and equally unrelated to performance.
A CEO of Home Depot while it was in bad shape walked away with $250M.
The CEO of TWC will get $80M parachute, for a couple months' "employment", when Comcast takes it over
WTF?
I am saying their wages shouldn't be a concern.
If CEO's were a dime a dozen like no skill workers, they would be paid far less than they are. However, their skills are valued, and rewarded as such.
Now please elaborate why it isn't supply and demand. they are chosen by skill, and salary is negotiated.
P.S.
I have negotiated my own salary with employers. That's why I dislike union scale. It does not match what I can bargain for my skills.
Explain the case of Mark Pulido who single handedly erased 11 billion dollars by pushing an aquisition of a corrupt tech company. Overnight, 10,000+ employees 401k's and retirement funds were wiped out when the company stock went from $102/share to $14/share. He walked with a 100 million severance, a 5 year office/staff and car allowance...not to mention the stock grants as the deal went down.
Tell me how the mother er deserved to be valued and rewarded.
:facepalm
I'll tell you how, the BOD composed of execs and CEO's made sure they protected their own.
That's but a single example from a population of many. lol supply and demand.
bouton's example of Home Depot is apt and commonplace.
lol supply and demand.
You can always find cherry picked situations outside of what generally happens. I'm not familiar with this case like those of you who engage in class warfare.
Maybe so, but he didn't just take over. A board of directors, or something had to agree to this happening. Maybe he was just an uber-charlatan. He somehow negotiated his payout. Blame the majority stockholders.
happens.
i understand from another thread that you have blond hair.
does that look weird with the brown nose?
I imagine you would perform oral sex for any CEO in America at this rate.
Well, it doesn't surprise me that you make such a stupid joke, since you are such a stupid troll.
I must ask. You haven't contributed to that thread. Are you stalking me?
So close yet so ing cluelss. :facepalm
I've seen that, I know it, but you always seem to couple it with "but inflation will rise too." This is why I say it's a cop out - You say you are for an incremental increase, but then claim the effects to be nil. That's even worse..."I'm in favor of this thing that I think will do nothing."
Inflation "catches up" when wages stagnate, which is why this entire county is getting poorer. Yes, if the minimum wage is increased most people will demand more money, and they should. The majority of this county is over-worked, over-stressed, and well underpaid.
My certainly is based on demonstrable history. It's not foolish. It's the truth. The correlation is nowhere near 1:1, please take a look back at all wage increases and corresponding inflation rates if you really don't believe me. Perhaps it will help you change your mind.Your appeared certainty of not causing a 1:1 I think is foolish. I will not claim it will, but I do highly suspect it will be at least close.
I brought up CEO wages in relation to worker wages, it had nothing to do with jealousy, it was to paint a picture of how the productivity of the American worker has doubled over the last 30 years and they haven't seen their pay go up, but they have seen the people at the top of their companies receive a six fold increase. If being able to see what's wrong with that picture makes me a "jealous fool," then maybe I should re-examine the definitions of "jealous" and "fool."You bring up CEO wages. So what. In my mind, that just put you into the category of a jealous fool.
If you think that CEO wages are an accurate reflection of supply and demand, then your understanding of economics is both misguided, and intellectually lazy.CEO's effectively get supply and demand based wages. How can you see that as wrong?
I thought I elaborated on this once, but maybe I didn't. The reason I am "OK with it"... not for it... is because I believe people need to see how it factually plays out, plus, I am not all-knowing. It is possible I am wrong. I just really doubt it.
I don't agree with your reasoning of stagnate vs inflation. Over worked and under paid? I don't buy it as an excuse. Go to the root problem. There simply are less jobs out there than people qualified. That m,eans if someone refuses to do what the crybabies consider over worked, that there is always someone else who is a bit more mature and will do it.
Supply and demand...
Maybe that's because we have only had moderate increases that lag behind COLA. I though we were on topic as the idea on making a dramatic increase. Not historical small ones.
I fail to understand what relevance that has except to fuel jealousy. For the very few who make these CEO wages, it is meaningless in the big picture.
If you think it doesn't apply, then I would say you don't understand supply and demand.
CEO's negotiate their salaries and bonuses based on their perceived abilities that they bring to the company. The best candidate gets the job, partially based on what they ask for, demand, etc. There are few who are deemed capable of filling the position.
OK. Perhaps I misunderstood your stance on this issue. If you want to see how it factually plays out, the facts are written in history. When people have more money to spend, they end up spending more money. In an economy that is comprised of over 70% consumer spending, you cannot reasonably argue against this being a good thing. You can doubt that you’re wrong all you like, it won’t change the fact that you are.
