....... the companies paying higher wages will just pass on the cost. This opinion completely disregards the fact that maybe the executives and managers are overpaid. An equivalent decrease in executive pay alongside an increase in worker pay would therefore lead to no additional costs to the consumer. This is not hard to achieve since executives are making over 300 times as much as their workers.
...........unwilling to see management take home less? Is it that under no circumstances must executives receive less compensation, only workers must sacrifice? Executives can have golden parachutes, secure retirements, paid country club memberships, use of the company jet, and perks as far as the eye can see in perpetuity. But the workers are at fault for budgetary issues? The workers must sacrifice and go without? The $12 an-hour they are making is too much?
productivity of the American worker has increased, they have not seen a correlated increase in their pay. Yet, executive compensation has skyrocketed.
Are the higher production costs passed on to the consumer? I would say yes.
Are the executives paid "too much"? Maybe. That is for the shareholders to deal with. What would you have done about it? Pay caps? Legislate a maximum pay for corporate CEO's? I am against more gov't intervention.
I keep hearing people speak of "increased productivity of the american worker". You do realize that it is very much due to automation and the ability of businesses to make more with less people? Also, the more the employees make the more justifiable the investment in automation. The more automation, the less jobs. So yes, higher pay equates to less jobs in the long run. FACT.
I get the impression that you think that businesses are started up with the purpose of providing jobs. Sorry to rain on your parade, but they are started up to make a profit. The more profit it makes, the more is invested into it. Generally with the intent of making even more money. I don't think that I have heard of anyone saying, you know what, I think I am going to pay more just because. Pay is increased to reduce turnover, and bonuses are given as incentive. Just the way it is.... See it all the time in my profession.
I work in manufacturing and there is something called "payback". Payback is when a piece of equipment pays for itself. Here, an investment is justified when it pays for itself in 1 year.
Example: Let's say I have a person removing parts off a production line and setting them on a pallet. And let's just say he costs the company $63,000 a year to employ (salary, ins,unemp. ins, etc....). Now, let's say there is a robot that can do the same thing. It costs $70,000. Now, let's say they vote in a union. Eliminate their share in insurance expense, and we have to up his pay, and offer more retirement match... Whoah... Now it costs $82,000 to keep this guy employed..... You do the math. What happens next? Do I need to tell you?
Oh, by the way.... It is not a coincidence that the CEO's pay wasn't even mentioned.... Because it didn't matter. FACT
So let me ask you something then. If your company came to you employees and told you that they had to cut back your hourly wage by say....8 percent, and that you'd have to pay 12% more of the cost of your health insurance and they were cutting your retirement a bit and requiring you to pitch in 6 percent more to cover that amount that the company was now unwilling to pay into those retirements, and that you could loose a bit of ground on your specific employee rights, like no more breaks, and you had to show up 15 minutes before the hour you started and get rolled out and set up and actually working off the clock. Meanwhile, your companies upper management kept making the same money, and perhaps more on their annual bouses, all the while, the product you produce stays the same in terms of cost. After all that, you telling me that you'd pat them on the back and say, well....We gotta stay competitive.....? I think not! You all'd be griping and the work day would get a bit less fun. You know it would too! And that also is a FACT! I'm not really complaining about CEO pay, nor mandating controls so much as I'm advovating being fair to your employees is all. Fantasy yes! I know that it will never happen, but people should be concerned about workers salaries staying basically flat in relation to the tremendous increases we're seeing in food prices, gas prices, property taxes and electricity. The fact is that folks are making less and less in relation to the cost of say.....health insurance. Home insurance and so on. The CEOs and administrators and upper management are getting annual increases to offset these inflationary issues. But we aren't. I also think that many folks are just pissed that we get crappy benifits and wages and actually have to WORK for our livings while the Government workers have it easy and work so little, and I agree it pisses me off, but I think still, that capitalism really is bringing economic terrorism to this planet on many levels, such as cutting or limiting wage increases to mediocre increments, shipping jobs overseas to people who will work for 18 cents an hour, leaving people here, to go to work for walmart and minimum wage. You might have a snug little job now, but it could go to China if you aren't careful and work for cheap enough so that your administrators can make a killing! At some point, given the current pace at which things are changing in this country and the way folks just bury their heads in the dirt and not stand up and voice their opposition, capitalism sure looks to be consuming itself, because at some point, something has to break!
