Should We Drop Minimum Wage?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
62

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

Using your reasoning abilities , I would say this is stupid , if Mac Donaldâ??s can not pay itâ??s workers a wage they can live on then maybe they should not be allowed to employ people

Wages are proportioned to the lowest point a company can get away with paying.

Maybe we should just allow people to live better on the social net we have built for them, meaning Welfare.
[/quote]

McDonalds can pay the guy who mops the floors and refills the napkin things a livable wage, but they aren’t in business because they like paying people, they are in business to make money. Requiring that they double what they pay their bottom of the barrel, expendable, no-talent-or-intellect required employees means that they will simply keep fewer of those people around and require more of them. So now, 1/3 of the people who worked at McDonalds are now without ANY wage. AND because everything now costs more because everyone is having to pay their lowest producing employees more, those 2/3 of the McDonalds employees who were able to keep their jobs still can’t afford shit.

Very ethical, huh?

And no, we shouldn’t allow them to live better on the welfare safety net. Have you been paying attention at all here?

64

It’s a political impossibility, but no, we shouldn’t have a minimum wage. It creates unemployment. Like any price floor, it results in a surplus.
I’d even argue it’s a worse deadweight loss than redistributive taxation, from an ethical standpoint.

The people it hurts are the people who would have taken a sub-minimum wage job; these are people who are either not very rich, or young. I think it’s important to learn what a job is (punctuality, politeness, efficiency) and people are at a disadvantage in that regard if they spend too many of their employable years unemployed. Then they become unemployable. And then they can’t teach their children about jobs. If we stopped artificially creating unemployment, that cycle might end.

65

Minimum wage is fine if it is set below the market value. As a sort of stop-gap for those who are too stupid to know they could walk across the street and get another job perhaps it does something.

In the example Push gave of $22 in Montana for unskilled labor I think everyone should be against it for the reasons Alisa writes above this post.

66

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I am not sure if I get all you are trying to say , but may be if we were not paying the CEO eight hundreds times the amount we are paying our entry level employees we could pay our employees a livable wage and not even have to raise the price of our product[/quote]

You don’t pay anyone anything…so quit using the pronoun “we”.

You are a collectivist and this is your biggest downfall.

If you don’t like how a certain company behaves don’t do business with them and quit spouting your ignorance in the forums…for the last time.

67

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
I am not sure if I get all you are trying to say , but may be if we were not paying the CEO eight hundreds times the amount we are paying our entry level employees we could pay our employees a livable wage and not even have to raise the price of our product

You don’t pay anyone anything…so quit using the pronoun “we”.

You are a collectivist and this is your biggest downfall.

If you don’t like how a certain company behaves don’t do business with them and quit spouting your ignorance in the forums…for the last time.[/quote]

I have employed people and I have paid them well.

I will use any word I feel , at any time.

Go collect toll from some one crossing you vast domain in your fantasy land and quit trying to act like you know what you are talking about

68

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
There should be no intervention in the wage by government…period.

This creates disemployment by raising costs on employers who now must lay-off of their most marginally productive employees. Suddenly, street sweepers are out of work because no one thinks they’re worth $7.75/hr.

They should jack the minimum wage up, if for no other reason to piss Lifty off :slight_smile: On a more serious note we need a livable wage, after we have everybody that wants to work having job then we can have a minimum wage
.

Yes it will be the lowest paid person in the work force. If a person takes a job at $5/hr, then obviously that job is fine by him. Yes, he may need another job, but obviously that person is in a position that he may need two or three jobs.

Yet, if you cannot hire him at the wage the government is demanding then, he gets no job. The sad thing is that the one time I told someone the reason that I could not hire them, I told them that for the job that I could hire them for, I could not pay them. They pleaded with me to pay them under the table for a lower wage.

So, it is obvious that there is people that will work for under minimum wage and have no problem with it. The government (which does not work anywhere close to minimum wage) thinks these people should be paid more, well that’s fine but when businesses cannot even hire someone to train them to be in a position to get more money how are the businesses supposed to eventually pay them that wage the government wants them to pay.

I sure if he took the job at five dollars an hour it was not OK with him , it was all he could get, If some one can not be in business and pay him a wage he can live on maybe they should not be employing people.

It is obvious to me that any body that would work for minimum wage or below would have many problems making so little money, but would be so desperate that they have no choice

Well if I paid someone $4/hr to put up fliers, run errands, deliver papers, pick up papers, etc I could hire more people instead of just contracting the work out to courier businesses and having to put more stress on my higher paid employees to do these marginal utility tasks.

