New salary overtime regulations

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

This is the same situation that occurred in history when the mechanical loom or the spinning jenny were invented: people complained that new technologies would put people out of work.

People have found new and different work - jobs exist now that people a hundred years ago could not even have imagined.

 

We don't hoe fields by hand anymore instead of using a tractor or have one hundred accountants at the bank adding numbers by hand all day instead of using a computer. If labor saving technology makes it cheaper to manufacture things, it means people have to spend a smaller portion of their incomes on things and have more left over to pay for services/experiences.

There will be jobs but they will be new and different. There are entire industries now that did not exist when I was a child. I don't think taxing machines that can do a job more efficiently than humans is a sensible way to go.

The future of the country has to be in more innovation - instead of trying to make labor intensive low tech stuff at US wages that other countries can do much cheaper, we should strive to make stuff others cannot.

I just read an article in the NY Times on how we are reaching a tipping point where robots will be doing most of our jobs and that there will be not nearly enough jobs for all of us. The solution is a universal wage benefit according to this article and I agree. It is a good read and honestly I do believe there will be a definite large shortage of jobs from this as well as outsourcing our jobs overseas:( I recall even reading of the existence of robots who could replace doctors and of course they are not too happy about that.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/03/technology/plan-to-fight-robot-invasion-at-work-give-everyone-a-paycheck.html?_r=0

 

As for the minimum wage, I think it should be more since it certainly has not kept up with what it used to be in terms of buying power. Then the fact that many employers nowadays do not provide set schedules for more than a week or so in advance making it difficult to hold other jobs.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I'm mostly for employers being required to pay overtime, though I can see a downside for slower workers. Workers who are slower will lose their jobs and replaced with people who are quicker rather than just being able to finish their work by putting in extra hours.

 

Depends on the job.  Some jobs aren't easy to quantify in those terms. 

 

One thing that I know for sure though is that making people work 10 hours or more doesn't mean they have a higher output overall.  On the contrary.  There is only so much a person can focus in a day. 

[Truscifi]

What a lot of people don't stop to think about is that companies have labor budgets.

 

They will say there is a budget of $300,000 for this department.  If there are 10 employees, and each person makes $30,000 that is fine.  If the company is forced to give raises, then the department will move down to 9 employees, or 8 employees.  The company isn't going take less profits.  They will just pile more work on the employees that are there.  I work for a large corporate company, so does dh.  It has always been this way.  When ever situations come up that causes the company to loose money....the easiest thing for them to affect is hourly employees and hiring new employees.  It doesn't matter if the employees can do the work with fewer employees or not.  The important work will get done and the rest will be done to subpar standards.  

 

 

 

The bolded is the problem. Large companies or corporations who focus on profit over everything else are one of the biggest problems in US society. (I'm not talking about small businesses.)

[SparklyUnicorn]

The bolded is the problem. Large companies or corporations who focus on profit over everything else are one of the biggest problems in US society. (I'm not talking about small businesses.)

 

Yeah they don't tend to do anything humane unless they are forced to by laws and regulations. 

[EmseB]

The bolded is the problem. Large companies or corporations who focus on profit over everything else are one of the biggest problems in US society. (I'm not talking about small businesses.)

Except most large companies do work based on small profit margins, they just do a lot of business. So, if something in their supply chain goes up in price, it effects the pennies they make on the dollar for each item sold, which can turn profits to zero very quickly, depending on the business model. There are very few businesses that can simply absorb a $6 increase in their supply chain, whether that's in labor or goods or whatever. So, ok, we decrease the purchase of labor, or we raise prices to offset the higher cost. If you're raising prices at, say, a store that sells cheap consumer goods, the raises you've just raised at the base of the pay scale are now zero'd out by the increase. It's easy economics.

 

But, most companies focus on profits. But they try to do this by selling things that benefit people in some way. Let's be honest that most people go into business to either earn some type of livelihood for themselves and their family. If they strike on an untapped market and end up making a lot of money, somehow they immediately turn evil if they aren't paying more for their employees or hiring more folks than they actually need. What makes profiting from one's business immoral? Especially if their employees ostensibly apply to work there and agree to the wages offered in the employment contract? Running a company, even a small one, takes a ton of time and effort. Like it or not, the protect of making money is one of the main draws for people to put in that effort. If they hit on something that benefits people enough that a ton of them want to buy that thing, is that not enough benefit to society? and if they have a business model that actually makes them money, why do we care if they get rich? Isn't that better than them going TU in the first year and incurring a ton of loss (like most business started in this country?) I get the idea that people think there must be sin involved if someone makes a lot of money. Just make enough that's "acceptable" without making the rest of us think you have too much, because we need to put a stop to THAT using the full force of the law.

 

Likewise, it's always bizarre to me that people excuse small business, as if the morality of the situation is somehow different. Why would something be wrong for a large company, but ok for a small company?

[DawnM]

I don't even think their food is that cheap.  I mean sure it's cheaper than going to a nicer sit down restaurant, but you aren't getting any of that when you go to McDs. 

 

 

It isn't.  All of those fast food places are around $10 now for their main combo meals.  

 

I can go to the nicer places that serve better food (Pei Wei, Panera, Zoeys, etc ...) and spend about the same and get much better food.  Sure, I may have to opt for water instead of soda (better anyway!) for the same cost, but I would much prefer it!

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Except most large companies do work based on small profit margins, they just do a lot of business. So, if something in their supply chain goes up in price, it effects the pennies they make on the dollar for each item sold, which can turn profits to zero very quickly, depending on the business model. There are very few businesses that can simply absorb a $6 increase in their supply chain, whether that's in labor or goods or whatever. So, ok, we decrease the purchase of labor, or we raise prices to offset the higher cost. If you're raising prices at, say, a store that sells cheap consumer goods, the raises you've just raised at the base of the pay scale are now zero'd out by the increase. It's easy economics.

 

But, most companies focus on profits. But they try to do this by selling things that benefit people in some way. Let's be honest that most people go into business to either earn some type of livelihood for themselves and their family. If they strike on an untapped market and end up making a lot of money, somehow they immediately turn evil if they aren't paying more for their employees or hiring more folks than they actually need. What makes profiting from one's business immoral? Especially if their employees ostensibly apply to work there and agree to the wages offered in the employment contract? Running a company, even a small one, takes a ton of time and effort. Like it or not, the protect of making money is one of the main draws for people to put in that effort. If they hit on something that benefits people enough that a ton of them want to buy that thing, is that not enough benefit to society? and if they have a business model that actually makes them money, why do we care if they get rich? Isn't that better than them going TU in the first year and incurring a ton of loss (like most business started in this country?) I get the idea that people think there must be sin involved if someone makes a lot of money. Just make enough that's "acceptable" without making the rest of us think you have too much, because we need to put a stop to THAT using the full force of the law.