So let me ask you something then. If your company came to you employees and told you that they had to cut back your hourly wage by say....8 percent, and that you'd have to pay 12% more of the cost of your health insurance and they were cutting your retirement a bit and requiring you to pitch in 6 percent more to cover that amount that the company was now unwilling to pay into those retirements, and that you could loose a bit of ground on your specific employee rights, like no more breaks, and you had to show up 15 minutes before the hour you started and get rolled out and set up and actually working off the clock. Meanwhile, your companies upper management kept making the same money, and perhaps more on their annual bouses, all the while, the product you produce stays the same in terms of cost. After all that, you telling me that you'd pat them on the back and say, well....We gotta stay competitive.....? I think not! You all'd be griping and the work day would get a bit less fun. You know it would too! And that also is a FACT! I'm not really complaining about CEO pay, nor mandating controls so much as I'm advovating being fair to your employees is all. Fantasy yes! I know that it will never happen, but people should be concerned about workers salaries staying basically flat in relation to the tremendous increases we're seeing in food prices, gas prices, property taxes and electricity. The fact is that folks are making less and less in relation to the cost of say.....health insurance. Home insurance and so on. The CEOs and administrators and upper management are getting annual increases to offset these inflationary issues. But we aren't. I also think that many folks are just pissed that we get crappy benifits and wages and actually have to WORK for our livings while the Government workers have it easy and work so little, and I agree it pisses me off, but I think still, that capitalism really is bringing economic terrorism to this planet on many levels, such as cutting or limiting wage increases to mediocre increments, shipping jobs overseas to people who will work for 18 cents an hour, leaving people here, to go to work for walmart and minimum wage. You might have a snug little job now, but it could go to China if you aren't careful and work for cheap enough so that your administrators can make a killing! At some point, given the current pace at which things are changing in this country and the way folks just bury their heads in the dirt and not stand up and voice their opposition, capitalism sure looks to be consuming itself, because at some point, something has to break!
I do understand the frustration that comes along with all of this. I simply don't think that there is a much better option thatn capitalism. It is what made this country great, that someone can come over here and POTENTIALLY become very successful. I am very fortunate to work where I work, I will admit. It has been a good company to work for (for the most part). Our raises were reduced (I know, some folks aren't getting raises), and our insurance costs have gone up.
The root cause of our problems (I think) are that the population is growing so rapidly, and productivity (due much to technology) is going up so quickly, that the job pool is shrinking, and the work pool is growing. Do I know what the future holds in that regard? No. Might it just get worse? Probably.
Do I think we need to move over to something like socialism? No. No matter what. I do not have the answers.
I do, however, think that in this country we have a sort of skewed view as to who is "poor" and who is not. If you compare internationally, our "poor" or "lower income" still have it better than the middle class in most countries. The problem is, people here look around and see others with so much more and then they get upset. That is just wrong. Envy. You know what, I am not "rich".... I don't have a fancy internet cellphone, I don't have cable, I don't have a new car payment. I am happy though. I think that there are others out there who just cannot have enough unless they have just as much as the "Joneses". Not me, not my problem.
Anyway, I definitely agree with you on the government workers thing though.
That is one reason that I think that the Wisconsin thing could be a very good thing.
Oh, and I guess the unions do still serve a purpose. That is to get other businesses to treat thier employees better for fear of being unionized. Once unionized though, I think it can kill a business/industry.
I still am not clear as to what you have been suggesting other than for high paid corporate folks to just voluntarily get less money. As you said, not going to happen. Do you have a suggeation that may be doable?
