But you are making the argument the CEOs want you to make. You feel powerless against the CEO salaries and have put more energy into resenting (or maybe feeling jealous of?) blue collar workers who fought for a better standard of living.
But first, I freely admit to being a little jealous. But I also freely admit to thinking, perhaps wrongly as several people have pointed out, to thinking $39/hour (and $58/hour, which is roughly what the 50% pay raise initially offered should be) would be enough to get by on, even in more expensive parts of the country. I'm a "don't take more than you need" kinda gal. Anyways...
And I'm not questioning the unfairness of capitalism out of control...well, not exactly. I *am* saying making $39/hour and then striking AND turning down a 50% pay raise in favor of even more money is equally bad.
But why is it equally bad? They're not taking money out of your pocket.
But is this going to be true? Same question as I posed to Kitchop: where is the money for the raises coming from? The profit margins? Is the CEO taking a voluntary pay cut? Those options would be ideal but what I fear (maybe wrongly) is instead cost of getting materials from the docks to businesses is going to go up and then either we'll be charged more for the merchandise we're purchasing flat out or manufacturers will be paying more to get needed parts and either pass that cost on to consumers or delay giving raises to THEIR possibly underpaid workers. So giving dockworkers a pay raise may benefit a small group of people but hurt more people, people making considerably less than $39/hour, people like me. So yes, this *could* wind up taking money out of MY pocket when the CEOs decline to give up part of their salary and/or profit margin to pay the dock workers more.
