Almost half of Americans work in low paid jobs

[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.

"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."

Ray....you know I respect you even though you play for the wrong team.

but...(I haven't gone far back in this thread)

Is there any evidence that paying a CEO (as much as they pay him) makes that much of a difference? compared to what the employees earn?

haven't we all heard of the CEO who they hired for GAZILLIONS and then ruined the company?

didn't that happen to GM? or....Ford? or....?Dell?

and are there any stats showing any comparisons?

If company A and company B both sell computers...

and company A pays its CEO better does that automatically equate into better profits?

if company A pays its employees better does THAT equate into better profits?






meaning;

Usually, yes it does. But not everything is controllable by even the best CEO. Sometimes things don't work out right.

It happens in all kinds of contract work. Contract work is different from salary, in that salary, you get paid for doing X amount of work.

With contract work, they are guaranteed a set pay with the expectation of more than satisfactory results.

For instance, a baseball team hires a star pitcher for 8 million a year. The pitcher may not perform as they have in the past, and might even cost the team a shot at the world series, but he still gets that money because it's contract. Or what happens so often, a recording company will pay a hit band X millions to produce a recording with them, with the expectations of their last recordings selling by the millions. The new recording is a flop, but they still get paid that money. Same goes for actors and actresses who are in a dud movie. They get paid anyway.

So yes, at times, a highly paid CEO may not produce what he or she has in the past. They still get the pay promised in the contract, still get the bonuses regardless, and that's where you read CEO's getting paid even though a company went downhill from there.

 

[initforme]

Most all CEOs have no clue about the real workers that do the work to make the profit. There is a huge disconnect and inability to relate to working until exhausted like real workers do.

 

[sparky]

There are three things in manufacturing that are important to Americans, but we can't have all three at once.

* Lowest priced goods
* Healthy profit growth for our IRA's and personal investments.
* Good paying jobs with good benefits.

Goes along with my universal biz axiom, good,fast,cheap.....pick two, few get all three....

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?

And what if you used the remaining 3 mil as performance based incentives for said widget makers?

~S~

 

[sparky]

Most all CEOs have no clue about the real workers that do the work to make the profit. There is a huge disconnect and inability to relate to working until exhausted like real workers do.

unless you're your own CEO.....~S~

 

[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

[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

Prove to me that lowering ceo pay will result in higher wages for employees

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

When CEO pay is lower, the company can pay the workers more. Do you want a diagram?

What can happen and what does or will happen are not the same

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Exact opposite of what history tells us.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

And what if you used the remaining 3 mil as performance based incentives for said widget makers?

Then what you end up with is a less qualified CEO that will probably cost your company customers, because my CEO will see that as an opportunity to take them. Because if you use that extra money to overpay workers, you have the same price as I do when it comes to producing widgets. In other words, you made no advantages at all.

Now if you took that money, reduced the price of your widgets, you may produce them at a cheaper price, but because you have a less qualified and experienced CEO, that money will disappear as well because it's not being managed properly.

 

[Brain357]

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.

I the real world a company won’t hire from a company they know has a non compete.

 

[Brain357]

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.

Correct, and CEO's get fired all the time. I don't know if Crane's still has their magazine out, but in it, there are pages of CEO's who are going to other companies. Those pages are included in every issue. So it's happening all the time.

Agreed.
I worked for two companies that shit canned the CEO because they sucked.
Funny thing is we as workers saw it long before the powers that be did.

That’s because it’s filled with corruption. Crappy ceos stick around all the time.

 

[francoHFW]

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.

Your love and admiration for greedy idiot scumbag carpetbagging CEOs is noted, brainwashed functional moron. The worst inequality ever anywhere and the worst upward Mobility mean something for crying out loud. Dupe skull is the thickest material known to man....

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

So you retract your statement two posts later?
You're a Fuken mental midget.

you'll see when the Democrats get in and give us a living wage, brainwashed functional moron. I didn't retract anything.

you'll see when the Democrats get in and give us a living wage,

Like Clinton and Obama did?

Moron.

 

[francoHFW]

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.

Correct, and CEO's get fired all the time. I don't know if Crane's still has their magazine out, but in it, there are pages of CEO's who are going to other companies. Those pages are included in every issue. So it's happening all the time.

And the new style of CEO are carpetbagging douchebags who don't often help their companies anyway time adjust themselves. The only solution is raising the top rate. 90% over 20 million sounds good to me....

Try that again in english please.

Already fixed. No more commas. Time ad in the original is what this stupid smart phone says 4 comma. It's favorite is Tama. What the hell is Tama, unbelievable....

 

[francoHFW]

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

So you retract your statement two posts later?
You're a Fuken mental midget.

you'll see when the Democrats get in and give us a living wage, brainwashed functional moron. I didn't retract anything.

you'll see when the Democrats get in and give us a living wage,

Like Clinton and Obama did?

Moron.

several of the democratic candidates are talking about using the nuclear option to break the corrupt total obstruction GOP log jam. the GOP passed reconciliation in 1974 so they can cut taxes on the rich with 51 votes in the Senate. Quite a scam. At any rate when we get anything good you can be sure it will be done by democrats.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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.

I the real world a company won’t hire from a company they know has a non compete.

Maybe in your yankee world.
Not in my right to work state.

 

[Brain357]

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.