My point was simply that rather than stepping back, we need to move forward. I fully agree that capitalism is a great thing. I DID have a business at one time.......another story! I think also, as is evident, that some really give capitalism a bad name, and I think it's just human nature, when someone is at the top, to take advantage of people less fortunate. Histopry is full of stories and situations, and it will continue until it all comes to an end. I also know that we, here in this country, at least most of us, have it better than many places in the world. I also feel that there is an increasing difficulty in being able to survive these days. I started out in 1985 making $10 an hour under the table. Then, gas was 85 cents a gallon and a loaf of bread was about 80 cents. These days, I make more money obviously, but in relation to the cost of things like gasoline and homeowners insurance, which has gone through my roof, the middle working class folk, are losers. I was only ranting about those CEOs continuing to get huge salaries and bonuses, while our wages seem to flatline, and have no solutions, being not an economist. I know and can tell you that I have worked hard my whole life, and through it all, managed to pay off my house last year and have no car payments, but I still struggle month to month, even with 3 incomes in this house. My hat goes off to those entering the housing market these days, given the situation out there. My rant and opinion, because that's all we're doing here is offering opinions that in the long run, will change nothing. But my opinion is that given that wages are flat relative to the cost of goods going up all the time, combined with jobs leaving our country to go to folks overseas, and as you put it, an increase in our population, that thinggs have to come to a head at some point, if we're to continue this trend. In the 1980s, you'll remember, I'm sure....the Japanese invasion of our economy. Back then, Americans were being bombarded with products being made in Japan. People were losing their jobs, and I remember old Ross Perot, hanging his hat on the fact that we needed to wake up America, and change things or we are gonna die! I just think that since the 1980s, the labor force in this country has lost more and more jobs, and pay has been somewhat stagnated, while those on top make all the money with nice secure prospects of retirement and a great life. Most of us, I know I can sure talk, have worked hard as well, and maybe not we're not all a big executive or administrator, but I believe that everyone who works hard should have the right to retire and have medical, or at least be able to afford it! I just think that this move, regarding the unions, is another crack in the dam of labor rights and decent pay. I would have liked to have seen others make the sacrafice as well, and I believe that there are other ways of getting the finances back on track as well, though I'm unfamiliar with Wisconsins budget. I just think, in a certain way, that unless the people start standing up and voicing their concerns and holding their ground in this thing, then the American worker is going to have to move to China! I deeply care about this country, and I just believe that people are becoming so bombarded with trying to survive from day to day, and numb to the pure and simple facts, that we've become complacent. And in the face of what's going on in this country, in many aspects, not just one......it should be a bit more alarming.
I agree with pretty much everything you said. I STILL think that unions are not the answer. I do, however, respect your opinion. I think that our education system has alot to do with our lagging behind the Japanese. We could stray waay off course on that issue though. I do think that it is a tough situation we are in. It would be nice if everyone could have the good retirement and insurance (affordable, anyway). I do not know how that is going to be possible under a system where folks are rewarded not only for their work, but the demand for their work. That means that if you know how to do stuff that only a few people know how to do, you will likely have better pay and benefits than the person who knows how to do something that everyone can do (even if the latter works "harder".) I don't know what the answer to that is. I just think that if we condemn the ones that make/get the most, there will be less incentive to be one of the folks that "knows how to do something very few know how to do". Those are the folks that will make us the most competitive as a country. I'm sure there are people willing to work really hard in China. I also bet that the ones in china that have additional knowledge and education make more. I don't know..... Tough call.... Unions are not the answer. That will just encourage the higher pay and benifits for the ones with common skills, thus discouraging those with the less common skills. I don't know if that made sense or not.... Tough subject though, really..
"I still am not clear as to what you have been suggesting other than
for high paid corporate folks to just voluntarily get less money. As
you said, not going to happen. "
I was surprised to discover that not long ago the upper tax
bracket was 93%. I really don't mind the guy with a 10 million $$$
bonus funding a few bridges or a tax break for new potential
employers.
