Jim Naseum Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 In a nutshell here's the deal: Companies that are allowed to pay people such a small amount that they qualify for government benefits are essentially being subsidized by the government. Every one of us has to decide if that's what we really want. I suppose the truly heartless would simply remove any level of public support from the workers to solve this dilemma. FFS, we already have a homeless problem, why not make it worse? For example: States are using Medicaid dollars to pay the healthcare costs of hundreds of thousands of WalMart workers (and others that are working too.) That's dumb. But, WM has enough clout to block min wage and living wage movements. The original reason for people to band together to form a civilization is "mutual benefit and defense." If you instead, make the nation a "free fire zone" for the biggest dog to eat the rest, where's the motivation for citizenship? "Love your neighbor as yourself." To the extent we have massive wealth, and we surely do, there's little reason not to boost everyone a notch. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 Fairness and morals has nothing to do with it. You're paid what you're worth. Period. If that is true, and there is no moral guideline, then stealing from your employees, and defrauding them, is OK too. After all, in a moral vacuum, there is no right and wrong behavior. So, I doubt that's what you actually believe in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paducah Home Theater Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 LOL. Talk about an activity that the fate of the nation depends upon. You do realize that this has far reaching complications beyond what you would consider to be essential services, right? A job is a job is a job. If it were important, it wouldn't be called "minimum wage". The only reason these jobs exist is because a business owner saw an opportunity to make a profit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 I was being light hearted. Of course a job is a job, but your assertion of minimum wage jobs being unimportant is incorrect. For one who disdains Polo shirts, you are sounding like one who wears them exclusively. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paducah Home Theater Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 Fairness and morals has nothing to do with it. You're paid what you're worth. Period. If that is true, and there is no moral guideline, then stealing from your employees, and defrauding them, is OK too. After all, in a moral vacuum, there is no right and wrong behavior. So, I doubt that's what you actually believe in. What I believe, is that if I'm building a house and I have several framers to choose from, being of the same skill set when a nailer is in their hands, and one chooses to charge twice as much as the rest, one of the other guys is going to get the job. What I also believe, is that if I need to build some custom built-in cabinets and that more expensive guy can do the job and the rest are questionable, that guy is going to get the job. What I don't believe, is paying more than the market supports, at my expense, just because I'm a super nice guy. In the above example, any time somebody wants to chip in on my mortgage, you're welcome to pay the hired help twice as much as they're really worth but until then I'll make my decisions based on market forces. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 Fairness and morals has nothing to do with it. You're paid what you're worth. Period. If that is true, and there is no moral guideline, then stealing from your employees, and defrauding them, is OK too. After all, in a moral vacuum, there is no right and wrong behavior. So, I doubt that's what you actually believe in. What I believe, is that if I'm building a house and I have several framers to choose from, being of the same skill set when a nailer is in their hands, and one chooses to charge twice as much as the rest, one of the other guys is going to get the job. What I also believe, is that if I need to build some custom built-in cabinets and that more expensive guy can do the job and the rest are questionable, that guy is going to get the job. What I don't believe, is paying more than the market supports, at my expense, just because I'm a super nice guy. In the above example, any time somebody wants to chip in on my mortgage, you're welcome to pay the hired help twice as much as they're really worth but until then I'll make my decisions based on market forces. That's great but your reply and the quoted post have little in common. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paducah Home Theater Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 I was being light hearted. Of course a job is a job, but your assertion of minimum wage jobs being unimportant is incorrect. For one who disdains Polo shirts, you are sounding like one who wears them exclusively. Yeah I kinda figured you were serious. And, "non-essential" is a better word. Doesn't matter how snobby you are or not, an ice cream scooper is simply a non-essential job in the same way that you were mentioning the trampoline business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paducah Home Theater Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 That's great but your reply and the quoted post have little in common. When somebody calls my position immoral and fraudulent, I should be able to clarify what I really believe in terms of wages, no? Fairness and morality has zilch to do with market forces. If somebody is willing to do a job at a particular price, then they should be allowed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldtimer Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 I was being light hearted. Of course a job is a job, but your assertion of minimum wage jobs being unimportant is incorrect. For one who disdains Polo shirts, you are sounding like one who wears them exclusively. Yeah I kinda figured you were serious. And, "non-essential" is a better word. Doesn't matter how snobby you are or not, an ice cream scooper is simply a non-essential job in the same way that you were mentioning the trampoline business. Non-essential to whom? The business owner? I beg to differ. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwillie Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 Just did mine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paducah Home Theater Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 Non-essential to whom? The business owner? I beg to differ. I'm not the one who poked fun at the trampoline business for this very reason. If you were kidding that's fine, we don't disagree on this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 Profits with No Prosperity From 2003 to 2012, the S&P 500 companies spent $2.4Trillion on stock repurchases. The beneficiaries of this are the executives who have most of their comp tied up in stock options, and shareholders who get a boost in the asset price. So let's think it through. All these biggest public companies are making huge profits, which they use NOT to invest in productivity, factories, jobs, research, benefits, or employee pay, but rather as pure leverage to boost their own take. This happens in a completely non-democratic environment of the Imperial CEO. It's robbing the entire 330 million people in the country of prosperity for the benefit of a few. It's bad economics (who cares as long as the CEO get's his) and it's bad ethics in the citizenry. For people at the bottom, it looks like a license to steal. What do you think their reaction is? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 That's great but your reply and the quoted post have little in common. When somebody calls my position immoral and fraudulent, I should be able to clarify what I really believe in terms of wages, no? Fairness and morality has zilch to do with market forces. If somebody is willing to do a job at a particular price, then they should be allowed. So, when you said, "Fairness and morals has nothing to do with it." - you didn't actually mean that? I couldn't figure any other way to read it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paducah Home Theater Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 (edited) More lame anecdotal evidence warning: Lots of people don't realize that Mitt Romney got his start at a place called Accuride Corporation in Henderson Kentucky. Bain Capital bought the place for something like 5 million, renovated it a little, then flipped it for $120-130 mil. Times were good right after this, there was a big injection of cash, lots of overtime, etc. Then people got lazy. Everybody was in slow motion mode, stretching out jobs as much as possible. Maintenance literally started sabotaging equipment in order to justify their position. It was a sad state. They wanted more though. They went on strike for years trying to get higher wages. In the meantime, the salary/corporate computer nerds started running the machines. They started outsourcing the maintenance when things broke. With nobody breaking the machines on purpose plus better engineers fixing things the right way, production soared, even with a skeleton crew. Sad thing is, there was still an entire plant worth of people at the property entrance, demanding they all get hired back at artificial wages that the market would not support. They eventually disappeared but it literally took years. So, when I see large groups of people demanding huge salary increases that are beyond what the market would support, I think of situations like this, where they basically priced themselves out of a job. As for Accuride, I and my dad both worked there, dad got in over 20 years and saw a lot, he got out before it got too bad. Rather than wait for Accuride to pay more, he busted tail, studied real hard, then got hired as a maintenance engineer at another company. He became one of the top engineers that his old company was outsourcing to. It was an amusing and awkward situation. He could have very well been one of the guys who sat there on the side of the road for years but instead made his own future. That's what I like to see people do. Edited November 7, 2015 by MetropolisLakeOutfitters Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Naseum Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 Connect the dots: When you play a winner takes all game, the winner will eventually take all. That's precisely what you see in the worst of the 3W countries, a small cadre of ruling thieves and masses of poverty. If you continue to drive wages down for 90M working people, so that a few thousand can increase their wealth from $40 Billion to $40 Trillion, what will the economy look like if not feudalism? Just connect the dots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paducah Home Theater Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 If you continue to drive wages down Biggest problem going on right now is that wages are stale, not necessarily being driven down. Which, shouldn't be as big of a problem, but inflation is kicking everybody's butt, giving the same effect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bella Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 Is this research published in any respected journals? The caricature presented using bunnies and wolves seems to be more of a personal view or judgment that could be driven by stereotyping, personal bias or personal experience. The research of how empires rise and what ultimately causes their demise can be found in numerous sources. It's not disputed that every great civilization has a beginning and end. Why they end should be of great interest so as to possibly avoid the same pitfalls. However, it seems nobody ever learns from history. The conceptual theories used to describe those rises and falls are more colorful and in fact, quite confrontational and not suitable for these forums. I chose the bunnies and wolves version as I had read about it and it seemed the least confrontational here. The identities could be substituted through any number of descriptive properties I suppose. Such as type A and type B personalities in place of wolves and bunnies. Although I can't relate to any negative connotations to either of the caricatures as both have their redeeming qualities, and therefor appropriate. Ultimately, the question isn't who the bunnies are, and who the wolves are. The question is WHY great civilizations follow these paths that always result in their collapse. Rome didn't fall as the result of outside forces, contrary to popular belief that they were conquered by the barbarians. Rome fell from within and this allowed the barbarians to finish them off, if you will. Rome was well on its way before the barbarians came around. Spain of the middle millennia is the same story. The Greeks of ancient. The Egyptians. They all became great civilizations from an adherence to a certain set of values. Then at some point that all changes and they begin their inevitable slide. For our own precarious situation I think Alexander Tyler described it best with his 8 phases of democracy: 1. From bondage to spiritual faith; 2. From spiritual faith to great courage; 3. From courage to liberty; 4. From liberty to abundance; 5. From abundance to complacency; 6. From complacency to apathy; 7. From apathy to dependence; 8. From dependence back into bondage Personally, I see us between 7 and 8. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fjd Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 Fifty years ago the "wealth pie" was $21 and split in a manner of CEO $20 and median workers $1. Today the $301 of the "wealth pie" is now split CEO $300 and median workers still $1. And this is immoral and nothing but greed run amuck. I don't care who you is you ain't worth $100 million a year, sorry your job is not 2 thousand times harder than mine. Just my $.02 Just a very simplistic example if you take the "wage/salary/benefits" as a "pool of funds" in a corporate budget to be divided and distributed amongst everyone in the corporation. It makes sense why the NFL players association will bargain for wages to be a percentage of the gross revenues. We also know that it is very lucrative to be an NFL owner even with roughly 2/3 of the total NFL revenues going to the players and having a wage structure with a minimum salary for the players that increases each year. I find it interesting that in the 1970's Peter F. Drucker (during this time, a well-respected American management guru) had endorsed the 20 to 1 ratio for CEO to median worker in sustaining robust growth. Up until this time the U.S. was very prosperous with this 20 to 1 ratio, yet, look where we are today. A survey of the S&P 500 index companies, during 2012 the compensation received by the CEO was 354 times that of the median of the rank-and-file worker and look at the general downward trends in prosperity. I agree with your point, but it's not actually "CEOs" which are the trouble. It's the billionaires who often are just speculators, hedge fund runners, and raiders, where most of the wealth is going. Not to minimize the CEO pay, but making $50M a year isn't the troouble spot. It's he guy making $2B a year through other means, which is the problem. I do realize that the CEO pay isn't the trouble spot and have some familiarity with the speculators, hedge funds and the leveraged-buyout business and I agree with your other posts on the bigger picture. In general I'm "starting small and working my way up" as I have been highlighting the CEO pay disparity in trying to draw a few illustrations to try to make some sense of the logic that many have that "minimum wage workers are only worth the $7.00 that they now earn and that if they were worth more, they would earn more;" and by extension that "if the CEOs are making over 300 times of the median worker, the CEO must be worth it or companies wouldn’t pay this much." To me this whole idea of we are only “paid what we are worth” because that is the market force at work or whatever reason seems to be a very dangerous and slippery slope since there are too many disparate situations that can never be factored in correctly. Given the types of statistics I presented in a few of the posts, I just can’t buy into the argument that the huge disparity with the median worker and overall rise in CEO compensation that far outpaces other economic metrics is really related to the competition for scare CEO talent that will be a benefit to the stockholders' long-term value. I suspect that a good portion is the result of manipulation of the system by the conflict of interest that arises in a 'self-dealing' situation where the CEO is in a position to greatly take advantage of the position in transactions and acting in his or her self-interest rather than in the best interests of the shareholders. For example, it seems plausible that CEOs get these enormous pay packages in part because they are often the persons that hire the compensation consultant, appoint the compensation committees on the boards that decide executive pay. I suppose that in other instances to “appear competitive” the boards may not want to be seen by investors as not having hired a “top-tier” CEO and may not want to be seen as paying less than the CEOs of their major competitors. Wall Street bonuses are another example being at record levels since the 2008 crash. I should double check; however, I believe that it was 2013 that New York’s state comptroller indicated these bonuses were the third highest on record and highest since the crash. On the surface with some of the logic being thrown about, “they must be worth it, if that is what they are getting;” however, the aspect that most do not realize is that how do you factor in the various “hidden subsidies” flowing to the big Wall Street banks that ever since the bailout of 2008 have been considered too big to fail? http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2013-02-20/why-should-taxpayers-give-big-banks-83-billion-a-year- 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bella Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 You guys can decry CEO pay all you want, but it doesn't do any good, won't make a difference. McDonalds for example, they employ 1.7 million people. The CEO makes $8.75 million. You could take away his entire salary and distribute it to the burger flippers, and they would make an additional $5. PER YEAR. I realize that in most of these situations the lowest employees will not be getting rich and may not even feel a significant impact; however, I'm not certain on where you obtained the numbers in your post. Although, I think you may be looking at the total employees in McDonald's corporation and all of the franchise operations (not owned by McDonald's corp) combined. I'm reading the annual report on Form 10-K for the year-ended December 31, 2014 and the "number of employees" disclosure indicates that "the Company's number of employees worldwide, including Company-operated restaurant employees, was approximately 420,000 as of year-end 2014." http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/63908/000006390815000016/mcd-12312014x10k.htm The year the CEO made the $8.75 million, McDonald’s also spent $6 billion on share repurchases and dividends that year and was instrumental in forming the lobbying efforts industrywide to freeze the minimum wage. Also, I think you may be looking at old CEO salary information from 2011. Here is the public disclosure of the last three years since public companies are required to disclose the top five highest paid. http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/63908/000119312515125315/d853131ddef14a.htm Paid compensation: Donald Thompson CEO 2014: $7,288,578 2013: $9,496,664 2012: $13,751,919 Peter J. Bensen CFO 2014: $2,794,296 2013: $3,599,644 2012: $7,331,690 Douglas Goare President McDonald's Europe 2014: $2,905,321 2013: $3,919,408 2012: $4,508,723 The CEO of a global brand responsible for ensuring that hundreds of thousands of employees across the globe are paid every two weeks. Ensuring the company is compliant with requirements of a multitude of jurisdictional municipalities; coordinating the transport of goods and services from distribution centers in dozens of countries; appeasing shareholders; growing the brand by opening new markets in new countries; protecting the image; ensuring the product appeals to the billions of people that expect a certain product and who is responsible for making changes when it doesn't - across the globe? Overseeing multi-language and jurisdictional marketing campaigns? And on and on and on and on and ...oh, still meeting the needs of his family. And some people are complaining that he makes a few million dollars a year? Would anyone argue that a sizable percentage of those people would not include those whose most difficult task includes filling out the appropriate paperwork to ensure their EBT cards are refilled every month. And can't remember whose house their daughter Cindy spent the night at last night, or where she is right now? Yet still has time to watch Monday Night Football? Cry me a river. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fjd Posted November 7, 2015 Share Posted November 7, 2015 Is this research published in any respected journals? The caricature presented using bunnies and wolves seems to be more of a personal view or judgment that could be driven by stereotyping, personal bias or personal experience. The research of how empires rise and what ultimately causes their demise can be found in numerous sources. It's not disputed that every great civilization has a beginning and end. Why they end should be of great interest so as to possibly avoid the same pitfalls. However, it seems nobody ever learns from history. The conceptual theories used to describe those rises and falls are more colorful and in fact, quite confrontational and not suitable for these forums. I chose the bunnies and wolves version as I had read about it and it seemed the least confrontational here. The identities could be substituted through any number of descriptive properties I suppose. Such as type A and type B personalities in place of wolves and bunnies. Although I can't relate to any negative connotations to either of the caricatures as both have their redeeming qualities, and therefor appropriate. Ultimately, the question isn't who the bunnies are, and who the wolves are. The question is WHY great civilizations follow these paths that always result in their collapse. Rome didn't fall as the result of outside forces, contrary to popular belief that they were conquered by the barbarians. Rome fell from within and this allowed the barbarians to finish them off, if you will. Rome was well on its way before the barbarians came around. Spain of the middle millennia is the same story. The Greeks of ancient. The Egyptians. They all became great civilizations from an adherence to a certain set of values. Then at some point that all changes and they begin their inevitable slide. For our own precarious situation I think Alexander Tyler described it best with his 8 phases of democracy: 1. From bondage to spiritual faith; 2. From spiritual faith to great courage; 3. From courage to liberty; 4. From liberty to abundance; 5. From abundance to complacency; 6. From complacency to apathy; 7. From apathy to dependence; 8. From dependence back into bondage Personally, I see us between 7 and 8. Interesting. At what point do you believe the U.S. slipped into 7? Here is a chronological list of fairly significant events that many should be aware of that starts with the industrial revolution. Are there any correlations that can be made here or is something else the determining factor? Industrial Revolution Alexander Graham Bell invents the telephone General Electric founded Spanish American War U.S. Steel founded Airplane invented Automobile invented Federal Reserve created World War I Great Depression New Deal programs implemented by FDR Golden Gate Bridge completed World War II Holocaust Atomic bomb used to end war with Japan Marshall Plan rebuilds Europe & Japan US emerges from the war as the only great economic power Cold War Korean War Interstate highway system built Civil Rights Movement John F. Kennedy assassinated Vietnam War Great Society programs implemented Civil Rights Act of 1964 Martin Luther King assassinated Neil Armstrong walks on the moon Roe vs Wade Oil embargo Military buildup and tax cuts Fall of the Soviet Union Gulf War Stock market boom Gridlock between Congress & President leads to budget surpluses NASDAQ stock bubble bursts 9/11 attack Alan Greenspan lowers rates to 1% Invasion of Afghanistan Department of Homeland security created Invasion of Iraq Hurricane Katrina Home prices double Financial derivatives grow to over $100 trillion Housing prices collapse Financial firms collapse Government and Federal Reserve intervene to prop up the worldwide financial system Government bailouts of financial firms and auto manufacturers Federal Reserve & U.S. Treasury commit over $8 trillion of taxpayer funds Immediate borrowing & stimulus packages exceeding $1 trillion are discussed Federal Reserve lowers rates to below 1% 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.