Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 61/28 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Executive Pay - Good Capitalism Bad Capitalism?
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 135 (746689)
01-09-2015 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by RAZD
01-09-2015 10:24 AM


Re: What someone gets vs what they earn
And I still have not seen anyone answer the question of what makes 1 hour of one person's life more valuable than 1 hour of another's life.
From the company's perspective, its how much they contribute to the bottom line.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by RAZD, posted 01-09-2015 10:24 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by RAZD, posted 01-09-2015 10:45 AM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 20 by ringo, posted 01-09-2015 11:34 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 135 (746700)
01-09-2015 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by RAZD
01-09-2015 10:45 AM


Re: What someone gets vs what they earn
And I still have not seen anyone answer the question of what makes 1 hour of one person's life more valuable than 1 hour of another's life.
From the company's perspective, its how much they contribute to the bottom line.
Curiously that does not answer the question, does it.
Sure it does: An hour of one person's life is worth more to the company than another person's when that hour adds more to the bottom line than the others does.
Not everyone's hour adds the same to the bottom line. The people's hours that add more are worth more.
Take a production line -- every person contributes a task that is essential to the final product. The bottom line is determined by how much that product sells for versus the cost of producing it. Is not every second spent on the production line tasks of same value to the bottom line?
No, it isn't. Some jobs contribute more to the production than others.
Some individuals work harder and produce more than others. Some people are more experienced and produce more.
Nobody contributes the exact same amount.
How does the floor manager fit in? Does he contribute to the production lines essential tasks? How does the secretary fit in? The boss?
There are about 100 people working 10 production lines about 100 feet to my right as I type this.
Last time I talked to you about how we run things here you called it a fantasy.
ABE:
Heh, you wanna talk about greed and stealing:
They're out there making the products we sell and I'm in here dicking around on the internet.
And I make way more money than they do.
Edited by Cat Sci, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by RAZD, posted 01-09-2015 10:45 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by RAZD, posted 01-09-2015 12:06 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 135 (746727)
01-09-2015 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by ringo
01-09-2015 11:34 AM


Re: What someone gets vs what they earn
So how do you determine what I "should" be paid?
You can't.
The actual contribution to the bottom line is too complicated to calculate.
So the company just offers a wage that they know is less than the contribution they figure.
Or, you figure out a wage for the whole group, determine how much overhead that adds, and see if you can add that cost to what your charging for your product. If the market will only allow for so much, then you base your wage on what you can afford. If that's $9/hour, then you gotta find people who are willing to do the work for that wage.
I don't contribute anything directly to the bottom line; I just make a more pleasant environment for the people who do.
It doesn't have to be direct to be a contribution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by ringo, posted 01-09-2015 11:34 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by ringo, posted 01-09-2015 12:10 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 25 by RAZD, posted 01-09-2015 12:50 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 135 (746739)
01-09-2015 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by RAZD
01-09-2015 12:06 PM