 

Likewise, it's always bizarre to me that people excuse small business, as if the morality of the situation is somehow different. Why would something be wrong for a large company, but ok for a small company?

There is nothing wrong with making a profit or wanting to earn a good amount of money. I do think it is immoral for CEOs and other high level executives to be earning 400 to 700 times the amount of workers though. This was not the case 50 years ago when they earned about 40 times the average worker off the top of my head. So I say tax them appropriately such as at least going back to what the income and capital gains tax rates were under Clinton. Also, create new income and capital gains tax brackets for those earning more than a million dollars. Right now anyone earning anything ABOVE $415,050.00 are taxed at same rate even if they earn millions of dollars which is crazy IMHO. Also, today due to the way companies and CEOs have a relation to stocks there is a perverse incentive for profit at the expense of everything else which also did not used to be the case with most businesses back in the day. I am not good at giving you the specifics but I will try to find some of the articles I have read on this which are compelling.

[EmseB]

I do agree that humans inherantly are greedy and treat each other poorly if they can make a buck...not everyone, but it's always a temptation and most people don't tend to act charitably if they can avoid it. However, after reading a ton of literature on both sides, I don't think that increasing the cost of labor on the low end really improves situations for people making lower wages. If it really works in the way people on the pro side say it does, we could raise everyone's wage to a minimum of $50/hour and poverty would be fixed. But almost *everyone* acknowledges $50 is untenable. $15 simply sounds more palatable, but had the exact same problems occur, especially when technology is an easy substitute.

 

I would say it all seems bleak, except technology that allows for more efficiency and lower costs sounds pretty great overall.

[EmseB]

I do think it is immoral for CEOs and other high level executives to be earning 400 to 700 times the amount of workers though.

Why?

 

I'm not sure what standard would say that 400x's is immoral and 50x's or 100x's is moral? It seems arbitrary.

[Truscifi]

Except most large companies do work based on small profit margins, they just do a lot of business. So, if something in their supply chain goes up in price, it effects the pennies they make on the dollar for each item sold, which can turn profits to zero very quickly, depending on the business model. There are very few businesses that can simply absorb a $6 increase in their supply chain, whether that's in labor or goods or whatever. So, ok, we decrease the purchase of labor, or we raise prices to offset the higher cost. If you're raising prices at, say, a store that sells cheap consumer goods, the raises you've just raised at the base of the pay scale are now zero'd out by the increase. It's easy economics.

 

But, most companies focus on profits. But they try to do this by selling things that benefit people in some way. Let's be honest that most people go into business to either earn some type of livelihood for themselves and their family. If they strike on an untapped market and end up making a lot of money, somehow they immediately turn evil if they aren't paying more for their employees or hiring more folks than they actually need. What makes profiting from one's business immoral? Especially if their employees ostensibly apply to work there and agree to the wages offered in the employment contract? Running a company, even a small one, takes a ton of time and effort. Like it or not, the protect of making money is one of the main draws for people to put in that effort. If they hit on something that benefits people enough that a ton of them want to buy that thing, is that not enough benefit to society? and if they have a business model that actually makes them money, why do we care if they get rich? Isn't that better than them going TU in the first year and incurring a ton of loss (like most business started in this country?) I get the idea that people think there must be sin involved if someone makes a lot of money. Just make enough that's "acceptable" without making the rest of us think you have too much, because we need to put a stop to THAT using the full force of the law.

 

Likewise, it's always bizarre to me that people excuse small business, as if the morality of the situation is somehow different. Why would something be wrong for a large company, but ok for a small company?

 

Profiting from one's business is fine. Making enough money to cover all one's business expenses and pay oneself a reasonable or even generous salary is fine. Doing so at the expense of one's employees is not fine. Choosing to tighten budgets of an already profitable business that pays its shareholders a return that is by all accepted measures generous for no other reason than to further increase shareholder profits knowing that doing so pushes employees at the bottom of the ladder into poverty is not fine. And large businesses are most certainly doing this. My husband just left a company he had been with for 10 years because the corporation that took it over did this. He was hard pressed to find a company in his industry that doesn't do this. We are very fortunate that he was able to.

 

While some large businesses operate on small profit margins per item, most do not, at least not on a majority of their items. 

 

Also, the morality is no different for small businesses, but the math is. 

[poppy]

Why?

 

I'm not sure what standard would say that 400x's is immoral and 50x's or 100x's is moral? It seems arbitrary.

 

An increase in profits allows could for all boats to get proportionally, or someone proportionally , higher. Choosing to put such a massive increase at the top while the majority of workers wages remain flat or go down, often relying on govt subsidies for worker food and healthcare, is at least morally questionable.

 

Of course, it is how corporations work. But we know that counties with stark income inequality have a lower quality of life and fewer opportunities to success than counties with a more equitable income distribution . So it is in the fed government's interest to at least slightly 'tame the beast' of capitalism. Like it did back in the days of robber barons. None of us really want to go back to the days of unchecked capitalism with child labor, no overtime, no worker safety measures , etc. I hope.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Even Fox News ran a piece agreeing with that CEO pay is detrimental to companies and stock holders!

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/04/15/business-school-experts-high-ceo-pay-hurts-american-companies.html

 

Another piece by PBS on how excessive CEO pay tanks companies:

 

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/new-study-overpaid-ceos-tank-firms/

 

Forbes on how the highest paid CEOs are the worst performers for their companies:

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2014/06/16/the-highest-paid-ceos-are-the-worst-performers-new-study-says/#4717d91d293a

 

Another excellent article on how excessive CEO pay is a cancer on Amercia:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2008-11-04/why-we-need-to-limit-executive-compensationbusinessweek-business-news-stock-market-and-financial-advice

[EmseB]

Profiting from one's business is fine. Making enough money to cover all one's business expenses and pay oneself a reasonable or even generous salary is fine. Doing so at the expense of one's employees is not fine.

I agree, which is why I am absolutely against slavery, and feel that employees should be free to quit their job or refuse to work for anyone if they feel the pay is inadequate or the hours are too much, etc. Employment should be strictly based on those who apply and want to work for what they are offered as compensation. IOW, if they feel the contract is unfair, they should not be forced to stay with that company in any way, shape, or form.

 

I don't think that because a CEO or owner makes a lot of money the employees are somehow entitled to a proportionate amount of wages, but if they feel that way and the owner doesn't provide that, I think they should have the freedom to not work in that place.

