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.
Back in the 1960's CEO compensation to average worker compensation was around 20 to 1, now its over 300. Seems like those corporate board could spread that compensation around more fairly.
I happen to agree that this apparent change in the "societal contract" is not good, and we should seek changes.
But that's a far cry from the other 15 pages of "rich bad" and "poor bad"
Cut capital gains taxes, it's worked since the 1980's and the GOP tells us it's the answer to all problems: bad economy, good economy, measles, space invasions.
Cut taxes!!! Larry Kudlow says it fixes everything.
Back in the 1960's CEO compensation to average worker compensation was around 20 to 1, now its over 300. Seems like those corporate board could spread that compensation around more fairly.
To those who defend the absurd and still increasing inequality, what is so good about a tiny, egoistic elite increasingly governing the world (and destroying it in the process)?
I can understand that the elite itself defends that, but why would people such as the middle class who are actually suffering from this system (even if they don't notice) defend it?
I didn't even mention CEO's. No idea why you are so focused on them.
But yes, I am in favor of a maximum allowed factor (for instance 5) when dividing the highest income in a given company by the lowest income in the same company.
I think you need a better factor.
the idea that even the manager of a McDonald's should only earn say $75/hr when he's responsible for successfully producing the burgers and restaurant experience, versus the recently-hired burger flipper making y'all's "livable" $15/hr wage is sheer inanity. If that McDonald's doesn't sell manage it's food supply, and sell more burgers, he's out of a job. The burger flipper, who turns out his burgers at the same speed and they sell the same # of burgers (no loss of demand) - he's going to always get his $15/hr
I never bought into that "more responsibility" argument because when top managers fail, all that happens is that they get fired, and they get a couple more million dollars/euros in the process due to their lucrative contracts. They are not held responsible for the damage their incompetence may have caused.
I have seen it here in Europe repeatedly. The managers that made the Portuguese BES financial empire collapse are still rich, nor in jail. They did not have to pay for the damages they caused.
In short, they don't deserve the absurd income edge (which is often hidden in complex compensation packages). A factor of 5 is fine in my view. It would keep managers down to earth and at the same time redistribute income from the top to the bottom.
To those who defend the absurd and still increasing inequality, what is so good about a tiny, egoistic elite increasingly governing the world (and destroying it in the process)?
Assuming what you say might actually be true, then it is totally 100% your fault for letting them have that power.
You don't have the guts to stand up and do the right thing, so you take the easy way out.
Your proposed solution will not only fail miserably, it will exacerbate the problem and make it worse.
You falsely believe that somehow limiting their Wealth will reduce their power, when in fact it will not.
Worse than that, by attempting to limit their Wealth, you'll only succeed in spreading it to more like-minded people.
So, instead of a tiny egoistical group, you'll have a larger egoistical group, still wielding the same power.
If and when you ever get the courage to stand up and do the right thing, it won't matter how much Wealth someone has or doesn't have, and you'll be in control, not them.
I didn't even mention CEO's. No idea why you are so focused on them.
But yes, I am in favor of a maximum allowed factor (for instance 5) when dividing the highest income in a given company by the lowest income in the same company.
Then you'll lose.
You bought into the propaganda and disinformation hook, line and sinker.
Federal law requires the 3% of businesses that are publicly-traded corporations to report the total compensation of CEOs.
The total compensation consists of both cash and non-cash benefits.
Few make any attempt to report cash only benefits, or actually break down the compensation into cash and non-cash benefits.
One instance where it was broken down and reported correctly was the CEO of Anthem Blue Cross/Blue Shield, who received total compensation of $23 Million, but $16 Million was non-cash benefits, mostly stock options which are rigidly controlled by federal law, and $7 Million in cash.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight
Back in the 1960's CEO compensation to average worker compensation was around 20 to 1, now its over 300.
Um, that was the 1960s.
Apparently, you don't understand this is 2019.
And, apparently, you don't understand that in the 1960s, there were few multi-national corporations, and CEOs were recruited regionally.
By the 1970s, CEOs were recruited across the US, instead of regionally.
Then CEOs were recruited in the US and Canada.
And, then, the 5 English-speaking States.
And, finally, CEOs were recruited globally.
Apparently, you're not aware that a number of CEOs are foreign-born, and not US citizens.
You can attempt to restrict CEO compensation, but the only thing that will happen is US corporations will move their headquarters out of the US to States where they can pay CEOs the compensation the demand based on the Law of Supply & Demand.
You act like anyone can be a CEO, so why aren't you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by yspobo
Welfare reform trapped many single mothers in student loan debt.
That's was a choice, not a necessity.
There's plenty of free federal financial aid, free State financial aid, and free university financial, not to mention the several $100 Million in free private financial aid.
There are literally hundreds of free private education grants for which only single mothers are eligible, just as there are hundreds for which only veterans are eligible, or only people of any status in a paralegal program, or legal assistant program, or administrative assistant program, and hundreds more for those seeking education or training in the medical field and other many other fields.
If they're too damn lazy to fill out an application for those free grants, that's not my problem.
No matter how many times you say that its not true.
It is true.
Show us the Law, Theory or Corollary of Economics to prove it isn't true.
We'll wait, but before you attempt that, you should probably learn the difference between cash and assets, because you're still having difficulties with the concept.
Perhaps you can explain how we redistribute a $3.7 Million Van Gogh painting.
Should we use an Exact-o knife to cut it up, or may we use scissors?
And, if we are to use scissors, tell us, O Great One, should we use safety scissors with the rounded ends, or are we allowed to use regular scissors or even pinking shears?
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.