See with economics it is all about the dollar. I need X amount of workers with a Y skill and I pay them Z to do W amount of work, I could hire A amount of workers with B (no skill) skill and pay them C (below minimum wage) to do D amount of work. Instead I have to hire less than A with the equal B skill, pay higher than C, and do more than D which cuts down on the marginal utility, increases marginal cost, and decreases marginal units produced per worker. On top of that, it also cuts down on the marginal utility of skilled workers since more load has to go onto them and/or they cannot be paid as much.

So what this comes out to is that with minimum wage, I higher less workers, for more money, and get less marginal units per worker. Which as well raises my average total cost, making it more expensive for my clients.

I am not sure if I get all you are trying to say , but may be if we were not paying the CEO eight hundreds times the amount we are paying our entry level employees we could pay our employees a livable wage and not even have to raise the price of our product

Well then the CEO leaves to work somewhere else and a less skilled CEO is the only person the company can attract due to the lower wage. This leads to some bad decisions being made causing drops in profitability. The company now needs to urgently increase its shareprice to attract more investment so it lays off 10% of the workforce in order to balance the books. Now instead of getting minimum wage, a load of guys are drawing unemployment benefit from the government.[/quote]

I think one of the problems with public Corporations is that The CEOâ??s priority is seldom
The Corporations best interest. Most of the time their priority is their own compensation package

I think comparing CEOs is like comparing NFL coaches.

These CEOs can cause a stock to drop in price, so they can leverage their purchasing power, they have the ability to save up certain factors and use them all at once to increase the price of the stock so they can leverage their selling price. They can do this over and over or can do this to an extreme,

I think to understand my point; you would have to compare private Corporations to Public Corporations.

I disagree that the CEOs have a lot to do with Corporations success. Their job is to run the Company properly, over see sales, production, legal matters, accounting and the likes. They do not have much to do with the market.

69

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Stronghold wrote:
pittbulll wrote:

…Maybe we should just allow people to live better on the social net we have built for them, meaning Welfare.

…And no, we shouldn’t allow them to live better on the welfare safety net. Have you been paying attention at all here?

I missed Pit’s post at first. I read it here and couldn’t believe my eyes. I had to go back and see that he really had typed that. “Maybe we should just allow people to live…on welfare.” Wow! Pitt can really swing to the left on some issues but this time he’s way out in the Andromeda Galaxy somewhere. Even his superhero, Slick Willie, would’ve bitch slapped him for saying that.

[/quote]

I am not endorsing people to go on Welfare; I am trying to discourage them so it is more attractive to work than to stay on the public dole. It makes little sense for a Mother of three to try and work when her public assistance is more than any one can pay.Income as well as Insurance

70

[quote]Stronghold wrote:
pittbulll wrote:

Using your reasoning abilities , I would say this is stupid , if Mac Donald�¢??s can not pay it�¢??s workers a wage they can live on then maybe they should not be allowed to employ people

Wages are proportioned to the lowest point a company can get away with paying.

Maybe we should just allow people to live better on the social net we have built for them, meaning Welfare.

McDonalds can pay the guy who mops the floors and refills the napkin things a livable wage, but they aren’t in business because they like paying people, they are in business to make money. Requiring that they double what they pay their bottom of the barrel, expendable, no-talent-or-intellect required employees means that they will simply keep fewer of those people around and require more of them. So now, 1/3 of the people who worked at McDonalds are now without ANY wage. AND because everything now costs more because everyone is having to pay their lowest producing employees more, those 2/3 of the McDonalds employees who were able to keep their jobs still can’t afford shit.

Very ethical, huh?

And no, we shouldn’t allow them to live better on the welfare safety net. Have you been paying attention at all here?

[/quote]

Your whole post is speculation, they would probably increase their price, but so would everybody else. So there would still be strong competitive factors

71

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

Your whole post is speculation, they would probably increase their price, but so would everybody else. So there would still be strong competitive factors [/quote]

My post is not speculation. Artificially raise the cost of employing people and fewer people will be employed. It doesn’t matter how un-warm and fuzzy it makes you feel, in ecomonics, employees are goods and at the level of the french fry guy, expendable ones at that.