Re: What someone gets vs what they earn
No because you haven't explained how one person adds more value than another for the same increment of time.
Yes I did: It adds more to the bottom line.
This does not explain how this is measured.
You didn't ask how it was measured. But it isn't really measured all that much. Mostly its just estimated.
Taking money away from a worker adds to the bottom line, so the person who does this adds more to the bottom line ... is that how it works?
No, worker 1 produces more product than worker 2 does.
Worker 1 added more to the bottom line than worker 2 did.
But the number of dollars that they contributed isn't directly calculated.
So the job is more important than the person doing it
Of course it is.
anyone could do the "more valuable job" or the "less valuable" job
No, some jobs require a higher skill set than others.
but both jobs are valuable to the completion of the product -- if one of them is not complete the task as a whole is not complete and it cannot add to the bottom line.
Not always. Some jobs are rather ancillary. Like a second checker. If the first checker is really awesome then the second checker doesn't really do that much.
Yet when one is missing they all suffer, yes?
But not by the same amount. If the line operator is missing then the whole thing falls apart.
But if the second checker is missing they can still get the job done.
So why do you get paid more per hour than they do? What are you doing? Typing on a non-work website? Do the line operators have that opportunity?
Of course not. We don't even allow cellphones in the plant.
Indeed. Capitalism is the fantasy that you can steal life value from people to line your pockets and that this is a good system, good for society, good for general happiness.
Well, if the owner of this company wasn't stealing all of our life values, then none of us would be working here.
I'm glad he's stealing my life value and paying me a decent salary. Otherwise I couldn't afford my house.
I'm happy to sell my life value, that's what I signed up for.
The appeal to the bottom line is just a way to rationalize the feudal system that is endemic to corporate business based on greed and stealing.
Its working for me. I foresaw what corporate america was like and prepared myself to succeed.
Consider this: a secretary can be replaced by people writing their own letters, answering their own phones, making their own schedules, etc etc etc. -- does that not mean that the value of one hour of secretary time is the same value as one hour of time for these other people? According to the bottom line?
Or a janitor in the plant. The other workers could sweep the floors at the end of each shift and take their waste barrels to the dumpster, etc etc etc ... but that takes away from production time ... does that not mean that the value of one hour of janitor time is the same value as one hour of time for the workers? According to the bottom line?
There's more to it. The secretary doesn't have to take responsibility for making business decisions.
And the janitor isn't responsible for the quality of the product.
Those responsibilities add risk to the job, and you have to compensate people for that.
What you really have is a bunch of people working together for a common cause
Sort of, but not really. A lot of us in the office care a lot about the success of this company, our livelihoods depend on it. We're on salaries and our jobs are a significant aspect of our life.
Many of the plant workers couldn't care less about this place. They're just clocking in for a paycheck. If they're not working in this plant they'd just go work in the one down the road.
I'm pretty much married to this place and I really do care. The owner realizes that, he even gave me a nice Christmas bonus.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by RAZD, posted 01-09-2015 12:06 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by RAZD, posted 01-09-2015 1:31 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 135 (746741)
01-09-2015 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by ringo
01-09-2015 12:10 PM


Re: What someone gets vs what they earn
[/qs]So it's arbitrary.[/qs]
Not at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by ringo, posted 01-09-2015 12:10 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by ringo, posted 01-10-2015 10:42 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 135 (746742)
01-09-2015 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by RAZD
01-09-2015 12:50 PM


Re: What someone gets vs what they earn
So workers contribute to the bottom line by being underpaid and undervalued ...
If you paid them what they contributed then the company wouldn't make any money off them.
We're not a charity. We're for-profit.
And how are wages for management ceo salaries determined? How do you know they are not overpaid and overvalued and that their cost detracts from the bottom line?
I'm sure they're overpaid for what they contribute.
But they're the ones who make those decisions, so its up to them.
If they fuck it up then the company fails and we're all out of a job.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by RAZD, posted 01-09-2015 12:50 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 135 (746762)
01-09-2015 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by RAZD
01-09-2015 1:31 PM


