[TheSilentAssassin]

http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html

[benji25]

Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin

We can choose to pay our ceos much more than our employees and deal with the consequences or we can choose to pay or ceos less and have a stronger economy and less social issues. I'm not going to pick a number. I'm going to say less.

Redistributing wealth does not lead to a stronger economy. In fact I would argue that income inequality leads to a stronger economy. Obviously there are some CEO's that are vastly overpaid. It is the very distinction between white collar and blue collar that should motivate people to work harder. I quite honestly don't understand why it doesn't. I personally like to work hard. Do I enjoy my job? Not really but it pays well and will open doors in the future. Sure I could be a blue collar worker, punch in 9-5 or 9-7 and put 2 pieces of widgets together on the assembly line but I realize that is a dead end job. So to say you need to take pay away from upper management and redistribute it to people "just because" is not logical. The free market should determine wages (however there should obviously be a minimum wage).

If being a CEO was an easy job it wouldn't pay well. Just the same, if working a blue collar job took a lot of skill it would pay well. I am sorry, but life isn't fair so in my opinion if you want more money you need to earn it. And yes I will agree SOME CEO's do not deserve their compensation but I believe they are the exception, not the rule.

[Umami (Banned)]

Originally Posted by benji25

Redistributing wealth does not lead to a stronger economy. In fact I would argue that income inequality leads to a stronger economy.

Alright, make your argument.

With regards to CEO being a difficult job so the market assesses it's value accordingly - you're assume the market isn't being perverted by cronyism, nepotism along with other standard market failures.

I've posted all this before (one of them in this thread), but apparently you need to read up.



http://www.docstoc.com/docs/13469305...-Top-Tax-Rates

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...6mQ_story.html

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/...11/sdn1108.pdf

[TheSilentAssassin]

To be incredibly simply:

[benji25]

Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin

To be incredibly simply:

All that shows me is that if you the is income inequality the are more health problems. How does that support your strong economy argument?

As for the other post I will have to take a look tomorrow.

[TheSilentAssassin]

Originally Posted by benji25

All that shows me is that if you the is income inequality the are more health problems. How does that support your strong economy argument?

As for the other post I will have to take a look tomorrow.

Social mobility is important to an economy.
Math and Literacy rates effect the quality of our labor market.
Imprisonment, Homicide, Infant mortality, and Life expectancy effect the quantity of labor market.
Trust rates are vitally important to our economy.

The rest is in Umami's links.

[AlphaNeo36]

Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin

Hardly

Only if you wish to not see it.

Originally Posted by me

cherry picking the most profitable companies in the most productive country

Originally Posted by gonzo's source

To determine 2011 pay packages, the AP used Equilar data to look at the 322 companies in the S&P 500

Seems my point is very accurate.

[TheSilentAssassin]

Cherrypicking is bad. Equating salaries with compensation is also bad. Two wrongs do, in fact, not make a right.

[AlphaNeo36]

I never equated salary with compensation like dividends or performance pay. I said average CEO salary is around $180k/yr (with labor department statistics) simply because you're cherry picking the compensation of the largest companies in the world to make a point. If you were more descriptive and articulated your argument correctly, you wouldn't be in need of fact checking. Those figures you posted are from essentially chain email. Don't need to steep that low, do we?

I do like, however, that gonzo took on the responsibility of combating labor department statistics. Never stops at a chance to reinforce the ideologue appearance.

[drgonzo]

Originally Posted by AlphaNeo36

Seems my point is very accurate.

As is mine:
http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_tec.htm

Wages for the OES survey are straight-time, gross pay, exclusive of premium pay. Base rate; cost-of-living allowances; guaranteed pay; hazardous-duty pay; incentive pay, including commissions and production bonuses; and tips are included. Excluded are overtime pay, severance pay, shift differentials, nonproduction bonuses, employer cost for supplementary benefits, and tuition reimbursements.

Most studies use Execucomp rather than BLS because it is more accurate, taking into account all sources of compensation. For example BLS would undercount Tim Cook's compensation by a factor of about 400.

Originally Posted by AlphaNeo36

I never equated salary with compensation like dividends or performance pay. I said average CEO salary is around $180k/yr (with labor department statistics) simply because you're cherry picking the compensation of the largest companies in the world to make a point. If you were more descriptive and articulated your argument correctly, you wouldn't be in need of fact checking. Those figures you posted are from essentially chain email. Don't need to steep that low, do we?

Come now. Executive compensation is regularly the topic of legitimate reportage and analysis. This is nowhere near chain email material.

http://www.epi.org/publication/ib331...top-1-percent/
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2011/12/...cal-chart.html
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortu...eo-pay-ratios/
http://graphicsweb.wsj.com/CEO_Compe...ries=hRewarded
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money...hart-total.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...ISIU_blog.html
http://www1.salary.com/Chief-Executi...er-Salary.html
etc. etc.

