Almost half of Americans work in low paid jobs

[Blues Man]

because they are the ones who passed our ridiculous reconciliation and filibuster rules that mean that it takes 60 votes for reform but only 51 votes for cutting taxes on the rich and cutting services for everyone else. Period. So the Republicans cut taxes on the rich and services for everyone else with 51 votes, and that's all they care about by the way, Dupe. And the Democrats have had 60 votes in the Senate and unity 4 35 days under Obama in the middle of a GOP World depression meltdown in the last 50 years.

Awww, it is always the other side fault and compromise is never allow with radicals.

Fact is Clinton and Obama did nothing to forward your agenda to make Politicians the only ones with any form of riches while the rest suffer.

Fact is you have to give and take and States can raise taxes on corporations and tax to help fund programs within their states, so why are so many States failing their people?

Why hasn't California taken all the money from those rich people in their state and redistributed to the poor?

Simple, Democrats are also owned by the rich and their promises are empty like their voter base heads!

Actually, it's because they know those industries would leave their state, and head for higher grounds in a lower taxed state.

Here, the all Democrat Cleveland Council brought up the idea of a $15.00 minimum wage. They voted down their own idea. Why? Because they were afraid of losing businesses to the suburbs. So then their next idea was to address the county with their plan, but the county rejected it for the same reason; businesses would move to counties outside of ours.

They finally dropped the idea altogether.

and that, Dupes, is why not much happens without the federal government doing it. And nothing happens with the garbage propaganda GOP of today anyway. Only garbage propaganda makes this possible.

You know why the fucking government does so much?

Because the fucking government never gets it right the first or the fifth time that's why.

The Big Dig

700% over budget and the work was still so fucking shoddy that a motorist was killed by falling debris

So what mobbed-up private corporation screwed up, super duper? LOL.

Yes unions are the same as the mob

You finally got something right

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[georgephillip]

I doubt Trump has any problem choosing between property interests and human interests?

As you know, property interests massively improve human interests.

s you know, property interests massively improve human interests.

No. I didn't know that.
Do you have any evidence?

"...by 1860, there were more millionaires (slaveholders all) living in the lower Mississippi Valley than anywhere else in the United States.

"In the same year, the nearly 4 million American slaves were worth some $3.5 billion, making them the largest single financial asset in the entire U.S. economy, worth more than all manufacturing and railroads combined.

"So, of course, the war was rooted in these two expanding and competing economies—but competing over what? What eventually tore asunder America's political culture was slavery's expansion into the Western territories."

Slavery Made America

So wrong.

May 14, 2007
•
Commentary
Private Property Saved Jamestown, And With It, America
By David Boaz

Four hundred years ago today 105 men and boys disembarked from three ships and established the first permanent English settlement in North America. They built a fort along what they called the James River, in honor of their king.

The land was lush and fertile, yet within three years most of the colonists died during what came to be known as "the starving time." Only the establishment of private property saved the Jamestown colony.

What went wrong? There were the usual hardships of pioneers far from home, such as unfamiliar diseases. There were mixed relations with the Indians already living in Virginia. Sometimes the Indians and settlers traded, other times armed conflicts broke out. But according to a governor of the colony, George Percy, most of the colonists died of famine, despite the "good and fruitful" soil, the abundant deer and turkey, and the "strawberries, raspberries and fruits unknown" growing wild.

The problem was the lack of private property. As Tom Bethell writes in his book The Noblest Triumph: Property and Prosperity through the Ages, "The colonists were indolent because most of them were indentured servants, expected to toil for seven years and contribute the fruits of their labor to the common store."

Understandably, men who don't benefit from their hard work tend not to work very hard.

Over the first two years, more colonists arrived from England, including women. By 1609, there were 500 settlers. And within six months fewer than 100 were still alive. People were desperate. They ate dogs and cats, then rats and mice. They apparently ate their deceased neighbors. And some said that one man murdered and ate his pregnant wife.

By the spring, they had given up. They abandoned the fort and boarded ships to return to England. But miraculously, as they sailed out of Chesapeake Bay, they encountered three ships with new recruits, so they turned around and tried to make another go of it. The additional settlers and supplies kept them alive.

But when a new governor, Thomas Dale, arrived a year after the starving time, he was shocked to find the settlers bowling in the streets instead of working.

Dale's most important reform was to institute private property. He allotted every man three acres of land and freed them to work for themselves. And then, the Virginia historian Matthew Page Andrews wrote, "As soon as the settlers were thrown upon their own resources, and each freeman had acquired the right of owning property, the colonists quickly developed what became the distinguishing characteristic of Americans – an aptitude for all kinds of craftsmanship coupled with an innate genius for experimentation and invention."

