as customers turn elsewhere.
But by its nature government decides how much money government needs and then assesses taxes or fees to produce the money and then decides how to spend the money.
We are all familiar with the most glaring examples of this tendency - dictatorships around the world where the government primarily serves to enrich those in control. But even democracies have the same problem. We are experiencing that fact right now with much of the developed world wrapped up in huge budgetary problems due to the tendency of governments seeking to remain in power to be reluctant to tax, but happy to hand out benefits to public employees who are potential voters.
Here is a statistic I find illustrative of the problem. According to census bureau figures the Metropolitan area with the highest household income in the country is - Washington D.C. What puts Washington above even Silicon Valley? Well for starters the average federal employee makes more than $126,000 a year in combined salary and benefits. Couple that with the fact the town is full of lawyers (1 in every 12 city residents is a lawyer) and that government work is very lucrative (young attorneys make an average of $186,000 a year in Washington compared to the national average of $123,000).
Here is what makes sense to me. We should be lobbying at the local, state and national level for a Charter or Constitutional amendment that links the salary and benefits of government jobs to the average salary and benefits in the private sector. Say 98% of the private sector average for equivalent work. We also cap government salary at some multiple of the average private sector salary, rather than allowing government managers to drive their pay up to extraordinary levels by comparing themselves to salaries in the private sector.
Despite what economist think, not all people are motivated by money. Many people, once they have achieved a basic level of economic comfort and security, are motivated by service, by the opportunity to do good things for others. Those are the people we want in government, and they sometimes get pushed aside by people motivated by money. Let those motivated by money pursue their ambitions in the private sector.
(Statistics taken from a Bloomberg News Article published in the San Francisco Chronicle business section, page D5, October 20, 2011)
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Congress has always belonged to Wall Street
Think about your retirement account. As Congress developed the law that governs our retirement accounts over the years they could have authorized us each to set up a trust account where we could invest in anything and have our income from the investment tax free as it accumulates. In a trust account we could invest in a neighbors new business, or our own business, or we could buy a rental property, or buy gold coins or any other asset we think is a good long term investment. Trust law has existed for hundreds of years, it would have been easy and cheap to create tax free retirement accounts using trust law.
But that wasn't what Congress did. Instead they gave the financial services industry a monopoly on the tax free benefits of retirement accounts. If you want the ability to invest tax free for retirement you have to invest through a financial services company that will charge you fee's and limit what you can invest in.
It has been a bonanza for the financial services industry. Financial services used to be a small part of our economy, now it is the biggest profit center in the US economy. As a result our retirement accounts are at the mercy of the greed that created the 2007-08 economic meltdown, or the Financial services industry entanglement with European government bonds.
It is not to late. Congress could still create a trust based retirement provisions that don't require handing a portion of your investment income to a financial services industry. Possible but extremely unlikely - unfortunately.
But that wasn't what Congress did. Instead they gave the financial services industry a monopoly on the tax free benefits of retirement accounts. If you want the ability to invest tax free for retirement you have to invest through a financial services company that will charge you fee's and limit what you can invest in.
It has been a bonanza for the financial services industry. Financial services used to be a small part of our economy, now it is the biggest profit center in the US economy. As a result our retirement accounts are at the mercy of the greed that created the 2007-08 economic meltdown, or the Financial services industry entanglement with European government bonds.
It is not to late. Congress could still create a trust based retirement provisions that don't require handing a portion of your investment income to a financial services industry. Possible but extremely unlikely - unfortunately.
Monday, December 26, 2011
The America Institution of Crony Capitalism
The way a free market works that I learned long ago in Economics class is the people that put up the money hire managers for the business and the managers hire labor. The three legs of this stool have roughly equal bargaining power so are able to work out an agreement that allows them all to profit from the enterprise.
This idealistic theoretical notion has never worked very well in modern reality for labor absent strong unions and in modern life large business enterprises that dominate the economy also have disenfranchised ownership somewhat. In large business enterprises managers have developed disproportionate power. Ownership is diffuse and inattentive. Corporate management has become an exclusive club that looks after its own. Every Corporation is run by a Board of Directors composed mostly of top managers from other corporations. The Board of Directors govern how much top managers get paid, and often the road to becoming a member of the board of directors is through management. Since shareholder power is diffuse and difficult to organize the typical Board of Directors is pretty free to run the company as they see fit. And the evidence suggests for the last 20 years or so they seem to believe that showering money on their fellow club members is the best was to run the company.
