Minimum Wage, Again

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
221

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
On the flip side, workers for large corporations (who get all kinds of tax incentives anyway, which I oppose) who have a 400:1 CEO to employee salary ratio should be “encouraged” to bring that ratio down to something more reasonable. What that “reasonable” number is and how they are “encouraged” is not something I’m smart enough to figure out. But I think the idea is sound and would level the field a bit, protect small business owners and grow the over all economy.

[/quote]

This is where I have issue. Journalist love to write, “tax incentives anyway, which I oppose,” but never list them. What are they? What does this have to do with pay?

The other issue with the ratio is that the number of employees is not mentioned. If McDonalds has 80,000 employees and a CEO to employee ratio of 400:1, what happens if the raito becomes 300:1? McDonalds is going to fire a shit ton of people, assuming the ratio change is due to an increase in wages for the worker and not a decrease in CEO pay. Seeing as a decrease in CEO pay does nothing for the worker, which is the point, right?

[/quote]

http://www.walmartsubsidywatch.org/

This is just an example with Walmart. But similar negotiations take place behind closed doors for lots of corporations. The government is giving OUR money away. But that’s not the point of this thread.

Re wages, salary ratios are simple math. If you were to DECREASE the ratio to a more reasonable 20:1 or 25:1, the money would be easily available to the employees as an increase in pay. They are not going to fire a shit ton of people, they are going to give a shit ton of people a raise. For the same amount of revenue.

Obviously, the more employees, the higher the ratio could be.

222

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
On the flip side, workers for large corporations (who get all kinds of tax incentives anyway, which I oppose) who have a 400:1 CEO to employee salary ratio should be “encouraged” to bring that ratio down to something more reasonable. What that “reasonable” number is and how they are “encouraged” is not something I’m smart enough to figure out. But I think the idea is sound and would level the field a bit, protect small business owners and grow the over all economy.

[/quote]

This is where I have issue. Journalist love to write, “tax incentives anyway, which I oppose,” but never list them. What are they? What does this have to do with pay?

The other issue with the ratio is that the number of employees is not mentioned. If McDonalds has 80,000 employees and a CEO to employee ratio of 400:1, what happens if the raito becomes 300:1? McDonalds is going to fire a shit ton of people, assuming the ratio change is due to an increase in wages for the worker and not a decrease in CEO pay. Seeing as a decrease in CEO pay does nothing for the worker, which is the point, right?

[/quote]

http://www.walmartsubsidywatch.org/

This is just an example with Walmart. But similar negotiations take place behind closed doors for lots of corporations. The government is giving OUR money away. But that’s not the point of this thread.

Re wages, salary ratios are simple math. If you were to DECREASE the ratio to a more reasonable 20:1 or 25:1, the money would be easily available to the employees as an increase in pay. They are not going to fire a shit ton of people, they are going to give a shit ton of people a raise. For the same amount of revenue.

Obviously, the more employees, the higher the ratio could be.[/quote]

That’s not just the Federal Governemnt. It’s also State, County and City governments. They too are in competition to get Walmarts to open up in their areas.

No doubt that ratio of CEO pay to the average employee salary is out of whack in the US, but even a substantial cut in CEO pay will still be peanuts spread over all employees.

According to this article,

CEO of Walmart’s Salary: $1.3M
CEO of Walmart’s Total Compensation: $17M

WalMart’s Revenues: $443.8B
WalMart’s Net Income: $15.7B
Margin: 3.5%

Number of Employees: 2.2M worldwide

Percent of WalMart’s Revenues/Net Income of CEO Salary: 0.00003%/0.008%
Percent of WalMart’s Revenues/Net Income of CEO Total Compensation: 0.004%/0.001%

CEOs salary spread over all workers: $0.59/employee
CEOs total compensation spread over all workers: $7.72/employee

I won’t even touch Net Income. A lowly 3.5% is barely an acceptable return for shareholders. In fact, if it wasn’t for such a high volume, the company would not be considered to performing that well.