Re: What someone gets vs what they earn vs what they are worth
So it "adds more to the bottom line" by a metric that "isn't really measured all that much."
Fascinating.
That's right.
So the real value of the worker's contribution to the bottom line is just an uninformed guess.
No, its an informed estimation.
Could you take the CEO and put him on the line and have him show how is salary is justified by his ability to produce ... at a rate proportional to his salary?
Wouldn't that be a metric that you could compare workers to and arrive at a system of valuing the work based on the time it frees up for the CEO to do other tasks?
That's retarded. The CEO's pay isn't determined by how fast he can operate the production lines. He hardly even goes out into the plant.
He makes business decisions and procures new business opportunities.
Of course it isn't. Take that person away and the job is not done.
One call to the temp service and we've got a busload of new eager workers.
So the second worker would need training to do the first worker job and then would be able to do it.
Not necessarily. For example, one position requires you to pass a basic math test, like arithmetic. People have applied for the job internally but failed that test.
If you can't do arithmetic then you can't do the job. Some people cannot do arithmetic.
Or my job, it requires a fairly high-level understanding of chemistry. You can't just "train" people for that. You need a whole education.
So you have a position of privilege and feel entitled to waste company time justifying it.
Like I said, I foresaw what corporate america was about. I went to college and got a degree so I could be "privileged" and "entitled".
You could take the gross profits from production, sales - costs, and divide by number of people and the company would still make a profit and pay people.
Could, but don't want to.
That's the myth of corporate work -- that you are being paid well for your actual value because somebody else is being paid less.
I consider myself being paid well, not because somebody is being paid less, but because I can easily afford a comfortable lifestyle.
But I'm not extravagant or lavish, I drive an old car and have an old house. I'm happy with that.
And you measure your success based on other people making less,
No, I don't.
rather than on what your real value is.
I'm working for somebody else. If they paid me what my real value was then they wouldn't be making any money off me. I realize this is a for-profit business and not a charity.
When a CEO takes 400 times what the line worker makes and you make twice as much as the line worker, the difference between you and the line worker is insignificant.
Tell that to the line worker.
Because they are undervalued and underpaid,
They're really not that valuable. Many of the jobs could be performed by robots.
But the robots are a little too valuable.
The white collar slave looking down on the blue collar slaves. As long as you don't look up you won't see how far down you are.
I don't care how far down I am.
I'm high enough to be comfortable, and that's good enough for me.
Was it a share in the company stock? Or was it less than a week of your salary? What was it in terms of the annual net profits? the Owner's salary?
We're privately owned. It was more than a week of my salary but less than two weeks.
Our owner is the CEO and president of the company. He started this business himself. He used to get up early, operate the lines and make the products, go and shower up, put on a suit, and then hit the streets and try to sell them.
He was successful. Then he hired people to do the work so he wouldn't have to. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by RAZD, posted 01-09-2015 1:31 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by RAZD, posted 01-09-2015 4:32 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 135 (746880)
01-10-2015 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by RAZD
01-09-2015 4:32 PM


Re: What someone gets vs what they earn vs what they are worth
Informed by arbitrary valuation.
No, its a very particular valuation: How much profit you're providing the company.
But you say that worker 1 should earn more than worker 2 if he produces more.
Because they're adding more to the bottom line.
The CEO adds more to the bottom line in a different way.
So did he interview for the job and was he approved by the company with salary set by the workers for the value they perceive he contributes?
He created the company and gave himself the job. They're weren't any workers at the time.
In a just system it is a two-way street. A one-way street is inherently unjust.
The company wasn't set up to make justice, it was set up to make a profit.
If the worker is sick and goes on sick leave you are paying two people for one job.
They get sick time and vacation time. (And a 401k)
But there's always extra people in the plant. You gotta have a little fluff.
Curiously when you look at companies that pay living wages instead of minimum wages they thrive as well if not better than the minimum wage ones ...
We don't pay minimum wage. You get really shitty workers if the pay is that low.
And feel superior to people working minimum wage on the production lines and thankful for the trickle down manna from the boss?
I don't feel superior. Its interesting that you have to impart emotional states onto me in order to make a point.
So having a steady guaranteed income that provides a comfortable lifestyle of living ...
I'd much rather earn it myself than have it handed to me for free from the government.
... would allow you to pursue avenues of interest to you rather than having to go to a white collar slave job with no paid overtime ...
But I don't have to. And it can't be a slave job if I'm free to leave.
A slavery system would be one that you are not allowed to opt-out of. You're in it by force. Like your 50's one.
And really, how much slaving away can I be doing if I'm posting here?
Being paid full value for your work is not charity, it is respect and it is justice.
And terrible business sense. You can't make a profit off the workers that way.
The value I add is waaay more than I'm being paid for. I understand that. I agree to that. The company has to make a profit.
It takes little effort for me to add this value to the company. What they pay me is worth it to me to do it.
What they pay me is worth it to them to have the value I'm adding, even if I post here during my down time.
If you're gonna pay me more for less effort, I might take the job. If I have to put in more effort for more pay, I might not.
There's a balance between how hard I want to work, and how much money I want to make.
My job works. I'm happy to have it. I enjoy the work I do.
If they can't afford that then should they be in business?
What do you mean should?
Anybody can start a business. If it can succeed (legally) then so be it.
Fascinating.
Uh, you're welcome, I guess.
I'm not seeing it, or maybe you're just easily amused.
So not that much, just enough to keep you shackled.
I'm not shackled because I can quit whenever I want.
And whatever "shackles" I'm wearing, I put on myself. I agreed to take this position when it was offered to me. There was no force at all and I was allowed to opt-out.
So he does know what it takes to run the line, he just doesn't think that other people doing it provide the same value?
No, you just want the company to make a profit off any additional workers. That's why the company is in business; to make a profit.
So if a decision does not lead to the company making a profit, like paying a worker the same amount that he brings in, then you don't make that decision.
And pay them less than he paid himself for the same work?
Of course.
If you got a sales call to make, you can hire somebody to run the production while you're gone. If you pay them the exact same amount of value that they are adding, then you might as well not hire them and let the production wait until you get back.
But if you pay them less than the value they add, the company makes a profit off them and the only decision that makes sense to make is to hire them. Now you're definately creating that new job instead of not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by RAZD, posted 01-09-2015 4:32 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by RAZD, posted 01-11-2015 2:08 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 57 by xongsmith, posted 12-01-2017 2:57 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 135 (746881)
01-10-2015 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by ringo
01-10-2015 10:42 AM


