Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 88 (8890 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 02-16-2019 8:13 AM
141 online now:
AZPaul3, caffeine, Percy (Admin), RAZD (4 members, 137 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 847,560 Year: 2,597/19,786 Month: 679/1,918 Week: 267/266 Day: 4/35 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3456
...
9Next
Author Topic:   Executive Pay - Good Capitalism Bad Capitalism?
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19730
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 16 of 135 (746686)
01-09-2015 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Minnemooseus
01-09-2015 12:47 AM


Re: What someone gets vs what they earn
Slacker, who has "earned" $1000, but is paid $10,000

And what about the person who earns $10,000 but is paid $8,000? Are they not being robbed by the company?

This is the average pay for a woman compared to a man for doing the same work ... and you can also compare pay rates by race (which ties us to the Are you Racist? Homophobic? etc thread and unconscious racist\bias\bigotry).

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.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Minnemooseus, posted 01-09-2015 12:47 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-09-2015 10:33 AM RAZD has responded

  
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 responded

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

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19730
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.0


(1)
Message 18 of 135 (746694)
01-09-2015 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by New Cat's Eye
01-09-2015 10:33 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.

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?

How does the floor manager fit in? Does he contribute to the production lines essential tasks? How does the secretary fit in? The boss?

When you actually look at the bottom line you see that the way to maximize it involves minimizing payment to workers regardless of their real value, that the ruling paradigm is greed and what you can steal from workers value for their time.

You can pay everyone the same rate, sell the product for the same value and still operate a company.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : last P


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-09-2015 10:33 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-09-2015 11:03 AM RAZD has responded

  
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 responded

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

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16118
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 20 of 135 (746713)
01-09-2015 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by New Cat's Eye
01-09-2015 10:33 AM


Re: What someone gets vs what they earn
Cat's Eye writes:

From the company's perspective, its how much they contribute to the bottom line.


That's too simplistic. I don't contribute anything directly to the bottom line; I just make a more pleasant environment for the people who do. And they could hire somebody for half what they pay me.

So how do you determine what I "should" be paid?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-09-2015 10:33 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-09-2015 12:06 PM ringo has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19730
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 21 of 135 (746726)
01-09-2015 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by New Cat's Eye
01-09-2015 11:03 AM


Re: What someone gets vs what they earn
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.

No because you haven't explained how one person adds more value than another for the same increment of time.

Not everyone's hour adds the same to the bottom line. The people's hours that add more are worth more.

This does not explain how this is measured. 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, it isn't. Some jobs contribute more to the production than others.

So the job is more important than the person doing it -- anyone could do the "more valuable job" or the "less valuable" job ... 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.

... Some people are more experienced and produce more.

So experience is a factor. Does that add up year by year? Does training help?

Nobody contributes the exact same amount.

Yet when one is missing they all suffer, yes?

There are about 100 people working 10 production lines about 100 feet to my right as I type this.

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?

Curiously I was a designer for a company with several production lines. I designed new product AND how the lines were set up for the new product. I worked with the line leaders and workers to maximize production with ergonomics and part flow and how they actually worked. Some jobs were better done by left-handers, and some by tall people. Fitting people was as important as the tools provided and the training in using the tools.

Does the value of the work change if a person is left-handed or tall?

Last time I talked to you about how we run things here you called it a fantasy.

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.

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.

Which begs the question of what value you provide to the bottom line that pays your more and lets you slack off.

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.

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?

Some individuals work harder and produce more than others ...

So if the secretary is faster at typing letters, quicker at answering the phones, makes fewer mistakes, etc. etc. etc ... shouldn't they be paid more per hour than those others? According to the bottom line?

And if the janitor is faster and more thorough at cleaning, more efficient at getting all the waste to the dumpster etc etc etc ... shouldn't they be paid more per hour than those others? According to the bottom line?

What you really have is a bunch of people working together for a common cause -- the production, sale and distribution of product, the time spent by each person contributes to the bottom line. The difference is in how that work is valued not in the value of the work.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-09-2015 11:03 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-09-2015 12:49 PM RAZD has responded

  
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 responded

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

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 16118
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 23 of 135 (746730)
01-09-2015 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by New Cat's Eye
01-09-2015 12:06 PM


Re: What someone gets vs what they earn
Cat's Eye writes:

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.


So it's arbitrary.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-09-2015 12:06 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-09-2015 12:53 PM ringo has responded

  
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 responded

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

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19730
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 25 of 135 (746740)
01-09-2015 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by New Cat's Eye
01-09-2015 12:06 PM


Re: What someone gets vs what they earn
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.

