Maximum wage and the work force

[phattonez]

Exactly. thats my point. The competitive free market itself is not as much a factor of income levels at the top. I am glad that you agree.

It would be much more so without the intervention in companies that we have today.

 

[phattonez]

I agree with al of that, except that there is no point to our society to have increasing productivity unless everyone gets to share in that productivity. Over the past ten years the top 1% has aquired almost all of our increases in productivity.

Is that the same 1% year after year?

http://www.debatepolitics.com/economics/81991-following-income-some-problems.html

Which society would you rather live in:

One in which the mean productivity was $130,000 a year yet the median wage was only $600 a year?
or
One in which the mean productivity was $130,000 a year and the median wage was $130,000 a year?

You're ignoring growth patterns. What you really should be asking is whether you want 4% growth for the rich and 4% growth for the poor or 10% growth for the rich and 5% growth for the poor.

Which country would have less poverty, less crime, fewer sweatshops, fewer child workers, a lower need for charity, less overall dissatisfaction?

We are currently closer to my first example than we are the second example - our mean income is about $130k/year yet our median income is only $47k/yr

http://www.debatepolitics.com/economics/81991-following-income-some-problems.html

 

[imagep]

Really? Because if I'm not going under then I'm going to pay all my friends whatever I want.

If you own the company then go ahead. Just bear in mind that every dollar that you over pay them is a dollar less that you will make.

If you are an elected board member and not the sole owner, then you have a responsibility to protect the corporations profits, simply being in charge of a company does not give you the license to waste other peoples investments. Board members get paid for their services, if they cheat the stock holders by overpaying their buddies then they are not fulfilling the job duties that they are paid to do - they are acting in a corrupt manner.

 

[phattonez]

If you own the company then go ahead. Just bear in mind that every dollar that you over pay them is a dollar less that you will make.

Though if I have government making sure that I won't go under and that I'll get taxpayer money if the worst should ever happen and that government will enact regulations that will prevent competition from overtaking me, then it really doesn't matter what I do.

If you are an elected board member and not the sole owner, then you have a responsibility to protect the corporations profits, simply being in charge of a company does not give you the license to waste other peoples investments. Board members get paid for their services, if they cheat the stock holders by overpaying their buddies then they are not fulfilling the job duties that they are paid to do - they are acting in a corrupt manner.

They can act corrupt because they have corrupt deals with the government.

 

[Kandahar]

And any sane board would pay the CEO his marginal productivity. Otherwise there's no point.

The Econ 101 supply/demand curves are not how a market for CEOs works. There are perhaps only a few thousand people in the country who are qualified to run a Fortune 500 company...and only 500 companies in which to employ them. With such a low volume of trading, it's unsurprising that markets don't settle on an equilibrium price like it would for a heavily-traded commodity.

Furthermore, both the supply and the demand for CEO labor are relatively inelastic. Sure, the CEO wants a bigger salary and the Board wants a smaller salary, but the money is not the primary motivator for either of them.

Additionally, there's no way to accurately estimate a CEO's "marginal productivity." If it was as simple as paying a great CEO so that he gives you great results, then businesses would rarely run into trouble. There are many well-paid CEOs who have run their companies into the ground.

Even if a specific board does not do it, what's to stop another board from doing it?

Nothing. It just doesn't happen in practice.

 

[phattonez]

The Econ 101 supply/demand curves are not how a market for CEOs works. There are perhaps only a few thousand people in the country who are qualified to run a Fortune 500 company...and only 500 companies in which to employ them. With such a low volume of trading, it's unsurprising that markets don't settle on an equilibrium price like it would for a heavily-traded commodity.

Furthermore, both the supply and the demand for CEO labor are relatively inelastic. Sure, the CEO wants a bigger salary and the Board wants a smaller salary, but the money is not the primary motivator for either of them.