The problem isn’t executive compensation here. The problem is the high volume, low margin business invariable only survives on a basis of employees with low wages.

223

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
On the flip side, workers for large corporations (who get all kinds of tax incentives anyway, which I oppose) who have a 400:1 CEO to employee salary ratio should be “encouraged” to bring that ratio down to something more reasonable. What that “reasonable” number is and how they are “encouraged” is not something I’m smart enough to figure out. But I think the idea is sound and would level the field a bit, protect small business owners and grow the over all economy.

[/quote]

This is where I have issue. Journalist love to write, “tax incentives anyway, which I oppose,” but never list them. What are they? What does this have to do with pay?

The other issue with the ratio is that the number of employees is not mentioned. If McDonalds has 80,000 employees and a CEO to employee ratio of 400:1, what happens if the raito becomes 300:1? McDonalds is going to fire a shit ton of people, assuming the ratio change is due to an increase in wages for the worker and not a decrease in CEO pay. Seeing as a decrease in CEO pay does nothing for the worker, which is the point, right?

[/quote]

http://www.walmartsubsidywatch.org/

This is just an example with Walmart. But similar negotiations take place behind closed doors for lots of corporations. The government is giving OUR money away. But that’s not the point of this thread.

Re wages, salary ratios are simple math. If you were to DECREASE the ratio to a more reasonable 20:1 or 25:1, the money would be easily available to the employees as an increase in pay. They are not going to fire a shit ton of people, they are going to give a shit ton of people a raise. For the same amount of revenue.

Obviously, the more employees, the higher the ratio could be.[/quote]

What do government subsidies have to do with employee wage? I’m all for removing the subsidies for what it’s worth.

Even if you lowered the CEOs wages to next to nothing you are adding very little to the pockets of the employees. Let’s just assume McDonald’s CEO makes $20MM and you reduce that to $1MM. That’s $19MM across 1.7MM employees worldwide or $11.18 per employee. That’s not even a penny per hour for full time workers (2,000 hours).

Obviously that’s extremely simplified. The general idea is that CEO pay is a drop in the bucket when you factor in the number of employees.

There are also other factors to consider. How exactly is the ratio computed? Are stock options a part of the CEOs pay?

224

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
On the flip side, workers for large corporations (who get all kinds of tax incentives anyway, which I oppose) who have a 400:1 CEO to employee salary ratio should be “encouraged” to bring that ratio down to something more reasonable. What that “reasonable” number is and how they are “encouraged” is not something I’m smart enough to figure out. But I think the idea is sound and would level the field a bit, protect small business owners and grow the over all economy.

[/quote]

This is where I have issue. Journalist love to write, “tax incentives anyway, which I oppose,” but never list them. What are they? What does this have to do with pay?

The other issue with the ratio is that the number of employees is not mentioned. If McDonalds has 80,000 employees and a CEO to employee ratio of 400:1, what happens if the raito becomes 300:1? McDonalds is going to fire a shit ton of people, assuming the ratio change is due to an increase in wages for the worker and not a decrease in CEO pay. Seeing as a decrease in CEO pay does nothing for the worker, which is the point, right?

[/quote]

http://www.walmartsubsidywatch.org/

This is just an example with Walmart. But similar negotiations take place behind closed doors for lots of corporations. The government is giving OUR money away. But that’s not the point of this thread.

Re wages, salary ratios are simple math. If you were to DECREASE the ratio to a more reasonable 20:1 or 25:1, the money would be easily available to the employees as an increase in pay. They are not going to fire a shit ton of people, they are going to give a shit ton of people a raise. For the same amount of revenue.

Obviously, the more employees, the higher the ratio could be.[/quote]

That’s not just the Federal Governemnt. It’s also State, County and City governments. They too are in competition to get Walmarts to open up in their areas.

