CEO Compensation Increased 940% Between 1978 and 2018, Workers’ Only by 12%

[EduardBernstein]

CEO's are simply gauging the system.

 

[Cellblock2429]

CEO's are simply gauging the system.

/——/ Say what???

 

[pknopp]

It wasn't my claim but a very large percentage of the country makes nowhere near 83k. The person I work for made $30 million. Some of the people I work with make 25K (jobs we have contracted out). Using an average does not tell the story.

/—-/ If it’s not your claim why did you post it as if it were? Post some evidence to support it. The problem you libtard millennials have with debating old geezers like me is I remember how things were 40 years ago. You’re just guessing.

Here again, you have to make it about me as opposed to the discussion because you can't defend your position.

I'm 57. I perfectly remember 40 years ago but once again, IT IS NOT ABOUT ME.

/——/ Then you should know better than that ridiculous unfounded claim, even the 12% claim by the OP is way off. You know better.

Wages is only a part of the picture. 40 years ago cable was something like $17 a month. Now it is $100 - $200. 40 years ago the markets weren't demanding more, more, more.

/——/ Now you’re moving the goal posts and back peddling. Your original claim was 0.3% increase over 40 years.

I never made that claim.

 

[pknopp]

They address the employer and not the place of manufacturing.

But your addressing the employer, based on where he is doing his manufacturing.


That is a mighty fine line you are drawing there.

It's either about bringing jobs back or it's not.

Sounds like both ideas are about bringing the jobs back.


I'm not poo pooing your punitive taxes idea. Why are you poo pooing tariffs?

That has been discussed over and over.

And generally, people against it complain that it is a tax that will raise costs to the consumer and, they claim, not work.


YOU on the other hand, are arguing FOR a more formal tax, so, what is your issue with tariffs?

It's been discussed endlessly. I already explained earlier today why I prefer taxing the corporation. If you wished to ignore that, I'm not going to repeat myself endlessly.

 

[rightwinger]

CEO's are simply gauging the system.

Golden Rule: He who has the gold, makes the rules

 

[jc456]

Yes the republicans sent our well paying jobs to china with their war on unions. Now they pretend to want those jobs back.

if repubs did that, why would they have created and succeeded in establishing right to work states? You know, the thingy all you leftists can't stand. the fact is, unions drove jobs out of country with the failed trade deals. Clinton's trade deals.

Yes right to work for less. And wages stagnated....

no union dues, to pay someone else's career off the workers back. yep.. I know, their actual take home pay increased. amazing isn't it? You should really ask someone who works in a union shop as a right to worker. it's amazing how wrong you all always are.

Yes, Union dues

That allow you to bargain on equal footing with management

And that's a nice theory. But it doesn't fit with reality. I remember the Teamsters strike years back now, and they did a full calculation of how much the workers lost from the strike, compared to the change in benefits the Union negotiated from the strike, and the result was they would have to work 25 years, just to break even with how much money they lost from striking.

Additionally, in order to pay the higher wages required by the union, the company cut planned increases in retirement benefits. Not only that, but doing so was a net-loss to the employee. Now if you don't know how that works, there are tax benefits for companies putting in to retirements systems.

So if you put $10,000 into a retirement plan, you get to put in the full $10,000. If you take that $10,000 away from retirement benefits, and put it into wages, then money is taxed. So the employee does not get $10,000 in additional wages, that they would have gotten in retirement benefits.

If you include that in the calculation of when the employees would break even from the loss of money from the strike, they never would break even.

And to make matters worse... a big requirement of the strike was to eliminate part-time jobs in favor of full time jobs. So 3 part-time employees lost their job, so that 1 full time person would get employed. That is a ton of jobs people were working, intentionally destroyed by the Unions.

Far from being a benefit that allows workers to 'bargain on equal footing', the unions destroyed jobs, and made their members poorer.

And that experience is mirrored everywhere.

None of the non-union employees at Honda in 2010, were wishing they could "bargain on equal footing with manage" like those at GM, who after the unions rammed the company into the ground, resulted in thousands of jobs lost.

And you can put any number of examples in there. Hostess, Chrysler, Eastern Airlines. The list goes on.

The irony really is that, again... if any of the union supporters on the left, applied union rules to themselves.... they would never accept it.

During the hostess strike... one of the union rules that management wanted to eliminate, was a rules that required multiple people, do a single job.

The Twinkie is Dead! Long Live the Twinkie!

