![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
How accounting might save us
There are a number of majorly screwed up things that could be "fixed" by what amount to simple changes in accounting rules/practices.
First, deferred maintenance on anything should not by considered as a cost saving measure. Instead it should be treated like what it *is*, namely a liability. It should be carried on the books as a liability amounting to the *actual* cost of needed maintenance (ie not what they'd like to spend, but what *needs* to be spent) plus 10% or the actual st plus the actual cost of the extra maintenance that will be needed because of the postponement, whichever is *greater*.
This is to make it *painfully* clear that deferring maintenance is a really *bad* idea.
Second, pensions are to be "fully funded". That is to say, they get treated like you are setting up an annuity. So if the company goes bankrupt, the pensions will still get paid. Likewise,the company does *not* get to change the rules for existing employees without their permission. So suddenly rolling back pensions to save money.
Pensions should be treated like a contract. No unilateral changes. And no borrowing from the pension funds by the company (or government! I'm looking at you Congress)
Third, waste disposal costs not merely for manufacturing products, but for disposing of them after the wear out or are obsolete are to be born by the company, *not* the consumer.
This won't end "planned obsolesence" and the "new model every year" BS, but it'll at least reduce it. And help deal with disposing or the resulting "trash".
First, deferred maintenance on anything should not by considered as a cost saving measure. Instead it should be treated like what it *is*, namely a liability. It should be carried on the books as a liability amounting to the *actual* cost of needed maintenance (ie not what they'd like to spend, but what *needs* to be spent) plus 10% or the actual st plus the actual cost of the extra maintenance that will be needed because of the postponement, whichever is *greater*.
This is to make it *painfully* clear that deferring maintenance is a really *bad* idea.
Second, pensions are to be "fully funded". That is to say, they get treated like you are setting up an annuity. So if the company goes bankrupt, the pensions will still get paid. Likewise,the company does *not* get to change the rules for existing employees without their permission. So suddenly rolling back pensions to save money.
Pensions should be treated like a contract. No unilateral changes. And no borrowing from the pension funds by the company (or government! I'm looking at you Congress)
Third, waste disposal costs not merely for manufacturing products, but for disposing of them after the wear out or are obsolete are to be born by the company, *not* the consumer.
This won't end "planned obsolesence" and the "new model every year" BS, but it'll at least reduce it. And help deal with disposing or the resulting "trash".
no subject
Grandmother would say that profit sharing for employees and GOOD employee benefits should be built in before PROFITS for her as owner of the candy factory. After all, we really don't want the guillotine brought back again. (Side eyes at current office holders who injured Atlantic City employees, the children and grandchildren of HER own factory employees during the Great Depression).
Yes ...
Pensions are part of contracts already. They're part of what someone gets paid for working. They just get paid later. That money is already earned, already owed, already owned. It's just not enforced. That makes it bait and switch, which is also illegal, because if the employee had seen the less-beneficial version then they might have chosen to work somewhere else. It is exactly as wrong to say you'll pay someone $15/hour and then only pay them $10 as it is to say you'll pay them $15 and a pension but only pay the $15 and not the pension. It's theft. But it's permitted because the thieves by definition are always wealthier than their victims. America can't survive as it is without letting the rich rob the poor, so here were are.
All of your ideas are good, really.
Yes ...
Re: Yes ...