No doubt that ratio of CEO pay to the average employee salary is out of whack in the US, but even a substantial cut in CEO pay will still be peanuts spread over all employees.

According to this article,

CEO of Walmart’s Salary: $1.3M
CEO of Walmart’s Total Compensation: $17M

WalMart’s Revenues: $443.8B
WalMart’s Net Income: $15.7B
Margin: 3.5%

Number of Employees: 2.2M worldwide

Percent of WalMart’s Revenues/Net Income of CEO Salary: 0.00003%/0.008%
Percent of WalMart’s Revenues/Net Income of CEO Total Compensation: 0.004%/0.001%

CEOs salary spread over all workers: $0.59/employee
CEOs total compensation spread over all workers: $7.72/employee

I won’t even touch Net Income. A lowly 3.5% is barely an acceptable return for shareholders. In fact, if it wasn’t for such a high volume, the company would not be considered to performing that well.

The problem isn’t executive compensation here. The problem is the high volume, low margin business invariable only survives on a basis of employees with low wages.

[/quote]

Damn, beat me to it.

225

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
On the flip side, workers for large corporations (who get all kinds of tax incentives anyway, which I oppose) who have a 400:1 CEO to employee salary ratio should be “encouraged” to bring that ratio down to something more reasonable. What that “reasonable” number is and how they are “encouraged” is not something I’m smart enough to figure out. But I think the idea is sound and would level the field a bit, protect small business owners and grow the over all economy.

[/quote]

This is where I have issue. Journalist love to write, “tax incentives anyway, which I oppose,” but never list them. What are they? What does this have to do with pay?

The other issue with the ratio is that the number of employees is not mentioned. If McDonalds has 80,000 employees and a CEO to employee ratio of 400:1, what happens if the raito becomes 300:1? McDonalds is going to fire a shit ton of people, assuming the ratio change is due to an increase in wages for the worker and not a decrease in CEO pay. Seeing as a decrease in CEO pay does nothing for the worker, which is the point, right?

[/quote]

http://www.walmartsubsidywatch.org/

This is just an example with Walmart. But similar negotiations take place behind closed doors for lots of corporations. The government is giving OUR money away. But that’s not the point of this thread.

Re wages, salary ratios are simple math. If you were to DECREASE the ratio to a more reasonable 20:1 or 25:1, the money would be easily available to the employees as an increase in pay. They are not going to fire a shit ton of people, they are going to give a shit ton of people a raise. For the same amount of revenue.

Obviously, the more employees, the higher the ratio could be.[/quote]

That’s not just the Federal Governemnt. It’s also State, County and City governments. They too are in competition to get Walmarts to open up in their areas.

No doubt that ratio of CEO pay to the average employee salary is out of whack in the US, but even a substantial cut in CEO pay will still be peanuts spread over all employees.

According to this article,

CEO of Walmart’s Salary: $1.3M
CEO of Walmart’s Total Compensation: $17M

WalMart’s Revenues: $443.8B
WalMart’s Net Income: $15.7B
Margin: 3.5%

Number of Employees: 2.2M worldwide

Percent of WalMart’s Revenues/Net Income of CEO Salary: 0.00003%/0.008%
Percent of WalMart’s Revenues/Net Income of CEO Total Compensation: 0.004%/0.001%

CEOs salary spread over all workers: $0.59/employee
CEOs total compensation spread over all workers: $7.72/employee

I won’t even touch Net Income. A lowly 3.5% is barely an acceptable return for shareholders. In fact, if it wasn’t for such a high volume, the company would not be considered to performing that well.

The problem isn’t executive compensation here. The problem is the high volume, low margin business invariable only survives on a basis of employees with low wages.

[/quote]

Good Post.

But Progressives have to have a lightning rod to make the poor rise up against their oppressors.

226

[quote]Bauber wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I don’t think this board has much ability to be realistic . Business will do what ever is in it’s short term interest . Period.

