- Joined
- Jul 31, 2014
- Messages
- 4,230
- Reaction score
- 1,605
- Location
- San Diego
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
While there was never parity between workers and corporate, the graphics I've included in this thread show that the disparity is growing. Significantly.Nor have they ever. American consumers continue rewarding companies that cut costs. American consumers don't want more expensive alternatives. They want less expensive alternatives. The rest is history. We'd have had to close our doors, close off trade, go protectionist, to avoid that. It is very difficult to argue we'd have higher living standards if we had done that.
You're attacking unions for doing the same thing as every other business in America.I'm not defending those other things (they're for another discussion), and nor does this observation justify the tactics of labor cartels.
B) The wages paid allowed them to make this helpful graphic, which shows that even if they're earning 10 times my income, that's significantly smaller than the disparity of CEOs.
But you're happy to bash the "extreme" salaries on the extreme end of union leader compensation?For one thing, having the title of "CEO" does not result in pay disparities like that. The dramatic pay disparities are found only at the largest corporations. And among those, the primary reason there can even be that sort of disparity is because of equity forms of compensation. Ordinary employees are typically not compensated in equity and, if they were, all we'd hear about were the ones that closed, because when they close, workers not only lose their jobs, but their stock in the company is worthless. So that's unacceptable, but it becomes evident that people essentially wish for the upside potential of equity but don't want to accept the risk involved.
Equity compensation is an interesting way to examine compensation in large corporations, but the largest corporations and executive salaries are the extremes, which make for poor examples on which to base labor policy.
Great, glad to hear that the company is indeed staying and providing jobs for Californians, the state needs to stop the bleeding of jobs from that state. Good for them.
A) I believe that wage disparity should be addressed for everyone, including union leaders.
B) The wages paid allowed them to make this helpful graphic, which shows that even if they're earning 10 times my income, that's significantly smaller than the disparity of CEOs.
What the market decides isn't particularly valid. It's just what the market decides.The point is your wages as joe shmo worker represent in relative terms what you make the company based on the value of your work output. The value of a CEO's is worth a hell of a lot more. They make or break companies. Joe shmo. Not so much.
Using your ratio, that's a 10:1 ratio as opposed to a 350:1 ratio as CEOs are earning. Neither are desirable but clearly one is far, far more extreme than the other.The AFL CIO president RICHARD TRUMKA makes $298,542, The VP makes $368,652. The average wage of an AFL CIO union staff is $77,000. The average member of that union makes $17 an hour. That's $34,000 a year. It seems to me maybe the union members ought work for the union. They make more than them.
I take it you believe everyone should be paid equally regardless of output?
While there was never parity between workers and corporate, the graphics I've included in this thread show that the disparity is growing. Significantly.
If people want lower costs, cut CEO pay. It's up ~700% over the last few decades according to the graphic I included while worker pay is only up 5%.
You're attacking unions for doing the same thing as every other business in America.
You're displaying a fundamental misunderstanding here. Union management is paid for by the members of the unions. That cost is not directly paid for by the company. It costs those of us with stocks nothing. As stockholders, CEO pay costs us infinitely more than union leader pay.
What the market decides isn't particularly valid. It's just what the market decides.
By your logic McDonald's makes the best burger since it greatly outsells its competitors. Beanie Babies and baseball cards were once heavily valued. I'm hoping that the CEO compensation bubble goes the same way soon.
I don't believe everyone should be earning the same income, but I am very much against the current disparity we're currently experiencing. The worst part is that it's those of us in the 99% fighting with each other rather than addressing where the money actually is and who controls it.
The numbers listed are an average of pay. That would imply that some are paid more and some are paid less. That's how averages work.For one, CEOs are not necessarily paid that much.
They're significant enough to take many millions of dollars out of the pockets of average Americans.Two, the ones that are are not that significant in number.
Please expand on this, because your statement is entirely counter intuitive.Three, equity compensation doesn't affect operating costs the same way wages and benefits do.
Everyone does better or worse depending on how the business does. Workers are laid off if the business does poorly. Workers get overtime if the business does well. Why should one minority portion of the company be given a significant wealth advantage if all contribute to the success and all suffer from the failure of the company?Four, the people who would decide to cut CEO pay are the owners, and they would only do so if the success of the business depended on it (meaning consumers would have to demand goods and services based upon that).
Every business in America trademarks their name if nothing else as a means of preventing competition, for one.Not every business in America does what unions do, in fact I would contend there are few that do. Businesses compete with one another. Those that rig the system by installing politicians that will cater to their corrupt tactics are indefensible.
I'm going to ask you to reread your post again, this time with a higher grasp of irony.Missed nothing, know that, union members pay for those huge union salaries and all union wages are an increase in cost to the company. What exactly do the union employees get from that union management for their dues and any increased costs to business are deducted from the dividends paid to your parents. CEO salaries are authorized by shareholders so tell your parents to stop authorizing higher pay.
