Quote Originally Posted by kbird View Post
JK, I've read both and strongly echo your recommendations. Both pieces support the idea that we are headed to some sort of a new regime and that the investment strategies of the past ten years are not necessarily going to continue working during the next ten years. The reversal of globalization, the inability to lower interest rates, and the coming of some serious U.S. fiscal deficits are just some of the reasons for that regime shift.

Dcarrig offered several compelling reasons why wages cannot and will not rise, but I sure hope he's wrong. If the country is to survive this populist wave and reduce its financial obligations, policy makers had better figure out a way to make it happen or it's going to get ugly.
I think not just policymakers. But Meredith and Sam in HR and Tracey in the CFO's office are gonna have to sharply alter their 5-year-plan spreadsheets in which they list out every position in every department and cost sector, give it an FTE multiplier, and fringe lines for FICA and 401ks, and throw in a 1.5% adder to adjust for inflation. There's a tremendous and overwhelming amount of mundane work that goes into economic planning on the corporate side every day (same in government). It's largely designed to hold wages down. The only folks who get out of it are folks in positions higher than those offices because you short-circuit the mundane processes they use daily (non-compete forms, non-disclosure forms, standard below inflation raises, etc) and let the board and a search firm make the hire with a totally unique package. So CEO pay can rise just fine. But I think anyone who has to answer to HR is locked into a system more or less designed to hold wages down. Probably the only way to fight it is to either totally change the law around that and enforce it, or strike bad enough that the board and executives tell them to give up the ghost, at least for a minute, and offer something more substantial.