Business would love to treat labor as a commodity . At that point labor will have no rights

[/quote]

The future will be near complete automation with robots. The labor force if it had the ability to be realistic would know this.[/quote]

I agree with this . Raising the minimum wage will have little to no effect on whether or not businesses use robots . They will use them when it becomes financially beneficial

227

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]Bauber wrote:

Yes, many with college degrees that will be able to do probably twice the work or be twice as productive as your uneducated tard flipping burgers. They will require half the work or a large percentage less to run the place. So, now you have taken jobs completely two fold from the “poor”.

[/quote]

In what alternate universe do you live where people with college degrees do twice the MANUAL LABOR as those without? Most of the people I know that have degrees did so because they are labor averse and physically soft. Yes there are exceptions, but speaking in generalities someone with an twelfth grade or less education will out dig/roof/assemble someone with a BA most of the time.

For the record I don’t believe these to be $15 an hour jobs but a reasonable wage and some basic human dignity doesn’t seem to be too much to ask for.

[/quote]

I think in most cases $15 and hour is reasonable

228

As I’ve alluded to before, people are pretty full of themselves to think such a social issue that has been plaguing mankind for ages can be so easily solved by simply increasing minimum wage.

229

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I agree with this . Raising the minimum wage will have little to no effect on whether or not businesses use robots . They will use them when it becomes financially beneficial
[/quote]

Why? Why can’t a law outlawing the use of robots be passed?

230

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
On the flip side, workers for large corporations (who get all kinds of tax incentives anyway, which I oppose) who have a 400:1 CEO to employee salary ratio should be “encouraged” to bring that ratio down to something more reasonable. What that “reasonable” number is and how they are “encouraged” is not something I’m smart enough to figure out. But I think the idea is sound and would level the field a bit, protect small business owners and grow the over all economy.

[/quote]

This is where I have issue. Journalist love to write, “tax incentives anyway, which I oppose,” but never list them. What are they? What does this have to do with pay?

The other issue with the ratio is that the number of employees is not mentioned. If McDonalds has 80,000 employees and a CEO to employee ratio of 400:1, what happens if the raito becomes 300:1? McDonalds is going to fire a shit ton of people, assuming the ratio change is due to an increase in wages for the worker and not a decrease in CEO pay. Seeing as a decrease in CEO pay does nothing for the worker, which is the point, right?

[/quote]

http://www.walmartsubsidywatch.org/

This is just an example with Walmart. But similar negotiations take place behind closed doors for lots of corporations. The government is giving OUR money away. But that’s not the point of this thread.

Re wages, salary ratios are simple math. If you were to DECREASE the ratio to a more reasonable 20:1 or 25:1, the money would be easily available to the employees as an increase in pay. They are not going to fire a shit ton of people, they are going to give a shit ton of people a raise. For the same amount of revenue.

Obviously, the more employees, the higher the ratio could be.[/quote]

That’s not just the Federal Governemnt. It’s also State, County and City governments. They too are in competition to get Walmarts to open up in their areas.

No doubt that ratio of CEO pay to the average employee salary is out of whack in the US, but even a substantial cut in CEO pay will still be peanuts spread over all employees.

According to this article,

CEO of Walmart’s Salary: $1.3M
CEO of Walmart’s Total Compensation: $17M

WalMart’s Revenues: $443.8B
WalMart’s Net Income: $15.7B
Margin: 3.5%

Number of Employees: 2.2M worldwide

Percent of WalMart’s Revenues/Net Income of CEO Salary: 0.00003%/0.008%
Percent of WalMart’s Revenues/Net Income of CEO Total Compensation: 0.004%/0.001%

CEOs salary spread over all workers: $0.59/employee
CEOs total compensation spread over all workers: $7.72/employee

I won’t even touch Net Income. A lowly 3.5% is barely an acceptable return for shareholders. In fact, if it wasn’t for such a high volume, the company would not be considered to performing that well.