[EmseB]

Even Fox News ran a piece agreeing with that CEO pay is detrimental to companies and stock holders!

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/04/15/business-school-experts-high-ceo-pay-hurts-american-companies.html

 

Another piece by PBS on how excessive CEO pay tanks companies:

 

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/new-study-overpaid-ceos-tank-firms/

 

Forbes on how the highest paid CEOs are the worst performers for their companies:

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2014/06/16/the-highest-paid-ceos-are-the-worst-performers-new-study-says/#4717d91d293a

 

Another excellent article on how excessive CEO pay is a cancer on Amercia:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2008-11-04/why-we-need-to-limit-executive-compensationbusinessweek-business-news-stock-market-and-financial-advice

That's great and all, but then, why does anyone care of companies do this? If they tank because of it, it opens the market for more responsible business models, no? Or are we thinking "too big too fail"?

[SparklyUnicorn]

It isn't.  All of those fast food places are around $10 now for their main combo meals.  

 

I can go to the nicer places that serve better food (Pei Wei, Panera, Zoeys, etc ...) and spend about the same and get much better food.  Sure, I may have to opt for water instead of soda (better anyway!) for the same cost, but I would much prefer it!

 

Yep, it is close to that here too.  No clue what people are calling cheap except maybe stuff off the dollar or value menu.  Worst thing is if I eat one of those "meals" I'm hungry an hour later.  Which is rather nuts given how many calories that stuff supposedly has.

[EmseB]

An increase in profits allows could for all boats to get proportionally, or someone proportionally , higher. Choosing to put such a massive increase at the top while the majority of workers wages remain flat or go down, often relying on govt subsidies for worker food and healthcare, is at least morally questionable.

 

Of course, it is how corporations work. But we know that counties with stark income inequality have a lower quality of life and fewer opportunities to success than counties with a more equitable income distribution . So it is in the fed government's interest to at least slightly 'tame the beast' of capitalism. Like it did back in the days of robber barons. None of us really want to go back to the days of unchecked capitalism with child labor, no overtime, no worker safety measures , etc. I hope.

Ok, but child labor and bad conditions could be argued to be inherently immoral because you're directly harming other people. It seems that you're conflating many issues here. I'm asking what is inherently immoral about making a lot more money than someone else.

 

If, say, a highly paid CEO increases profits, then maybe wages or bonuses go up in the company across the board for many years. Perhaps attracting the best candidate with high pay actually benefits the company's bottom line, where as not having the best CEO causes losses and everyone takes a pay cut and there's layoffs? It's not as simple as high salary bad, lower salary good.

 

The pp I quoted made a blanket statement with some numbers saying it was unequivocally bad for a ceo to make that much. I'm wondering about the moral basis for this claim, and where the line is drawn where a ceo goes from moral to immoral solely based on his compensation level relative to his employees.

 

And if a ceo gives up his pay, and all the employees get a 10¢ or 25¢ per hour pay increase because his salary isn't paid to him anymore, does is make the profitability of the company more morally acceptable?

[SparklyUnicorn]

Whether or not CEO profits are immoral or ok, who cares.  We certainly have a right to complain about it.  They earn this amount in large part because it's tolerated and expected.  If more people got mad about it, then maybe it would change.  Maybe it wouldn't.  I don't know.  I see nothing wrong with complaining about it.  Stuff sometimes changes because enough people think it should. 

[EmseB]

Yep, it is close to that here too. No clue what people are calling cheap except maybe stuff off the dollar or value menu. Worst thing is if I eat one of those "meals" I'm hungry an hour later. Which is rather nuts given how many calories that stuff supposedly has.

My whole family can eat at McDs for less than $30. That's pretty cheap for eating out, IMO. The only place that's cheaper is Costco, but then that meal usually comes with a $200 side of groceries and a $100 annual membership fee, lol.

[SparklyUnicorn]

My whole family can eat at McDs for less than $30. That's pretty cheap for eating out, IMO. The only place that's cheaper is Costco, but then that meal usually comes with a $200 side of groceries and a $100 annual membership fee, lol.

 

Yeah it won't be like that when they are teenagers.  LOL

[EmseB]

Whether or not CEO profits are immoral or ok, who cares. We certainly have a right to complain about it. They earn this amount in large part because it's tolerated and expected. If more people got mad about it, then maybe it would change. Maybe it wouldn't. I don't know. I see nothing wrong with complaining about it. Stuff sometimes changes because enough people think it should.

Well, yeah, we have the right to complain about anything. But I think most complaints about the rich boil down to sour grapes and thinking that somehow if they didn't have so much that there would be some kind of utopia where everyone else would have what they are "hoarding".

 

Meanwhile, most policies proposed actually concentrate wealth to the ruling class and restrict mobility for the "little guy" because ultimately, the more hurdles created, the better things go for big guys who are already well established and can afford to comply. Making it more costly to higher low-skilled workers in an age of technological advancement is a prime example of this, IMO. Small businesses can't compete and the big guys will just front the cost for more complex computers. Voila, you've just further concentrated the wealth and prevented mom and pop from opening up shop! And as a bonus, laid off the people making minimum wage to begin with and made goods and services more expensive for them to boot! Yay?

Edited May 30, 2016 by JodiSue

[EmseB]

Yeah it won't be like that when they are teenagers. LOL

No doubt!! But just relative to the other options, McD's and Taco Bell and the like are the cheapest if we're getting fast food, which I try to avoid any way.

[Tanaqui]

The other issue is a huge increase in the Minimum Wage. If that happens, I believe a lot of very poorly educated people will find themselves unemployed. McDonalds and other corporations have made it clear that it will be less expensive for them to purchase Robots that cost USD$35K than to pay unskilled entry level workers $15 per hour to make French Fries.

 

Sooner or later, they're going to do that anyway. It doesn't matter how low you push the minimum wage, sooner or later it's always going to be more cost effective to use machines. Machines don't take sick days. Machines don't goof off. Machines don't engage in work slowdowns because they're not being paid enough for this garbage. Machines don't leave early because their kid is in trouble at school. Machines cost the same every day, and don't expect wage increases or breaks.

 

And it's not just fast food and factory jobs. There are articles written right now by computers, because it's cheaper to use a computer to come up with a readable summary of a baseball game than to ask a human to do it. There are computers taking over some tasks lawyers used to do - of course, computers don't need to pay off law school bills. And once self-driving trucks appear on the scene, I think we're actually going to have a jobs apocalypse.

 

The problem with all this is, of course, that robots don't eat fast food. They don't eat fast food, and they don't watch TV news, and they don't write wills, and they don't buy stuff. If we don't figure out some other way to manage our economy that isn't based on everybody working 40 hours a week, everybody's going to be in trouble, even the rich folks.

