Almost half of Americans work in low paid jobs

[Brain357]

That is the hope.....

The reality is that both CEOs probably do the same. If one happens to do better than the other, he will use it to justify a higher compensation.
American CEOs are paid significantly higher than their international counterparts. American companies do not perform significantly better.

Neither do workers, probably even less so.

People have value, and nobody is going to pay somebody of little value a lot of money. They have to have value in some capacity. Conversely, nobody is going to overpay a worker either in most cases. CEO's, especially the best ones, are very rare; just as rare as that star quarterback, ace pitcher, beautiful and talented actress, or the great song writer. Because they are rare, they can make higher demands for compensation, because if you don't want to meet those demands, somebody else just might, and then those people get the talent.

In other words, take your job for instance. What if only you and a handful of people had the ability to do your job? What kind of money would you make? Well.....as long as you could produce profit for a company, you might be able to ask for millions a year, and companies would have no choice but to take it.

American CEOs claim to be rare. But they are no more rare than CEOs in international corporations. Yet, they are paid significantly higher.

Over the last three decades, American CEOs have seen significant increases in their compensation. Yet, American companies have not done significantly better

So what does employees pay have to do with what a CEO makes? It's totally irrelevant.

Payroll is limitless? Really?

Where did I even imply that?

Well if payroll is limited then it is relevant.

 

[francoHFW]

That is some imagination you have Ray, ceo pay is not based on performance. You still think this is capitalism? Too funny.

I hope you realize that it was President Bill Clinton who is responsible for the drastic increases in executive pay. He changed it from a salary to almost entirely being based on performance.

What a pile of crap, super duper. experts say the only limit on CEO pay is the top tax rate. 90% under Eisenhower, 70% under Kennedy, and Reagan left it at 28%, and it has stayed about that ever since. Thanks for the greatest inequality and worst upward Mobility ever anywhere, scumbag GOP and silly dupes like you.

 

[rightwinger]

We saw this coming when Trump gave his $1.5 trillion tax cut with a 40 percent cut in Corporate tax rates

Very little managed to trickle down to the workers

If you had good plans yourself you would not have to cheat to get elected. You are direct with your taxes and such. Right to the peasants. Screw the trickle, its a blood bath with you. But you do manage to gripe about the rich without doing a damn thing about it. For years and decades and more decades. The first two years of the Obama administration was there for the taking. Massive differences in seats against Repubs in the congress. You did nothing. You did add another nice big tax in Obamacare with even a soviet style penalty and we thank you. You did what you are programmed to do. Before the boomer generation dies out, the Obama pain pill will be used in lieu of hospital treatment for expense reasons. But you will be on agendas only dreamed about right now. The eco green movement will provide many jobs even if it doesn't work as advertised and it won't....for the Chinese.

The biggest problem with your wandering screed is the Golden Rule

He who has the gold, makes the rules

As it should be.

translation, biggest dog eats all others>>>



~S~

Who, in your opinion, should make the rules? Do not ignore the fact that the employee (he who does not have the "gold") has their choice of employers who will treat and pay them as much as they are worth.

Workers should have a seat at the table

They used to when they had union representation. Today, they get table scraps

 

[Brain357]

Everyone has to sign a non compete now bro. Workers are hosed.

As your current candidate for president would say, MALARKEY!

They are everywhere. Even for the lowest paid.

Non-Compete Clauses Are Strangling Our Lowest Paid Workers | The American Conservative

 

[rightwinger]

Ah those greedy unions and our strong economic growth. That was so horrible. But ceos should make insane amounts shipping off jobs right? You are a funny one.

I love how you on the left always excoriate businesses. Back to the widget factory analogy: You and I own widget factories. We both need a highly talented and rare person to operate our finances, manage operations, oversee sales, and get new business.

So one comes along and applies to your company. He or she has a long history of success; taking companies that were just about to close, and making them profitable again, drawing new investors that allowed for expansion, reducing waste and adding productivity. This CEO wants 5 million a year. You refuse to pay that amount.