The problem isn’t executive compensation here. The problem is the high volume, low margin business invariable only survives on a basis of employees with low wages.

[/quote]

That low margin is very suspect and I am sure the tax rate Walmart pays is far below what Ma and Pa pay

231

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
On the flip side, workers for large corporations (who get all kinds of tax incentives anyway, which I oppose) who have a 400:1 CEO to employee salary ratio should be “encouraged” to bring that ratio down to something more reasonable. What that “reasonable” number is and how they are “encouraged” is not something I’m smart enough to figure out. But I think the idea is sound and would level the field a bit, protect small business owners and grow the over all economy.

[/quote]

This is where I have issue. Journalist love to write, “tax incentives anyway, which I oppose,” but never list them. What are they? What does this have to do with pay?

The other issue with the ratio is that the number of employees is not mentioned. If McDonalds has 80,000 employees and a CEO to employee ratio of 400:1, what happens if the raito becomes 300:1? McDonalds is going to fire a shit ton of people, assuming the ratio change is due to an increase in wages for the worker and not a decrease in CEO pay. Seeing as a decrease in CEO pay does nothing for the worker, which is the point, right?

[/quote]

http://www.walmartsubsidywatch.org/

This is just an example with Walmart. But similar negotiations take place behind closed doors for lots of corporations. The government is giving OUR money away. But that’s not the point of this thread.

Re wages, salary ratios are simple math. If you were to DECREASE the ratio to a more reasonable 20:1 or 25:1, the money would be easily available to the employees as an increase in pay. They are not going to fire a shit ton of people, they are going to give a shit ton of people a raise. For the same amount of revenue.

Obviously, the more employees, the higher the ratio could be.[/quote]

That’s not just the Federal Governemnt. It’s also State, County and City governments. They too are in competition to get Walmarts to open up in their areas.

No doubt that ratio of CEO pay to the average employee salary is out of whack in the US, but even a substantial cut in CEO pay will still be peanuts spread over all employees.

According to this article,

CEO of Walmart’s Salary: $1.3M
CEO of Walmart’s Total Compensation: $17M

WalMart’s Revenues: $443.8B
WalMart’s Net Income: $15.7B
Margin: 3.5%

Number of Employees: 2.2M worldwide

Percent of WalMart’s Revenues/Net Income of CEO Salary: 0.00003%/0.008%
Percent of WalMart’s Revenues/Net Income of CEO Total Compensation: 0.004%/0.001%

CEOs salary spread over all workers: $0.59/employee
CEOs total compensation spread over all workers: $7.72/employee

I won’t even touch Net Income. A lowly 3.5% is barely an acceptable return for shareholders. In fact, if it wasn’t for such a high volume, the company would not be considered to performing that well.

The problem isn’t executive compensation here. The problem is the high volume, low margin business invariable only survives on a basis of employees with low wages.

[/quote]

That low margin is very suspect and I am sure the tax rate Walmart pays is far below what Ma and Pa pay
[/quote]

Dude, do you not know that Walmart’s financials can easily be found online. Go ahead and look at them yourself and show me that their profit margin is above 3.5%

232

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
That low margin is very suspect and I am sure the tax rate Walmart pays is far below what Ma and Pa pay
[/quote]

Why do you say that? How do you know?

233

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
On the flip side, workers for large corporations (who get all kinds of tax incentives anyway, which I oppose) who have a 400:1 CEO to employee salary ratio should be “encouraged” to bring that ratio down to something more reasonable. What that “reasonable” number is and how they are “encouraged” is not something I’m smart enough to figure out. But I think the idea is sound and would level the field a bit, protect small business owners and grow the over all economy.

[/quote]

This is where I have issue. Journalist love to write, “tax incentives anyway, which I oppose,” but never list them. What are they? What does this have to do with pay?