In regards to your use of the word “we”…you are right, you can use whatever word you want. What you cannot do, however, is use your own use of that word to justify imposing hardship upon others to give you your warm and fuzzies. You can have your collectivist views, but you have no right to impose them upon others. Want people to make a “living wage”? Then go fucking hire everyone yourself and pay them $15 an hour for doing something a third grader could.

The fact of the matter is, the minimum wage and welfare each contribute to the “need” for the other. It’s a vicious cycle that punishes those who are doing what they are supposed to (making themselves marketable and supporting themselves without needing legislation to determine that they are useful) for working hard.

You never answered my question from earlier. If one could make enough to survive simply by working 40 hrs/week at an unskilled job like frying taters, then how many more people are going to become 40 hour/week tater cooks and do you understand the economic consequences of an economically underachieving population?

72

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

I am not endorsing people to go on Welfare; I am trying to discourage them so it is more attractive to work than to stay on the public dole. It makes little sense for a Mother of three to try and work when her public assistance is more than any one can pay.Income as well as Insurance[/quote]

Thats true. I collect unemployment but it is hard to find a job that will pay me more than my unemployment, as here in MI, the unemployment rate is 15% and in Detroit is like 32%, the result: I dont go back to work until I can find a job paying more than my unemployment. I know some of you may have negative comments, but since no one here is contributing any money towards my existence its no point.

73

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Using your reasoning abilities , I would say this is stupid , if Mac Donaldâ??s can not pay itâ??s workers a wage they can live on then maybe they should not be allowed to employ people. [/quote]

Er… why?

[quote]
Wages are proportioned to the lowest point a company can get away with paying.[/quote]

So wrong it fucking hurts. Economics 101. Labor markets. Come on man, this shit is elementary.

Or we could lower the net and make it stretchy so that it only catches people once they’ve actually smacked the bottom.

74

[quote]Stronghold wrote:
pittbulll wrote:

Your whole post is speculation, they would probably increase their price, but so would everybody else. So there would still be strong competitive factors

My post is not speculation. Artificially raise the cost of employing people and fewer people will be employed. It doesn’t matter how un-warm and fuzzy it makes you feel, in ecomonics, employees are goods and at the level of the french fry guy, expendable ones at that.

In regards to your use of the word “we”…you are right, you can use whatever word you want. What you cannot do, however, is use your own use of that word to justify imposing hardship upon others to give you your warm and fuzzies. You can have your collectivist views, but you have no right to impose them upon others. Want people to make a “living wage”? Then go fucking hire everyone yourself and pay them $15 an hour for doing something a third grader could.

The fact of the matter is, the minimum wage and welfare each contribute to the “need” for the other. It’s a vicious cycle that punishes those who are doing what they are supposed to (making themselves marketable and supporting themselves without needing legislation to determine that they are useful) for working hard.

You never answered my question from earlier. If one could make enough to survive simply by working 40 hrs/week at an unskilled job like frying taters, then how many more people are going to become 40 hour/week tater cooks and do you understand the economic consequences of an economically underachieving population?[/quote]

The more I speak to people that claim an education in economics, the more I feel either they do not grasp the entire picture or the schools are teaching them only the half of economics they want them to grasp.

There is nothing warm and fuzzy about my perspective,

You are speculating again that a livable wage would contribute to more welfare.

"You never answered my question from earlier. If one could make enough to survive simply by working 40 hrs/week at an unskilled job like frying taters, then how many more people are going to become 40 hour/week tater cooks and do you understand the economic consequences of an economically underachieving population? "

I do not think we would have more TATER COOKS , I think we would say you are a hamburger cook we will pay you a quarter an hour more , Oh you want to be a cashier we will pay fifty cents an hour more . I think this is more of your misguided speculation

As far as me breaking some social rule by expressing my opinion, you would be as guilty as I,by your standards. You think life has to oppress people, and any attempt to minimize the hardship on the less advantaged of us is going to make the sky fall. It wonâ??t period. The people that run this world want you to think if you do it any other way than they prescribe the world as we know it will cease to exist and too many people buy that.

75

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

I have employed people and I have paid them well.[/quote]

He was saying that the collective “we” aren’t the ones who pay CEOs. You don’t pay CEOs (unless your GOVERNMENT forces you too) so kindly STFU about CEO pay.

76

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
There should be no intervention in the wage by government…period.

This creates disemployment by raising costs on employers who now must lay-off of their most marginally productive employees. Suddenly, street sweepers are out of work because no one thinks they’re worth $7.75/hr.

