Marvin- I understand the criticism, do you think the bonus formula of x is a bit of a rigged game with Board of Directors being stacked. Take the example of the Health Care Ins. co. CEO who received a $43 million dollar bonus. Policy holders were hurt by this person's decisions. Now someone like Jack Welch would say great more power to him, someone like the CEO of Starbucks has a different philosophy ( I am using an interview of Jack Welch by Piers Morgan in which he showed Jack a clip of Schultz expressing different set of values). 'Primary Goal' is the issue. Jack Welch, when he ran GE, hated Environmental protections and GE was a heavy polluter dumping untreated toxins into waterways and landfills. Who gets to 'agree' on compensation is another issue.
uh-oh...i just became UNDECIDED...or Costa Rican...What Obama said in Iowa last night
by oompa 59 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
Marvin Shilmer
-
Design, it’s not like you owe me an answer to the questions I asked. You don’t. But then again, I’ll point out that what you write above is no answer to what I asked of you. If you want to engage me on this subject then please begin by answering what’s already asked. Then, if you have questions ask away.
In the end I don't think owners of a company care one rat's patootie how much their CEO is paid so long as their return is being satisfied. Or, why should they.... exactly?
In the end if an employee of a company does not like the way they are compensated as an employee for that company they have these options: gain employment with another company or else start their own company and become an owner.
Marvin Shilmer
-
sammielee24
walmart has zillions of minimum wage workers and is always slammed...but how many do they directly employ that make over 30 grand a year? and how many trades does it take to keep each walmart running? LOTS! i would love to know how many jobs directly or indirectly created by walmart and exxon are over 30K a year
----------------------------
Well, 30k isn't much to live on these days but lets say it is adequate in some States - the vast majority of those employee's only work part time and so don't qualify or don't earn enough to pay for their group benefits. Almost all reports indicate that Walmart has an 80/20 plan or it could be 90/10 by now - meaning 80 percent are only part time and 20 percent are full time. The general average annual wage of a full timer earning an average (and it's lower is many States) is around $11.00 and that puts them around $24k a year IF they are full time. That is below the poverty line.
And reality - many, many people work very hard and don't get paid more for it. In this economy and with global changes in power, many, many people are working harder than ever and not getting paid more nor getting ahead.
I wonder why anyone supports subsidizing these large Corporations who have employee's earning too little to live on and then pushing them onto the welfare rolls..at least 2 million people work at Walmart - I believe in California around 40% of their employees use the State health care and food stamps..similar figures around the country. This isn't just a Walmart thing - I only use them because you did - it's an overall retail issue that is essentially forcing people to work for slave wages while the CEO's get millions of dollars in pay and the taxpayer gets the privilege of paying more taxes to increase the wage to the employee to a standard of survival.
sammies
- The families of Wal-Mart employees in California utilize an estimated 40 percent more in taxpayer-funded health care than the average for families of all large retail employees.
- The families of Wal-Mart employees use an estimated 38 percent more in other (non-health care) public assistance programs (such as food stamps, Earned Income Tax Credit, subsidized school lunches, and subsidized housing) than the average for families of all large retail employees.
-
sammielee24
Profits are for owners. Wages are for employees.
-------
Sure. And why should the taxpayer and the rest of every worker who ISN'T the profitable owner, be forced to subsidize the low wages of that employee because the profitable owner could give a rats ass about the welfare of his employee, his community, his State or his country?
An owner of ANY company who is making a profit, should be forced to put that money into the business and that includes the wages of his employees so that those people LABORING ..you know...breaking their ass for that employer with their sweat...are paid a wage above the poverty level. In that way, the rest of the taxpaying public isn't working two jobs to try to get ahead for himself and his neighbour who is paid 'slave' wages.
Nobody wants the business owner or the corporation NOT to make a profit - when the profits are in the billions or millions and yet the employee is eligible for food stamps and Medicaid - the system does not work and the owner does not have the right to sit on his profits. What he is doing is stealing from every other worker because of his greed. sammies
-
designs
Marvin-
Both 1. and 2. omit essential components of morality, community responsiblity, ethics, and environmental protection. The great divide that exists in our system can be drawn from the past 50 years where businesses were closed and communities devasted because of thinking expressed in your model 1. and 2..
What kind of motherfuckingsob CEO would authorize dumping 100,000 gal. of Jet-Fuel in a Protected Wetland to save the 'profits' of his company- the Koch Brothers of Koch Industries.
Jack Welch was an excellent teacher of management skills and could place in management top personell, we are still cleaning up the toxic messes he left behind. To try and segregate profit from morality is the heart of todays heated debates on the economy.
-
-
GeneM
What Obama is referring to is overall worker productivity (a figure economist measure and track) has gone up consistantly over the decades. Wages used to tact exactly with this trendline. But a couple decades back, in the Reagan years i think, This trend decoupled and wages flatlined. All of our extra productivity goes right to the pockets of the 1% who have seen their incomes rise exponentially.
So thats what he's talking about.
-
GeneM
Yeah those graphs, thanks. ^
-
Marvin Shilmer
-
Wow! Now I understand why some folks around here hold the views they hold.
If a person wants to share in the profits of an owner then they need to become an owner.
If an employee does not like how they are treated by a religion business-owner then they should find another religion business-owner to work for.
Marvin Shilmer
-
Marvin Shilmer
-
"An owner of ANY company who is making a profit, should be forced to put that money into the business and that includes the wages of his employees so that those people LABORING ..you know...breaking their ass for that employer with their sweat...are paid a wage above the poverty level."
And when a company owner loses his/her shirt in bankruptcy should all those previous employees be forced to pay debts owed by that business owner?
Responses I see in this discussion are staggering to the imagination.
Marvin Shilmer
