|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,768 Year: 4,025/9,624 Month: 896/974 Week: 223/286 Day: 30/109 Hour: 3/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Executive Pay - Good Capitalism Bad Capitalism? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Athletes are different than CEO's. Athletes actually have to bargain with their bosses for their salaries. In the case of CEO's, there is often collusion between executives and the people holding the purse strings to raise their salaries as high as possible. At least with professional sports there is some level of antagonism between parties. So you agree that having a powerful voice in negotiating compensation with "the people holding the purse strings" is more likely to lead to a fair(er) share of the profits of the corporation (and sports are corporations), and that the players unions means that it is more equitably shared with all the players? But then we come to the star players. Are they exploiting the system to get more than other players? What's a fair share? Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I have deliberately not been using corporations or employers as examples. I have been strictly using examples of employees who can demand and get large compensation without exploiting other workers. Yet I am drawing "but Walmart" response. Possibly because a special case is not representative of the whole situation. Would you agree that the special case of workers at Walmart would be better off if they could "demand and get large compensation without exploiting other workers" ... like those at Costco do? Can we extrapolate from this that the more a democratic system is used to determine who shares how much of the profits, the less likely any of the people involved will be exploited becomes? Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : . Edited by RAZD, : ..by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Rrhain writes: Exactly how would adjusting our fiscal policy to redirect the use of those profits to be back into the company rather than the shareholders be against "capitalism"? Because if you don't allow profits to be given back to owners, they won't make the investments necessary to create and grow companies. What if the owners are the workers? What if the shareholders are the workers? Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... They're a minor part of our economies partly because they are necessarily under capitalised. ... There's nothing stopping anyone creating co-ops, so why don't they? Your biases are showing.
quote: Now that could be due to all the workers being committed to the success of the company instead of just the owner ... or it could be due to consumers supporting their community organizations instead of remote corporations ... Or it could be due to the co-op being a better model to realize the goal of the entity. Or it could be that workers are tired of oligarchic corporations. Several co-ops have risen from the ashes of a failed company. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Like the use of the word 'theft' earlier I don't think there's much mileage to be had trying to compare salaried employees to serfs wearing yokes etc, it's a cartoon view. And yet people are starving and living in poverty due to capitalism run amok. It's properly called hyperbole, where the argument is purposefully overstated to get people out of the shallow box they are in.
But also companies are a function of the societies they operate in - give a company an unregulated free reign and you get inequality; regulate pay, conditions and trade and you get fairer societies. Don't blame companies blame the societies the operate in. No, it's a function of how they operate within the social structure. Your "regulation" elements are historically temporary at best. As long as oligarchic sociopathic corporations exist they will keep trying to chip away at them.
Glass Steagall for example. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Because economics don't work that way. Sweat is cheap and easy to buy. Again with the elitist attitude to workers. They don't deserve anything because they are cheap? Doesn't apply to co-ops ... so not a truism. You're resorting to emotive caricatures here.
You're resorting to emotive caricatures again. ... Sometimes you need to get out of your shallow box thinking.
... Thers are many kinds of people with varying wealth And the wealth gap just keeps growing ...
Self-evidently wrong. Curiously, there are existing example of businesses operating and growing without investors, and I know of no company that operates with no workers. Again your thinking is biased. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
It doesn't really matter how you play around with the numbers (ignoring taxation differences), you have to create a regime of out payments that result in a profitable company able to compete with other companies in the same market. If you pay your employees more than your competitor you either have to employ fewer people or raise your prices. False. Costco pays workers more, has the same prices as Walmart. What they don't have is the Waltons.
Sure but shareholders can choose where to invest, a rational investor wouldn't invest in a company that paid its employees far more that the going rate and was therefore less profitable - all other things being equal. Again, you are blinded by your preconceptions. Again Costco v Walmart proves you wrong. Co-ops go toe to toe with oligarchist companies in the marketplace and provide products at the same price while paying employees more, because they share. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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. Guess you're not a big fan of democracy ... but wait ... Why couldn't the "motherfucker in charge" be democratically elected by the people in the company? Isn't that how representative democracies work? Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I don't know and I don't care. The arrangement we've made is agreeable to me. I'm happy. Where's the problem? So you appear to think you get a fair (enough) share. Side note: I wonder how much that satisfaction is due to knowing you get more wages than people working minimum wage.
quote: Seems to me this also goes to how people feel about their wages relative to the minimum wage.
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.
If I want a share in the profits then I can buy stock. And I have the option of using that money to get a share of the profits. 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). 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.