So now that CEO comes to my company, and I agree to pay him the 5 mil a year. Now he gets to work, and eventually takes your customers and brings them to my company. That's the reason I pay him 5 million a year, because he can make my company 10 million dollars more profitable a year.

That is the hope.....

The reality is that both CEOs probably do the same. If one happens to do better than the other, he will use it to justify a higher compensation.
American CEOs are paid significantly higher than their international counterparts. American companies do not perform significantly better.

Neither do workers, probably even less so.

People have value, and nobody is going to pay somebody of little value a lot of money. They have to have value in some capacity. Conversely, nobody is going to overpay a worker either in most cases. CEO's, especially the best ones, are very rare; just as rare as that star quarterback, ace pitcher, beautiful and talented actress, or the great song writer. Because they are rare, they can make higher demands for compensation, because if you don't want to meet those demands, somebody else just might, and then those people get the talent.

In other words, take your job for instance. What if only you and a handful of people had the ability to do your job? What kind of money would you make? Well.....as long as you could produce profit for a company, you might be able to ask for millions a year, and companies would have no choice but to take it.

American CEOs claim to be rare. But they are no more rare than CEOs in international corporations. Yet, they are paid significantly higher.

Over the last three decades, American CEOs have seen significant increases in their compensation. Yet, American companies have not done significantly better

So what does employees pay have to do with what a CEO makes? It's totally irrelevant.

Not really
It relates to the distribution of company profit.
The workers used to get a larger slice of the pie. The amount of profit that goes to workers has decreased, while the amount going to executive compensation has increased

 

[francoHFW]

So now it’s not unlimited?

Answer the question.

What some CEO makes has never had any effect on what I can make and I daresay that is true for most people

He will make more if he can force you and your coworkers to accept less

How does that work?

Multiple ways

Blocking union membership, hiring temporary and contract personnel, cutting benefits, threatening employees

Uh.....if you're any good at what you do you go to the companies competitors.
I was never in a Union as a machinist and always made top dollar.
If I felt I Was underpaid I went to the boss and told them what I wanted. If they refused I went back to work and started looking for a job that would pay me based on my abilities.
Nine times out of ten when I gave them my resignation they agreed to my terms.
Whether I stayed or not was up to me.
I didnt need or want someone to go to bat for me,I handled it on my own.
Dems are Pussy's that need help to make it in the real world.
In my opinion that would make me a pussy as well.

Who paid for your training? Those were the good old days.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Neither do workers, probably even less so.

People have value, and nobody is going to pay somebody of little value a lot of money. They have to have value in some capacity. Conversely, nobody is going to overpay a worker either in most cases. CEO's, especially the best ones, are very rare; just as rare as that star quarterback, ace pitcher, beautiful and talented actress, or the great song writer. Because they are rare, they can make higher demands for compensation, because if you don't want to meet those demands, somebody else just might, and then those people get the talent.

In other words, take your job for instance. What if only you and a handful of people had the ability to do your job? What kind of money would you make? Well.....as long as you could produce profit for a company, you might be able to ask for millions a year, and companies would have no choice but to take it.

American CEOs claim to be rare. But they are no more rare than CEOs in international corporations. Yet, they are paid significantly higher.

Over the last three decades, American CEOs have seen significant increases in their compensation. Yet, American companies have not done significantly better

So what does employees pay have to do with what a CEO makes? It's totally irrelevant.

Payroll is limitless? Really?

Where did I even imply that?

Well if payroll is limited then it is relevant.

I don't see how. You people on the left seem to look at companies like some giant commune, where everybody pitches in and is equally rewarded. If you cut CEO pay in half, you will get less talent, and it doesn't change the value of the worker. So why would you pay a worker more than they are worth? You would opt to pay that worker fair wage for their talents, and give the rest of the money to your stockholders if anything.

So what is your work worth? Your value is what your employer can find other people to do the same quality of work. That's how much you are worth.

If you sweep floors for a living, anybody can do that. Your pay is based on how many other people can do that job, and since it requires no talent or skill, the pay will be lower. If you have a skilled job such as an electrician or plumber, many less people can do that job, and that means your employer can't replace you with a worker for less money. He or she has to pay you what others are willing to do that job for. Same with an engineer or architect. Even less people can do that job, so they make more money because it's much harder to replace them.

