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.
If we are going to fight on "arbitrary numbers" then why is the millions (like it is now) alright? I look at it like at 500k a year, I figure must people wouldn't know what to do with it. Plus, it still has people in the highest tax bracket.
If we are going to fight on "arbitrary numbers" then why is the millions (like it is now) alright? I look at it like at 500k a year, I figure must people wouldn't know what to do with it. Plus, it still has people in the highest tax bracket.
Millions are OK because that is how it currently works. And always has. If someone is going to suggest a change to the process surely they must have some justification for the amount they are gong to suggest. If you lived somewhere with no speed limits and decided to implement them you wouldn't just set it arbitrarily, would you?
If you figure most CEOs wouldn't know what to do with 500K I think you are very mistaken. Also, would that 500K be same for a CEO in NYC vs. one in Iowa?
And wouldn't you be concerned with losing the best CEOs we have to foreign companies? That amount is so far below what other countries would pay.
I honestly don't know if foreign companies would leave the US. For instance, InBev bought out Busch, they kept all of the US breweries and most of the US jobs. No idea how many jobs were cut and/or the wage slashes (if that happened.)
At what level? Sure they kept many of the production oriented jobs, but most of the upper management team at AB was removed. I'm from St. Louis and I know many people that were forced to retire when the acquisition happened.
Quote:
Originally Posted by manderly6
This gets better and better. So now you want to compare what a CEO makes to a part time worker.
I'm sure there are people that typically work 10-12 hours so let's just use min. wage @ 10 hours a week to make it look larger.
Let's also not forget that the 20.7 million is not their salary it is salary + bonuses (which are mostly stock options). Let's not pretend that the CEO of a company gets the same amount every year and....most of that is based on the performance of the company as stock fluctuates greatly. In October WMT stock was worth 72 bucks, when the CEO was paid that was probably 6-7 bucks higher per share. That's probably a loss of almost 2 million right there.
Well, NBA players have salary caps that athletes complain about but haven't been able to change that, so it's possible that some powerful organization may one day will impose a maximum limit on CEO's salary as well without a government law.
NBA players don't have much public support for eliminating their salary caps so it stays, so I doubt overpaid CEOs will have any greater leverage if it happens to them... and NBA players have fanatical fans which CEOs do not.
If China becomes the leading economic power in the future, lazy corrupt CEOs might be more worried about being executed instead of a salary cap.
1. NBA teams have salary caps not players.
2. An NBA team is not the same as a corporation. The NBA is the corporation each team is a franchise of that corporation.
3. You keep using the NBA as an analogy, what about the MLB. They don't have a salary cap, they seem to be doing just fine.
I would say 50 times but keep the stock options and what not.
It is this sort of financial ignorance that will end up costing us our country.
Why 50? Why not 2 or 10 or 500?
You are just tossing out a feel good number that comes out of nowhere. It's all ignorant babble.
In 2012 the CEO of Oracle Corporation ORCL Lawrence J. Ellison received $96,160,696.00 in compensation making him the highest paid CEO in America.
Ok, trot out your socialist mind numbing BS now but Oracle employees 120,000 people who earn an average wage of $91,000 each for $45/hr.
Let's put the numbers in context, if we confiscated all of Lary Ellison's ill gotten gains (forget that he started the company) dividing the amount equally to each employee each would receive $801.34 which would equate to a $0.40/hr raise.
Whippee, I am about to orgasm in muh pance!
I know why you favor such a scheme, others might not see through you but I do, it's because somehow you feel entitled to some of that money even though you never worked for it. You feel the world owes you a living because you think it so but you are entitled to nothing. Zero, nada, zip!
But I am wrong, you are entitled to one thing and that is the opportunity to make yourself rich if that is what you want. You are entitled to get your money exactly the same way Larry Ellison got his and that is to work hard and make the right choices. That, my dear sir, is all you are entitled to.