Re: What someone gets vs what they earn
Because its based on something rather than nothing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by ringo, posted 01-10-2015 10:42 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by ringo, posted 01-11-2015 1:16 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 135 (747086)
01-12-2015 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by RAZD
01-11-2015 2:08 PM


Re: What someone gets vs what they earn vs what they are worth
When he started paying people a lesser rate he was taking value from those people ...
You take value from those people and turn it into a profit for the company.
The white collar slave is like the frog in the pot of water, they'll keep sitting their in apparent bliss while the water is heated to a boil. Given crumbs ...
Meh, I'm happy.
What you are apparently missing is that the paradigm for sharing the profit based on contribution is not equitable.
I'm not missing it, I accept it.
So your "contribution" to the bottom line is the value you provide AND the value you willingly give away to the one's who take more profit than the value they contribute.
I have no problem with the company making a profit off of me. That's why I'm here.
So you like being a lazy slacker that steals time from your employer ...
You're a real piece of work.
If I do the work, I'm a blind slave. If I don't do the work, I'm stealing from the company.
Talk about facinating contradictions.
And really, this is all you have: A bunch of emotive insults.
I get that you don't like it. But I'm fine with it. I chose my path and I'm aware of it and I accept it.
But somehow I'm a blind slave anyways. I see what I'm involved in, and I have the freedom to leave whenever I want. But I'm still a blind slave.
Unless I don't work really hard: Then I'm a thief.
When all you have is emotion and insults, its no wonder that people don't take your ideas seriously.
is that any different than a person on unemployment or welfare getting paid for not working?
Well I do pay income tax.
If the only way a company can make it is to take value from other people then they aren't really being net producers, they are takers.
Except we product more than we take.
Another illusion -- unless you have actual job offers that pay the same or more for the same work, which I highly doubt.
Shows what you know.
I guess you don't know what synergy and valued added mean.
They add value. Value that you say to give to the worker.
And incur start-up and shut-down costs and mess up scheduling of product out and materials in, costs you don't incur if you maintain production at a steady pace.
Again, added value that you say should go to the worker.
So we're in the same place: If all of this added value just goes to the worker, then the company might as well just not do them.
If everybody was paid the same $/hr worked you can still have sales less costs show a profit ... the only difference is how you divide the pie, is it democratically shared or is it by feudal edict?
Privately owned for-profit companies are not democracies... like, at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by RAZD, posted 01-11-2015 2:08 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by RAZD, posted 12-01-2017 12:49 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 135 (824629)
12-01-2017 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by RAZD
12-01-2017 12:49 AM


Re: What someone gets vs what they earn vs what they are worth
So you like being a serf. Fascinating.
I like having a job slightly more than I like being homeless

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by RAZD, posted 12-01-2017 12:49 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 135 (824647)
12-01-2017 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by xongsmith
12-01-2017 2:57 PM