Edited May 30, 2016 by Tanaqui

[SparklyUnicorn]

Well, yeah, we have the right to complain about anything. But I think most complaints about the rich boil down to sour grapes and thinking that somehow if they didn't have so much that there would be some kind of utopia where everyone else would have what they are "hoarding".

 

Meanwhile, most policies proposed actually concentrate wealth to the ruling class and restrict mobility for the "little guy" because ultimately, the more hurdles created, the better things go for big guys who are already well established and can afford to comply. Making it more costly to higher low-skilled workers in an age of technological advancement is a prime example of this, IMO. Small businesses can't compete and the big guys will just front the cost for more complex computers. Voila, you've just further concentrated the wealth and prevented mom and pop from opening up shop! And as a bonus, laid off the people making minimum wage to begin with and made goods and services more expensive for them to boot! Yay?

 

I don't feel any sense of sour grapes really.  I have more at this point in my life than probably the rest of my life combined.  I live modestly, but it feels like a lot to me given my circumstances. 

 

But what I severely dislike and do feel sour about is seeing people who work very hard and can't scrape by.  That's not right at all. 

[Greta]

Why?

 

I'm not sure what standard would say that 400x's is immoral and 50x's or 100x's is moral? It seems arbitrary.

 

 

As far as drawing the line with an exact number, I honestly don't have an opinion on that.  I'll have to leave that to people who are better educated on this issue than I am.  I just know this.  A CEO back in the 1950's made 40-ish times what the typical employee makes?  Okay, sure, I can see that.  He could have had 40 times the expertise of the average worker, and provided his company with 40 times the "value" of the average worker.  That seems feasible.  But the CEO of Walmart today makes one thousand times the typical Walmart employee.  I know he doesn't work 1000 times harder.  I know he isn't 1000 times more intelligent.  I know he can't have 1000 times the expertise.  Because all of that is simply impossible.  So either he is being paid a disproportionately high wage or they are being paid a disproportionately low wage, and honestly it's both.  That kind of pay scale is so out of proportion that, yes, it absolutely screams "immoral".  It's an abuse of power.  Anyone making 25 million dollars a year on the backs of employees who are having to depend on food stamps to survive?  Yep, immoral for sure.  So while I don't now exactly where this line should be drawn, I know we've gone far past it.

[poppy]

Ok, but child labor and bad conditions could be argued to be inherently immoral because you're directly harming other people. It seems that you're conflating many issues here. I'm asking what is inherently immoral about making a lot more money than someone else.

 

If, say, a highly paid CEO increases profits, then maybe wages or bonuses go up in the company across the board for many years. Perhaps attracting the best candidate with high pay actually benefits the company's bottom line, where as not having the best CEO causes losses and everyone takes a pay cut and there's layoffs? It's not as simple as high salary bad, lower salary good.

 

The pp I quoted made a blanket statement with some numbers saying it was unequivocally bad for a ceo to make that much. I'm wondering about the moral basis for this claim, and where the line is drawn where a ceo goes from moral to immoral solely based on his compensation level relative to his employees.

 

And if a ceo gives up his pay, and all the employees get a 10¢ or 25¢ per hour pay increase because his salary isn't paid to him anymore, does is make the profitability of the company more morally acceptable?

This isn't a theoretical question of is it better for a CEO to make 40x to average worker vs 200x. It is what happened. And the fruits of that are the squeezing out of the middle class.

 

As someone with a stock portfolio , I get that having talented CEOs is good for my personal bottom line in a lot of ways. As someone whose husband works in manufacturing who has had coworkers fall ill due to environmental workplace toxins , I say, profits cannot be paramount in how the law regards employment.

 

You can say, well, it's ok so long as workers voluntarily sign up for it. But we do limit what people can sign up for. You can't agree to work for less than the minimum wage. You can't agree to work in unsafe conditions. You can't agree to work 40 hours a week if you are a young child even with your parents consent. You can't agree to work in a place that will make you break the law. You see some of those protections as worthwhile (child labor) and perhaps others not so much .... but it is all the same really. Federal intrusion on profit based on the greater good.

 

I don't think the fed should limit CEO pay , but I do think corporate tax rates and workplace legislation should reflect the reality of how corporations choose to spend their profits and how that impacts our nation overall.

[SparklyUnicorn]

It's like the game of Monopoly.  Sure it's fun when you have most of the money and you are just waiting for the opponent to land on Boardwalk once more (after you've lent him money and forgiven half of what he owes you for the fun of keeping it going).  Then it's game over.  There is a point where as delightful as it is that there is the opportunity for one special snowflake to make that much more than everyone else, it becomes a matter of how exactly can an economy thrive when they squeeze the life out of everyone?  How much cut throat should we allow?  It's not immoral IMO to make lots of money, but it's immoral to treat people like carp and pay them worse than slaves.  If that makes me a commie, so be it.  (I don't think it does though!)

 

Like this past housing crash.  That was created in large part by stupid greed IMO.  People just point out we should not be so stupid and take on more than we can afford, but that's how people operate.  The attitude of "I need this" and "I deserve this as much as the other rich guy" is created.  If it weren't there, our economy would fall apart because that is exactly how it keeps going.  It depends on us consuming a hell of a lot more than we need. 

 

Odd situation and I admit my knowledge of economics is pretty lousy. 

 

 

 

 

[SparklyUnicorn]

This isn't a theoretical question of is it better for a CEO to make 40x to average worker vs 200x. It is what happened. And the fruits of that are the squeezing out of the middle class.

 

As someone with a stock portfolio , I get that having talented CEOs is good for my personal bottom line in a lot of ways. As someone whose husband works in manufacturing who has had coworkers fall ill due to environmental workplace toxins , I say, profits cannot be paramount in how the law regards employment.

 

You can say, well, it's ok so long as workers voluntarily sign up for it. But we do limit what people can sign up for. You can't agree to work for less than the minimum wage. You can't agree to work in unsafe conditions. You can't agree to work 40 hours a week if you are a young child even with your parents consent. You can't agree to work in a place that will make you break the law. You see some of those protections as worthwhile (child labor) and perhaps others not so much .... but it is all the same really. Federal intrusion on profit based on the greater good.

 

I don't think the fed should limit CEO pay , but I do think corporate tax rates and workplace legislation should reflect the reality of how corporations choose to spend their profits and how that impacts our nation overall.

 

Given what I've seen in terms of behind the scenes with this stuff, I have no damn clue how some people become CEOs.  I swear sometimes they are put there because they are smart enough, stupid enough, and reckless enough; and the safest place to put them is in that position so they can stop being in charge of creating craptastic products. 