I try to - my latest car, for example, is a Ford that was proudly assembled in Dearborn Michigan. Even the sticker in the window happily declares that, which is one of the reasons I went for it. I also minimize purchase of cheap, imported junk in general (though I don't really buy a lot of anything), and refuse to shop at Wal-mart unless I am buying the same product as I'd get someplace else and there really is no American-made equivalent.
There still is some consumer stuff made in this nation, if you look for them. Some jeans are still made in this nation - a quick Google search will reveal, that, and apparently some Motorola cell phones are assembled in the US, which surprised me, though I haven't needed a new cell phone in ages.
Still, your post is really a slide away from the original question an attempt to attack the poster (me) vs. confronting the facts.
So, here's the reality: there are some products for which there are either no American made product lines or none that may meet various people's needs. Just because I thus have to buy a foreign product in those cases does not make me "part of the problem." Outsourcing was well under-way long before I was even old enough to have a job, much less spend any real money on much of anything. In short, I didn't really have any choice in the matter, and while I do what I can, that ship has sailed along time ago.
Each of us should do what we can, but to act as if anybody who has ever purchased a foreign-made product "doesn't care about America" and thus we shouldn't address the economic polices that got us here because "we are all guilty" makes about as much sense as saying that anyone who as ever told a white-lie is a "criminal liar" and thus we shouldn't have laws. It's a half-baked attempt to sidestep the issue and pretend "everyone is equally guilty," which we all know to be false.
So, how about you? I assume you only buy America-made products, right?
Nope I buy quality at a price point I can afford, but like yourself I prefer american made goods, and the reason for my question is to figure out if we can have an honest discussion, or if you are the typical liberal hypocrite. I would hope you understand that it is hard to have an honest discussion with someone who wants everybody to live in tiny houses, only buy good produced in countries where they agree with the policies, never use any energy, and want us all to ride bicycles everywhere we go; while they drive a foreign car, live in a mcmansion, their vehicle gets 15 mpg, they keep their house 90 degrees in the winter and 60 in the summer, and just want to control how others operate.
That being said for as much as I defend the rights of Walmart and other businesses to operate as they need to for their business model as long as it is legal, I only actually buy canned good and things there where the product is the same everywhere and they just happen to have the lowest costs.
Now as for the outsourcing, yes there are plenty of jobs that have went overseas, some of that is the costs benefits, some of it was driven by unions, some of it is new government rules & regulations. Like it or not when they can build factories where the safety rules are almost non existent, there is no EPA, and people are happy to work as many hours as the company wants as they have no unions or organizations, then companies have a vested interest in looking into moving the company there.
As others have said there were some very big reasons the US had such an advantage in manufacturing after WW2, but even prior to that they had a huge advantage of having natural resources in the area all controlled by one country. The United States is and has always been very wealthy with natural resources.
With other countries opening themselves up to more development, the United States helping to develop those companies, the US government and environmentalists constantly attacking those companies and their processes, and the lower taxes for imports throughout the world, it was bound to hurt the US economy eventually.
The good news is that the jobs will come back, as the standard of living increases in those countries, as the government start doing more to protect themselves and their resources, and as the US people start to demand more quality as opposed to more junk. It will take time, but even now you read about companies bringing back manufacturing, my cousin is in production management, he works for a company that set up 2 plants in China, and had plans to export jobs there, only to change their minds and sale both Chinese plants. the thing is there has to be a balance between caring for the environment, taxing the companies, union demands, and government regulations. Right now I am concerned because the government is making things worse instead of better, but that can change.
Millions are OK because that is how it currently works. And always has. If someone is going to suggest a change to the process surely they must have some justification for the amount they are gong to suggest. If you lived somewhere with no speed limits and decided to implement them you wouldn't just set it arbitrarily, would you?
So under your logic slavery would be permissible in 1850 and into 1860 just because it was tradition like the million dollar wages are now.
