Ruchir, you are wrong. There is no minimum wage provision in the private sector - especially among the unskilled employee base. I think it is required. Where does the manifesto talk about caps on pay?
http://labourbureau.nic.in/wagetab.htm
You will find the minimum wages fixed for every state here. The 3rd column shows the number of industries covered by minimum wage act per state. So I will agree here that fair minimum wage should be set for all workers, and I guess govt is working toward that.
You call this a minimum wage? In today's times? This is not even charity. It is an insult. Government salaries - even those of a sweeper - have increased beyond this. What is wrong if the SP or anyone else wants to bring minimum salaries everywhere in sync with those that the government pays its staff?
Now you are deviating from your original point. Your point was that there was no govt prescribed minimum wage for private sector. I just showed you that govt does prescribe minimum wage for private sector. Whether that wage is enough or not is another discussion.
As for SP's manifesto, I couldn't find it even on SP's own website. So I (and possibly you too) don't know what is in it, but I can only make a judgment on where the party will go if at all it gets to becomes a partner in Center. I am only extending their general outlook toward Indian economy and the rich.
So you are criticising a perfectly logical step suggested by someone just on the basis of the image that you have of that entity. Very nice. All articles published by the media about the SP manifesto - which was distributed to the media - mentions syncing of minimum wages. I am commenting based on those reports.
Ok, SP wants private sector minimum wages to be same as govt minimum wages, right? The link that I gave you give the minimum wages prescribed for all industries - govt and private. So, what's the beef here? Govt already prescribes same minimum wages for both sectors. All they have to do is to see that it is being followed properly. So, what new is SP saying here?
On Obama's plan, again my understanding is that only those banks / institutions that have taken TARP funds from the government have to cap executive compensation. What is wrong with that? The govt is effectively the owner of these companies - they can decide what they pay their employees. How is this equivalent to making those who don't work rich and those who work less rich, I don't really understand.
US govt doesn't own those institutions who received TARP money. Show me where it says in TARP Bill that US Treasury will own the institutions that receive TARP money? Congress had to pass a separate bill - The Pay for Performance Act of 2009 - to achieve this. TARP Bill had no such provision. So you are wrong. Just because an institution received TARP money does not mean it is owned by US Govt. Therefore US Govt has no right to fix executive salaries. If US Govt does not like the salaries of such institutions, it can very well let them go bankrupt, but it has no right whatsoever in deciding what the salaries should be.
Sir, by the very logic that these institutions or corporates are run, a shareholder is an owner of a corporate. A majority shareholder is the controlling shareholder. So, if the US govt owns 36% in Citi, it can very well decide to set salaries the way it wants. What is wrong with that? Moreover, if the said institutions do not want salary caps, they have a very simple option - repay the funds. No one seems keen to do that ..despite making brave statements to the contrary.
Dont give me technicalities such as the TARP bill does not have such a provision. If it does not, THAT was a mistake. And I am sure the new bill links to TARP fundng. Again, if these institutions do not like it, return the money. File for bankruptcy. Will they?
You seem to think that every shareholder has same power to decide how a company should be run. I think reality is different. US govt may hold 36% of CITI shares, but there are 64% other shareholders too, whom US govt can not override because they are the majority. If those 64% shareholders decide that excessive salaries are justified then US govt can not do anything. That is what the law says. THAT is why Obama administration had to come out with a very specific law to limit executive salaries.
Again, just because US govt invested money, does not mean they own the company. US govt does not own 51% shares of any individual company receiving TARP money. You should look at this issue from legal point of view, not moral.
Also, there are 11 big banks which are ready to return the TARP money they received but Tim Giethner is refusing to accept the money back. Yes... this may sound very difficulty to digest, but read the papers... 11 big banks are ready to return TARP money because they don't want govt meddling with their affairs, but Treasury is not willing to take the money back. The excuse they are making is that they want to put these banks under a so-called stress-test, which is nothing but running hypothetical monetary scenarios on these banks.
I will repeat, if Obama did not like the high salaries, he should have let these banks go bankrupt. You can not simply give money, be the minority shareholder and then dream of controlling the bank any way you want. That is legally not possible.
As for making poor or not working rich, it is not about making them rich, it is about giving them free money. SP's idea of unemployment allowance is directly geared toward that. You can't simply give free money to someone just because he is alive!!! Indian constitution does not provide that fundamental right!!! Indian constitution does not grant a right to money or right to employment. The basic idea of giving unemployment allowance is noble, but the govt should have money in the first place to pay for it. That is what I am pointing at. India does not have money to pay for billions who will line up to receive unemployment allowance.