Additionally, there's no way to accurately estimate a CEO's "marginal productivity." If it was as simple as paying a great CEO so that he gives you great results, then businesses would rarely run into trouble. There are many well-paid CEOs who have run their companies into the ground.

And there have been many CEO's that have been relatively underpaid, no? Considering exactly what they do for the company, many certainly have. When you're in control of millions of dollars, would you expect your salary to be somewhere around your worth?

Nothing. It just doesn't happen in practice.

Why?

 

[Kandahar]

And there have been many CEO's that have been relatively underpaid, no? Considering exactly what they do for the company, many certainly have. When you're in control of millions of dollars, would you expect your salary to be somewhere around your worth?

Sure, there are some. Steve Jobs' salary is $1. The CEO of Ben & Jerry's got somewhere around $150,000 (although I don't know if that's changed recently). I believe Google's CEO earns something like $250,000. But once you've already banked all the money you'll ever need, it ceases to be about the money. If they're happy doing what it is that they're doing and are able to check their egos at the door, there is no reason for them to move elsewhere for a higher salary.

Why?

Cronyism (i.e. the Board members play golf with the CEO every weekend), ego (i.e. the CEO wants to be paid more than the CEO of a rival company), lack of information (i.e. you can't accurately predict a CEO's worth ahead of time), or too much information (i.e. the government mandates that large publicly-traded corporations publicly disclose how much their executives earn). And add to that what I mentioned above: the simple fact that there aren't that many large corporations and there aren't that many qualified CEOs for them, so there is a very low volume of trading.

 

[imagep]

...Sure, the CEO wants a bigger salary and the Board wants a smaller salary...

The board actually wants the top executives to have a larger salary so that the board can justify a higher salary for themselves.

 

[imagep]

And there have been many CEO's that have been relatively underpaid, no? Considering exactly what they do for the company, many certainly have. When you're in control of millions of dollars, would you expect your salary to be somewhere around your worth?



Why?

Its possible, but I doubt too many of them are worried about paying their electric bill.

 

[imagep]

Sure, there are some. Steve Jobs' salary is $1. The CEO of Ben & Jerry's got somewhere around $150,000 (although I don't know if that's changed recently). I believe Google's CEO earns something like $250,000. But once you've already banked all the money you'll ever need, it ceases to be about the money. If they're happy doing what it is that they're doing and are able to check their egos at the door, there is no reason for them to move elsewhere for a higher salary.



Cronyism (i.e. the Board members play golf with the CEO every weekend), ego (i.e. the CEO wants to be paid more than the CEO of a rival company), lack of information (i.e. you can't accurately predict a CEO's worth ahead of time), or too much information (i.e. the government mandates that large publicly-traded corporations publicly disclose how much their executives earn). And add to that what I mentioned above: the simple fact that there aren't that many large corporations and there aren't that many qualified CEOs for them, so there is a very low volume of trading.

What makes you think that there are not many people qualified to be a top CEO? Exactly what are those qualifications? Why is the CEO requirments for a fortune 500 company any difference than for the 120 person company headquarted up the street?

While certainly every industry is different, every company has the same basic functions and issues: PR/Marketing/Manufacturing/HR/Purchasing/Legal/Accounting/etc.

The only functional difference between Budwiser and the micro brewery across town is the scale, all the basic functions of both companies are exactly the same.

It is no harder to deal with a payroll of 50 than it is a payroll of 50,000, the only real difference is that the company with 50,000 has a department of many specialist who take care of that payrol while in the company with just 50 employees the payroll department may also be the accounting department and the purchasing department and the HR department and the recievables/payables department. I would suggest that the overall skill levels in smaller company managers is probably higher than in large companies managers as the managers in smaller companies have to wear more hats.

I get cold sales calls in my business all the time, like "can I speak to the person in charge of chemical waste removal" or "in charge of your telephone service" or "in charge of your accounts recievables department". I say "sure, let me put you on hold while I check to see if they are available", then depending on if I really want to talk to them I come back and say either "hello, this is Imagep VP of XXX, what can I help you with?" or "I'm sorry but Mr. Fake Name wasnt in his office, here let me give you his direct number (insert fake phone number here)".