[SparklyUnicorn]

Given what I've seen in terms of behind the scenes with this stuff, I have no damn clue how some people become CEOs.  I swear sometimes they are put there because they are smart enough, stupid enough, and reckless enough; and the safest place to put them is in that position so they can stop being in charge of creating craptastic products. 

 

Or is that the position of company president?  :lol:

[EmseB]

This isn't a theoretical question of is it better for a CEO to make 40x to average worker vs 200x. It is what happened. And the fruits of that are the squeezing out of the middle class.

 

I don't think a handful of people making $$$ are what's hampering the growth of the middle class.

 

You can say, well, it's ok so long as workers voluntarily sign up for it. But we do limit what people can sign up for. You can't agree to work for less than the minimum wage....

This is all true. As A SAHM, I can't agree to go pick up some extra shifts for less than minimum wage if I want to or need to. My teenager won't be able ask to work for less, even if he doesn't need the money provided at $15/hour because he's living at home with me. We restrict the low skilled jobs to people with more experience and the like, or eliminate them altogether. Is that always a good thing? I liked being able to work for pocket money as a kid, and it benefited the business I worked for. Arguably, it benefited my community because I was paying taxes on that money. But there was no way that business could or would afford me at $15/hour. So, it's better that I don't have a job?

 

But again, safety and child labor, I think are conflating issues, as opposed to increasing the cost of labor arbitrarily to say that people must work for a pre-determined minimum.. And, some people do work in unsafe conditions, and they are able to bargain for higher wages because of it. As should be their prerogative.

 

I don't think the fed should limit CEO pay , but I do think corporate tax rates and workplace legislation should reflect the reality of how corporations choose to spend their profits and how that impacts our nation overall.

Corporations don't pay taxes. Don't people understand that every increase in the cost of doing business is simply passed on to the consumer? It has to be. Raise the corporate tax rate, ok, but it is simply added into the expense column of the balance sheet and prices are raised accordingly. Or employees are laid off, or business is scaled down. And again, the corps which can afford this are the big guys with huge volume, great CPAs and lawyers. So, you squeeze out the little guy who can't afford to compete or get his foot in the door. Those exact policies are what I was talking about. THAT kind of thing really inhibits mobility and growth of the middle class. Why do you think that large corporations will simply shrug their shoulders and lose money instead of passing the cost onto you like they already do with the current tax rate? If they are as money-grubbing as described, your plan simply costs more for the consumer in the end. And the rich continue getting richer, aided by government policy to make things "fair".

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

This isn't a theoretical question of is it better for a CEO to make 40x to average worker vs 200x. It is what happened. And the fruits of that are the squeezing out of the middle class.

 

As someone with a stock portfolio , I get that having talented CEOs is good for my personal bottom line in a lot of ways. As someone whose husband works in manufacturing who has had coworkers fall ill due to environmental workplace toxins , I say, profits cannot be paramount in how the law regards employment.

 

You can say, well, it's ok so long as workers voluntarily sign up for it. But we do limit what people can sign up for. You can't agree to work for less than the minimum wage. You can't agree to work in unsafe conditions. You can't agree to work 40 hours a week if you are a young child even with your parents consent. You can't agree to work in a place that will make you break the law. You see some of those protections as worthwhile (child labor) and perhaps others not so much .... but it is all the same really. Federal intrusion on profit based on the greater good.

 

I don't think the fed should limit CEO pay , but I do think corporate tax rates and workplace legislation should reflect the reality of how corporations choose to spend their profits and how that impacts our nation overall.

As a stock holder, excessive CEO pay hurts us too according to the several articles I posted so this is a stock holder issue too. And often there is good buddy network among the largest shareholders (mutual funds), company board of directors, and top executives like CEOs which upholds this excessive pay.

 

Also, several of the articles talked of extensive studies on how excessive CEO pay often hurts the bottom line of companies let alone workers.

 

I am not say the government should cap CEO pay. I am saying there should be multiple tax brackets for those earning more than a million dollars a year whether in salary or perks like stock options. Capital gains taxes need to raised for those making this much as well since many execs make the bulk of their income on capital gains and therefore pay less percentage in taxes than many middle income Americans.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I don't think a handful of people making $$$ are what's hampering the growth of the middle class.

 

 

This is all true. As A SAHM, I can't agree to go pick up some extra shifts for less than minimum wage if I want to or need to. My teenager won't be able ask to work for less, even if he doesn't need the money provided at $15/hour because he's living at home with me. We restrict the low skilled jobs to people with more experience and the like, or eliminate them altogether. Is that always a good thing? I liked being able to work for pocket money as a kid, and it benefited the business I worked for. Arguably, it benefited my community because I was paying taxes on that money. But there was no way that business could or would afford me at $15/hour. So, it's better that I don't have a job?

 

But again, safety and child labor, I think are conflating issues, as opposed to increasing the cost of labor arbitrarily to say that people must work for a pre-determined minimum.. And, some people do work in unsafe conditions, and they are able to bargain for higher wages because of it. As should be their prerogative.

 

 

Corporations don't pay taxes. Don't people understand that every increase in the cost of doing business is simply passed on to the consumer? It has to be. Raise the corporate tax rate, ok, but it is simply added into the expense column of the balance sheet and prices are raised accordingly. Or employees are laid off, or business is scaled down. And again, the corps which can afford this are the big guys with huge volume, great CPAs and lawyers. So, you squeeze out the little guy who can't afford to compete or get his foot in the door. Those exact policies are what I was talking about. THAT kind of thing really inhibits mobility and growth of the middle class. Why do you think that large corporations will simply shrug their shoulders and lose money instead of passing the cost onto you like they already do with the current tax rate? If they are as money-grubbing as described, your plan simply costs more for the consumer in the end. And the rich continue getting richer, aided by government policy to make things "fair".

 

 

 

Strangely enough, we had a healthier economy and wages more in line with the actual cost of living back when we had higher corporate and personal income tax rates.

 

Regarding the bolded, I find it oddly amusing you seem to divorce the laws that give protections and benefits to corporations from the trend of the "rich getting richer".

[EmseB]

As far as drawing the line with an exact number, I honestly don't have an opinion on that. I'll have to leave that to people who are better educated on this issue than I am. I just know this. A CEO back in the 1950's made 40-ish times what the typical employee makes? Okay, sure, I can see that. He could have had 40 times the expertise of the average worker, and provided his company with 40 times the "value" of the average worker. That seems feasible. But the CEO of Walmart today makes one thousand times the typical Walmart employee. I know he doesn't work 1000 times harder. I know he isn't 1000 times more intelligent. I know he can't have 1000 times the expertise. Because all of that is simply impossible. So either he is being paid a disproportionately high wage or they are being paid a disproportionately low wage, and honestly it's both. That kind of pay scale is so out of proportion that, yes, it absolutely screams "immoral". It's an abuse of power.

