Fast-food workers strike, seeking $15 wage, political muscle

[Brain357]

And only if his skin is black.

Problem is Brian wants that burger flipper to get what amounts to a 100+ % pay increase and has yet to say what that burger flipper has to do in addition to what he/she is doing now to earn it.

Ceos keep getting more and more increases to do the exact same job. You are ok with that I assume?

They do? How many CEO's do you know well enough to know exactly what they do?

I'm OK with those doing the paying doing it the way they see fit. What I'm not OK with is people like you thinking it's your place to determine how much of someone else's money they should spend on what.

The issue is that idiots like "Brain" (what a misnomer!) dont understand what CEOs do. They know what Beyonce does. Or some other actor. So they're fine with them getting paid millions of dollars a year. Because they look at them and think "I could never do that."
But they dont know what CEOs do. So they think "how hard can that be?"
As usual the problem is ignorance.

The problem is ceos keep giving themselves huge raises for bad performance. While they should be paid more than the average worker, they shouldn't continue to get huge increases while wages are stagnant for everyone else.

Let's just ask a gut check question here: Who sets wage and compensation levels for CEOs? This isnt a trick question or especially difficult. But if you cant answer it you have no seat at this conversation.

The board. The board that is loaded with current and former ceos who obviously want ceo pay to increase.

 

[The Rabbi]

Ceos keep getting more and more increases to do the exact same job. You are ok with that I assume?

They do? How many CEO's do you know well enough to know exactly what they do?

I'm OK with those doing the paying doing it the way they see fit. What I'm not OK with is people like you thinking it's your place to determine how much of someone else's money they should spend on what.

The issue is that idiots like "Brain" (what a misnomer!) dont understand what CEOs do. They know what Beyonce does. Or some other actor. So they're fine with them getting paid millions of dollars a year. Because they look at them and think "I could never do that."
But they dont know what CEOs do. So they think "how hard can that be?"
As usual the problem is ignorance.

The problem is ceos keep giving themselves huge raises for bad performance. While they should be paid more than the average worker, they shouldn't continue to get huge increases while wages are stagnant for everyone else.

Let's just ask a gut check question here: Who sets wage and compensation levels for CEOs? This isnt a trick question or especially difficult. But if you cant answer it you have no seat at this conversation.

According to Brain, CEO's essentially determine their own raises and pay.

No I wanna here him explain it.

 

[Brain357]

Yes. So if people are hired and wages are stagnant that means there aren't jobs offered that aren't being filled.

You contradict yourself. On one hand, you say companies aren't offering job or wages would be increasing. On the other hand, you say the unemployment rate has been going done. If unemployment is going down, companies have to be offering jobs,otherwise, it wouldn't go down. Which one is it. You say jobs aren't being offered yet support the claim that unemployment is going down which is a sign jobs are being offered. It can't be both. Either jobs are not being offered or jobs are being offered.

Jobs are being offered at stagnant wages. Many employed are now underemployed. You really need to study economics

You said above that companies aren't offering jobs or wages would be increasing. Now, you say jobs are being offered but wages are stagnant. That contradicts your first statement that when jobs are offered wages go up. Which one is it? Sounds to me as if you need to study economics. It can't be both but you keep trying to say it is.

You need to look at the kind of jobs being offered. Like I said many are underemployed. When a Cnc worker takes a job at Walmart he is still employed and unemployment goes down, but he is underemployed.

You made a general, blanket statement that when jobs are offered, wages go up. When I showed how you contradicted yourself, you backtrack to "the kind of jobs being offered".

Well yes that is important when you bring unemployment into it. You are obviously too dumb to understand.

 

[Wyatt earp]

They do? How many CEO's do you know well enough to know exactly what they do?

I'm OK with those doing the paying doing it the way they see fit. What I'm not OK with is people like you thinking it's your place to determine how much of someone else's money they should spend on what.

The issue is that idiots like "Brain" (what a misnomer!) dont understand what CEOs do. They know what Beyonce does. Or some other actor. So they're fine with them getting paid millions of dollars a year. Because they look at them and think "I could never do that."
But they dont know what CEOs do. So they think "how hard can that be?"
As usual the problem is ignorance.