John Rolfe, the husband of Pocahontas, said that once private property was instituted, men could engage in "gathering and reaping the fruits of their labors with much joy and comfort."

The Jamestown colony became a success, and people from all over Europe flocked to America.

Private property is essential for economic growth; people don't work and invest if they can't reap the fruits of their labors. Property ensures that people will work to better their own condition and that of their families. And that work and investment then benefits the whole society, much more so than the attempt to force people to work directly for the common good.
[...]
Private Property Saved Jamestown, And With It, America

The problem was the lack of private property. As Tom Bethell writes in his book The Noblest Triumph: Property and Prosperity through the Ages, "The colonists were indolent because most of them were indentured servants, expected to toil for seven years and contribute the fruits of their labor to the common store."

Understandably, men who don't benefit from their hard work tend not to work very hard.

Thanksgiving and the Tea Party

"Historians say that the settlers in Plymouth, and their supporters in England, did indeed agree to hold their property in common — William Bradford, the governor, referred to it in his writings as the 'common course.'

"But the plan was in the interest of realizing a profit sooner, and was only intended for the short term; historians say the Pilgrims were more like shareholders in an early corporation than subjects of socialism.

"'It was directed ultimately to private profit,' said Richard Pickering, a historian of early America and the deputy director of Plimoth Plantation, a museum devoted to keeping the Pilgrims’ story alive...."

"The competing versions of the story note Bradford’s writings about 'confusion and discontent' and accusations of 'laziness' among the colonists.

"But Mr. Pickering said this grumbling had more to do with the fact that the Plymouth colony was bringing together settlers from all over England, at a time when most people never moved more than 10 miles from home.

"They spoke different dialects and had different methods of farming, and looked upon each other with great wariness.

"'One man’s laziness is another man’s industry, based on the agricultural methods they’ve learned as young people,' he said."

 

[Brain357]

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.

You just speak nonsense.

Going back to our widget discussion. You and I are competitors. We sell our widgets for around the same price, and have equal amount of customers. To undercut my widget price, you decide to fire your CEO making 5 million a year, and replace him or her with a CEO for 2 million a year. If you really believed you could move ahead of my company, why would you not do that?

Ah your imaginary world. Very cute.

 

[Blues Man]

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.

No more baseless than your assumptions that employees will be paid more if a ceo takes a pay cut

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

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.

You just speak nonsense.

Going back to our widget discussion. You and I are competitors. We sell our widgets for around the same price, and have equal amount of customers. To undercut my widget price, you decide to fire your CEO making 5 million a year, and replace him or her with a CEO for 2 million a year. If you really believed you could move ahead of my company, why would you not do that?

Ah your imaginary world. Very cute.

It's hardly imaginary at all. That us unless you want to now claim companies of the same industry do not compete against each other.

 

[rightwinger]

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 necessarily.
It is the workers who are creating wealth.
CEOs move money around giving the illusion of wealth and profit while adding nothing of value

 

[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.

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.

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

Are ya stupid?
My pay was based on my experience as I worked my way up.
When I first got my break into machining I wasnt paid top dollar for obvious reasons....I was Fuken New!!!
As time went by I worked hard to improve my skills and my pay grew according to my new skill set,as it should be.
I can understand a raise based on time working for the company and thats at the company's discretion.
If you suck at what you do they can also fire your dumbass based on the same criteria.
If you excell they'll give you more as you are of value to the company.

 

[Leo123]

What's with this "deserve" nonsense? Nobody opens up a business based on what employees deserve. They open up a business to provide products or services at a profit.

Solution to low wage problems? Open up your own business and pay more.

I have a widget factory. I pay my employees on average $12.00 per hour. You despise what I pay my employees because it's not a livable wage. Then what you need to do is open up your own widget company, pay your employees $19.00 an hour, and problem solved.

Now when we go to customers to sell our widgets, who do you think is going to buy yours? Nobody. Why? Because I produce my widgets much cheaper than yours.

You have a great imagination, You live in the past. We have an economy filled with near monopolies . The winners get corporate welfare. Your widgets moved to China. You always crack me up.

Now you are starting to understand. Yes, my widgets could move to China if I can't afford American wages and taxation. That's what's been happening since the 70's. As unions got more greedy, businesses moved away from them, even to the point out of the country.

So I have no idea where you dream up that the solution is to go back in time, and replicate what caused this problem in the first place.

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.

It’s called competition RW, that thing you seem to dislike.

 

[francoHFW]

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.