You seem to have a functional misunderstanding of how labor demand differs from product demand. Labor demand curves don’t operate in the same basic manner that production demand curves do. Labor demand is a function of production demand.I don't agree with your reasoning of stagnate vs inflation. Over worked and under paid? I don't buy it as an excuse. Go to the root problem. There simply are less jobs out there than people qualified. That means if someone refuses to do what the crybabies consider over worked, that there is always someone else who is a bit more mature and will do it.
Supply and demand...
The reason there are fewer jobs than qualified people ties back again to American consumer becoming poorer and poorer. If consumers aren’t purchasing your products, you don’t need to hire more people to help make those products. Conversely, if more people are purchasing your products, you hire more people to meet production needs.
Yes, of course companies are more likely to higher labor at the lowest available cost for a qualified employee (which likely ties into why you think labor curves are the same as product curves) but the amount of that labor required has to do entirely with the amount of people purchasing that companies products. Want more jobs? Create more demand.
I am not against smaller incremental increases as opposed to a single large increase. I think it’s better for both employers and consumers to be able to plan for this than the economic shock (however short lived it would be) that would come with a larger jump. I do however believe that these smaller increases should continue to be increased by being tied to inflation and/or cost of living.Maybe that's because we have only had moderate increases that lag behind COLA. I though we were on topic as the idea on making a dramatic increase. Not historical small ones.
You fail to understand why workers shouldn’t share in the gains when their increased production makes their companies more profitable? The big picture here isn’t what the CEO makes. Stop focusing on just that part of it. Of course CEOs should make a lot of money. Their job is not easy, and their skill sets are hard to come by. The big picture here is that the CEOs shouldn’t be the only ones who see the benefits of their workers increased production. How do fail to understand the relevance in that? Do you openly offer any raise that’s ever been given to you to your boss?I fail to understand what relevance that has except to fuel jealousy. For the very few who make these CEO wages, it is meaningless in the big picture.
I didn’t say it doesn’t apply. I said it’s not an accurate reflection. There is quite a difference. Do you believe that every CEO in America is worth every penny of their salary, along with their bonuses even in years when their companies struggle overall? Do you think that in years when their workers become increasingly efficient by creating more output at continually reduced cost, it’s the CEO who is wholly responsible? None of the gains should go to the worker, right? Because “supply and demand” says that CEOs are the only employees of actual value to any good company and everyone else should just suck it up and stop being a crybaby.If you think it doesn't apply, then I would say you don't understand supply and demand.
CEO's negotiate their salaries and bonuses based on their perceived abilities that they bring to the company. The best candidate gets the job, partially based on what they ask for, demand, etc. There are few who are deemed capable of filling the position.
Im familiar with it because I ing lived it, dip .
Walmart Realizes It’s Losing Billions Of Dollars By Denying Workers More Hours
Walmart will begin adding worker hours this year as part of an effort to address complaints about empty shelves at the company’s understaffed stores. The retail giant’s top executives said that fixing the chain’s stocking problems could be worth $3 billion per year, a tacit acknowledgment that Walmart’s notorious efforts to wring productivity out of skeleton crews have hurt its bottom line.
Executives announced “plans to add labor hours as part of an effort to bolster ‘in-store execution’” at the company’s annual Year Beginning Meeting in March, Bloomberg reports. The news service did not offer specifics on how the plan will work, but Walmart has historically preferred scheduling workers for part-time hours to avoid paying them benefits required for full-time hours. Walmart workers around the country have gone on strike repeatedly in recent years, often listing the need for more staff hours among their reasons for protesting.
Regardless of how the company goes about staffing up, the decision to foreground in-store personnel issues at a major annual meeting confirms that Walmart is reconsidering the relationship between its workforce and its profits. Despite opening more than 600 new stores over the past five years, Walmart now employs 20,000 fewer people than it did in 2008. That aggressive decrease in staff eventually left stores unable to do the most basic thing for any retail company: putting merchandise on the shelves.
Stocking problems started to frustrate customers late last year, and Walmart cited concerns about empty shelves when it hired tens of thousands more workers for the holiday season. Months after making that temporary seasonal move, Walmart got downgraded by an investment research firm in a report that said the company’s “relentless focus on costs does seem to have taken some toll on in-store conditions and stock levels.”
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/201...urs-3-billion/
from what I hear, food suppliers fight like for grocery retailer shelf space, and now they find having won shelf space, WM is leaving the shelves empty?