If their outlook about a CEO's job being easy was true, anyone could do it. I wonder if he thinks a burger flipper at McDonalds could do the job of a CEO.

Why is it ok for ceos to keep getting raises for bad performance?

Because those who choose to do so do so with THEIR money and can do whatever the hell they want with it. It's none of your business.

If a company has bad performance, should those minimum wage workers for that company be paid $15/hour?

Why is it only the fault of the CEO if a company has bad performance and only the credit of the workers if the company does well?

I see so the answer is its none of my business, that's cute. Is it hard to be such a hypocrite?

Yup it is none of your business unless you own over 50% stock

Otherwise like you post, just a little green with envy cry baby

 

[The Rabbi]

Ceos keep getting more and more increases to do the exact same job. You are ok with that I assume?

They do? How many CEO's do you know well enough to know exactly what they do?

I'm OK with those doing the paying doing it the way they see fit. What I'm not OK with is people like you thinking it's your place to determine how much of someone else's money they should spend on what.

The issue is that idiots like "Brain" (what a misnomer!) dont understand what CEOs do. They know what Beyonce does. Or some other actor. So they're fine with them getting paid millions of dollars a year. Because they look at them and think "I could never do that."
But they dont know what CEOs do. So they think "how hard can that be?"
As usual the problem is ignorance.

The problem is ceos keep giving themselves huge raises for bad performance. While they should be paid more than the average worker, they shouldn't continue to get huge increases while wages are stagnant for everyone else.

Let's just ask a gut check question here: Who sets wage and compensation levels for CEOs? This isnt a trick question or especially difficult. But if you cant answer it you have no seat at this conversation.

The board. The board that is loaded with current and former ceos who obviously want ceo pay to increase.

OK so CEOs do not essentially set their own compensation. They negotiate with a board for it.
Do you recant your earlier statement that CEOs set their own compensation, since by your own admission that is untrue?

 

[Conservative65]

They do? How many CEO's do you know well enough to know exactly what they do?

I'm OK with those doing the paying doing it the way they see fit. What I'm not OK with is people like you thinking it's your place to determine how much of someone else's money they should spend on what.

The issue is that idiots like "Brain" (what a misnomer!) dont understand what CEOs do. They know what Beyonce does. Or some other actor. So they're fine with them getting paid millions of dollars a year. Because they look at them and think "I could never do that."
But they dont know what CEOs do. So they think "how hard can that be?"
As usual the problem is ignorance.

The problem is ceos keep giving themselves huge raises for bad performance. While they should be paid more than the average worker, they shouldn't continue to get huge increases while wages are stagnant for everyone else.

Let's just ask a gut check question here: Who sets wage and compensation levels for CEOs? This isnt a trick question or especially difficult. But if you cant answer it you have no seat at this conversation.

According to Brain, CEO's essentially determine their own raises and pay.

Yes they do. Who decides their pay?

Depends on the makeup of the company/corporation doing the paying. There are hundreds of different methods used to make that determination. What does't happen when the CEO of a company is paid by money that isn't his/hers is decide they will pay themselves more without oversight or approval of some sort.

 

[Brain357]

They do? How many CEO's do you know well enough to know exactly what they do?

I'm OK with those doing the paying doing it the way they see fit. What I'm not OK with is people like you thinking it's your place to determine how much of someone else's money they should spend on what.

The issue is that idiots like "Brain" (what a misnomer!) dont understand what CEOs do. They know what Beyonce does. Or some other actor. So they're fine with them getting paid millions of dollars a year. Because they look at them and think "I could never do that."
But they dont know what CEOs do. So they think "how hard can that be?"
As usual the problem is ignorance.

The problem is ceos keep giving themselves huge raises for bad performance. While they should be paid more than the average worker, they shouldn't continue to get huge increases while wages are stagnant for everyone else.

Let's just ask a gut check question here: Who sets wage and compensation levels for CEOs? This isnt a trick question or especially difficult. But if you cant answer it you have no seat at this conversation.