Except the only power he has is to ask for a high wage. It doesn't occur in a vacuum. And people who do much less than the CEO of Wal-Mart do much less and get paid millions too. So, do we just confiscate everyone's wealth who earns a disproportionate (according to populist sentiment) wage? Kardashians, DiCaprios, sports stars, venture capitalists? If they don't work hard enough according to the Gretas of the world, their pay must be cut?

 

As an aside, I think it's a completely skewed view od humanity to say that salary determines how hard someone is working or what they are worth. Why enter that into the equation unless, again, we're talking about simple envy. If you're saying people should be paid based on how hard they work relative to everyone else, we are in trouble. That makes me shudder.

 

 

Anyone making 25 million dollars a year on the backs of employees who are having to depend on food stamps to survive?

Oh please. These people aren't slaves. No one is forcing anyone to apply at wal-mart. There are people who don't need foodstamps, who need a part time job, who choose to apply, and it is a good stepping stone for them when they need experience or skills an nowhere else will hire them. Can we stop with the hyperbole?

 

 

Not to mention, if they need food stamps for a time while working and building a resume, isn't that better than being completely priced out of the labor market and needing a whole lot more help than foodstamps? I don't understand how no job is better than a low paying job with job experience? I'm fully in favor of helping those who are struggling working a low-skilled job for minimum wage and trying to build a work history for themselves. I'm surprised people are against this, to be honest. To me, that's a great example of how the social safety net is supposed to work. But, providing millions of people with low-skilled jobs is better than I'll ever accomplish for society, so I acn only help in some small way.

 

And, mathematically, let's say the Wal-Mart CEO gives up $24 million of his compensation. How much of a raise is each hourly worker going to get? (I'm genuinely curious).

[Laura Corin]

Whether or not CEO profits are immoral or ok, who cares.  We certainly have a right to complain about it.  They earn this amount in large part because it's tolerated and expected.  If more people got mad about it, then maybe it would change.  Maybe it wouldn't.  I don't know.  I see nothing wrong with complaining about it.  Stuff sometimes changes because enough people think it should. 

 

And it's often actually my taxes that they are earning in effect, both in the UK and the US.  If they pay workers so little that the workers need benefits to survive, then my taxes are essentially paying part of the CEO's salary.

[SparklyUnicorn]

And it's often actually my taxes that they are earning in effect, both in the UK and the US.  If they pay workers so little that the workers need benefits to survive, then my taxes are essentially paying part of the CEO's salary.

 

Yes. I sometimes think slavery hasn't really ended in the US.  It just looks a bit different.  The improvement is you are now free to roam about the landscape while living in abject poverty.  Well sort of.  If you have nowhere to sleep, it can get tricky to find a legal place to sleep.

Yes. I sometimes think slavery hasn't really ended in the US.  It just looks a bit different.  The improvement is you are now free to roam about the landscape while living in abject poverty.  Well sort of.  If you have nowhere to sleep, it can get tricky to find a legal place to sleep.

 

'In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread.'

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

Except the only power he has is to ask for a high wage. It doesn't occur in a vacuum. And people who do much less than the CEO of Wal-Mart do much less and get paid millions too. So, do we just confiscate everyone's wealth who earns a disproportionate (according to populist sentiment) wage? Kardashians, DiCaprios, sports stars, venture capitalists? If they don't work hard enough according to the Gretas of the world, their pay must be cut?

 

As an aside, I think it's a completely skewed view od humanity to say that salary determines how hard someone is working or what they are worth. Why enter that into the equation unless, again, we're talking about simple envy. If you're saying people should be paid based on how hard they work relative to everyone else, we are in trouble. That makes me shudder.

 

 

 

Oh please. These people aren't slaves. No one is forcing anyone to apply at wal-mart. There are people who don't need foodstamps, who need a part time job, who choose to apply, and it is a good stepping stone for them when they need experience or skills an nowhere else will hire them. Can we stop with the hyperbole?

 

 

Not to mention, if they need food stamps for a time while working and building a resume, isn't that better than being completely priced out of the labor market and needing a whole lot more help than foodstamps? I don't understand how no job is better than a low paying job with job experience? I'm fully in favor of helping those who are struggling working a low-skilled job for minimum wage and trying to build a work history for themselves. I'm surprised people are against this, to be honest. To me, that's a great example of how the social safety net is supposed to work. But, providing millions of people with low-skilled jobs is better than I'll ever accomplish for society, so I acn only help in some small way.

 

And, mathematically, let's say the Wal-Mart CEO gives up $24 million of his compensation. How much of a raise is each hourly worker going to get? (I'm genuinely curious).

Well these excessively paid CEOs and top execs should pay more in taxes since their companies are the beneficiaries of corporate welfare and their businesses should as well IMHO.

 

In regards to Walmart workers not being slaves, you are correct. However, often retailers like Walmart are often the one of the only places left for jobs for some folks. Many of our jobs have been happily shipped overseas by these CEOs to pay folks in other countries slave wages and often in slave-like conditions. How is that right?

[DawnM]

My whole family can eat at McDs for less than $30. That's pretty cheap for eating out, IMO. The only place that's cheaper is Costco, but then that meal usually comes with a $200 side of groceries and a $100 annual membership fee, lol.

 

 

They must all get $1 menu items or happy meals.  We are a family of 5, and 3 teen boys.  It is about $9-$10 per meal for all 5 of us, or close to $50.  

 

I still say you would do better on free kids' meals nights at places like McCalister's or .99 kids' meal nights.

[Danestress]

How much cut throat should we allow? It's not immoral IMO to make lots of money, but it's immoral to treat people like carp and pay them worse than slaves. If that makes me a commie, so be it. (I don't think it does though!)

 

 

Can we talk about what slaves were actually paid and the standard of living slaves enjoyed in return for their efforts? I see comparisons like this, and I question whether one working a low wage job in America is paid worse than a slave.

 

I know conditions of slaves varied widely, but field workers in the Carolina often worked 15 hour days six days a weeks, ate cheap, repetitive food, and lived in cramped quarters with dirt floors. Even apart from the utter abomination that owning a human is, and just looking at working hours and conditions and what one 'earns' for that work, I question your statement.

[EmseB]

And it's often actually my taxes that they are earning in effect, both in the UK and the US. If they pay workers so little that the workers need benefits to survive, then my taxes are essentially paying part of the CEO's salary.