Under the latest turnaround plan, the sticking point was Hostess's distribution operations, source of the Hostess horror stories filling the media. Union-imposed work rules stopped drivers from helping to load their trucks. A separate worker, arriving at the store in a separate vehicle, had to be employed to shift goods from a storage area to a retailer's shelf. Wonder Bread and Twinkies couldn't ride on the same truck.​

The management of Hostess required that they eliminate all these extra jobs. You didn't need two different trucks, to deliver products both produced at the same plant, to the same store. You didn't need to have a different guy showing up in a different vehicle, because the driver of the truck was not allowed to unload the truck.

It was crap like this, that made Hostess unprofitable. The union would rather keep their rules and force everyone to be unemployed because the company imploded, then to simply eliminate rules that destroyed their jobs.

Again... all the people on the left who claim they love the unions so much... would never tolerate this, if they themselves had to deal with it.

No one would hire a guy to black top their driveway....

End paying twice the cost, because two people had to show up in separate vehicles, because the power washer, and the sealer, can't be in the same vehicle.

And then pay three times the cost, because they had to pay a third guy to show up, because neither of the first two are allowed to power wash the driveway, or apply the sealer themselves.

No one would do this. No one. Not a single person, including every left-wing idiots on this forum, would pay 3X the price, because of some wonky rules. You would fire those three guys, and either hire someone who doesn't work for a union, and will do it all himself, or you would do it all yourself.

But you would never pay 3 times the cost, because of idiotic rules.

Yeah, you claim to support it, when the Union imposes that on a company? And then complain that unions are being destroyed. Well yeah, and they should be. And honestly you are a hypocrite if you claim otherwise.

Those examples are true for many different scenarios, trade shows in Chicago electricians union has sole rights to run power and turn up power. Trucking unions unload not the company in the show. I mean it’s ridiculous and costly. Unions got ugly over time

 

[jc456]

1. So, you are assuming that none of those jobs can come back. Well I disagree.

2. Capitalism has a good track record. "Free Trade" not so much.

Free trade is an important part of capitalism. You want government control of trade? Yeah what could go wrong...

No, it is not.

It is one possible way to do it, and not what we actually have now anyways.


And having a Trade Policy is not "government control of trade". Save the buzzwords for the tourists.

Why is Trump wanting to enact new trade policies if it is not the government control of trade? These policies tell a company who and how they can trade.

Should missile manufacturers be trading with Russia?

Y r stupid

LOL. Even if that was a valid question which it isn't, missiles and mascara are not the same thing but all are covered in a trade deal.

It's not a valid question because I am not the one arguing that we have free markets. We do not.

Who does?

 

[jc456]

No, it is not.

It is one possible way to do it, and not what we actually have now anyways.


And having a Trade Policy is not "government control of trade". Save the buzzwords for the tourists.

Why is Trump wanting to enact new trade policies if it is not the government control of trade? These policies tell a company who and how they can trade.

Should missile manufacturers be trading with Russia?

Y r stupid

LOL. Even if that was a valid question which it isn't, missiles and mascara are not the same thing but all are covered in a trade deal.

It's not a valid question because I am not the one arguing that we have free markets. We do not.

So you are so ignorant that you believe that United States missile manufacturers should be allowed to trade with Russia, China and North Korea. Kid the only thing here that is not valid is your IQ.

Now go cash your welfare check

I find it funny how when a point is dismissed that the person thinks a proper rebuttal is to double down on the same stupid argument. I am not the one arguing for free trade.

What are you arguing then?

 

[pknopp]

Why is Trump wanting to enact new trade policies if it is not the government control of trade? These policies tell a company who and how they can trade.

Should missile manufacturers be trading with Russia?

Y r stupid

LOL. Even if that was a valid question which it isn't, missiles and mascara are not the same thing but all are covered in a trade deal.

It's not a valid question because I am not the one arguing that we have free markets. We do not.

So you are so ignorant that you believe that United States missile manufacturers should be allowed to trade with Russia, China and North Korea. Kid the only thing here that is not valid is your IQ.

Now go cash your welfare check

I find it funny how when a point is dismissed that the person thinks a proper rebuttal is to double down on the same stupid argument. I am not the one arguing for free trade.

What are you arguing then?

That we are not a free market capitalist country.

 

[Wyatt earp]

CEO's are simply gauging the system.

Golden Rule: He who has the gold, makes the rules

Nah

Its who win the wars..


And judging who is president..


Well

 

[Wyatt earp]

Should missile manufacturers be trading with Russia?

Y r stupid

LOL. Even if that was a valid question which it isn't, missiles and mascara are not the same thing but all are covered in a trade deal.