Manual labor has moved to the cheapest salary. the u.s. problem is we have the GOP give away to the rich and screw everyone else economy. education and training should be provided like in other modern countries so we get the good jobs technical jobs that good education provides. Wake up and smell the coffee. Also our infrastructure is falling apart. No sacrifice is too great to save greedy idiot GOP billionaires and corporations from paying their fair share. Stupid.and you get the worst inequality and worst upward Mobility anywhere ever. It is not because people just magically became lazy, brainwashed functional moron.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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~

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

Only because unions suck.

 

[Markle]

I don't disagree, but I don't see any economic or social negative in taxing progressively to pay for what unions once bargained for. Profits are up, and wages are down.

As you yourself posted, that statement is a flat out lie. Why?

Your link.

United States Wages and Salaries Growth | 2019 | Data | Chart | Calendar

My link.

United States Average Hourly Wages | 2019 | Data | Chart | Calendar

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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.

Step into the real world.

Judge approves settlement in Apple, Google wage case

First of all thats Calipornia.
Second these are company's run by the radical leftist you adore so much.
In a right to work state non compete holds water like a sieve.
To bad for you dumbass.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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.

Well we don't have the greatest generation CEOs or unions anymore, so we have to depend on the government to regulate a living wage and benefits like every other modern country, super duper. Cuz it's damn obvious the GOP will never do anything along those lines....

How do we depend on the gov for a living wage?
How about you work harder than your coworkers?

How do we depend on the government for a living wage? What the hell do you mean LOL?

You're the one who said it dumbfuck.
You tell me.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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.

Holy Shit!!!!
Rightwinger actually agreed with me!!!

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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.

Yep...as long as they're good at what they do.
If not they can be fired just like the rest of us if we/they dont live up to expectations.

 

[francoHFW]

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.

If you pay workers the productivity goes up. Not to mention demand for product. Worst inequality and upward Mobility ever means something.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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.

If you pay workers the productivity goes up. Not to mention demand for product. Worst inequality and upward Mobility ever means something.

No it doesnt.
Giving pay raises to those who make the company more profitable does.

 

[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 necessarily.
It is the workers who are creating wealth.
CEOs move money around giving the illusion of wealth and profit while adding nothing of value

Let me try to explain this to you so you have a better understanding.

You are confusing profit with earnings. They are not the same thing.

Earnings are when you perform some kind of work for a set wage. Profit is when you take your money, invest it, earn that money back and more. The additional money you made back after the money you originally invested is called profit.

Workers don't create profit. Workers create earnings. The worker invested nothing. The worker simply performed tasks. The company earned the profit, because it's the company who made the investment.

When I go to work, I create earnings. My employer creates profit, even though he's nowhere near a truck. At the first of the month when my tenants pay their rent, that's not earnings, that is profit. Why? Because I invested my money, got that money back, plus some.

 

[francoHFW]

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.

Well we don't have the greatest generation CEOs or unions anymore, so we have to depend on the government to regulate a living wage and benefits like every other modern country, super duper. Cuz it's damn obvious the GOP will never do anything along those lines....

How do we depend on the gov for a living wage?
How about you work harder than your coworkers?

How do we depend on the government for a living wage? What the hell do you mean LOL?

You're the one who said it dumbfuck.
You tell me.

Only the government can do it. we no longer have greatest generation CEOs or unions. Great job

 

[sparky]

Bill tried to limit it and it backfired. Shame. But
There were drastic increases before bill too.

And the pay of any CEO has absolutely no impact on what you can earn

So companies have unlimited payroll? Fascinating.

You assume that people would get raises if a CEO pay was cut.

That money most would most likely go to the stockholders

And what percentage of the population of the US works for companies with CEOs that get the highest pay?

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

[PDF]
Effects of Excessive CEO Pay on US Society - Saginaw Valley ...

https://www.svsu.edu › writingprogram › activedocs › Whelton_article
by RS Whelton - ‎Cited by 5 - ‎Related articles
Research suggests excessive CEO compensation contributes to the cheating culture in every aspect of society. Each stakeholder--from coworker to the international community--may be negatively influenced by the U.S. system of CEO pay packages.
What's The Harm In Excessive CEO Pay? Answer: Long-Term ...

https://www.forbes.com › sites › aalsin › 2017/09/07 › whats-the-harm-in-...
Sep 7, 2017 - Year-after-year, GE has posted disappointing results, leaving long-term ... While excessive CEO pay has received plenty of attention from labor ...
Reining in CEO compensation and curbing the rise of inequality

https://www.epi.org › publication › reining-in-ceo-compensation-and-curb...
Jun 4, 2019 - There are many facets to the rise in American income inequality over ... The second section draws out the implications of excessive CEO pay for ...
Missing: society ‎| ‎Must include: ‎society