Walmart ain't happy with the banking cartel
Wal-Mart sues Visa for $5 billion over card swipe fees
Wal-Mart Stores Inc this week sued Visa Inc for $5 billion, accusing the credit and debit card network of excessively high card swipe fees, several months after the retailer opted out of a class action settlement between merchants and Visa and MasterCard Inc.
Visa declined to comment on the suit, filed Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, where Wal-Mart is headquartered.
Visa and other card networks charge retailers fees, called swipe fees or interchange fees, each time a shopper uses a debit or credit card to pay.
In December, a federal judge in Brooklyn, N.Y., approved a $5.7 billion class action settlement between merchants and Visa and MasterCard despite the objections of thousands of retailers that complained it was inadequate.
Wal-Mart, Amazon.com Inc, and Target Corp were among those opting out of the monetary components of the settlement to have the freedom to seek damages on their own.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...A2Q2BJ20140327
Referring to post 45, I have witnessed Walmarts problem of less revenue to be customer dissatisfaction. It's bad enough that they have slow checkers but their smaller workforce means longer lines. I use to do all my grocer shopping at Walmart, but rarely go there now. I simply will mot buy meat, milk, eggs waiting so long in line. I assume many other people have done the same thing. The Winco stores in my area are almost as cheap, and employee owned. I think in trying to save money, they are cutting their own customer base.
http://www.slate.com/articles/busine...workers.2.htmlAt a private dinner Walmart held for market analysts last fall in Bentonville, Ark., a company vice president estimated Walmart takes in 18 percent of all food stamp spending in the U.S., a number Walmart’s David Tovar confirmed when I interviewed him. Meaning, Walmart took in more than $13 billion in revenue, or about 4 percent of Walmart’s total sales in the U.S.
So Walmart is likely the biggest single corporate beneficiary of SNAP, but it’s not just Walmart. A growing number of stores have baked food stamp funding into their business models since the Great Recession. The tally of stores authorized to accept food stamps has more than doubled since the year 2000, from big-box stores like Target and Costco to 7-Elevens and dollar stores.
This was predicted 20+ years ago with free trade/globalization. Domestic manufacturing workers laid off and then getting on the dole to buy the products that they used to make.
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2014/04/f...us-income.html
Free trade reduces US income
As I have repeatedly shown, the Rising Tide school of economic thought always leaves out the fact that the rising tide must inevitably come at the expense of workers in the wealthier societies:
Branko Milanovic, a visiting professor at CUNY who once served as a senior economist at the World Bank, has tracked worldwide changes in income growth from 1998 to 2008. Milanovic calculates that the middle class in China and India experienced 60 to 70 percent income growth from 1998 to 2008, while growth stalled for the middle and working classes in the United States.
The question then becomes, in Milanovic’s words, “Does the growth of China and India take place on the back of the middle class in rich countries,” especially the United States? Milanovic does not claim a direct causal relationship, but contends that the two “may not be unrelated.”...
Entering the fray, three economists – David Autor of M.I.T., David Dorn of the Center for Monetary and Financial Studies in Spain, and Gordon Hanson of the University of California, San Diego – have analyzed the employment consequences of globalized trade and technological advance.
In a series of papers they wrote together – “Trade Adjustment: Worker Level Evidence,” “The China Syndrome: Local Labor Market Effects of Import Compe ion in the United States,” and “Untangling Trade and Technology: Evidence from Local Labor Markets” — Autor, Dorn and Hanson find that in the case of trade with China, there are very painful consequences for specific categories of American workers.
Their findings show why voters are wary of free trade agreements.
Relative to the average employee in manufacturing, workers in industries that face stronger compe ion from imports “garner lower ulative earnings and are at elevated risk of exiting the labor force and obtaining public disability benefits,” Autor, Dorn and Hanson write.
Continue reading the main story
And if manufacturers are ranked on a scale of 1 to 100 for exposure to import compe ion from China, between 1992 and 2007, workers in firms high on the exposure scale lost nearly half a year’s pay, compared to workers in firms at the low end of the scale.
And this doesn't even begin to get into the fact that the expansion of domestic free trade into the international arena would INEVITABLY RESULT in the same sort of labor movement that one sees in the USA. Don't like the fact that your kids live in a different state? Well, in a true free trade regime, they might have to go to Bangladesh or Peru to find employment.
Free trade is logically incompatible with national sovereignty, the Cons ution, and the maximization of human liberty. This should be obvious, as it is an aspect of globalism and a major objective of those who advocate global government.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