It's not a valid question because I am not the one arguing that we have free markets. We do not.

So you are so ignorant that you believe that United States missile manufacturers should be allowed to trade with Russia, China and North Korea. Kid the only thing here that is not valid is your IQ.

Now go cash your welfare check

I find it funny how when a point is dismissed that the person thinks a proper rebuttal is to double down on the same stupid argument. I am not the one arguing for free trade.

What are you arguing then?

That we are not a free market capitalist country.

Lost your job at Burger King?

 

[pknopp]

LOL. Even if that was a valid question which it isn't, missiles and mascara are not the same thing but all are covered in a trade deal.

It's not a valid question because I am not the one arguing that we have free markets. We do not.

So you are so ignorant that you believe that United States missile manufacturers should be allowed to trade with Russia, China and North Korea. Kid the only thing here that is not valid is your IQ.

Now go cash your welfare check

I find it funny how when a point is dismissed that the person thinks a proper rebuttal is to double down on the same stupid argument. I am not the one arguing for free trade.

What are you arguing then?

That we are not a free market capitalist country.

Lost your job at Burger King?

It's not about me nor about my point. But when you have no other argument...........

 

[jc456]

Should missile manufacturers be trading with Russia?

Y r stupid

LOL. Even if that was a valid question which it isn't, missiles and mascara are not the same thing but all are covered in a trade deal.

It's not a valid question because I am not the one arguing that we have free markets. We do not.

So you are so ignorant that you believe that United States missile manufacturers should be allowed to trade with Russia, China and North Korea. Kid the only thing here that is not valid is your IQ.

Now go cash your welfare check

I find it funny how when a point is dismissed that the person thinks a proper rebuttal is to double down on the same stupid argument. I am not the one arguing for free trade.

What are you arguing then?

That we are not a free market capitalist country.

Technically we are, however, other countries are not, and until the world all agrees equal trade, there cannot be free trade.

 

[Wyatt earp]

So you are so ignorant that you believe that United States missile manufacturers should be allowed to trade with Russia, China and North Korea. Kid the only thing here that is not valid is your IQ.

Now go cash your welfare check

I find it funny how when a point is dismissed that the person thinks a proper rebuttal is to double down on the same stupid argument. I am not the one arguing for free trade.

What are you arguing then?

That we are not a free market capitalist country.

Lost your job at Burger King?

It's not about me nor about my point. But when you have no other argument...........

Then what's your problem?

 

[Wyatt earp]

How can you even say that?

 

[pknopp]

LOL. Even if that was a valid question which it isn't, missiles and mascara are not the same thing but all are covered in a trade deal.

It's not a valid question because I am not the one arguing that we have free markets. We do not.

So you are so ignorant that you believe that United States missile manufacturers should be allowed to trade with Russia, China and North Korea. Kid the only thing here that is not valid is your IQ.

Now go cash your welfare check

I find it funny how when a point is dismissed that the person thinks a proper rebuttal is to double down on the same stupid argument. I am not the one arguing for free trade.

What are you arguing then?

That we are not a free market capitalist country.

Technically we are, however, other countries are not, and until the world all agrees equal trade, there cannot be free trade.

Fine, as long as we understand there is no free trade.

 

[jc456]

So you are so ignorant that you believe that United States missile manufacturers should be allowed to trade with Russia, China and North Korea. Kid the only thing here that is not valid is your IQ.

Now go cash your welfare check

I find it funny how when a point is dismissed that the person thinks a proper rebuttal is to double down on the same stupid argument. I am not the one arguing for free trade.

What are you arguing then?

That we are not a free market capitalist country.

Technically we are, however, other countries are not, and until the world all agrees equal trade, there cannot be free trade.

Fine, as long as we understand there is no free trade.

Don’t explain to me, explain to those complaining trump’s not. The entire world is not, and until they are we can’t. I don’t understand how that’s so difficult for some. Without equal trade, the loss of jobs would continue. Trump is telling the world, that practice is past

 

[Cellblock2429]

/—-/ If it’s not your claim why did you post it as if it were? Post some evidence to support it. The problem you libtard millennials have with debating old geezers like me is I remember how things were 40 years ago. You’re just guessing.

Here again, you have to make it about me as opposed to the discussion because you can't defend your position.

I'm 57. I perfectly remember 40 years ago but once again, IT IS NOT ABOUT ME.

/——/ Then you should know better than that ridiculous unfounded claim, even the 12% claim by the OP is way off. You know better.