So do tell, why would an employer pay an employee more money than they could hire somebody else for? You don't do it for the people that work for you, so it's hypocritical to say others should.

 

[Brain357]

American CEOs claim to be rare. But they are no more rare than CEOs in international corporations. Yet, they are paid significantly higher.

Over the last three decades, American CEOs have seen significant increases in their compensation. Yet, American companies have not done significantly better

So what does employees pay have to do with what a CEO makes? It's totally irrelevant.

Payroll is limitless? Really?

Where did I even imply that?

Well if payroll is limited then it is relevant.

I don't see how. You people on the left seem to look at companies like some giant commune, where everybody pitches in and is equally rewarded. If you cut CEO pay in half, you will get less talent, and it doesn't change the value of the worker. So why would you pay a worker more than they are worth? You would opt to pay that worker fair wage for their talents, and give the rest of the money to your stockholders if anything.

So what is your work worth? Your value is what your employer can find other people to do the same quality of work. That's how much you are worth.

If you sweep floors for a living, anybody can do that. Your pay is based on how many other people can do that job, and since it requires no talent or skill, the pay will be lower. If you have a skilled job such as an electrician or plumber, many less people can do that job, and that means your employer can't replace you with a worker for less money. He or she has to pay you what others are willing to do that job for. Same with an engineer or architect. Even less people can do that job, so they make more money because it's much harder to replace them.

So do tell, why would an employer pay an employee more money than they could hire somebody else for? You don't do it for the people that work for you, so it's hypocritical to say others should.

Why do they overpay ceos? Crazy things happen. They can’t pay workers more is the ceo takes up all the payroll.

 

[rightwinger]

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Answer the question.

What some CEO makes has never had any effect on what I can make and I daresay that is true for most people

He will make more if he can force you and your coworkers to accept less

How does that work?

Multiple ways

Blocking union membership, hiring temporary and contract personnel, cutting benefits, threatening employees

Uh.....if you're any good at what you do you go to the companies competitors.
I was never in a Union as a machinist and always made top dollar.
If I felt I Was underpaid I went to the boss and told them what I wanted. If they refused I went back to work and started looking for a job that would pay me based on my abilities.
Nine times out of ten when I gave them my resignation they agreed to my terms.
Whether I stayed or not was up to me.
I didnt need or want someone to go to bat for me,I handled it on my own.
Dems are Pussy's that need help to make it in the real world.
In my opinion that would make me a pussy as well.

Everyone has to sign a non compete now bro. Workers are hosed.

They're not worth the paper they're written on.

 

[Brain357]

He will make more if he can force you and your coworkers to accept less

How does that work?

Multiple ways

Blocking union membership, hiring temporary and contract personnel, cutting benefits, threatening employees

Uh.....if you're any good at what you do you go to the companies competitors.
I was never in a Union as a machinist and always made top dollar.
If I felt I Was underpaid I went to the boss and told them what I wanted. If they refused I went back to work and started looking for a job that would pay me based on my abilities.
Nine times out of ten when I gave them my resignation they agreed to my terms.
Whether I stayed or not was up to me.
I didnt need or want someone to go to bat for me,I handled it on my own.
Dems are Pussy's that need help to make it in the real world.
In my opinion that would make me a pussy as well.

Everyone has to sign a non compete now bro. Workers are hosed.

They're not worth the paper they're written on.

Oh but they are. We also have lots of collusion. Companies won’t hire you if they know your current company has a non compete.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Answer the question.

What some CEO makes has never had any effect on what I can make and I daresay that is true for most people

He will make more if he can force you and your coworkers to accept less

How does that work?

Multiple ways

Blocking union membership, hiring temporary and contract personnel, cutting benefits, threatening employees

Uh.....if you're any good at what you do you go to the companies competitors.
I was never in a Union as a machinist and always made top dollar.
If I felt I Was underpaid I went to the boss and told them what I wanted. If they refused I went back to work and started looking for a job that would pay me based on my abilities.
Nine times out of ten when I gave them my resignation they agreed to my terms.
Whether I stayed or not was up to me.
I didnt need or want someone to go to bat for me,I handled it on my own.
Dems are Pussy's that need help to make it in the real world.
In my opinion that would make me a pussy as well.

