1) The Economist is owned by a corporation, as is the New York Times and the Washington Post. Isn't it interesting how they never run exposes on each other, or that Joe Average company can't get access to their internal documents? This article is unsigned and we have no account of the means by which the article was put together...yet they call for more transparency?
The media's agenda is to sensationalize and sell papers. A demotic tone often helps. But truth usually doesn't.
2) Whenever you see a piece in which A is complaining that B is not paying C enough money, the question always arises: why doesn't A jump into the fray himself and make a better offer to C? The answer usually betrays that A really doesn't care enough about C's plight to quit his job or even fork over $1000. Moreover, and more fundamentally, A does not know enough about the industry to know whether it's possible to pay C more and still make a profit.
Put another way, it is not as easy as it looks to run an international oil drilling company operating in China and Angola! Think about the political risk on both sides. You'll only get the derricks and the surveyors and the hydrologists if you can show this to be more profitable than safer bets like drilling in Norway.
The right role model is Ford: he actually showed that you can get higher productivity and profits by paying workers more. Latter day examples include Price Club and Whole Foods.
But until the Economist actually does something -- and they certainly have the resources -- they have no legitimacy to criticize the guys who actually are providing jobs and hard currency to poor people.
It's like you didn't read the article. Your points aren't relevant here. Party A, using your labels, is speaking up, I'm sure, they just are powerless.
1) The Economist is owned by a corporation, as is the New York Times and the Washington Post. Isn't it interesting how they never run exposes on each other, or that Joe Average company can't get access to their internal documents? This article is unsigned and we have no account of the means by which the article was put together...yet they call for more transparency?
The media's agenda is to sensationalize and sell papers. A demotic tone often helps. But truth usually doesn't.
2) Whenever you see a piece in which A is complaining that B is not paying C enough money, the question always arises: why doesn't A jump into the fray himself and make a better offer to C? The answer usually betrays that A really doesn't care enough about C's plight to quit his job or even fork over $1000. Moreover, and more fundamentally, A does not know enough about the industry to know whether it's possible to pay C more and still make a profit.
Put another way, it is not as easy as it looks to run an international oil drilling company operating in China and Angola! Think about the political risk on both sides. You'll only get the derricks and the surveyors and the hydrologists if you can show this to be more profitable than safer bets like drilling in Norway.
The right role model is Ford: he actually showed that you can get higher productivity and profits by paying workers more. Latter day examples include Price Club and Whole Foods.
But until the Economist actually does something -- and they certainly have the resources -- they have no legitimacy to criticize the guys who actually are providing jobs and hard currency to poor people.