Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

The rich are getting richer

Page 2 of 13 [ 197 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 13  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

CrazyCatLord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2011
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,177

02 Apr 2012, 2:03 pm

Oldout wrote:
I am baffled how a democracy can allow the current trends of income distribution. We must be very careful or we may find that our government has become something we teach our children is horrible.


But any attempt to distribute income more fairly is SOCIALISM Image Which, if conservatives are to be believed, is the same as STALINISM Image And since Stalin was an atheist, we might as well call it SATANISM Image This proves that social justice and equality are evil Image



TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

02 Apr 2012, 2:05 pm

Oodain wrote:
much of the value produced by any company is already paid for, paying the ceo for it too leaves some money missing in the budget and that comes at the expense of others.

no value comes without cost and some of that cost isnt even factored into the economic system of today.


A CEO can in many cases make the company produce extra value, however I do agree that non-performing CEOs need to be fired without golden parachutes a hell of a lot more often. Part of what makes up management pay is that they are responsible for what every single one of their subordinates do and furthermore, a CEO's performance can be measured. Personally I like share-based payments combined with a modest salary. If someone gets lets a competitive base pay and then stock options that gives the CEO enormous incentive to make the company do well. I like employee stock programs overall for all employees because it incentives people to work harder and gives them an ownership stake in the company they work for.



AstroGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2011
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,582

02 Apr 2012, 3:23 pm

TM wrote:
People are paid based on the value they produce, a normal worker creates very little value a CEO can generate millions if not billions. The Chinese and Indian workers are being paid well for their country, now large parts of China is still poor, however 200 million out of 1 billion is quite a lot of people in the span of 30 years.

In practical terms a CEO produces no real value. He only manages it. It is the workers producing the actual goods. And although I do believe that some differences in pay are needed, I do not see why they have to be so extreme. No one needs to make millions a year, so use that money to either decrease the price of you products or to pay your workers more.



AstroGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2011
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,582

02 Apr 2012, 3:24 pm

CrazyCatLord wrote:
Oldout wrote:
I am baffled how a democracy can allow the current trends of income distribution. We must be very careful or we may find that our government has become something we teach our children is horrible.


But any attempt to distribute income more fairly is SOCIALISM Image Which, if conservatives are to be believed, is the same as STALINISM Image And since Stalin was an atheist, we might as well call it SATANISM Image This proves that social justice and equality are evil Image

:lol: Don't you love Republican logic?



TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

03 Apr 2012, 5:47 am

AstroGeek wrote:
TM wrote:
People are paid based on the value they produce, a normal worker creates very little value a CEO can generate millions if not billions. The Chinese and Indian workers are being paid well for their country, now large parts of China is still poor, however 200 million out of 1 billion is quite a lot of people in the span of 30 years.

In practical terms a CEO produces no real value. He only manages it. It is the workers producing the actual goods. And although I do believe that some differences in pay are needed, I do not see why they have to be so extreme. No one needs to make millions a year, so use that money to either decrease the price of you products or to pay your workers more.


That's outright wrong, the CEO more than anyone influences the strategy of a company.



AstroGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2011
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,582

03 Apr 2012, 5:58 am

TM wrote:
AstroGeek wrote:
TM wrote:
People are paid based on the value they produce, a normal worker creates very little value a CEO can generate millions if not billions. The Chinese and Indian workers are being paid well for their country, now large parts of China is still poor, however 200 million out of 1 billion is quite a lot of people in the span of 30 years.

In practical terms a CEO produces no real value. He only manages it. It is the workers producing the actual goods. And although I do believe that some differences in pay are needed, I do not see why they have to be so extreme. No one needs to make millions a year, so use that money to either decrease the price of you products or to pay your workers more.


That's outright wrong, the CEO more than anyone influences the strategy of a company.

But he doesn't produce anything physical. In any case, he (or she) is payed far more than needed to live off of, even farm more than needed to live off of very comfortably. No one needs to make millions of dollars a year. Some of that money should go to the workers.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

03 Apr 2012, 9:47 am

The rich are getting richer???? No kidding????

The second million is always easier to get than the first million.
ruveyn



TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

03 Apr 2012, 10:07 am

AstroGeek wrote:
TM wrote:
AstroGeek wrote:
TM wrote:
People are paid based on the value they produce, a normal worker creates very little value a CEO can generate millions if not billions. The Chinese and Indian workers are being paid well for their country, now large parts of China is still poor, however 200 million out of 1 billion is quite a lot of people in the span of 30 years.