Re: What someone gets vs what they earn vs what they are worth
This rubs me the wrong way - you shouldn't be making the profit OFF of your workers, you should be making the profit off of your customers.
Then don't work for a company like that. I don't have a problem with it.
I know that the company I work for now is making money off of me - my bill rate is way higher than my pay rate - but that gives me leverage. I'm providing value to my employer and they know it. I could go provide that value to a different company if they don't play nice, and then they'll lose money - and they know that too.
The attitude should be more like making the profit WITH your workers.
You can run your company however you want.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by xongsmith, posted 12-01-2017 2:57 PM xongsmith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by RAZD, posted 12-01-2017 3:53 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 95 of 135 (824798)
12-03-2017 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by RAZD
12-01-2017 3:53 PM


Re: What someone gets vs what they earn vs what they are worth
Do you think you are getting a fair share of the profit the company makes?
I don't know and I don't care. The arrangement we've made is agreeable to me.
My pay wasn't derived from their profits. If I want a share in the profits then I can buy stock.
If you don't think you are getting a fair share of the profit the company makes then the company is exploiting you (with your willing participation in being exploited).
Yes, and I have sold that it in exchange for money. And that's fair.
And I have the option of using that money to get a share of the profits.
I'm happy. Where's the problem?
If you think you are getting a fair share of the profit the company makes then the company is making the profit WITH the workers.
I understand that, it's just not how we're doing business \_(ツ)_/

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by RAZD, posted 12-01-2017 3:53 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by RAZD, posted 12-04-2017 7:35 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 96 of 135 (824799)
12-03-2017 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Phat
12-02-2017 2:36 PM


Re: What if the owners or shareholders are the workers?
There's nothing stopping anyone creating co-ops, so why don't they?
Because the wealthy hold most of the investment money. They are not going to enter into a business deal where they have to provide startup costs and then get a shared return that is less than what they initially spent.
Unless they were just being nice.
I think another part of it is that it's harder to get a bunch of people to agree and take responsibility for everything than it is to just have one motherfucker in charge of the whole thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Phat, posted 12-02-2017 2:36 PM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by RAZD, posted 12-04-2017 7:11 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 106 of 135 (824849)
12-04-2017 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by RAZD
12-04-2017 7:35 AM


Re: What someone gets vs what they earn vs what they are worth
I wonder how much that satisfaction is due to knowing you get more wages than people working minimum wage.
Not at all.
My pay wasn't derived from their profits. If I want a share in the profits then I can buy stock.
You pay comes out of overhead, which is taken out of gross returns to result in net returns, eg - profit.
The larger your share is, the higher the overhead is, and if gross returns is not increased to compensate (raising prices), then it reduces net returns and profit. So it does come out of profit.
So, I bill clients for my time and they pay my employer at a bill rate and my pay is a portion of that payment. What's left goes towards overhead and profit.
If I'm not billing then the company isn't making money off me - that's where my leverage comes from.
Only if (a) your pay is large enough to leave you with the discretionary money (wages above living costs) to afford the stock and (b) if there is stock available to buy (not all companies issue stock).
Both of those are true.
Would I be right in assuming you have some investments (IRA, savings, mutual funds, etc)? That gives you future security (that people on minimum wage don't have) and a feeling (satisfaction) that you are getting somewhere in the economy. You just aren't tied to how well the company succeeds the way people that earn a share of the profit in a co-op do.
Right. And I don't care.
From Message 98:
I think another part of it is that it's harder to get a bunch of people to agree and take responsibility for everything than it is to just have one motherfucker in charge of the whole thing.
So sayeth the willing subservient serf to the smiling king.
I know you're full of shit when you have to resort to personal insults.
Guess you're not a big fan of democracy ...
In business? Yeah, not so much. But it really depends.
Why couldn't the "motherfucker in charge" be democratically elected by the people in the company? Isn't that how representative democracies work?
Sure, and they could be. I'm not saying they can't. Although, if one person starts the business by themself then you can't really have a democracy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by RAZD, posted 12-04-2017 7:35 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by Phat, posted 12-04-2017 11:17 AM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 126 by RAZD, posted 12-06-2017 12:23 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024