They should jack the minimum wage up, if for no other reason to piss Lifty off :slight_smile: On a more serious note we need a livable wage, after we have everybody that wants to work having job then we can have a minimum wage
.

Yes it will be the lowest paid person in the work force. If a person takes a job at $5/hr, then obviously that job is fine by him. Yes, he may need another job, but obviously that person is in a position that he may need two or three jobs.

Yet, if you cannot hire him at the wage the government is demanding then, he gets no job. The sad thing is that the one time I told someone the reason that I could not hire them, I told them that for the job that I could hire them for, I could not pay them. They pleaded with me to pay them under the table for a lower wage.

So, it is obvious that there is people that will work for under minimum wage and have no problem with it. The government (which does not work anywhere close to minimum wage) thinks these people should be paid more, well that’s fine but when businesses cannot even hire someone to train them to be in a position to get more money how are the businesses supposed to eventually pay them that wage the government wants them to pay.

I sure if he took the job at five dollars an hour it was not OK with him , it was all he could get, If some one can not be in business and pay him a wage he can live on maybe they should not be employing people.

It is obvious to me that any body that would work for minimum wage or below would have many problems making so little money, but would be so desperate that they have no choice

Well if I paid someone $4/hr to put up fliers, run errands, deliver papers, pick up papers, etc I could hire more people instead of just contracting the work out to courier businesses and having to put more stress on my higher paid employees to do these marginal utility tasks.

See with economics it is all about the dollar. I need X amount of workers with a Y skill and I pay them Z to do W amount of work, I could hire A amount of workers with B (no skill) skill and pay them C (below minimum wage) to do D amount of work. Instead I have to hire less than A with the equal B skill, pay higher than C, and do more than D which cuts down on the marginal utility, increases marginal cost, and decreases marginal units produced per worker. On top of that, it also cuts down on the marginal utility of skilled workers since more load has to go onto them and/or they cannot be paid as much.

So what this comes out to is that with minimum wage, I higher less workers, for more money, and get less marginal units per worker. Which as well raises my average total cost, making it more expensive for my clients.

I am not sure if I get all you are trying to say , but may be if we were not paying the CEO eight hundreds times the amount we are paying our entry level employees we could pay our employees a livable wage and not even have to raise the price of our product

Well then the CEO leaves to work somewhere else and a less skilled CEO is the only person the company can attract due to the lower wage. This leads to some bad decisions being made causing drops in profitability. The company now needs to urgently increase its shareprice to attract more investment so it lays off 10% of the workforce in order to balance the books. Now instead of getting minimum wage, a load of guys are drawing unemployment benefit from the government.

I think one of the problems with public Corporations is that The CEOâ??s priority is seldom
The Corporations best interest. Most of the time their priority is their own compensation package

I think comparing CEOs is like comparing NFL coaches.

These CEOs can cause a stock to drop in price, so they can leverage their purchasing power, they have the ability to save up certain factors and use them all at once to increase the price of the stock so they can leverage their selling price. They can do this over and over or can do this to an extreme,

I think to understand my point; you would have to compare private Corporations to Public Corporations.

I disagree that the CEOs have a lot to do with Corporations success. Their job is to run the Company properly, over see sales, production, legal matters, accounting and the likes. They do not have much to do with the market.

[/quote]

So the market value of a company is not linked to sales, production, legal matters, accounting etc?

And obviously I just used CEO becuase that was the term that the previous example had given. We need to include CFO, COO and CTO in this.

77

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
pittbulll wrote:

I have employed people and I have paid them well.

He was saying that the collective “we” aren’t the ones who pay CEOs. You don’t pay CEOs (unless your GOVERNMENT forces you too) so kindly STFU about CEO pay.
[/quote]

NFW:)

78

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
There should be no intervention in the wage by government…period.

This creates disemployment by raising costs on employers who now must lay-off of their most marginally productive employees. Suddenly, street sweepers are out of work because no one thinks they’re worth $7.75/hr.

They should jack the minimum wage up, if for no other reason to piss Lifty off :slight_smile: On a more serious note we need a livable wage, after we have everybody that wants to work having job then we can have a minimum wage
.

Yes it will be the lowest paid person in the work force. If a person takes a job at $5/hr, then obviously that job is fine by him. Yes, he may need another job, but obviously that person is in a position that he may need two or three jobs.