 

[haymarket]

It is more than ironic that so many on the far right will jump through all kinds of hoops to justify a CEO making tens of millions, perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars even though their company is losing money while at the same time demand that average workers who have increased their productivity take wage concessions, benefit decreases and forgo their pensions all in the name of increasing corporate profits.

 

[imagep]

Just another personal observation on top executives at large companies...

In my day to day business dealings I get to meet lots of business owners and managers, and an unusual number of startup business owners (one of the first things they need is graphics when they start a new business). Every once in a while I will meet a former executive of a large company who is absolutely convinced that his "business experiance" will make him highly successful in is entrapanurial endevor.

About 10 years ago a former Pepsi executive started a company competing with mine. He hired one of my former employees who I was still on good terms with, and she told me that he said that he would put my business out of business because he had so much experiance and had brand new equipment and had purchased rights to a very succesful franchies. Less that two years later, I got my employee back, she bailed on the company before they went bankrupt. The guy lost $2 million bucks, including botgh his houses, his cars, and all of his life savings. He had become a buddy of a guy who was a print broker, and the print broker convinced him to just sell printing instead of having to produce it. I was one of the main producers for the print broker, and eventually the former Pepsi exec had to start purchasing from me as most of the other local printers didn't want to have anything to do with him (mostly because he badmouthed them). I ended up purchasing all of his inventory and equipment at the bankruptcy auction. In the end, just before he gave up on brokering and went running back to his old job with Pepsi with his tail tucked between his legs, I had his employees and equipment and customers, I even considered purchasing his foreclosed house, but I didn't because it wouldn't make a good rental property.

The guy had been a high ranking executive at Pepsi, but in reality he had NO business experiance. At Pepsi he had never processed a payroll, the people who reported to him were highly paid professionals and supervising them is NOTHING like supervising lower paid less skilled employees, he had never developed a marketing plan, he had only negotiated equipment purchases for his specific area of responsibility and had never negotiated for raw materials, he had never had to deal with cash flow issues, if he had a potential legal issue that issue was simply sent over to the legal department, he had never purchased commercial property, he had never supervised the construction of a new facility, he had never had to deal with customers on a face to face basis. Basically, he was sheltered from the real business world by Pepsi.

As far as creating a business from scratch, the people that I have found to be most successful tend to be people who are young, people who had to work their way through college, and had little or no corporate experiance and learned as they worked through the issues by themselves. Generally, the people who make the best entrapanures are the ones who are too dumb and inexperianced to realize that they "cant" do what they are aiming to do. If you have never been taught that you cant do something, then you are more likely to do it and make it work.

I would think that people who started their own companies, even if they failed or succeeded with modist success, would make a much better CEO of a major corporation than people who were hired directly into middle managment with a MBA from a prestigeous school but no real life experiance business experiance outside of their corporate job. There are tens or maybe even hundreds of thousands of people who have likely had more challenging real life business experiance that most top CEO's.

 

[TurtleDude]

It is more than ironic that so many on the far right will jump through all kinds of hoops to justify a CEO making tens of millions, perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars even though their company is losing money while at the same time demand that average workers who have increased their productivity take wage concessions, benefit decreases and forgo their pensions all in the name of increasing corporate profits.

actually what most on the right argue is that neither the government nor people who have absolutely no connection to the company have any right whatsoever to say what executive salaries are.

of course you never hear those sanctimonious lefties whine about what Oprah or Madonna or Natalie Portman make or the fact that if the budget for a film is 80 Million, the top four stars get more than the thousand other people combined who helped make the film.