So workers contribute to the bottom line by being underpaid and undervalued ...

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?

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-09-2015 12:06 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-09-2015 12:56 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
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 responded

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

  
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 acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19730
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 5.0


(1)
Message 28 of 135 (746748)
01-09-2015 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by New Cat's Eye
01-09-2015 12:49 PM


Re: What someone gets vs what they earn vs what they are worth
Yes I did: It adds more to the bottom line.

You didn't ask how it was measured. But it isn't really measured all that much. ...

So it "adds more to the bottom line" by a metric that "isn't really measured all that much."

Fascinating.

... Mostly its just estimated.

So the real value of the worker's contribution to the bottom line is just an uninformed guess.

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.

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?

Of course it is.

Of course it isn't. Take that person away and the job is not done.

No, some jobs require a higher skill set than others.

So the second worker would need training to do the first worker job and then would be able to do it. How long does that training take? Wouldn't training workers to do more complicated jobs improve 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.

So the company is wasting his time? We trained line leaders to be first checkers ...

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.

Increasing the possibility that faulty product is shipped, which can cost more than the value of the second checker's time. If that isn't critical then the second checker isn't needed at all.

Of course not. We don't even allow cellphones in the plant.

So you have a position of privilege and feel entitled to waste company time justifying it.

Well, if the owner of this company wasn't stealing all of our life values, then none of us would be working here.

This is your assumption. 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.

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.

That's the myth of corporate work -- that you are being paid well for your actual value because somebody else is being paid less.

Its working for me. I foresaw what corporate america was like and prepared myself to succeed.

And you measure your success based on other people making less, rather than on what your real value is.

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.

There's more to it. The secretary doesn't have to take responsibility for making business decisions.

Because they are incapable of making business decisions? Or because they are not allowed to make business decisions? Who determines who is capable of making good decisions?

The company I worked for was bought up by a major corporation and given to the CEO's daughter to run. It was bankrupt in two years. All the workers paid for that bad decision. The salary of the CEO wasn't even dented. So he wasn't paid to risk bad decisions was he?

And the janitor isn't responsible for the quality of the product.

No, he is responsible for the quality of the work environment.

Those responsibilities add risk to the job, and you have to compensate people for that.

That responsibility adds to the safety and efficiency of the work environment and you need to compensate people for that.

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.

Because they are undervalued and underpaid, while you think you are justly valued and justly paid. That's the con of wage disparity.

and I'm betting this is a non-union shop.

I'm pretty much married to this place and I really do care. ...

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.

... The owner realizes that, he even gave me a nice Christmas bonus.

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?

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : union


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-09-2015 12:49 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-09-2015 2:54 PM RAZD has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7670
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.5


Message 29 of 135 (746754)
01-09-2015 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
01-08-2012 6:50 PM


the wider context - What is 'Good capialism' and what is 'Bad Capitalism' and who (if anyone) decides which is which?

Executive pay is a good example of how capitalism is not a synonym for western democracy. Stealing from Churchill, capitalism is the worst type of economy, except for all of the others. For all of its injustices and inequalities, it is still better than the other economic systems, at least in practice.

What we have in western style first world nations is a very interesting interplay between our democratic ideals and the inherent injustices of capitalism. We say that all men are equal, but then we don't pay them equally. What we do instead is use regulation to rein in capitalism in the name of social justice. With regulation, too much and you risk killing the benefits that a capitalist economy brings. Too little regulation and you see disparities that lead to civil unrest. You have to find that balance between injustice and benefit.

On the spectrum of injustices, exec pay is probably an evil that is worth living with. What we need to get over is the idea that the level of salaries reflect an exec's merit. It doesn't. It is unfair. It is unjust. We need to get over it since trying to fix the injustice will probably do more harm than good.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 01-08-2012 6:50 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by xongsmith, posted 01-09-2015 1:46 PM Taq has not yet responded
 Message 38 by Straggler, posted 01-12-2015 9:35 AM Taq has not yet responded

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 1869
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009


(1)
Message 30 of 135 (746756)
01-09-2015 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Taq
01-09-2015 1:43 PM


Taq writes:

We need to get over it since trying to fix the injustice will probably do more harm than good.

Why not go back to the Eisenhower years? - tax like 1955 again.


- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Taq, posted 01-09-2015 1:43 PM Taq has not yet responded

    
Prev1
2
3456
...
9Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019