Yet, if you cannot hire him at the wage the government is demanding then, he gets no job. The sad thing is that the one time I told someone the reason that I could not hire them, I told them that for the job that I could hire them for, I could not pay them. They pleaded with me to pay them under the table for a lower wage.

So, it is obvious that there is people that will work for under minimum wage and have no problem with it. The government (which does not work anywhere close to minimum wage) thinks these people should be paid more, well that’s fine but when businesses cannot even hire someone to train them to be in a position to get more money how are the businesses supposed to eventually pay them that wage the government wants them to pay.

I sure if he took the job at five dollars an hour it was not OK with him , it was all he could get, If some one can not be in business and pay him a wage he can live on maybe they should not be employing people.

It is obvious to me that any body that would work for minimum wage or below would have many problems making so little money, but would be so desperate that they have no choice

Well if I paid someone $4/hr to put up fliers, run errands, deliver papers, pick up papers, etc I could hire more people instead of just contracting the work out to courier businesses and having to put more stress on my higher paid employees to do these marginal utility tasks.

See with economics it is all about the dollar. I need X amount of workers with a Y skill and I pay them Z to do W amount of work, I could hire A amount of workers with B (no skill) skill and pay them C (below minimum wage) to do D amount of work. Instead I have to hire less than A with the equal B skill, pay higher than C, and do more than D which cuts down on the marginal utility, increases marginal cost, and decreases marginal units produced per worker. On top of that, it also cuts down on the marginal utility of skilled workers since more load has to go onto them and/or they cannot be paid as much.

So what this comes out to is that with minimum wage, I higher less workers, for more money, and get less marginal units per worker. Which as well raises my average total cost, making it more expensive for my clients.

I am not sure if I get all you are trying to say , but may be if we were not paying the CEO eight hundreds times the amount we are paying our entry level employees we could pay our employees a livable wage and not even have to raise the price of our product

Well then the CEO leaves to work somewhere else and a less skilled CEO is the only person the company can attract due to the lower wage. This leads to some bad decisions being made causing drops in profitability. The company now needs to urgently increase its shareprice to attract more investment so it lays off 10% of the workforce in order to balance the books. Now instead of getting minimum wage, a load of guys are drawing unemployment benefit from the government.

I think one of the problems with public Corporations is that The CEO�¢??s priority is seldom
The Corporations best interest. Most of the time their priority is their own compensation package

I think comparing CEOs is like comparing NFL coaches.

These CEOs can cause a stock to drop in price, so they can leverage their purchasing power, they have the ability to save up certain factors and use them all at once to increase the price of the stock so they can leverage their selling price. They can do this over and over or can do this to an extreme,

I think to understand my point; you would have to compare private Corporations to Public Corporations.

I disagree that the CEOs have a lot to do with Corporations success. Their job is to run the Company properly, over see sales, production, legal matters, accounting and the likes. They do not have much to do with the market.

So the market value of a company is not linked to sales, production, legal matters, accounting etc?

And obviously I just used CEO becuase that was the term that the previous example had given. We need to include CFO, COO and CTO in this.[/quote]

A well run company is an administrative procedure mostly. But making sure everybody does his job and making sure all the bills are paid on time making sure no one is breaking the law, does not make some one buy your product, I do not care how well you run a company that sells condoms for dogs. A company that makes condoms for people if run reasonably well will out produce the company that makes condoms for dogs. The market is the most important factor.

I agree about CFO we also left off the 20 Vice Presidents

79

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

As far as me breaking some social rule by expressing my opinion, you would be as guilty as I,by your standards. You think life has to oppress people, and any attempt to minimize the hardship on the less advantaged of us is going to make the sky fall. It wonâ??t period. The people that run this world want you to think if you do it any other way than they prescribe the world as we know it will cease to exist and too many people buy that.
[/quote]

So you think that people who work at minimum wage jobs as unskilled laborers do so because they are oppressed?

We have public schools. We have near universal access to higher education if they are willing to work hard.

While it won’t make the sky fall, it will create more hardship and place a burden upon those who are working harder (“less fortunate” is a crock of shit. Go to your local McDonalds and ask the guy working the fryer what his GPA in high school was if he even graduated). You seem to think that legisliation has zero economic impact, but this is understandable since you have ZERO understanding of how economies and labor markets operate. What far too many people believe is that all people with money got there by somehow taking from others and those without deserve to be supported entirely on the backs of those who are working for their living. I forget who on here said it, but “the problem with the US today is that half of the population has been tricked into thinking that our largest economic emergency is people making money.”