That is certainly a skewed view. Again, if that CEO takes a pay cut, works for $0...how much of a raise is afforded to the hourly employees?

 

Not to mention, so, we simply say, no you can't pay them this little. Ok, so the jobs go away. Where does that leave millions of employees? Are they better off without a job at all? Are most people who earn minimum wage trying to support a family with no other reasonble prospects ever? Should employees be required to pay enough for someone to support a family or just one person? To what standard?

 

A thought experiment: My brother worked hourly for years for a corp that is known for "good" employment practices. As a single guy in a HCOL area he could afford to rent out a room in a shared house and drive a beater. Should his employer have been required to pay him more? He ate three meals a day, had clothing, shelter, some entertainment, catastrophic health insurance, and transportation. But he had to share living space and didn't support anyone else. He was not making $15/hour. He was working full time. So is his standard of living a good minimum? Or not enough?

 

Now, thinking about it, if he had a couple kids at a young age with no work experience, he'd be in a totally different boat, and his "living wage" would necessarily be *much* higher. So, does that mean tax dollars would be supporting my brother's CEO if my brother made different life choices and required a higher wage when he was lower-skilled to survive? To me it seems the answer is easily no, and I'd not like to levy that responsibility for people's general welfare onto employers, but I'm guessing many here disagree and would say my brother's choices need to be mitigated by his wages.

 

To another post, do think comparing low skilled workers in the U.S. with actual slaves really minimizes the horrific nature of actual slavery where a person not only doesn't have choices, but is the literal property of someone else.

[EmseB]

Also, I'm a firm believer in taking care of those struggling to make ends meet, just putting it out there before that charge gets leveled.

 

Most multi-million dollar CEOs that I know of, though, contribute more to philanthropy and charitable causes in a year than I could ever hope to do in a lifetime, though, so I'm probably on the small end of being able to help people.

[abacus2]

http://www.salon.com/2013/11/19/wal_mart_could_pay_every_us_employee_14_89_just_by_not_buying_its_own_stock/

[poppy]

I don't think a handful of people making $$$ are what's hampering the growth of the middle class.

 

 

This is all true. As A SAHM, I can't agree to go pick up some extra shifts for less than minimum wage if I want to or need to. My teenager won't be able ask to work for less, even if he doesn't need the money provided at $15/hour because he's living at home with me. We restrict the low skilled jobs to people with more experience and the like, or eliminate them altogether. Is that always a good thing? I liked being able to work for pocket money as a kid, and it benefited the business I worked for. Arguably, it benefited my community because I was paying taxes on that money. But there was no way that business could or would afford me at $15/hour. So, it's better that I don't have a job?

 

But again, safety and child labor, I think are conflating issues, as opposed to increasing the cost of labor arbitrarily to say that people must work for a pre-determined minimum.. And, some people do work in unsafe conditions, and they are able to bargain for higher wages because of it. As should be their prerogative.

 

 

Corporations don't pay taxes. Don't people understand that every increase in the cost of doing business is simply passed on to the consumer? It has to be. Raise the corporate tax rate, ok, but it is simply added into the expense column of the balance sheet and prices are raised accordingly. Or employees are laid off, or business is scaled down. And again, the corps which can afford this are the big guys with huge volume, great CPAs and lawyers. So, you squeeze out the little guy who can't afford to compete or get his foot in the door. Those exact policies are what I was talking about. THAT kind of thing really inhibits mobility and growth of the middle class. Why do you think that large corporations will simply shrug their shoulders and lose money instead of passing the cost onto you like they already do with the current tax rate? If they are as money-grubbing as described, your plan simply costs more for the consumer in the end. And the rich continue getting richer, aided by government policy to make things "fair".

Not a lot of time to respond but two quick points --

A handful of people making $$$ is *precisely* what is hurting the middle class. $500 million to one person vs $1 million to 500 people. Or $100k to 5000 people. Or $10k to 50,000 people. (Is my math right? I will be embarrassed if it's way off but I'm in a rush). That's the choice the corporations make , which is their right -- but that is what we are referring to when we talk about squeezing out the middle class. And I truly do not think that one $500m guy will give more individually than the large group would either. And to a larger and more diverse group of nonprofits , charities and political campaigns.

 

Corporations do pay taxes. If they raise prices too much to make up for it. the people have the collective bargaining ability to shop elsewhere . And the market has a heck of a lot more bargaining power to than individual employees.

Edited May 30, 2016 by poppy

[EmseB]

Not a lot of time to respond but two quick points --

A handful of people making $$$ is *precisely* what is hurting the middle class. $500 million to one person vs $1 million to 500 people. Or $100k to 5000 people. Or $10k to 50,000 people. (Is my math right? I will be embarrassed if it's way off but I'm in a rush). That's the choice the corporations make , which is their right -- but that is what we are referring to when we talk about squeezing out the middle class. And I truly do not think that one $500m guy will give more individually than the large group would either. And to a larger and more diverse group of nonprofits , charities and political campaigns.

 

Corporations do pay taxes. If they raise prices too much to make up for it. the people have the collective bargaining ability to shop elsewhere . And the market has a heck of a lot more bargaining power to than individual employees.

Except wealth is not a zero-sum proposition. Someone having more than you does not mean that if they didn't have it you (or anyone else would). Wealth is created, not simply shifted between people. For example, there is much more wealth in existence now than there was in, say, 1800. Much more. Your response about $500 million for one person vs. $1 million for 500 people is a huge misunderstanding of how wealth creation works. But, let's say you're correct in your thinking -- even going by that standard, a multi-millionaire will contribute far more to the economy in the form of start-up capital, mortgage lending, philanthropy, and spending than you or I ever will (unless you are also a millionaire). I cannot invest in a new business, I can't finance real estate or new technology. My capital gains from investments are non-existent at this point. But thoee things are the vehicles that actually create wealth instead of just spending to keep wheels spinning. $1 million will open a franchise and employ 10 people. $1 for a million people...it's not going to create or sustain much of anything unless it is combined. Bill Gates can leverage a whole lot of resources that me and a billion of my closest friends can't get our hands on, even perfectly working together. And if he didn't have his billions, the world would not be better off. And him having those billions does not prevent someone else from creating the next Microsoft and creating even more wealth in the world.

 

And lol at corporations paying taxes. If you don't think they account for that like any other business expense and price accordingly I have to assume you're extremely naive.