Who paid for your training? Those were the good old days.

Nobody paid for my training.
I worked my way up from sweeping floors and showed initiative and was rewarded for my efforts.
Something you whiny leftist cant seem to grasp.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I love how you on the left always excoriate businesses. Back to the widget factory analogy: You and I own widget factories. We both need a highly talented and rare person to operate our finances, manage operations, oversee sales, and get new business.

So one comes along and applies to your company. He or she has a long history of success; taking companies that were just about to close, and making them profitable again, drawing new investors that allowed for expansion, reducing waste and adding productivity. This CEO wants 5 million a year. You refuse to pay that amount.

So now that CEO comes to my company, and I agree to pay him the 5 mil a year. Now he gets to work, and eventually takes your customers and brings them to my company. That's the reason I pay him 5 million a year, because he can make my company 10 million dollars more profitable a year.

That is the hope.....

The reality is that both CEOs probably do the same. If one happens to do better than the other, he will use it to justify a higher compensation.
American CEOs are paid significantly higher than their international counterparts. American companies do not perform significantly better.

Neither do workers, probably even less so.

People have value, and nobody is going to pay somebody of little value a lot of money. They have to have value in some capacity. Conversely, nobody is going to overpay a worker either in most cases. CEO's, especially the best ones, are very rare; just as rare as that star quarterback, ace pitcher, beautiful and talented actress, or the great song writer. Because they are rare, they can make higher demands for compensation, because if you don't want to meet those demands, somebody else just might, and then those people get the talent.

In other words, take your job for instance. What if only you and a handful of people had the ability to do your job? What kind of money would you make? Well.....as long as you could produce profit for a company, you might be able to ask for millions a year, and companies would have no choice but to take it.

American CEOs claim to be rare. But they are no more rare than CEOs in international corporations. Yet, they are paid significantly higher.

Over the last three decades, American CEOs have seen significant increases in their compensation. Yet, American companies have not done significantly better

So what does employees pay have to do with what a CEO makes? It's totally irrelevant.

Not really
It relates to the distribution of company profit.
The workers used to get a larger slice of the pie. The amount of profit that goes to workers has decreased, while the amount going to executive compensation has increased

After enough time, corporations realized it was not a successful plan. Paying workers more money does not equal greater profit. Paying a CEO more money does.

 

[sparky]

Workers should have a seat at the table

They used to when they had union representation. Today, they get table scraps

The political arena started dumpin' on unions after Reagan led the charge

Now it's standard fare to do so....and they're winning...

All part of the War on American Labor

~S~

 

[Brain357]

That is the hope.....

The reality is that both CEOs probably do the same. If one happens to do better than the other, he will use it to justify a higher compensation.
American CEOs are paid significantly higher than their international counterparts. American companies do not perform significantly better.

Neither do workers, probably even less so.

People have value, and nobody is going to pay somebody of little value a lot of money. They have to have value in some capacity. Conversely, nobody is going to overpay a worker either in most cases. CEO's, especially the best ones, are very rare; just as rare as that star quarterback, ace pitcher, beautiful and talented actress, or the great song writer. Because they are rare, they can make higher demands for compensation, because if you don't want to meet those demands, somebody else just might, and then those people get the talent.

In other words, take your job for instance. What if only you and a handful of people had the ability to do your job? What kind of money would you make? Well.....as long as you could produce profit for a company, you might be able to ask for millions a year, and companies would have no choice but to take it.

American CEOs claim to be rare. But they are no more rare than CEOs in international corporations. Yet, they are paid significantly higher.

Over the last three decades, American CEOs have seen significant increases in their compensation. Yet, American companies have not done significantly better

So what does employees pay have to do with what a CEO makes? It's totally irrelevant.