Wages is only a part of the picture. 40 years ago cable was something like $17 a month. Now it is $100 - $200. 40 years ago the markets weren't demanding more, more, more.

/——/ Now you’re moving the goal posts and back peddling. Your original claim was 0.3% increase over 40 years.

I never made that claim.

/—-/ It was Frankie post #362

But your addressing the employer, based on where he is doing his manufacturing.


That is a mighty fine line you are drawing there.

It's either about bringing jobs back or it's not.

Sounds like both ideas are about bringing the jobs back.


I'm not poo pooing your punitive taxes idea. Why are you poo pooing tariffs?

That has been discussed over and over.

And generally, people against it complain that it is a tax that will raise costs to the consumer and, they claim, not work.


YOU on the other hand, are arguing FOR a more formal tax, so, what is your issue with tariffs?

It's been discussed endlessly. I already explained earlier today why I prefer taxing the corporation. If you wished to ignore that, I'm not going to repeat myself endlessly.

/—-/ Taxing the corporations merely increases the cost to the consumers so we end up paying the higher tax. As it’s been explained 100 times.

 

[pknopp]

Here again, you have to make it about me as opposed to the discussion because you can't defend your position.

I'm 57. I perfectly remember 40 years ago but once again, IT IS NOT ABOUT ME.

/——/ Then you should know better than that ridiculous unfounded claim, even the 12% claim by the OP is way off. You know better.

Wages is only a part of the picture. 40 years ago cable was something like $17 a month. Now it is $100 - $200. 40 years ago the markets weren't demanding more, more, more.

/——/ Now you’re moving the goal posts and back peddling. Your original claim was 0.3% increase over 40 years.

I never made that claim.

/—-/ It was Frankie post #362

It's either about bringing jobs back or it's not.

Sounds like both ideas are about bringing the jobs back.


I'm not poo pooing your punitive taxes idea. Why are you poo pooing tariffs?

That has been discussed over and over.

And generally, people against it complain that it is a tax that will raise costs to the consumer and, they claim, not work.


YOU on the other hand, are arguing FOR a more formal tax, so, what is your issue with tariffs?

It's been discussed endlessly. I already explained earlier today why I prefer taxing the corporation. If you wished to ignore that, I'm not going to repeat myself endlessly.

/—-/ Taxing the corporations merely increases the cost to the consumers so we end up paying the higher tax. As it’s been explained 100 times.

Tariffs increase the costs to consumers and doesn't stop the corporation from simply moving to another low wage country.

Tax the overseas American company and it applies to all options.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Don't discount the effect of legal immigrants.


Wages don't rise, unless there is a SHORTAGE OF LABOR.

Don't discount the effect of legal immigrants.


Wages don't rise, unless there is a SHORTAGE OF LABOR.

Workers' wages also rise when there's an increase in UNION representation.

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

Perhaps. Do you wish to address my point about surplus labor?


Or is bringing in more dem voters more important than concern about wages?

Perhaps. Do you wish to address my point about surplus labor?

All human labor is a thing of value, i.e., a commodity, but unlike other commodities labor also creates value. The "owners" of the means of production derive their profit from exploiting the surplus labor of their workers.

In this system owners do everything necessary to increase profit: they fire workers, while expecting those who remain to increase productivity. They decrease benefits and set workers in competition with one another which drives down wages.

In short, it's not immigrants who decrease wages; it is the inherent unfairness of businesses run for profits which are split between owners and high-end managers, but where none of the surplus goes to the workers who create it.

Exploitation & Surplus Value

/——-/ And Communism is the ultimate solution—- right?

/——-/ And Communism is the ultimate solution—- right?

You could always work harder.
Or admit the obvious: capitalism isn't working for a majority of humanity.

"Less than two decades into the twenty-first century, it is evident that capitalism has failed as a social system.

"The world is mired in economic stagnation, financialization, and the most extreme inequality in human history, accompanied by mass unemployment and underemployment, precariousness, poverty, hunger, wasted output and lives, and what at this point can only be called a planetary ecological 'death spiral.'1

"The digital revolution, the greatest technological advance of our time, has rapidly mutated from a promise of free communication and liberated production into new means of surveillance, control, and displacement of the working population.

"The institutions of liberal democracy are at the point of collapse, while fascism, the rear guard of the capitalist system, is again on the march, along with patriarchy, racism, imperialism, and war."

Monthly Review | Capitalism Has Failed—What Next?

You could always work harder.
Or admit the obvious: capitalism isn't working for a majority of humanity.

How much better is the average Chinese worker doing under failed capitalism today versus under successful communism in the past?