In practical terms a CEO produces no real value. He only manages it. It is the workers producing the actual goods. And although I do believe that some differences in pay are needed, I do not see why they have to be so extreme. No one needs to make millions a year, so use that money to either decrease the price of you products or to pay your workers more.


That's outright wrong, the CEO more than anyone influences the strategy of a company.

But he doesn't produce anything physical. In any case, he (or she) is payed far more than needed to live off of, even farm more than needed to live off of very comfortably. No one needs to make millions of dollars a year. Some of that money should go to the workers.


Producing something physical is easy, if it wasn't then the manufacturing jobs wouldn't be outsourced to the place where the wages are the lowest. Being able to improve the sales process, increase efficiency, putting together a long term strategy, ensuring that the economic and managerial resources are available to execute the strategy. Negotiations and so on, does require a lot of competence and isn't something that can be done by anyone.

It's not about what someone needs or doesn't need to make, its about who creates the most value for the company. If a worker elects to quit that person can usually be easily replaced, if a CEO elects to quit that person is a lot harder to replace. If 90/100 people could do what you do, then you are easy to replace and thus have less value than if only 1/100 could do your job. In the case of a CEO its usually 1 in tens of thousands.

The workers should improve upon themselves if they want to be paid more, go to night school, get into a management program or change their job.



AstroGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2011
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,582

03 Apr 2012, 10:18 am

TM wrote:
Producing something physical is easy, if it wasn't then the manufacturing jobs wouldn't be outsourced to the place where the wages are the lowest. Being able to improve the sales process, increase efficiency, putting together a long term strategy, ensuring that the economic and managerial resources are available to execute the strategy. Negotiations and so on, does require a lot of competence and isn't something that can be done by anyone.

It's not about what someone needs or doesn't need to make, its about who creates the most value for the company. If a worker elects to quit that person can usually be easily replaced, if a CEO elects to quit that person is a lot harder to replace. If 90/100 people could do what you do, then you are easy to replace and thus have less value than if only 1/100 could do your job. In the case of a CEO its usually 1 in tens of thousands.

The workers should improve upon themselves if they want to be paid more, go to night school, get into a management program or change their job.

Everything should be about what people need. There should be some variation in income, of course, but it should not be as ridiculous as what it is now.

As for the workers improving upon themselves, I ask you this: would our society be able to function without those workers? At present the answer is no. Society needs the workers, so the workers deserve to have their needs met. In any case, upwards social mobility will still leave the majority in the lower class.



Chipshorter
Velociraptor
Velociraptor

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jan 2012
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 477
Location: The Georgian Quarter of The Pool of Life, The Centre of The Creative Universe

03 Apr 2012, 10:22 am

TM wrote:
A CEO can in many cases make the company produce extra value, however I do agree that non-performing CEOs need to be fired without golden parachutes a hell of a lot more often. Part of what makes up management pay is that they are responsible for what every single one of their subordinates do and furthermore, a CEO's performance can be measured. Personally I like share-based payments combined with a modest salary. If someone gets lets a competitive base pay and then stock options that gives the CEO enormous incentive to make the company do well. I like employee stock programs overall for all employees because it incentives people to work harder and gives them an ownership stake in the company they work for.


Executive and directorial remuneration in the Western world and multinationally is one of many things that makes corporate governance out to be asinine. After looking into how remuneration works at the level, I came to the conclusion that it is an an act of elitist nepotism.

TM wrote:
That's outright wrong, the CEO more than anyone influences the strategy of a company.

I beg to differ with that statement, a CEO is only one influential force on a company's strategy. Stakeholders, shareholders, governments, the market environment, and both the organisation's culture and resources influence strategy.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,964
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

03 Apr 2012, 10:25 am

Oldout wrote:
I am baffled how a democracy can allow the current trends of income distribution. We must be very careful or we may find that our government has become something we teach our children is horrible.


If I have kids I already plan on being quite open about the flaws of our government, if that paints a horrible picture well I suppose it can't be helped.


_________________
We won't go back.


Oldout
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Feb 2012
Age: 74
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,539
Location: Reading, PA

03 Apr 2012, 10:27 am

The idea that CEOs singly create millions or billions is ludricrous. Successful companies realize that some of the lowest paid workers are just as key to the company's success.

Also, these same CEOs manage to get significant compensation even when their companies have bad or off years.