The board. The board that is loaded with current and former ceos who obviously want ceo pay to increase.

OK so CEOs do not essentially set their own compensation. They negotiate with a board for it.
Do you recant your earlier statement that CEOs set their own compensation, since by your own admission that is untrue?

Not at all. They essentially own the board. So yes they pretty much set their own compensation.

 

[Conservative65]

The issue is that idiots like "Brain" (what a misnomer!) dont understand what CEOs do. They know what Beyonce does. Or some other actor. So they're fine with them getting paid millions of dollars a year. Because they look at them and think "I could never do that."
But they dont know what CEOs do. So they think "how hard can that be?"
As usual the problem is ignorance.

The problem is ceos keep giving themselves huge raises for bad performance. While they should be paid more than the average worker, they shouldn't continue to get huge increases while wages are stagnant for everyone else.

Let's just ask a gut check question here: Who sets wage and compensation levels for CEOs? This isnt a trick question or especially difficult. But if you cant answer it you have no seat at this conversation.

The board. The board that is loaded with current and former ceos who obviously want ceo pay to increase.

OK so CEOs do not essentially set their own compensation. They negotiate with a board for it.
Do you recant your earlier statement that CEOs set their own compensation, since by your own admission that is untrue?

Not at all. They essentially own the board. So yes they pretty much set their own compensation.

Not unless they have a majority controlling interest in the company.

 

[The Rabbi]

The issue is that idiots like "Brain" (what a misnomer!) dont understand what CEOs do. They know what Beyonce does. Or some other actor. So they're fine with them getting paid millions of dollars a year. Because they look at them and think "I could never do that."
But they dont know what CEOs do. So they think "how hard can that be?"
As usual the problem is ignorance.

The problem is ceos keep giving themselves huge raises for bad performance. While they should be paid more than the average worker, they shouldn't continue to get huge increases while wages are stagnant for everyone else.

Let's just ask a gut check question here: Who sets wage and compensation levels for CEOs? This isnt a trick question or especially difficult. But if you cant answer it you have no seat at this conversation.

The board. The board that is loaded with current and former ceos who obviously want ceo pay to increase.

OK so CEOs do not essentially set their own compensation. They negotiate with a board for it.
Do you recant your earlier statement that CEOs set their own compensation, since by your own admission that is untrue?

Not at all. They essentially own the board. So yes they pretty much set their own compensation.

OK, so how does a CEO "essentially own the board" when the board is elected by a majority of shareholders? Keep in mind hte board has a fiduciary duty to shareholders but not to the CEO.

 

[Brain357]

It is a rigged game:
Some members of corporate boards have an even greater self-interest in making sure that the compensation of the CEO continues to go up, up, and up. They are the CEOs of other companies. You don’t have to be a compensation expert to realize that if you vote for one of your peers to have a higher salary, you are in effect voting for your own salary to go up, because it is based on what will be a higher market.


Outrageous Executive Compensation: Corporate Boards, Not the Market, Are to Blame

 

[Conservative65]

You contradict yourself. On one hand, you say companies aren't offering job or wages would be increasing. On the other hand, you say the unemployment rate has been going done. If unemployment is going down, companies have to be offering jobs,otherwise, it wouldn't go down. Which one is it. You say jobs aren't being offered yet support the claim that unemployment is going down which is a sign jobs are being offered. It can't be both. Either jobs are not being offered or jobs are being offered.

Jobs are being offered at stagnant wages. Many employed are now underemployed. You really need to study economics

You said above that companies aren't offering jobs or wages would be increasing. Now, you say jobs are being offered but wages are stagnant. That contradicts your first statement that when jobs are offered wages go up. Which one is it? Sounds to me as if you need to study economics. It can't be both but you keep trying to say it is.

You need to look at the kind of jobs being offered. Like I said many are underemployed. When a Cnc worker takes a job at Walmart he is still employed and unemployment goes down, but he is underemployed.

You made a general, blanket statement that when jobs are offered, wages go up. When I showed how you contradicted yourself, you backtrack to "the kind of jobs being offered".