 

[haymarket]

actually what most on the right argue is that neither the government nor people who have absolutely no connection to the company have any right whatsoever to say what executive salaries are.

of course you never hear those sanctimonious lefties whine about what Oprah or Madonna or Natalie Portman make or the fact that if the budget for a film is 80 Million, the top four stars get more than the thousand other people combined who helped make the film.

If my tax dollars are used to help or subsidize or give a break or advantage to a company - I do have a connection with it.

If I buy the companies product or products, I do have a connection with it.

Because I live in a country where the radical right is attempting to steal from the many to give to the few, I do have a connection with it.

We live in a society where we are all interconnected. No man is an island entire unto himself.

 

[TurtleDude]

If my tax dollars are used to help or subsidize or give a break or advantage to a company - I do have a connection with it.

If I buy the companies product or products, I do have a connection with it.

Because I live in a country where the radical right is attempting to steal from the many to give to the few, I do have a connection with it.

We live in a society where we are all interconnected. No man is an island entire unto himself.

buying something doesn't give you any say how the company is run. your power comes from your right NOT to buy stuff from companies you dont approve of

merely existing near a company does not vest you with any authority as to how that entity is run

if its a public corporation-then complain to your elected representative

your rants about the radical right are just plain silly

 

[haymarket]

I am an American. That gives me the right so say whatever I want about it. Unless you embark on a new crusade to take away my rights because I don't pay some silly tax or something, I will continue to exercise my rights.

 

[TurtleDude]

I am an American. That gives me the right so say whatever I want about it. Unless you embark on a new crusade to take away my rights because I don't pay some silly tax or something, I will continue to exercise my rights.

you can rant and rave but you have no say nor any right to have any input that actually matters in a business you don't at least partially own

 

[haymarket]

you can rant and rave but you have no say nor any right to have any input that actually matters in a business you don't at least partially own

So is that your next cause celebre? Not allow anybody to comment on a corporation if you are not an owner? It sure would not surprise me.

 

[TurtleDude]

So is that your next cause celebre? Not allow anybody to comment on a corporation if you are not an owner? It sure would not surprise me.

raining reality on the clownish claims of the left. you can rant and rave and unless you have an ownership interest in the company you are just wasting your time--which is the way it should be. You don't matter legally or morally if you aren't at least a shareholder

its like pissing and moaning about the membership dues or the tee times of a club you are not a member of

 

[haymarket]

raining reality on the clownish claims of the left. you can rant and rave and unless you have an ownership interest in the company you are just wasting your time--which is the way it should be. You don't matter legally or morally if you aren't at least a shareholder

its like pissing and moaning about the membership dues or the tee times of a club you are not a member of

Just like a right wing conservative to equate this to being a member of a private club. That is so typical.

Actually there is a huge difference between a private club and a corporation which does business with the public, advertises itself and its products to the public, and may even depend on the government of the people to help and assist it. As a citizen, we all have the right to comment on the activities of anything we want to comment on. And we have the right to attempt to bring pressure to bear to change things. That is what you seem to fail to understand here. Criticism against runaway executive salaries at a time when the right wing is attempting to create an environment for wage cuts for average workers, for beneift cuts for average workers, and for pensions cuts for average workers is indeed that will continue.

Of course, the toadies and servants of the corporations can lick their hand and comment that it tastes good in the hope of getting a few crumbs from their table, but the rest of us with some spine and some pride will continue to stand tall as free men and women and exercise our right to criticize what we feel in simply wrong.

 

[TurtleDude]

Just like a right wing conservative to equate this to being a member of a private club. That is so typical.

Actually there is a huge difference between a private club and a corporation which does business with the public, advertises itself and its products to the public, and may even depend on the government of the people to help and assist it. As a citizen, we all have the right to comment on the activities of anything we want to comment on. And we have the right to attempt to bring pressure to bear to change things. That is what you seem to fail to understand here. Criticism against runaway executive salaries at a time when the right wing is attempting to create an environment for wage cuts for average workers, for beneift cuts for average workers, and for pensions cuts for average workers is indeed that will continue.