I believe we must acknowledge that corporate America has created an enormous problem by preaching teamwork etc. , yet treating most employees as mere objects to be manipulated and abused to the greatest extent possible.



TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

03 Apr 2012, 10:28 am

Chipshorter wrote:
TM wrote:
A CEO can in many cases make the company produce extra value, however I do agree that non-performing CEOs need to be fired without golden parachutes a hell of a lot more often. Part of what makes up management pay is that they are responsible for what every single one of their subordinates do and furthermore, a CEO's performance can be measured. Personally I like share-based payments combined with a modest salary. If someone gets lets a competitive base pay and then stock options that gives the CEO enormous incentive to make the company do well. I like employee stock programs overall for all employees because it incentives people to work harder and gives them an ownership stake in the company they work for.


Executive and directorial remuneration in the Western world and multinationally is one of many things that makes corporate governance out to be asinine. After looking into how remuneration works at the level, I came to the conclusion that it is an an act of elitist nepotism.

TM wrote:
That's outright wrong, the CEO more than anyone influences the strategy of a company.

I beg to differ with that statement, a CEO is only one influential force on a company's strategy. Stakeholders, shareholders, governments, the market environment, and both the organisation's culture and resources influence strategy.


More of an act of "The going for a CEO is X, so if we decide to pay Y, we won't get a stellar CEO" supply and demand is at work here. Shareholders, Governments, the Market and Organizational culture influence strategy, however the ultimate decision lays on the CEO as does the result of those decisions. The supply of workers is extremely high, the supply of solid CEOs is not. Pick your poison, communism where everyone gets what they need, rather than what they deserve or capitalism where everyone gets what they deserve , rather than what they need.



Sweetleaf
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 35
Gender: Female
Posts: 34,964
Location: Somewhere in Colorado

03 Apr 2012, 10:30 am

TM wrote:
AstroGeek wrote:
TM wrote:
AstroGeek wrote:
TM wrote:
People are paid based on the value they produce, a normal worker creates very little value a CEO can generate millions if not billions. The Chinese and Indian workers are being paid well for their country, now large parts of China is still poor, however 200 million out of 1 billion is quite a lot of people in the span of 30 years.

In practical terms a CEO produces no real value. He only manages it. It is the workers producing the actual goods. And although I do believe that some differences in pay are needed, I do not see why they have to be so extreme. No one needs to make millions a year, so use that money to either decrease the price of you products or to pay your workers more.


That's outright wrong, the CEO more than anyone influences the strategy of a company.

But he doesn't produce anything physical. In any case, he (or she) is payed far more than needed to live off of, even farm more than needed to live off of very comfortably. No one needs to make millions of dollars a year. Some of that money should go to the workers.


Producing something physical is easy, if it wasn't then the manufacturing jobs wouldn't be outsourced to the place where the wages are the lowest. Being able to improve the sales process, increase efficiency, putting together a long term strategy, ensuring that the economic and managerial resources are available to execute the strategy. Negotiations and so on, does require a lot of competence and isn't something that can be done by anyone.

And how much physical labor have you done. BS it's 'easy' maybe you oughta go out and spend a day with some hard laborers and see how easy it is to do hard physical labor most of the day....that is what these CEO's should do to instead of looking down on those who actually produce the products and goods.

It's not about what someone needs or doesn't need to make, its about who creates the most value for the company. If a worker elects to quit that person can usually be easily replaced, if a CEO elects to quit that person is a lot harder to replace. If 90/100 people could do what you do, then you are easy to replace and thus have less value than if only 1/100 could do your job. In the case of a CEO its usually 1 in tens of thousands.

The workers should improve upon themselves if they want to be paid more, go to night school, get into a management program or change their job.


Does it occur to you that sometimes people simply aren't payed enough regardless of their skill level? cause that happens to.


_________________
We won't go back.


Oldout
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 9 Feb 2012
Age: 74
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,539
Location: Reading, PA

03 Apr 2012, 10:42 am

Let's not confuse value with the appearance of value (higher stock price). Again my point is teamwork is successful when it is true teamwork. Look at many championship sport's teams the got there by being a team, not because of one individual.



TM
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Feb 2012
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,122

03 Apr 2012, 10:49 am

Sweetleaf wrote:

Does it occur to you that sometimes people simply aren't payed enough regardless of their skill level? cause that happens to.


In my experience, that tends to be people overvaluing their own skill level or the value of it. Having a doctorate in philosophy does not qualify you for much beyond saying "Do you want fries with that?"