 

As for collective bargaining power of the consumer, yes! If the prices are too high the company can't survive...and then no more jobs for all the employees. That's exactly my point. They can't simply absorb extra costs of higher taxes or higher wages. They have to deal with it somewhere on their balance sheet. If they are a giant corporation they'll probably survive, but you end up with a good old fashioned monopoly and too big to fail because no local mom'n'pop can compete with that. And then people complain about giant corporations getting too rich without accountability. The only real accountability we have as consumers IS the power of the dollar, but we lose that when we make competition impossible with tons of barriers to entry in any given market. Tiny bookstore can't afford $15/hour? Too bad, Barnes&Noble can just lay off a couple guys and make do with less. So, tiny bookstore closes, B&N lays off their least experienced people, and we all feel good because we're really helping the little guy with his non-existent $15/hour job. And we're upset at B&N because they ran mom n pop out of town, joe and susie are out of work, and we remain ignorant of our own culpability.

 

ETA: the labor market is a market. If there are a lot of workers and few jobs like we have now, labor prices (wages) go down. Price controls don't work, even in the labor market. But, if jobs are plentiful, the employers have to compete for the best employees by offering better wages and compensation to attract them. So the solution is more opportunity, not artificially fixing the price of labor. Raising the price of labor means fewer jobs available, which means wages don't rise beyond the minimum, which becomes the new base wage (i.e. worth the same as the $7/hour they were making before) because prices of goods and services have risen accordingly.

Edited May 31, 2016 by JodiSue

[poppy]

Mmmm. Yes there is lots of wealth creation going on and the wealth is allllll going to the multi millionaire who can contribute so much more to society. How is that working out for you? How is that working out for your neighbors? How many of them have funds to open that low-barrier-to-entry bookstore?

 

Of course Corp put the expense of taxes into their budget and shift accordingly. They are still accountable to shareholders and to consumers if they raise prices too much.

Most multi-million dollar CEOs that I know of, though, contribute more to philanthropy and charitable causes in a year than I could ever hope to do in a lifetime, though, so I'm probably on the small end of being able to help people.

 

 

But you can't have it both ways, the math just doesn't work out. 

 

If, as you point out, you zero-out Walmart's CEO's salary from $20 million / year to $0, and distribute it evenly to the 1.5 million workers, that's less than $20 / person / year.

 

But, by the same math, if the same CEO donates his entire salary to some charity that would benefit those same workers, each would also only get $20 / year, which clearly isn't going to be life-changing for them.

[Tanaqui]

Most multi-million dollar CEOs that I know of, though, contribute more to philanthropy and charitable causes in a year than I could ever hope to do in a lifetime, though, so I'm probably on the small end of being able to help people.

 

Putting aside the fact that personal charity is not an adequate substitute for a functioning social safety net, the fact is that the wealthy give less to charity, proportionately, than poor people do. And in the aftermath of the recession, that's just gotten worse - people with higher income cut down on their charitable giving while people with lower incomes increased it. (That's from Forbes, not exactly a bastion of socialist thought.) And in the end, they tend to give to causes that primarily benefit - well, them. I'm not going to dis The Metropolitan Opera, but giving money to them isn't exactly as helpful to the poor as donating that same amount to CityHarvest. Donating to Dalton isn't as useful as donating to a Title I public school.

[Tanaqui]

If, as you point out, you zero-out Walmart's CEO's salary from $20 million / year to $0, and distribute it evenly to the 1.5 million workers, that's less than $20 / person / year.

 

Doug McMillon actually made $25.6 million last year - over 1000x the median salary.

 

[Greta]

Except the only power he has is to ask for a high wage. It doesn't occur in a vacuum. And people who do much less than the CEO of Wal-Mart do much less and get paid millions too. So, do we just confiscate everyone's wealth who earns a disproportionate (according to populist sentiment) wage? Kardashians, DiCaprios, sports stars, venture capitalists? If they don't work hard enough according to the Gretas of the world, their pay must be cut?

 

As an aside, I think it's a completely skewed view od humanity to say that salary determines how hard someone is working or what they are worth. Why enter that into the equation unless, again, we're talking about simple envy. If you're saying people should be paid based on how hard they work relative to everyone else, we are in trouble. That makes me shudder.

 

 

 

You asked what made one CEO salary moral and another immoral, and I gave you my opinion on the matter.  You disagree with my opinion, and that's cool.  But I was NOT nominating myself as the arbiter of who gets paid what, and I am NOT motivated by envy.  

 

 

Oh please. These people aren't slaves. No one is forcing anyone to apply at wal-mart. There are people who don't need foodstamps, who need a part time job, who choose to apply, and it is a good stepping stone for them when they need experience or skills an nowhere else will hire them. Can we stop with the hyperbole?

 

 

The government is spending something on the order of $150 billion dollars per year to help the working poor meet their most basic needs.  This situation is just a mess.  And the mess isn't going to get cleaned up if we continue to believe that employers have a right to pay their workforce a pittance.

 

GDP and wages used to increase at roughly the same rate.  That makes sense.  Since 1980 they've been decoupled, and the GDP has continued to increase, while wages have stagnated.  That makes no sense.  So yeah, I stand by my statement that many corporations are getting uber rich on the backs of the workers who aren't receiving fair compensation.  

 

But for the record, I never said they were slaves.  I actually agree with the point that Ravin made on the first page of this thread:  that sort of language isn't helpful to the conversation.

 

 

 

 

And, mathematically, let's say the Wal-Mart CEO gives up $24 million of his compensation. How much of a raise is each hourly worker going to get? (I'm genuinely curious).

 

 

I was unclear.  I wasn't saying that capping CEO's salaries will solve the problem.  I think excessive CEO salaries are just one symptom of a much larger problem.  

[Tanaqui]

And the mess isn't going to get cleaned up if we continue to believe that employers have a right to pay their workforce a pittance.

 

It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country. By "business" I mean the whole of commerce as well as the whole of industry; by workers I mean all workers, the white collar class as well as the men in overalls; and by living wages I mean more than a bare subsistence level-I mean the wages of decent living.

 

Some dude said that, but really, what did he know?

 

[Laura Corin]

That is certainly a skewed view.

 

 

 

In what way skewed?  Both my husband and I have worked in the City of London, and Husband has worked on Wall Street, so we have seen silly salaries at close range and, although it shouldn't matter, I have an MBA from one of Britain's top business schools.

 

The Board remunerates the CEO and sets dividends based on the profits of the company.  Those profits are subsidised by the taxpayer, because the company is not paying enough for the workers to survive and feed/house their children.  Therefore, some portion of the CEO's salary and the dividend to shareholders is financed by the tax payers.  If the CEO's salary were lower, the wages could be a bit higher, and my tax bill would be reduced.

 

 

Edited May 31, 2016 by Laura Corin