I understand that, it's just not how we're doing business \_(ツ)_/ Nice ascii graphic. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
I think not, kettle, just facts. I see you'renot immune from your favourite confirmation bias. Coops are a minority part of your economy - about $658bn out of $19 trillion. And before the American Revolution, the number of countries that were democratic was a minority of the forms of government in the world. Things have changed since then, things are changing now. The first reaction to oligarchic company operation was worker unions, workers coming together to cooperate and provide better returns for their members by having a stronger voice in negotiations with the owners. Unions are democratic cooperatives with elected leaders. Because of unions we have ...
quote: You can also include child labor laws and minimum wage laws. Just for starters. Still think cooperatives are an inconsequential share of the economy?
Co-ops are ok, but given that the model has been around forever, ... Really?
quote: So I guess the USA has been around forever ...
... you need to explain why they are still a minority part of modern economies. If thy're so obviously great, what's stopping them? What's stopping unions. Education and awareness of workers, lower-class and middle-class, that there is a better way. The American Revolution didn't happen spontaneously. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Right, a worker's revolution, how very un-American. Not so much revolution as evolution. Revolution has the disadvantage of leaving a power vacuum leading to things like the French Revolution aftermath and ISIS. Social evolution on the other hand changes power system with adaptations -- the union general strikes, women's suffrage, the civil rights movement, ... very American.
If your country actually wanted more socially conscious policies and practices it would have voted for them, ... We have. FD Roosevelt was the most popular president because of social policies he got enacted. The last on his list was a new bill of rights for further social programs, like health.
... but even obviously beneficial things like good health care ts voted down let alone the sort of state intervention you're talking about. ... And this is an evolving situation. We certainly have better health care under the ACA than before, and there certainly is still work to do, but that's not because people don't want it, it's because rich people/corporations don't want to lose their obscene profits buying votes of corrupt congress members.
I can give you some ideas if you like but you'll need to get your cognitative dissonance under control first. Try me. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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. For you, but not for everyone. Certainly not for anyone working at minimum wage. Certainly not for anyone working for a company that does not issue stock (most small businesses).
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. Your privilege is showing. Again, people working minimum wage who don't have those privileges.
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.[/qs] So not so much a serf/peasant/laborer, but still a vassal in the feudal hierarchy, happy to be given a position above the lowly worker struggling to live on minimum wage.
Guess you're not a big fan of democracy ... In business? Yeah, not so much. But it really depends. On what? Your place in the feudal hierarchy of the business? Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
NCE writes: And I'm against a state trying to force fairness in outcome by restricting opportunity. I'm going to assume that you don't believe anybody is for such a thing given your comments. So why'd you bring that up? Because I do believe that some people are for such a thing, as I've said:
quote: I'm not exactly sure how they want to go about this, because I haven't seen anything explicit, but what I've seen implies what I've said. Curiously, what I am for is equality of opportunity. Opportunity to education, opportunity for work, that isn't lumbered by institutionalized racism/biases and poverty vs privileges white males enjoy compared to all other workers. Not just because it is more equitable for people but because there is no guarantee that the white male necessarily represents the best the workforce etc has to offer. Case in point, the epitome of white male privilege, President Pedophile. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
To be clear: Are you saying that both opportunity to education and opportunity for work are being lumbered by both institutionalized racism/biases and poverty vs privileges white males enjoy compared to all other workers? (sorry, there's some punctuation/grammar error there or something) Yes.
If so, then okay: what is your solution? Tuition free state education. First community college or trade school, followed by higher education for those that want to pursue it. The community college path would mean not needing freshman year at state university. The community colleges would also provide the education needed for technician type occupations. The trade schools would mean a supply of plumbers, electricians, mechanics, etc. and a career path to solid middle class occupations. Privilege is a bit harder to deal with. It's more of an awareness issue. For instance I went to Duke, and freshman engineering had 3 blacks and two women in the program. I find it extremely difficult to believe that this was due to natural ability. Better education and job opportunities should tend to counter this over time. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1431 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
In principle it sounds like a good idea, but I'm afraid it might be too difficult to get all the different institutions to cooperate. In my experience, the universities would prefer students come take the classes at their schools over accepting transfers of credits from others. I don't see the universities being on board with losing a lot of business to free state schools. Several people I know have used this path. They get an associate degree and then enter state university with advanced placement. I have not seen any problems getting in, particularly as the universities lose students every year and can use these people to refill the ranks.
On the other hand, with all the online schooling that happening, maybe the whole university model will become outdated and so they'll end up losing the business anyways. Then it doesn't matter. This may work well enough for associate degrees and the like, but I hardly think it is capable of providing the hands-on experience needed for many scientists. I've done correspondance school and found it tedious and slow, so I transfered into a residential program (for my 3rd degree). Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆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)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024