Well yes that is important when you bring unemployment into it. You are obviously too dumb to understand.

The part about unemployment was an example to show that jobs are being offered something you said increased wages. Now, you say wages aren't going up despite claiming jobs are being offered.

 

[Conservative65]

It is a rigged game:
Some members of corporate boards have an even greater self-interest in making sure that the compensation of the CEO continues to go up, up, and up. They are the CEOs of other companies. You don’t have to be a compensation expert to realize that if you vote for one of your peers to have a higher salary, you are in effect voting for your own salary to go up, because it is based on what will be a higher market.

So, now it's all just a conspiracy?

 

[Conservative65]

Ceos keep getting more and more increases to do the exact same job. You are ok with that I assume?

They do? How many CEO's do you know well enough to know exactly what they do?

I'm OK with those doing the paying doing it the way they see fit. What I'm not OK with is people like you thinking it's your place to determine how much of someone else's money they should spend on what.

The issue is that idiots like "Brain" (what a misnomer!) dont understand what CEOs do. They know what Beyonce does. Or some other actor. So they're fine with them getting paid millions of dollars a year. Because they look at them and think "I could never do that."
But they dont know what CEOs do. So they think "how hard can that be?"
As usual the problem is ignorance.

The problem is ceos keep giving themselves huge raises for bad performance. While they should be paid more than the average worker, they shouldn't continue to get huge increases while wages are stagnant for everyone else.

Let's just ask a gut check question here: Who sets wage and compensation levels for CEOs? This isnt a trick question or especially difficult. But if you cant answer it you have no seat at this conversation.

The board. The board that is loaded with current and former ceos who obviously want ceo pay to increase.

What you'll need to prove is that all these boards of directors are actually made up the way you say they're made up. I'll be waiting.

 

[Brain357]

The problem is ceos keep giving themselves huge raises for bad performance. While they should be paid more than the average worker, they shouldn't continue to get huge increases while wages are stagnant for everyone else.

Let's just ask a gut check question here: Who sets wage and compensation levels for CEOs? This isnt a trick question or especially difficult. But if you cant answer it you have no seat at this conversation.

The board. The board that is loaded with current and former ceos who obviously want ceo pay to increase.

OK so CEOs do not essentially set their own compensation. They negotiate with a board for it.
Do you recant your earlier statement that CEOs set their own compensation, since by your own admission that is untrue?

Not at all. They essentially own the board. So yes they pretty much set their own compensation.

OK, so how does a CEO "essentially own the board" when the board is elected by a majority of shareholders? Keep in mind hte board has a fiduciary duty to shareholders but not to the CEO.

Market data are a constantly escalating and flawed indicator of what executives should be paid. Few boards are willing to pay their executives below market. There are several reasons for this. Board members typically want to be looked upon positively by the CEO and other senior executives in order to get on and remain on corporate boards. A board member who argues for paying individuals below the market is not likely to be a respected or valued board member, at least in the eyes of the executive team of the company.

Outrageous Executive Compensation: Corporate Boards, Not the Market, Are to Blame

 

[thereisnospoon]

Good on em. Hopefully they'll get it, or something close. McDonalds has made $Billions off the blood, sweat, and tears of their slave workers. So it gets no sympathy from me. It's time for McDonalds to do some good for a change.

if you do not own a business, then you have no say in the matter.
For the last time. $15 per hour for unskilled. mostly teen aged workers is ABSURD...
These people who are "striking" for higher pay are attempting to take a short cut to higher earnings by enlisting the assistance of government because they are incapable of either showing initiative to learn new skills, learn new skills or go to school to learn new skills..So they believe that by "demanding" the money will just land in their lap.
That isn't the way the world works.
By joining their legions you are WORSE because you don't own a business or if you do, would not be willing to sacrifice your own livelihood to pay a min wage of $15 per hour..
One other thing. The min wage raise is not that simple. As the min wage is increased so do the wages of everyone else.
Wage levels always should be left to the marketplace to decide.
So you can stop your anti business owner diatribe. It's tired and pointless.