Financial publications like the Economist have been noting for years the extraordinary rise of wages for corporate management in the United States. This isn't because companies are rewarding managers who have performed spectacularly, raising their company above all of their competitors, after the fact. Its all top managers. Management that run companies into bankruptcy got multi-millions in annual compensation, then make millions more with their golden parachutes. Managers whose companies muddle along in the middle of the pack of competitors make millions of dollars.
Government has failed to structure financial incentives in a manner that keeps the relative power of owners, managers and workers in alignment.
Evidence for this theory?
Even in this recession big corporations are making piles of money. But neither owners nor workers are benefiting.
Owners get little - big Corporations pay peanuts in dividends to their shareholders (the owners), many tech corporations don't even pay dividends. The only way to make money on stocks is by clever buying and selling of stocks, there is little money to be made in the next decade or so by buying and holding stocks since decades of rising stock prices have pushed stock prices well above their historical averages. When you do own a stock you face the risk management is pursuing short term policies to pump up stock prices so they can pay themselves millions, even though they are destroying the long term viability of the corporation. How many corporate bankruptcies in the last couple years have been accompanied by news of corporate CEO's parachuting out with their multi-million dollar severance packages?
Workers are perhaps the biggest losers. Managers use the Company's financial clout to undermine the bargaining power of workers. Managers use the threat of job loss to drive down wages for workers, then lay them off anyway to ship production overseas.
The law has been twisted to coddle this form of crony capitalism that is hollowing out our middle class and enriching anybody who can glad hand their way into the club. Management has used the financial power of the corporations to control the political debate in this country and set the rules in their favor. Their influence sends the US military around the globe to protect the commercial interests of large business enterprises on borrowed money they want taxpayers to repay. When big enterprises make stupid mistakes they get bailed out by Government, or run into the bankruptcy court to dump losses on investors, suppliers and workers, but I have never heard of a bankruptcy court requiring top management to return some of their salary. Corporations pour money into candidates who protect the ability of wealthy folks to make as much money as possible from large business enterprises at the expense of security for old working people. They undermine efforts at reforming our ridiculously expensive and inefficient private health care system.
Crony Capitalism will always be with us. Business will always largely be run by those among us who are the most obsessed with money, status and their own self interest. They will never control their own tendency to choose what is best for them in the short term. Their cleverness, energy and ambition can be a benefit to all, but we need to channel it.
That is government's job - to set rules that insure a fair and prosperous future for all. Government best tool for controlling business excess is not through dictating how business behaves, Governments role is to structure the law in a manner that aligns financial incentives away from short term get rich quick thinking and maintains a balance of power between the stakeholders. For example:
1. To re-balance the power of owners and management government should create a graduated tax structure for corporate taxation. Companies with fairly flat compensation plans that spread wealth broadly across the whole range of employees pay lower taxes than companies that are used to enrich the top management. Use a mean, median and mode test that will insure the Board of Directors won't be able to indulge in handing out excessive compensation to management without bumping up the Corporate tax rate - with all the negative ramifications that will have on the stock price and corporate profitability. So in the end the market of owners will have the power to control managers.
2. To remove the extraordinary political power management has developed through the use of corporate funds, we have to make an end run around the nonsense notion that the Supreme Court has burdened us with that Corporations have the same rights as people under the Constitution. Corporations don't exist in nature, they are created by law. Congress could pass a law linking the limited liability that makes Corporations such a valuable tool for business to limitations on political activities. So if a corporation wants to engage in political activism the owners and/or managers are no longer exempt from personal liability for any damages they cause in their business activities.
3. Restructure the personal income tax law to go back to something like the 1954 tax code. Lots of marginal tax rates, some so high as to be confiscatory as a disincentive to folks seeking to pad their pockets through corporate cronyism. Then allow companies to create a "stock trust" for their executives, where as compensation to entice good performance the Board of Directors can reward managers by depositing a special class of stock into trust for the managers that is lower priority than regular stock and the first wiped out in bankruptcy. The trust holds the stock until 5 years after the manager leaves or retires at which point it can be transferred directly to the retired manager as ordinary common stock. The goal is to align the managers self interest with the long term interests of the company.
4. Reform the Bankruptcy Code to make top managements perks as vulnerable as labor retirement obligations, and/or make bankruptcy automatic anytime top management does not to fully fund promised worker wage or retirement obligations.
This idealistic theoretical notion has never worked very well in modern reality for labor absent strong unions and in modern life large business enterprises that dominate the economy also have disenfranchised ownership somewhat. In large business enterprises managers have developed disproportionate power. Ownership is diffuse and inattentive. Corporate management has become an exclusive club that looks after its own. Every Corporation is run by a Board of Directors composed mostly of top managers from other corporations. The Board of Directors govern how much top managers get paid, and often the road to becoming a member of the board of directors is through management. Since shareholder power is diffuse and difficult to organize the typical Board of Directors is pretty free to run the company as they see fit. And the evidence suggests for the last 20 years or so they seem to believe that showering money on their fellow club members is the best was to run the company.