My justification is the separation of the rich and poor. The US is ranked 93rd in income equality according to a Gini coffecient of 45.0. Below countries as Iran, Russia and China. Also the Top 1 percent has held 42.1% of the financial (non-home) wealth compared to 4.7% for the bottom 80 percent the top 19 hold the next 53.5% percent.) Oh and FYI, the share of the bottom 90 percent has dropped dramatically since 1998. Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power
Quote:
If you figure most CEOs wouldn't know what to do with 500K I think you are very mistaken. Also, would that 500K be same for a CEO in NYC vs. one in Iowa?
I think it should. Here's why, if you say set it by state of operation, everyone will pick a high COL area like New York or Los Angeles over say Ames, IA.
Quote:
And wouldn't you be concerned with losing the best CEOs we have to foreign companies? That amount is so far below what other countries would pay.
I am sure there are some "good CEOs" but there are a good number of the bad CEOs who would leave as well. You know the ones who said sayanora when they jumped off the sinking ship with their golden parachute.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mizzourah2006
I'm sure there are people that typically work 10-12 hours so let's just use min. wage @ 10 hours a week to make it look larger.
I'll go with 15 which seems to be the average lower bound. At minimum wage, it the Walmart CEO would be 3,660 times that of their lowest paid employee.
Quote:
Let's also not forget that the 20.7 million is not their salary it is salary + bonuses (which are mostly stock options). Let's not pretend that the CEO of a company gets the same amount every year and....most of that is based on the performance of the company as stock fluctuates greatly. In October WMT stock was worth 72 bucks, when the CEO was paid that was probably 6-7 bucks higher per share. That's probably a loss of almost 2 million right there.
Exactly and I am not saying they should be paid in stocks and bonuses (especially if revenue is up.) This is as oppose to those who made 9.6 million when the company died and they had to pay out the CEO's golden parachute or even their golden coffin. The average CEO makes 9.7 million as of 2011 source: NBC News To show a comparison, the median pay for workers was $39,300. 246 times the amount.
It is this sort of financial ignorance that will end up costing us our country.
Why 50? Why not 2 or 10 or 500?
You are just tossing out a feel good number that comes out of nowhere. It's all ignorant babble.
In 2012 the CEO of Oracle Corporation ORCL Lawrence J. Ellison received $96,160,696.00 in compensation making him the highest paid CEO in America.
Ok, trot out your socialist mind numbing BS now but Oracle employees 120,000 people who earn an average wage of $91,000 each for $45/hr.
Let's put the numbers in context, if we confiscated all of Lary Ellison's ill gotten gains (forget that he started the company) dividing the amount equally to each employee each would receive $801.34 which would equate to a $0.40/hr raise.
Whippee, I am about to orgasm in muh pance!
I know why you favor such a scheme, others might not see through you but I do, it's because somehow you feel entitled to some of that money even though you never worked for it. You feel the world owes you a living because you think it so but you are entitled to nothing. Zero, nada, zip!
But I am wrong, you are entitled to one thing and that is the opportunity to make yourself rich if that is what you want. You are entitled to get your money exactly the same way Larry Ellison got his and that is to work hard and make the right choices. That, my dear sir, is all you are entitled to.
No you aren't entitled to every penny but what makes say Larry Ellison worth every penny of that 96 million dollar income he had. Or what about Mike Duke of Walmart making 20 million income he had, should he be entitled to all of that when he has employees on welfare?
I argue that the problem with our economic recovery is the rich is getting richer by chewing up and spitting out the poor when they are done with them. Ellison not as much but definitely those like Duke.
So under your logic slavery would be permissible in 1850 and into 1860 just because it was tradition like the million dollar wages are now.
My justification is the separation of the rich and poor. The US is ranked 93rd in income equality according to a Gini coffecient of 45.0. Below countries as Iran, Russia and China. Also the Top 1 percent has held 42.1% of the financial (non-home) wealth compared to 4.7% for the bottom 80 percent the top 19 hold the next 53.5% percent.) Oh and FYI, the share of the bottom 90 percent has dropped dramatically since 1998. Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power
The Gini coefficient in this country has not changed in a statistically significant way in 20 years. Why is this suddenly such a problem, whereas in the 1990's it was not?
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.