The Indian Constitution is not cast in stone. It has been, and will continue to be, modified from time to time through various Acts. The SP is proposing such an Act. So you point that the Constitution does not give anyone a right does not really matter. Refer to the next point for more on unemployment allowance.
There has to be common sense applied behind any change in constitution.
As for unemployment benefits, if a govt cannot ensure employment, it has to ensure some min unemployment benefits ...I see nothing wrong in that. Why do we not question where governments get money for all the fiscal and other incentives that they provide industry with? There are several loopholes in the indian tax structure and just correcting that will be a good start in my view.
Again, Indian constitution does not grant a right to employment. That's why Indian govt is not duty bound to provide minimum or maximum employment. And there is something wrong with it. Govt can not provide employment to everyone. No govt on planet earth can create so many job that is will be able to provide employment to every skilled or unskilled person. That is impossible. That is why it is laughable that SP is proposing something like this. Cong (I) tried it already - under its proposal of providing 100 day employment - and failed miserably at it. SP is using this empty promise as a vote catcher, nothing more. That is what I am pointing at.
Sir, do look beyond the literal ...when I said the government is duty bound to provide employment, I did not mean that everyone should get government jobs. Ok, let me rephrase ..the government is bound (if not by the Constitution then by parameters of good governance) to create an environment where everyone has a right to earn a decent living. If the SP, or anyone else, tries to incorporate better governance into the Constitution, it has to be applauded.
I agree with you here, govt is duty bound to "provide an environment" where employment prospers. No arguments with you here. However, SP is not talking about providing an environment. That is not their intention. They talk about running an unemployment allowance program. That is what I spoke against. I said there is no way Indian govt can fund this program.
I do question many times the incentives that Govt gives various industries. But remember, those incentives or subsidies are geared toward helping those industries survive or be profitable.
Oh ...so, industries should be helped to survive ...but not people?
People will automatically survive when they have jobs. They will have jobs only and only when industries survive. Simple.
These incentives and subsidies are not cash dole outs. Rather they are tax breaks that the industry receives.
Hehe ...cash not paid is cash received. What should belong to the government stays with the company. It is nothing but a dole out. If it just a matter of technicality for you (as in the case of the Constitution), would it be ok if instead of giving cash, the government gives people houses or land or wheat free? Or say, one house for everyone at Rs1,000/each (mind you, this is just an example). Then it would not be cash dole outs as per your definition ..it would just be like land being given free or at highly discounted rates to companies.
IMO nothing should be given free unless you are giving it to a handicap person or a senior citizen. Apart from that, my point above was in relation to subsidies given to many industries, who survive or remain profitable because of these subsidies and therefore either create or maintain the jobs within them, thereby benefiting a lot of people (by giving them jobs - which if I'm not mistaken is what you want too).
And many such incentives are directly responsible for many industry surviving
Yeah right.
Sun Pharmaceuticals - US$5bn market cap ... US$1.2bn revenues; US$500m pre-tax profit; tax paid - 2% (v/s corp tax rate of 30%) - I'm sure this company will collpase / not survive if it is made to pay more tax
Reliance Industries - I dont even remember the market cap or profit numbers - look them up ...pays less than minimum tax ...sure, they are surviving because of tax incentives given by the government
Give me a break.
I will simply quote myself --
I do question many times the incentives that Govt gives various industries.and keeping people employed (which is what you and me want - employment). Again, the incentives are not direct cash going to industry, rather it is industry not having to pay certain taxes or fees.
By the same token, giving unemployment allowance to people who cannot make a living for themselves keep them healthy and capable of taking up jobs as and when industry grows ...which is what the industry and the country also want - people capable of working.
Besides, there is a simple concept of social cost ...if people do not have jobs and nothing to help them make ends meet, they turn to crime & such ...of course, you'll not see the cost in numbers in a budget statement or annual report ...but there is a cost that society incurs.
No, unemployment allowance is different from subsidies given to save jobs. When a person is working, and a subsidy is given to the company he is working in, that subsidy goes towards letting a lot of people remain profitable citizens of society. When you give unemployment allowance, you effectively reward a person for being a drain on the society. Remember, you can not burden for long, the good of the society to support the bad. This has never been done successfully.
Unemployment program is still a controlled program in US because anyone's current working status can be checked via his SSN. So, usually laid-off people get unemployment allowance. I can't even begin to imagine what would be the criteria for giving unemployment allowance in India? How would any verification be done? Unless the way govt administers the nation changes drastically, we should not be even thinking about starting such programs that have a very very high scope of misuse and thereby immense drainage of govt funds.
AuthorTopic: SP vows action against English language, computers (Read 615 times)
July 11, 2006, 01:25:22 PM