The other issue with the ratio is that the number of employees is not mentioned. If McDonalds has 80,000 employees and a CEO to employee ratio of 400:1, what happens if the raito becomes 300:1? McDonalds is going to fire a shit ton of people, assuming the ratio change is due to an increase in wages for the worker and not a decrease in CEO pay. Seeing as a decrease in CEO pay does nothing for the worker, which is the point, right?

[/quote]

http://www.walmartsubsidywatch.org/

This is just an example with Walmart. But similar negotiations take place behind closed doors for lots of corporations. The government is giving OUR money away. But that’s not the point of this thread.

Re wages, salary ratios are simple math. If you were to DECREASE the ratio to a more reasonable 20:1 or 25:1, the money would be easily available to the employees as an increase in pay. They are not going to fire a shit ton of people, they are going to give a shit ton of people a raise. For the same amount of revenue.

Obviously, the more employees, the higher the ratio could be.[/quote]

That’s not just the Federal Governemnt. It’s also State, County and City governments. They too are in competition to get Walmarts to open up in their areas.

No doubt that ratio of CEO pay to the average employee salary is out of whack in the US, but even a substantial cut in CEO pay will still be peanuts spread over all employees.

According to this article,

CEO of Walmart’s Salary: $1.3M
CEO of Walmart’s Total Compensation: $17M

WalMart’s Revenues: $443.8B
WalMart’s Net Income: $15.7B
Margin: 3.5%

Number of Employees: 2.2M worldwide

Percent of WalMart’s Revenues/Net Income of CEO Salary: 0.00003%/0.008%
Percent of WalMart’s Revenues/Net Income of CEO Total Compensation: 0.004%/0.001%

CEOs salary spread over all workers: $0.59/employee
CEOs total compensation spread over all workers: $7.72/employee

I won’t even touch Net Income. A lowly 3.5% is barely an acceptable return for shareholders. In fact, if it wasn’t for such a high volume, the company would not be considered to performing that well.

The problem isn’t executive compensation here. The problem is the high volume, low margin business invariable only survives on a basis of employees with low wages.

[/quote]

That low margin is very suspect and I am sure the tax rate Walmart pays is far below what Ma and Pa pay
[/quote]

Dude, do you not know that Walmart’s financials can easily be found online. Go ahead and look at them yourself and show me that their profit margin is above 3.5%
[/quote]

WalMart’s effective tax rate was between 32-34% and I’m not sure how the profit margin is suspect? It’s pretty simple math. Of the $443B in Revenues, after all expenses and taxes, shareholders get 3.5%, or about $4.52/share in 2012. Not to mention they are sitting on $180B in Liabilities/Debt

234

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]Bauber wrote:

Yes, many with college degrees that will be able to do probably twice the work or be twice as productive as your uneducated tard flipping burgers. They will require half the work or a large percentage less to run the place. So, now you have taken jobs completely two fold from the “poor”.

[/quote]

In what alternate universe do you live where people with college degrees do twice the MANUAL LABOR as those without? Most of the people I know that have degrees did so because they are labor averse and physically soft. Yes there are exceptions, but speaking in generalities someone with an twelfth grade or less education will out dig/roof/assemble someone with a BA most of the time.

For the record I don’t believe these to be $15 an hour jobs but a reasonable wage and some basic human dignity doesn’t seem to be too much to ask for.

[/quote]

I think in most cases $15 and hour is reasonable
[/quote]

Why?

235

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
On the flip side, workers for large corporations (who get all kinds of tax incentives anyway, which I oppose) who have a 400:1 CEO to employee salary ratio should be “encouraged” to bring that ratio down to something more reasonable. What that “reasonable” number is and how they are “encouraged” is not something I’m smart enough to figure out. But I think the idea is sound and would level the field a bit, protect small business owners and grow the over all economy.

[/quote]

This is where I have issue. Journalist love to write, “tax incentives anyway, which I oppose,” but never list them. What are they? What does this have to do with pay?

