Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is not 1960, many jobs are automated now; production is up but that is because of computers and robotics and newer more efficient manufacturing methods, but Warren would have you believe it's all because employees just work harder now then in 1960.
So how does that explain the transfer of capital over time from workers to shareholders?
Shouldn't there have been a dramatic increase in the pay of workers who create these automated machines? Why was there not ? Why have low and middle wages remained stagnant while shareholder value and executive pay increased?
Quote:
Back in 1960 we were still just about the only major manufacturing industrial complex in the world. WWII did have an effect, it made the US the king of the hill. Once Europe and Japan got to their feet, we had to compete, which means no more huge bloated salaries for unskilled workers.
If it was really about overall competitiveness, why did shareholder value of American companies rise? Why did executive compensation among companies rise?
So if workers' pay was "eaten up by inflation", then why wasn't shareholder value eaten up by inflation? Why wasn't executive pay "eaten up by inflation"
Why do wages perform inversely to inflation, while executive salaries and shareholder values correlate positively to inflation?
Quote:
We went off the gold standard and started printing money. The more money in the supply the more goods will cost.
It's the government devaluing the dollar that took the $14.
So if the government took that, then why do we have such a large deficit?
If the government took that, how did CEO pay rise so quickly? How did stock markets increase in value so quickly? How did banks make so much money during this time period?
So how does that explain the transfer of capital over time from workers to shareholders?
Shouldn't there have been a dramatic increase in the pay of workers who create these automated machines? Why was there not ? Why have low and middle wages remained stagnant while shareholder value and executive pay increased?
If it was really about overall competitiveness, why did shareholder value of American companies rise? Why did executive compensation among companies rise?
Anyone can be a shareholder. All you need is a few bucks to get started.
Executive pay has increased because it is more difficult to stayy in business nowadays. Employers are currently dealing with a recession/depression, Obamcare, competing overseas, and evertime the President opens his mouth he is talking about a new plan that will cost them more money.
Companies cannot afford to make any mistakes. They want the very best executives they can find. Not some mediocre guy to just manage things like times were good. They need the absolute best of the best to navigate Obama's economy and that costs money.
Executive compensation is like any other employees compensation. A few years ago when unemployment was less than 5%, workers were getting paid well. Executives not as much because there job wasn't as valuable as it is today.
Now that unemployment is high uner Obama's economy workers are less valuable and shouldn't expect a raise. They aren't in demand.
So if workers' pay was "eaten up by inflation", then why wasn't shareholder value eaten up by inflation? Why wasn't executive pay "eaten up by inflation"
Why do wages perform inversely to inflation, while executive salaries and shareholder values correlate positively to inflation?
So if the government took that, then why do we have such a large deficit?
If the government took that, how did CEO pay rise so quickly? How did stock markets increase in value so quickly? How did banks make so much money during this time period?
Inflation effects everyone the same. A dollar will spend no more for a poor person than a rich person. Obviously, the poorer the person the more inflation will affect them.
We have a deficit becasue we spend more than we take in.
Stock markets are effected by inflation also. 10,000 on the DOW is not the same as it was 15 yeaers ago. The number maty be bigger but that doesn't mean the stock is more valuable. Thanks to government caused inflation.
Banks make money because the government gives it to them after they print it. The banks turn around and invest/loan it at the lower value. Before the inflation hits. It's really just robbery. The best solution would be to let the private sector coin money and get the government out of it altogether.
Executive pay has increased because it is more difficult to stayy in business nowadays. Employers are currently dealing with a recession/depression, Obamcare, competing overseas, and evertime the President opens his mouth he is talking about a new plan that will cost them more money.
Companies cannot afford to make any mistakes. They want the very best executives they can find. Not some mediocre guy to just manage things like times were good. They need the absolute best of the best to navigate Obama's economy and that costs money.
So why was executive compensation increasing faster than wages prior to the recession, and prior to Obamacare?
Furthermore, how do you justify the high compensation of all these executives that ran their firms into the ground? Obviously it has nothing to do with performance.
Quote:
Executive compensation is like any other employees compensation. A few years ago when unemployment was less than 5%, workers were getting paid well.
horse sh*t, workers pay has been eroding for 50 years.
Quote:
Executives not as much because there job wasn't as valuable as it is today.
then how do you explain the rise in executive compensation that took place in the 80's, 90's, and 2000's?
Quote:
Now that unemployment is high uner Obama's economy workers are less valuable and shouldn't expect a raise. They aren't in demand.
then how do you explain the decline in worker compensation relative to CEO's that took place in the 80's, 90's, and 2000's?
So stock market gains don't go to workers as much as you claim.
Quote:
No one is stopping the non-wealthiest 90% from buying stock and joining the 10%.
bullsh*t, the Fed is stopping them by shoveling money to these firms and driving up the share prices like they have been for decades.
If share prices are rising faster than peoples' wages are , then that creates income inequality. Therefore these policies we have that are designed to increase share prices are producing gains that are not being shared across society, they are accruing to the wealthiest Americans.
inflation hurts creditors and savers, and benefits debtors. If you made a loan for 100k, and the purchasing power of that $100k is eroded through inflation, then the creditor is hurt and the debtor is not.
Likewise, if you own LAND , and suddenly the banks start lending out money for people to buy land, then you are going to come out ahead. The people who RENT because they can't afford land are getting screwed because their rent will increase.
I could draw up dozens of examples.
Quote:
A dollar will spend no more for a poor person than a rich person. Obviously, the poorer the person the more inflation will affect them.
First you say inflation effects[sic] everyone the same.
Now in the very next line, you say the opposite, that the poorer the person the more inflation will affect them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