Financial publications like the Economist have been noting for years the extraordinary rise of wages for corporate management in the United States. This isn't because companies are rewarding managers who have performed spectacularly, raising their company above all of their competitors, after the fact. Its all top managers. Management that run companies into bankruptcy got multi-millions in annual compensation, then make millions more with their golden parachutes. Managers whose companies muddle along in the middle of the pack of competitors make millions of dollars.
Government has failed to structure financial incentives in a manner that keeps the relative power of owners, managers and workers in alignment.
Evidence for this theory?
Even in this recession big corporations are making piles of money. But neither owners nor workers are benefiting.
Owners get little - big Corporations pay peanuts in dividends to their shareholders (the owners), many tech corporations don't even pay dividends. The only way to make money on stocks is by clever buying and selling of stocks, there is little money to be made in the next decade or so by buying and holding stocks since decades of rising stock prices have pushed stock prices well above their historical averages. When you do own a stock you face the risk management is pursuing short term policies to pump up stock prices so they can pay themselves millions, even though they are destroying the long term viability of the corporation. How many corporate bankruptcies in the last couple years have been accompanied by news of corporate CEO's parachuting out with their multi-million dollar severance packages?
Workers are perhaps the biggest losers. Managers use the Company's financial clout to undermine the bargaining power of workers. Managers use the threat of job loss to drive down wages for workers, then lay them off anyway to ship production overseas.
The law has been twisted to coddle this form of crony capitalism that is hollowing out our middle class and enriching anybody who can glad hand their way into the club. Management has used the financial power of the corporations to control the political debate in this country and set the rules in their favor. Their influence sends the US military around the globe to protect the commercial interests of large business enterprises on borrowed money they want taxpayers to repay. When big enterprises make stupid mistakes they get bailed out by Government, or run into the bankruptcy court to dump losses on investors, suppliers and workers, but I have never heard of a bankruptcy court requiring top management to return some of their salary. Corporations pour money into candidates who protect the ability of wealthy folks to make as much money as possible from large business enterprises at the expense of security for old working people. They undermine efforts at reforming our ridiculously expensive and inefficient private health care system.
Crony Capitalism will always be with us. Business will always largely be run by those among us who are the most obsessed with money, status and their own self interest. They will never control their own tendency to choose what is best for them in the short term. Their cleverness, energy and ambition can be a benefit to all, but we need to channel it.
That is government's job - to set rules that insure a fair and prosperous future for all. Government best tool for controlling business excess is not through dictating how business behaves, Governments role is to structure the law in a manner that aligns financial incentives away from short term get rich quick thinking and maintains a balance of power between the stakeholders. For example:
1. To re-balance the power of owners and management government should create a graduated tax structure for corporate taxation. Companies with fairly flat compensation plans that spread wealth broadly across the whole range of employees pay lower taxes than companies that are used to enrich the top management. Use a mean, median and mode test that will insure the Board of Directors won't be able to indulge in handing out excessive compensation to management without bumping up the Corporate tax rate - with all the negative ramifications that will have on the stock price and corporate profitability. So in the end the market of owners will have the power to control managers.
2. To remove the extraordinary political power management has developed through the use of corporate funds, we have to make an end run around the nonsense notion that the Supreme Court has burdened us with that Corporations have the same rights as people under the Constitution. Corporations don't exist in nature, they are created by law. Congress could pass a law linking the limited liability that makes Corporations such a valuable tool for business to limitations on political activities. So if a corporation wants to engage in political activism the owners and/or managers are no longer exempt from personal liability for any damages they cause in their business activities.
3. Restructure the personal income tax law to go back to something like the 1954 tax code. Lots of marginal tax rates, some so high as to be confiscatory as a disincentive to folks seeking to pad their pockets through corporate cronyism. Then allow companies to create a "stock trust" for their executives, where as compensation to entice good performance the Board of Directors can reward managers by depositing a special class of stock into trust for the managers that is lower priority than regular stock and the first wiped out in bankruptcy. The trust holds the stock until 5 years after the manager leaves or retires at which point it can be transferred directly to the retired manager as ordinary common stock. The goal is to align the managers self interest with the long term interests of the company.
4. Reform the Bankruptcy Code to make top managements perks as vulnerable as labor retirement obligations, and/or make bankruptcy automatic anytime top management does not to fully fund promised worker wage or retirement obligations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)