 

[Brain357]

Jobs are being offered at stagnant wages. Many employed are now underemployed. You really need to study economics

You said above that companies aren't offering jobs or wages would be increasing. Now, you say jobs are being offered but wages are stagnant. That contradicts your first statement that when jobs are offered wages go up. Which one is it? Sounds to me as if you need to study economics. It can't be both but you keep trying to say it is.

You need to look at the kind of jobs being offered. Like I said many are underemployed. When a Cnc worker takes a job at Walmart he is still employed and unemployment goes down, but he is underemployed.

You made a general, blanket statement that when jobs are offered, wages go up. When I showed how you contradicted yourself, you backtrack to "the kind of jobs being offered".

Well yes that is important when you bring unemployment into it. You are obviously too dumb to understand.

The part about unemployment was an example to show that jobs are being offered something you said increased wages. Now, you say wages aren't going up despite claiming jobs are being offered.

You would have to show people are being hired in skilled jobs.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Good on em. Hopefully they'll get it, or something close. McDonalds has made $Billions off the blood, sweat, and tears of their slave workers. So it gets no sympathy from me. It's time for McDonalds to do some good for a change.

Ya know what it is especially ironic. Your avatar....About government protecting the shit out of the people....Yet you want government to take those batons to business owners to suit your cause.....So it is actually YOU swinging the baton...
Hey genius....Don't be surprise if one day the person you are beating grabs the baton and decides to hit back.

 

[thereisnospoon]

You said above that companies aren't offering jobs or wages would be increasing. Now, you say jobs are being offered but wages are stagnant. That contradicts your first statement that when jobs are offered wages go up. Which one is it? Sounds to me as if you need to study economics. It can't be both but you keep trying to say it is.

You need to look at the kind of jobs being offered. Like I said many are underemployed. When a Cnc worker takes a job at Walmart he is still employed and unemployment goes down, but he is underemployed.

You made a general, blanket statement that when jobs are offered, wages go up. When I showed how you contradicted yourself, you backtrack to "the kind of jobs being offered".

Well yes that is important when you bring unemployment into it. You are obviously too dumb to understand.

The part about unemployment was an example to show that jobs are being offered something you said increased wages. Now, you say wages aren't going up despite claiming jobs are being offered.

You would have to show people are being hired in skilled jobs.

No....YOU are charged with the duty of showing proof....

 

[Brain357]

You need to look at the kind of jobs being offered. Like I said many are underemployed. When a Cnc worker takes a job at Walmart he is still employed and unemployment goes down, but he is underemployed.

You made a general, blanket statement that when jobs are offered, wages go up. When I showed how you contradicted yourself, you backtrack to "the kind of jobs being offered".

Well yes that is important when you bring unemployment into it. You are obviously too dumb to understand.

The part about unemployment was an example to show that jobs are being offered something you said increased wages. Now, you say wages aren't going up despite claiming jobs are being offered.

You would have to show people are being hired in skilled jobs.

No....YOU are charged with the duty of showing proof....

If they were wages wouldn't be stagnant. Stagnant wages is the proof.

 

[Conservative65]

You said above that companies aren't offering jobs or wages would be increasing. Now, you say jobs are being offered but wages are stagnant. That contradicts your first statement that when jobs are offered wages go up. Which one is it? Sounds to me as if you need to study economics. It can't be both but you keep trying to say it is.

You need to look at the kind of jobs being offered. Like I said many are underemployed. When a Cnc worker takes a job at Walmart he is still employed and unemployment goes down, but he is underemployed.

You made a general, blanket statement that when jobs are offered, wages go up. When I showed how you contradicted yourself, you backtrack to "the kind of jobs being offered".

Well yes that is important when you bring unemployment into it. You are obviously too dumb to understand.

The part about unemployment was an example to show that jobs are being offered something you said increased wages. Now, you say wages aren't going up despite claiming jobs are being offered.

You would have to show people are being hired in skilled jobs.

Based on your blanket statement that when jobs are offered wages go up, I've already provided all the information I need with my unemployment level example to which you agreed. It's when you contradicted yourself and was called out on it that you start adding to that claim.