The other issue with the ratio is that the number of employees is not mentioned. If McDonalds has 80,000 employees and a CEO to employee ratio of 400:1, what happens if the raito becomes 300:1? McDonalds is going to fire a shit ton of people, assuming the ratio change is due to an increase in wages for the worker and not a decrease in CEO pay. Seeing as a decrease in CEO pay does nothing for the worker, which is the point, right?

[/quote]

http://www.walmartsubsidywatch.org/

This is just an example with Walmart. But similar negotiations take place behind closed doors for lots of corporations. The government is giving OUR money away. But that’s not the point of this thread.

Re wages, salary ratios are simple math. If you were to DECREASE the ratio to a more reasonable 20:1 or 25:1, the money would be easily available to the employees as an increase in pay. They are not going to fire a shit ton of people, they are going to give a shit ton of people a raise. For the same amount of revenue.

Obviously, the more employees, the higher the ratio could be.[/quote]

That’s not just the Federal Governemnt. It’s also State, County and City governments. They too are in competition to get Walmarts to open up in their areas.

No doubt that ratio of CEO pay to the average employee salary is out of whack in the US, but even a substantial cut in CEO pay will still be peanuts spread over all employees.

According to this article,

CEO of Walmart’s Salary: $1.3M
CEO of Walmart’s Total Compensation: $17M

WalMart’s Revenues: $443.8B
WalMart’s Net Income: $15.7B
Margin: 3.5%

Number of Employees: 2.2M worldwide

Percent of WalMart’s Revenues/Net Income of CEO Salary: 0.00003%/0.008%
Percent of WalMart’s Revenues/Net Income of CEO Total Compensation: 0.004%/0.001%

CEOs salary spread over all workers: $0.59/employee
CEOs total compensation spread over all workers: $7.72/employee

I won’t even touch Net Income. A lowly 3.5% is barely an acceptable return for shareholders. In fact, if it wasn’t for such a high volume, the company would not be considered to performing that well.

The problem isn’t executive compensation here. The problem is the high volume, low margin business invariable only survives on a basis of employees with low wages.

[/quote]

Good Post.

But Progressives have to have a lightning rod to make the poor rise up against their oppressors.
[/quote]

The problem is the poor can not rise up against their oppressor , they have to earn a living .

I see it as the Wealthy have to pretend be victimized so they can continue fucking the poor .

The wealthy do so much for the country and the ungrateful indigent want more and more from the poor little wealthy person . That some day the ungrateful indigent will break the back of the poor little wealthy person

236

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:
As I’ve alluded to before, people are pretty full of themselves to think such a social issue that has been plaguing mankind for ages can be so easily solved by simply increasing minimum wage.[/quote]

Even with more and more Government handouts the number of poor increases every year. Poor is a way of thinking.

237

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I don’t think this board has much ability to be realistic . Business will do what ever is in it’s short term interest . Period.

Business would love to treat labor as a commodity . At that point labor will have no rights

[/quote]

The problem is, this board is being PRECISELY realistic about this. Business will do whatever is in its own interest, period, as you pointed out and part of that is protecting its own profits. And if the need arises, accelerating automation drastically, or cutting jobs. There is no way around that except to outlaw the cutting of jobs.

And labor IS a commodity. That you don’t like the fact is beside the point. It has never been treated as anything except a commodity by anyone, during the hey-day of Unions, before then, or currently. The fact that it is negotiated in different ways is nothing. It is still negotiated like all commodity prices.

238

Good book here that kind of addresses the idea of inequality within our civilization: Guns, Germs, and Steel - Wikipedia

Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond. Discusses how the world came to be and why inequality is inherently a byproduct of civilization as we know it. You will quickly come to the conclusion that inequality will always, and you might even argue MUST exist, in such an organization of people.