[AlphaNeo36]

So, then what's the average total compensation for all executives? Notice how I said all and not a handful of Fortune 500 companies.

Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin

Country Ratio of Pay: CEO to Average Worker
Japan 11:1
Germany 12:1
France 15:1
Italy 20:1
Canada 20:1
South Africa 21:1
Britain 22:1
Mexico 47:1
Venezuela 50:1
United States 475:1

That is chain email material. Google it and all you'll find is hundreds of ctrl+v throughout the internet, void of facts or sources.

[drgonzo]

Originally Posted by AlphaNeo36

That is chain email material.

Ok fair enough, the 475 figure is not accurate, however the actual figure is in the 200-300s. Not much less damning.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graph...r-compensation

et.al.

Note that diluting the data as you ask is a red herring, as the sample is consistent over time.

[custar]

Originally Posted by Umami

In an ideal world corporations would be employee-owned, so corporate pay would be determined by those with a long-term stake in the company.

Employees don't necessarily have a long term stake in the company for which they work. Do you think Kohl's clerks (for instance) have a long term interest in the company?

custar

[drgonzo]

Originally Posted by custar

Employees don't necessarily have a long term stake in the company for which they work. Do you think Kohl's clerks (for instance) have a long term interest in the company?

custar

Then again ownership stake would reflect pay (position on corporate ladder) and tenure.

[custar]

Originally Posted by drgonzo

Then again ownership stake would reflect pay (importance) and tenure.

Would or could? How would a buy-in work for a clerk, stocker, etc. work?

Also, is anything actually stopping people from implementing this model of corporate ownership today?

custar

[drgonzo]

Originally Posted by custar

Would or could? How would a buy-in work for a clerk, stocker, etc. work?

Also, is anything actually stopping people from implementing this model of corporate ownership today?

custar

Employee stock compensation I suppose. No, nothing stopping people from doing this, other than a sane growth model that might make them vulnerable to market manipulation by wealthier competitors. There are many companies out there that run this way: http://www.nceo.org/articles/employee-ownership-100

[xbilbo]

Originally Posted by FreeEnterprise

Video Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHNBr3PZQaE&feature=player_embedded

Why do we allow Democrats to RUN on a platform where they are taking our money and giving it to others when WE worked for that money?...

Even kids can see through that logic, and yet, people still vote for those money grubbing liberals who want to take YOUR money and give it to their friends.

I don't understand it either. The funny thing is, everyone has the ability to pay more taxes. Write bigger checks to the government if you'd like to pay more taxes, but don't make us all? I was talking to a friend that's a Democrat. He believes everyone should pay more to the government. I said then you lead by example and pay more of your paycheck. He laughed.. Hypocrite wants more taxes for everyone but won't pay more himself. I'm a 19 year old college student and I understand the logic behind all of this

[TheSilentAssassin]

Originally Posted by xbilbo

I don't understand it either. The funny thing is, everyone has the ability to pay more taxes. Write bigger checks to the government if you'd like to pay more taxes, but don't make us all? I was talking to a friend that's a Democrat. He believes everyone should pay more to the government. I said then you lead by example and pay more of your paycheck. He laughed.. Hypocrite wants more taxes for everyone but won't pay more himself. I'm a 19 year old college student and I understand the logic behind all of this

It's very easy to "understand the logic behind it all" when you just simplify it to moronic levels and then miss the entire point. Politics/economics is a very complex and difficult arena. I am sick of this "it's really simple; taxes are bad" attitude.

[Frank101]

taxation is theft, coercion, and force. You wouldn't go to your neighbor's house steal 20% of their yearly income worth of stuff, pawn it and give the proceeds away to various interest groups you deem needy. Why is it okay for you to vote for a government agent to do it then?

Its cowardly and lacks compassion.

[drgonzo]

Originally Posted by Frank101

taxation is theft, coercion, and force. You wouldn't go to your neighbor's house steal 20% of their yearly income worth of stuff, pawn it and give the proceeds away to various interest groups you deem needy. Why is it okay for you to vote for a government agent to do it then?

Its cowardly and lacks compassion.

Try ... because it's explicitly authorized by the constitution?

Gimme a freakin' break with this bull**** antitax rhetoric. Taxes are how governments are funded. This is an elementary school level concept and it is not up for discussion.

[licence2kill]

Originally Posted by Frank101

taxation is theft, coercion, and force. You wouldn't go to your neighbor's house steal 20% of their yearly income worth of stuff, pawn it and give the proceeds away to various interest groups you deem needy. Why is it okay for you to vote for a government agent to do it then?

Its cowardly and lacks compassion.

that wealth wouldn't exist without the government