__________________
I'll believe corporations are persons when Texas executes one.: LBJ's Ghost
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100…
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this…
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7..
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that’s what they decided to do..
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20″. Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men? The paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.
And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.
“I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,”but he got $10!”
“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!”
“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!”
“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!”
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
So by states cutting the throats of the state workers who make less than you think we do(yes I am a Penn Dot employee)by making them pay more for insurance,pay into retirement,pay for unemployment compensation(which we will never be able to collect on) as well as other things will help salvage the budgets of states? How about the corrupt elected officials who make 3-5 times more than me,will get retirement in a lesser time and get all kinds of perks,make them actually do their jobs like balancing the budget and other things they are in charge of and make them accountable. Why not instead,put the state workers who will essentially lose their jobs,stand out in front of WalMart etc and collect 5 bucks from every person who enters so we can use that money to save our budget. Or better yet,let the people who buy alcohol,go to bars or buy tv's and make them pay extra since they seem to have more extra cash to blow on non essential things. Sounds absurd doesn't it. I work plowing snow and am expected to be in during all hours of the night,clean the roads so people wont die and I make a mighty 41,000 a year. With taxes,I bring home 23,000.So by cutting my pay etc I wont be able to afford to work and then I can draw unemployment or maybe if lucky, draw welfare..Why not do other positive things and stop government waste? That makes alot more sense...
So by states cutting the throats of the state workers who make less than you think we do(yes I am a Penn Dot employee)by making them pay more for insurance,pay into retirement,pay for unemployment compensation(which we will never be able to collect on) as well as other things will help salvage the budgets of states? How about the corrupt elected officials who make 3-5 times more than me,will get retirement in a lesser time and get all kinds of perks,make them actually do their jobs like balancing the budget and other things they are in charge of and make them accountable....................................... .................................
Why not do other positive things and stop government waste? That makes alot more sense...
I am all for government waste being dealt with. I also do not care for corrupt politicians and would like to see that dealt with also. Many of these things combined are going to be necessary to get the states back on track.
By the way, My insurance went up, I pay into a 401k (retirement), and unemployment taxes is an expense that effects my pay. Also, I do not make more than you (if you were wondering).
Thursday night's "Daily Show" featured Jon Stewart doing what he does best: calling out hypocrisy in the media. After a segment on the intensified battle between Gov. Scott Walker and Wisconsin unions, Stewart took a look at how Fox News was reporting on the story, specifically compared to how they covered similar threats to the Bush tax cuts and bailed-out bank CEOs' salaries.
Stewart showed plenty of pundits saying that when it comes to taxing those who make $250,000 a year, you're taxing people who are "not rich" and even "close to poverty" if they have a family of four with kids in college. But when it comes to teachers in Wisconsin, the same pundits say they, as government employees, should expect to see cuts in their ample $50,000 a year salary plus benefits.
In other discussions on Fox News, cuts in teachers' salaries were compared to those of Wall Street executives. Megyn Kelly argued teachers don't deserve as much money because they "don't work as much." Stewart totally understood:
"See the difference? Regardless of the greed-based, almost slightly sociopathic job bankers did wrecking our economy, those people were there every single day, 12 months a year. Not that nine month bullsh*t!"
Quote:
Stewart took it even further by showing another level of hypocrisy. Clips showed the same people on the network who agreed with the government limiting teachers' benefits also said that limiting the salaries of government bailed-out CEOs would be detrimental to the industry and "isn't a good way of attracting talent in the future."
"Absolutely, we have got to pay those bailed-out firm CEOs top dollar! Otherwise, those companies could wind up being run by a couple of jacka**es who f**k things up so royally, it torpedoes the entire global economy!"
__________________
__________________
I'll believe corporations are persons when Texas executes one.: LBJ's Ghost
Linear Mode