This has nothing to do with expressing opinions. You want me to assign myself to a collective “we”.

80

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
There should be no intervention in the wage by government…period.

This creates disemployment by raising costs on employers who now must lay-off of their most marginally productive employees. Suddenly, street sweepers are out of work because no one thinks they’re worth $7.75/hr.

They should jack the minimum wage up, if for no other reason to piss Lifty off :slight_smile: On a more serious note we need a livable wage, after we have everybody that wants to work having job then we can have a minimum wage
.

Yes it will be the lowest paid person in the work force. If a person takes a job at $5/hr, then obviously that job is fine by him. Yes, he may need another job, but obviously that person is in a position that he may need two or three jobs.

Yet, if you cannot hire him at the wage the government is demanding then, he gets no job. The sad thing is that the one time I told someone the reason that I could not hire them, I told them that for the job that I could hire them for, I could not pay them. They pleaded with me to pay them under the table for a lower wage.

So, it is obvious that there is people that will work for under minimum wage and have no problem with it. The government (which does not work anywhere close to minimum wage) thinks these people should be paid more, well that’s fine but when businesses cannot even hire someone to train them to be in a position to get more money how are the businesses supposed to eventually pay them that wage the government wants them to pay.

I sure if he took the job at five dollars an hour it was not OK with him , it was all he could get, If some one can not be in business and pay him a wage he can live on maybe they should not be employing people.

It is obvious to me that any body that would work for minimum wage or below would have many problems making so little money, but would be so desperate that they have no choice

Well if I paid someone $4/hr to put up fliers, run errands, deliver papers, pick up papers, etc I could hire more people instead of just contracting the work out to courier businesses and having to put more stress on my higher paid employees to do these marginal utility tasks.

See with economics it is all about the dollar. I need X amount of workers with a Y skill and I pay them Z to do W amount of work, I could hire A amount of workers with B (no skill) skill and pay them C (below minimum wage) to do D amount of work. Instead I have to hire less than A with the equal B skill, pay higher than C, and do more than D which cuts down on the marginal utility, increases marginal cost, and decreases marginal units produced per worker. On top of that, it also cuts down on the marginal utility of skilled workers since more load has to go onto them and/or they cannot be paid as much.

So what this comes out to is that with minimum wage, I higher less workers, for more money, and get less marginal units per worker. Which as well raises my average total cost, making it more expensive for my clients.

I am not sure if I get all you are trying to say , but may be if we were not paying the CEO eight hundreds times the amount we are paying our entry level employees we could pay our employees a livable wage and not even have to raise the price of our product

Well then the CEO leaves to work somewhere else and a less skilled CEO is the only person the company can attract due to the lower wage. This leads to some bad decisions being made causing drops in profitability. The company now needs to urgently increase its shareprice to attract more investment so it lays off 10% of the workforce in order to balance the books. Now instead of getting minimum wage, a load of guys are drawing unemployment benefit from the government.

I think one of the problems with public Corporations is that The CEO�?�¢??s priority is seldom
The Corporations best interest. Most of the time their priority is their own compensation package

I think comparing CEOs is like comparing NFL coaches.

These CEOs can cause a stock to drop in price, so they can leverage their purchasing power, they have the ability to save up certain factors and use them all at once to increase the price of the stock so they can leverage their selling price. They can do this over and over or can do this to an extreme,

I think to understand my point; you would have to compare private Corporations to Public Corporations.

I disagree that the CEOs have a lot to do with Corporations success. Their job is to run the Company properly, over see sales, production, legal matters, accounting and the likes. They do not have much to do with the market.

So the market value of a company is not linked to sales, production, legal matters, accounting etc?

And obviously I just used CEO becuase that was the term that the previous example had given. We need to include CFO, COO and CTO in this.

A well run company is an administrative procedure mostly. But making sure everybody does his job and making sure all the bills are paid on time making sure no one is breaking the law, does not make some one buy your product, I do not care how well you run a company that sells condoms for dogs. A company that makes condoms for people if run reasonably well will out produce the company that makes condoms for dogs. The market is the most important factor.

I agree about CFO we also left off the 20 Vice Presidents
[/quote]

So finding out what the market wants and how to arrange capital to supply it seems to be quite an important part of that whole entrepreneur stuff, huh?

Because if that is so, those CEOS actually might have a role to play after all.

As an example, not too long ago, Nokia was a producer of rubber boots and little else.