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".
This entry was originally posted at https://kengr.dreamwidth.org/1082337.html. Please comment there using OpenID.
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".
This entry was originally posted at https://kengr.dreamwidth.org/1082337.html. Please comment there using OpenID.