It's bad for the business because it's unsustainable. It's a bubble. It's long overdue to pop and if we (meaning you) as Americans weren't artificially supporting it, it'd decrease.If executive compensation was so out of hand that it was bad for the company, the ones that compensated their executives that outrageously would suffer. Let them. If it's a bad business strategy, let them reap what they sow.
The actions of corporations impact me. They determine the economic climate, the wages, the workers' rights, the products available, the environmental protections, the lobbying in Washington, the costs I'll pay, etc. etc. etc.It would be one thing if you were focusing in on financial markets and investment banks and their dealings with the federal government. But to generalize your opinion onto all companies and their leaders is careless and lazy. If you are not a shareholder in a corporation, do not work for it, and do not spend a particular amount of your money purchasing its products/services, then your opinion about what the company decides to buy or sell from whom and at what price holds no influence.
Unless you can clearly cite illegal behavior or the failure of government to enforce laws against fraud and related crimes, then businesses that choose a successful business strategy will succeed and those that choose a flawed business strategy will not. If its personnel policies are bad, people won't work there. If their products are bad, people won't buy them. If they engage in activities consumers despise, they won't or shouldn't buy from the company.
The numbers listed are an average of pay. That would imply that some are paid more and some are paid less. That's how averages work.
They're significant enough to take many millions of dollars out of the pockets of average Americans.
Please expand on this, because your statement is entirely counter intuitive.
Everyone does better or worse depending on how the business does. Workers are laid off if the business does poorly. Workers get overtime if the business does well. Why should one minority portion of the company be given a significant wealth advantage if all contribute to the success and all suffer from the failure of the company?
Every business in America trademarks their name if nothing else as a means of preventing competition, for one.
It's bad for the business because it's unsustainable. It's a bubble. It's long overdue to pop and if we (meaning you) as Americans weren't artificially supporting it, it'd decrease.
The actions of corporations impact me. They determine the economic climate, the wages, the workers' rights, the products available, the environmental protections, the lobbying in Washington, the costs I'll pay, etc. etc. etc.
Those all affect all of us. It's unrealistic to suggest that a nation isn't impacted by the actions of major actors within it. We're interconnected, and we rise or sink depending on how we've addressed things as a society. No one is isolated.
Then why complain about union wages taking money out of people's pockets?It isn't taking money out of anyone's pockets. They take it out of their own pockets and hand it over when they purchase something.
I understand the distinction, but both involve compensation. They both cost money, even if the money isn't cash, but equity, seeing as how equity is part of how cash is distributed.I don't know what there is to expand upon. Do you know there is a difference between cash compensation and equity compensation?
So why are union contracts bad? It's the same principle.The company buys labor and it decides what it is willing to pay for a certain type of labor. The person selling the labor can sell at that price or not.
The allegation of fraud is anti-competitive.Is that preventing competition, or is it preventing fraud? In some cases one, in some cases it's another.
Again, you're not seeing this big picture. Why is okay to let an overpaid CEO sink a business but it's wrong to let an "overpaid union" sink a business?I'm not doing anything to "artificially support" whatever bubble you're talking about. But if it's bad for business, let those businesses fail. New ones will rise up in their place and have opportunities to do things better. Why are you so worried about saving businesses from their own bad decisions? Let them make their own decisions. They'll live or die by them.
We are interconnected and all contribute to the sum, but some contribute more than others based on their access to power.Ah yes. Everything affects everything, therefore I get to control you. That isn't a trump card. It doesn't work that way. Other people don't get to tell you what you must purchase and at what price, and you don't get to tell them what they must purchase and at what price. We can all be "interconnected" without believing we have a right to make other people's decisions for them.
Then why complain about union wages taking money out of people's pockets?
I understand the distinction, but both involve compensation. They both cost money, even if the money isn't cash, but equity, seeing as how equity is part of how cash is distributed.
So why are union contracts bad? It's the same principle.
The allegation of fraud is anti-competitive.
Again, you're not seeing this big picture. Why is okay to let an overpaid CEO sink a business but it's wrong to let an "overpaid union" sink a business?
Union defenders are always good for a display of histrionics.
The 90% of working Americans that are not in a union are not slaves.
There wages, no vacation, no sick leave, no pension, no nothing say otherwise.
Nonunion workers get those things.
Well, with the exception of defined-benefit pensions, which younger/newer union workers by and large do not get either, but that's because defined benefit pensions are utter financial failures.
HA HA HA HA HA HHA HA HA HA ...........GOOD ONE!
Tell me, what federal law says that your 401k payments in retirement cant be reduced? (like Pensions have)
Where is the PBGC for your 401k? LMAO!!!!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?