239

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:

[quote]ZJStrope wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
On the flip side, workers for large corporations (who get all kinds of tax incentives anyway, which I oppose) who have a 400:1 CEO to employee salary ratio should be “encouraged” to bring that ratio down to something more reasonable. What that “reasonable” number is and how they are “encouraged” is not something I’m smart enough to figure out. But I think the idea is sound and would level the field a bit, protect small business owners and grow the over all economy.

[/quote]

This is where I have issue. Journalist love to write, “tax incentives anyway, which I oppose,” but never list them. What are they? What does this have to do with pay?

The other issue with the ratio is that the number of employees is not mentioned. If McDonalds has 80,000 employees and a CEO to employee ratio of 400:1, what happens if the raito becomes 300:1? McDonalds is going to fire a shit ton of people, assuming the ratio change is due to an increase in wages for the worker and not a decrease in CEO pay. Seeing as a decrease in CEO pay does nothing for the worker, which is the point, right?

[/quote]

http://www.walmartsubsidywatch.org/

This is just an example with Walmart. But similar negotiations take place behind closed doors for lots of corporations. The government is giving OUR money away. But that’s not the point of this thread.

Re wages, salary ratios are simple math. If you were to DECREASE the ratio to a more reasonable 20:1 or 25:1, the money would be easily available to the employees as an increase in pay. They are not going to fire a shit ton of people, they are going to give a shit ton of people a raise. For the same amount of revenue.

Obviously, the more employees, the higher the ratio could be.[/quote]

That’s not just the Federal Governemnt. It’s also State, County and City governments. They too are in competition to get Walmarts to open up in their areas.

No doubt that ratio of CEO pay to the average employee salary is out of whack in the US, but even a substantial cut in CEO pay will still be peanuts spread over all employees.

According to this article,

CEO of Walmart’s Salary: $1.3M
CEO of Walmart’s Total Compensation: $17M

WalMart’s Revenues: $443.8B
WalMart’s Net Income: $15.7B
Margin: 3.5%

Number of Employees: 2.2M worldwide

Percent of WalMart’s Revenues/Net Income of CEO Salary: 0.00003%/0.008%
Percent of WalMart’s Revenues/Net Income of CEO Total Compensation: 0.004%/0.001%

CEOs salary spread over all workers: $0.59/employee
CEOs total compensation spread over all workers: $7.72/employee

I won’t even touch Net Income. A lowly 3.5% is barely an acceptable return for shareholders. In fact, if it wasn’t for such a high volume, the company would not be considered to performing that well.

The problem isn’t executive compensation here. The problem is the high volume, low margin business invariable only survives on a basis of employees with low wages.

[/quote]

Good Post.

But Progressives have to have a lightning rod to make the poor rise up against their oppressors.
[/quote]

The problem is the poor can not rise up against their oppressor , they have to earn a living .

I see it as the Wealthy have to pretend be victimized so they can continue fucking the poor .

The wealthy do so much for the country and the ungrateful indigent want more and more from the poor little wealthy person . That some day the ungrateful indigent will break the back of the poor little wealthy person
[/quote]

BS

240

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I don’t think this board has much ability to be realistic . Business will do what ever is in it’s short term interest . Period.

Business would love to treat labor as a commodity . At that point labor will have no rights

[/quote]

The problem is, this board is being PRECISELY realistic about this. Business will do whatever is in its own interest, period, as you pointed out and part of that is protecting its own profits. And if the need arises, accelerating automation drastically, or cutting jobs. There is no way around that except to outlaw the cutting of jobs.

And labor IS a commodity. That you don’t like the fact is beside the point. It has never been treated as anything except a commodity by anyone, during the hey-day of Unions, before then, or currently. The fact that it is negotiated in different ways is nothing. It is still negotiated like all commodity prices.[/quote]

Automation is coming a few dollars an hour will not effect . I pointed this out before .
The biggest loss of jobs via automation is Google and it’s robotic trucks 3.5 million unemployed truck driver coming to America soon . They will be the new lazy people that people like to rail about