Not really
It relates to the distribution of company profit.
The workers used to get a larger slice of the pie. The amount of profit that goes to workers has decreased, while the amount going to executive compensation has increased

After enough time, corporations realized it was not a successful plan. Paying workers more money does not equal greater profit. Paying a CEO more money does.

Not according to the studies I have seen. Your claim is baseless.

 

[Brain357]

Workers should have a seat at the table

They used to when they had union representation. Today, they get table scraps

The political arena started dumpin' on unions after Reagan led the charge

Now it's standard fare to do so....and they're winning...

All part of the War on American Labor

~S~

And we have a slow economy...

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Workers should have a seat at the table

They used to when they had union representation. Today, they get table scraps

The political arena started dumpin' on unions after Reagan led the charge

Now it's standard fare to do so....and they're winning...

All part of the War on American Labor

~S~

Except for the fact breaking one union did not lead to the reduction of all unions. Reagan had nothing to do with it. Unions lost support of the people when they seen their jobs move overseas partly due to union greed.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Neither do workers, probably even less so.

People have value, and nobody is going to pay somebody of little value a lot of money. They have to have value in some capacity. Conversely, nobody is going to overpay a worker either in most cases. CEO's, especially the best ones, are very rare; just as rare as that star quarterback, ace pitcher, beautiful and talented actress, or the great song writer. Because they are rare, they can make higher demands for compensation, because if you don't want to meet those demands, somebody else just might, and then those people get the talent.

In other words, take your job for instance. What if only you and a handful of people had the ability to do your job? What kind of money would you make? Well.....as long as you could produce profit for a company, you might be able to ask for millions a year, and companies would have no choice but to take it.

American CEOs claim to be rare. But they are no more rare than CEOs in international corporations. Yet, they are paid significantly higher.

Over the last three decades, American CEOs have seen significant increases in their compensation. Yet, American companies have not done significantly better

So what does employees pay have to do with what a CEO makes? It's totally irrelevant.

Not really
It relates to the distribution of company profit.
The workers used to get a larger slice of the pie. The amount of profit that goes to workers has decreased, while the amount going to executive compensation has increased

After enough time, corporations realized it was not a successful plan. Paying workers more money does not equal greater profit. Paying a CEO more money does.

Not according to the studies I have seen. Your claim is baseless.

If that were true, competing corporations would do things differently. But obviously, since most of them do the same things, it must be the best plan.

 

[sparky]

Everyone has to sign a non compete now bro. Workers are hosed.

As your current candidate for president would say, MALARKEY!

They are everywhere. Even for the lowest paid.

Non-Compete Clauses Are Strangling Our Lowest Paid Workers | The American Conservative

According to a study by economists Matt Marx of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Lee Fleming of Harvard University, only three in 10 workers were told about the non-competes in their job offers, and in 70 percent of the cases they were asked to sign them after they had already accepted the offers and turned down alternatives. Half of the time, non-compete agreements were presented to employees on or after their first days of work

I'd tell 'em i was actually a dog trapped in a man's body, an hump a CEO leg or two.....~S~

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

How does that work?

Multiple ways

Blocking union membership, hiring temporary and contract personnel, cutting benefits, threatening employees

Uh.....if you're any good at what you do you go to the companies competitors.
I was never in a Union as a machinist and always made top dollar.
If I felt I Was underpaid I went to the boss and told them what I wanted. If they refused I went back to work and started looking for a job that would pay me based on my abilities.
Nine times out of ten when I gave them my resignation they agreed to my terms.
Whether I stayed or not was up to me.
I didnt need or want someone to go to bat for me,I handled it on my own.
Dems are Pussy's that need help to make it in the real world.
In my opinion that would make me a pussy as well.

Everyone has to sign a non compete now bro. Workers are hosed.

They're not worth the paper they're written on.

Oh but they are. We also have lots of collusion. Companies won’t hire you if they know your current company has a non compete.

LOL....you're a moron.
Is a non-compete agreement worth the paper it's written on? | Weisberg Law

Non-Compete Agreements? Are They Worth the Paper They are Written On? - Johnson Pope Bokor Ruppel & Burns, LLP.