Of course, the toadies and servants of the corporations can lick their hand and comment that it tastes good in the hope of getting a few crumbs from their table, but the rest of us with some spine and some pride will continue to stand tall as free men and women and exercise our right to criticize what we feel in simply wrong.

sorry dude-if you aren't a stockholder your opinion means nothing to those who run a company and that is the way it is and the way it should be

no pay-no play

and the government-even one elected by whiners and parasites has no proper authority in this area. if you don't like the way a company is run

a) don't do business with it
b) buy some stock and vote at the shareholders' meetings
c) get a job there and aspire to upper management and maybe a position on the board and then make a motion to cut compensation for yourself and the other directors and officers
d) buy it and then structure executive compensation as you see fit

 

[haymarket]

sorry dude-if you aren't a stockholder your opinion means nothing to those who run a company and that is the way it is and the way it should be

no pay-no play

and the government-even one elected by whiners and parasites has no proper authority in this area. if you don't like the way a company is run

a) don't do business with it
b) buy some stock and vote at the shareholders' meetings
c) get a job there and aspire to upper management and maybe a position on the board and then make a motion to cut compensation for yourself and the other directors and officers
d) buy it and then structure executive compensation as you see fit

Boy oh boy - but yet again you fail to get it. This is not about imposing any will over the corporation. This is about being able to criticize what you don't like as a citizen of the USA. And if enough of us criticize, anything is then possible as it becomes the will of the people. Eventually, the people will win.

But keep on justifying the greed which benefits only a small number while you attempt to steal the hard earned wages, benefits and pensions of the many. You have made clear where your allegiances are and it is NOT with the American people.

 

[phattonez]

Sure, there are some. Steve Jobs' salary is $1. The CEO of Ben & Jerry's got somewhere around $150,000 (although I don't know if that's changed recently). I believe Google's CEO earns something like $250,000. But once you've already banked all the money you'll ever need, it ceases to be about the money. If they're happy doing what it is that they're doing and are able to check their egos at the door, there is no reason for them to move elsewhere for a higher salary.

But many still do. People just want the highest pay possible (though there is something to be said from satisfaction due to public perception).

Cronyism (i.e. the Board members play golf with the CEO every weekend), ego (i.e. the CEO wants to be paid more than the CEO of a rival company), lack of information (i.e. you can't accurately predict a CEO's worth ahead of time), or too much information (i.e. the government mandates that large publicly-traded corporations publicly disclose how much their executives earn). And add to that what I mentioned above: the simple fact that there aren't that many large corporations and there aren't that many qualified CEOs for them, so there is a very low volume of trading.

So how do they get away with this? Why doesn't competition take them drive wages down?

My point is, these really high wages would not be possible if government did not suppress competition.

 

[Mach]

This is not about imposing any will over the corporation. This is about being able to criticize what you don't like as a citizen of the USA.

The first two sentences above...contradict the very next sentence:

And if enough of us criticize, anything is then possible as it becomes the will of the people. Eventually, the people will win.

A brazen advocate of mob rule? Get the pitchforks and torches, haymarket is whipping up a posse. But they aren't there to change anything, just to criticize. And to hang someone for practicing witchcraft. But really we're not imposing our will on the citizen we're going to hang, we're just criticizing them.

 

[VanceMack]

What makes you think that they are Gods?

Humans are humans, sure some of us are harder working than others, some of us have skills that should pay more than others, some of us are smarter or more qualified, but since we are human, none of us can actually "leap tall buildings with a single bound". None of us are superheros, none of us are infailable, none of us are infinitely smart or hardworking. While there is currently no limit in the US to how much wealth individuals can transfer to their own portfolios, there is a limit to the goods and services that even the most talented and hard working of us can produce.

I dont think they are 'gods'...I think they are individuals whom corporations deem valuable enough to pay them a huge chunk of change. I see other whiney pathetic little people jealous of the success of others and think its pitiful.