I the real world a company won’t hire from a company they know has a non compete.

Maybe in your yankee world.
Not in my right to work state.

Lots of non competes in right to work states. You are funny.

 

[Desperado]

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.

If you pay workers the productivity goes up. Not to mention demand for product.

If you pay workers the productivity goes up. quite possible also true if you pay workers piecemeal.
How does that even effect the demand for the product? There is no correlation between the two

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

So you retract your statement two posts later?
You're a Fuken mental midget.

you'll see when the Democrats get in and give us a living wage, brainwashed functional moron. I didn't retract anything.

you'll see when the Democrats get in and give us a living wage,

Like Clinton and Obama did?

Moron.

several of the democratic candidates are talking about using the nuclear option to break the corrupt total obstruction GOP log jam. the GOP passed reconciliation in 1974 so they can cut taxes on the rich with 51 votes in the Senate. Quite a scam. At any rate when we get anything good you can be sure it will be done by democrats.

the GOP passed reconciliation in 1974 so they can cut taxes on the rich

Dems controlled both the House and Senate in 1974, you stupid twat.

 

[Markle]

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.

This has been slowly explained to you several times. Again you boast that you are incapable of learning and digesting FACTS. Your goal is to support the other Progressive Trolls here, regardless that it proves you to be a fool.

Maybe you should print this and tape it on your computer for future reference.

Bill Clinton tried to limit executive pay. Here’s why it didn’t work.
By Dylan Matthews
August 16, 2012 at 10:17 a.m. EDT
[...]
In 1993, Bill Clinton signed into law his first budget, which created section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code. The provision stated that companies could only deduct the first $1 million of compensation for their top five (later top four after changes by Bush's SEC) executives from their corporate taxes. The idea was to discourage companies from paying in excess of $1 million, as any additional compensation would be taxed. So why didn't it work?

According to a new paper from Temple University's Steven Balsam published by the Economic Policy Institute, the big flaw in 162(m) was its broad exemption of "performance-based" pay. The $1 million cap only applied to traditional salaries, bonuses and grants of company stock. Stock options (that is, stock grants that take time to vest and are meant to provide a performance incentive to workers) and other performance incentives are considered performance-based pay and are deductible even in excess of $1 million. So, unsurprisingly, businesses starting paying executives more in the form of stock options, such that fully 55 percent of deductible executive pay was "performance pay" between 2007 and 2010.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-limit-executive-pay-heres-why-it-didnt-work/

###

From Bloomberg Business week

How Bill Clinton Helped Boost CEO Pay
Posted on November 26, 2006

Bill Clinton had what he thought was a great idea to curb the soaring paychecks of the nation's executives. It was 1991, shortly after the launch of his Presidential campaign, and he had just read a best seller on corporate greed by compensation guru Graef Crystal.

Clinton's brainstorm: Use the tax code to curb excessive pay.

Companies at the time were allowed to deduct all compensation to top executives. Clinton wanted to permit companies to write off amounts over $1 million only if executives hit specified performance goals. He called Crystal for his thoughts. "Utterly stupid," the consultant says he told the future President. THE SHAME GAME

Now, 13 years after Clinton's plan became law, the results are clear: It didn't work. Over the law's first decade, average compensation for chief executives at companies in Standard & Poor's 500-stock index soared from $3.7 million to $9.1 million, according to a 2005 Harvard Law School study. The law contains so many obvious loopholes, says Crystal, that "in 10 minutes even Forrest Gump could think up five ways around it."

My emphasis

Read more: Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

 

[OKTexas]

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's all just theory or daydreaming, in practice how has that worked out for you?

He’s a truck driver... with some imagination.

Figures...

Most of these ideas are just people approximating that such and such a change or action will affect such and such a thing in some way or another, based on some axiom held to on faith.

Not a real example of it occurring in practice outside of pure speculation. And typically just an idea which was popularized via some medium of propaganda or another, as opposed to actual books.

(As an entrepreneur, I've read quite a few, such as "Corporate Tides", and some of Richard Templar's works - they're interesting fellows with quite a mind, and I'm sure they don't operate as simply as in some people's wishful thinking).

Don't you mean you're a FAILED entrepreneur? Evidently your theories didn't work in practice. Don't be offended if I discount anything you say. LMAO

.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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.

Correct, and CEO's get fired all the time. I don't know if Crane's still has their magazine out, but in it, there are pages of CEO's who are going to other companies. Those pages are included in every issue. So it's happening all the time.

Agreed.
I worked for two companies that shit canned the CEO because they sucked.
Funny thing is we as workers saw it long before the powers that be did.

That’s because it’s filled with corruption. Crappy ceos stick around all the time.

So they got fired because they were full of corruption?
Will wonders never cease.....

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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.

Correct, and CEO's get fired all the time. I don't know if Crane's still has their magazine out, but in it, there are pages of CEO's who are going to other companies. Those pages are included in every issue. So it's happening all the time.

And the new style of CEO are carpetbagging douchebags who don't often help their companies anyway time adjust themselves. The only solution is raising the top rate. 90% over 20 million sounds good to me....

Try that again in english please.

Already fixed. No more commas. Time ad in the original is what this stupid smart phone says 4 comma. It's favorite is Tama. What the hell is Tama, unbelievable....

It ain't the commas dimwit......