FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
whiterock said:
FLBear5630 said:
Doc Holliday said:
boognish_bear said:
Amazon has a $2.4 trillion market cap and their CEO makes less money than 16 NFL quarterbacks...
These kind of arguments avoid the real problem.
The real problem is lessening buying power which is caused by printing trillions of dollars which has a major artificial effect on supply/demand.
You cant compare entertainment salaries of top performers to anyone but each other. Ot is not a fair comparison. CEOs and Execs do kot need higher salaries or bonuses. They are all ready at all time highs. Pay the workers more.
I highlighted the part in bold so you could reflect on it further.
CEO of Ford makes $24m/yr.
Ford has 171k employees, who have a median salary of $98k.
So let's do the math.
$24m ceo pay (divided by) 171k employees = $140 per employee
So you want to fix (whatever problem you think there is) by forcing the CEO Ford to work for free and redistributing his salary, which would give $140 per year to the 171k Ford employees, and keep letting the Federal Government inflate the currency which will reduce the purchasing power of that $98k salary by $5-10k/yr.
Really?
Pointless virtue signaling on class warfare memes while inflating away blue collar purchasing power is your preferred solution?
Democrat much?
That is a BS analysis.
No, it is simple math, which marxist dialectics are purpose-built to avoid.
Marx was a loser.
Marxism is the philosophy of losing.
Don't be a loser.
"You can't lift the little guy up by tearing the big guys down."
-Abraham Lincoln
Funny, you are the only one that ever mentions Marx. I have not seen ONE person come on hear and say that Marx was right and we need Karl Marx based economy. Only you. Please cut with the extremes and negative implications. There is a whole range of economics between Marx and what we are seeing today.
Quit playing marxists games and you'll quit winning marxist prizes.
You also leave out that if Ford pays him $70 an employee and he makes the poverty rate of 12m a year, there is 12M left to reinvest in human or capital resources. Your analysis pretends that the $140 is fixed, it is not. 12M a year not enough? Is it insulting? The mathematics are out of whack because we are managing for Wall Street.
That is absolutely chaotic. The poverty rate is not 12m per year. $140 is $140. Sure you can edit and clarify, but it does not change the simple math = eliminating CEO pay will raise Ford employees wages about $2.69 per WEEK (about $0.67 per hour).
"You can't lift the little guy up by tearing the big guys down."
-Abraham Lincoln
Or, it is invested in benefits or plant modernization or giving the employees a .50 cent raise.
Now you're changing the argument. Is it wages, or is it investment?
The fact that you think a $.50 an hour raise is insubstantial shows where you stand and how much time you spent with the actual people that do the work. ANYTHING helps. If nothing else, it shows that they are appreciated and when possible the Company will spread the wealth.
Firstly, I made a typo = decimal is in the wrong place. The CEO pay doesn't work out to $0.67 per hour. It's $0.067 per hour. 7 CENTS per hour.
I rode my bicycle two miles to work 6 days per week (48hrs) for $1 an hour pumping gas in the summer between 7th & 8th grade. And worked hourly wages part-time all the way thru grad school. I've also signed the front of paychecks, too.
You on the other hand, think giving the whole 12M to the CEO so his salary can go from 12M to 24M is better than giving all the workers a fifty cent an hour raise because that amount is worthless. THINK ABOUT THAT. Talk about haves and have nots...
You're the one whose not thinking this thru. $24m is .000533% of Ford's market cap.
Emotion is leading your logic here. The Ford CEO pay offends your sensibilities. Everything flows from there.
There is an old rule of thumb that one gets what one pays for. If you want a good employee, you have to pay a competitive wage. If you wage is 20% below market, the good employees won't even apply. You'll get applications from people who are to varying degrees less inexperienced, more incompetent, and have temperament or even character problems. You have to pay a competitive market wage commensurate to needs. A $45B company needs a very intelligent, experienced, and principled leader. The board of Ford Motor Company, acting on behalf of the shareholders, determined the value of the CEO by extending him a contract. They determined that it was wise to pay well for someone to manage a $45B company. They did, and the compensation package they set was inconsequential compared to the market cap of the company.
This dynamic is as old as time. We have a health care system which pays our doctors very well. That is a powerful incentive for our best and brightest to choose a medical career. We have increasingly flirted with a single payer system which will effectively turn doctors into civil servants, and will inexorably seek to limit their pay as part of cost controls across the system. And, as sure as the sun will set this evening and rise again tomorrow morning, that will tend to drive the best and brightest minds out of medicine and into other pursuits. That's the way markets work. Talent will flow to higher wages.
You are trying to build up the little guy by tearing the big guy down.
It won't work.
Never has.
Never will.
It's just class warfare....the mudpie of the mid-wit mind.
Once again you lead with BS and a false choice.
There are various options you can do, rather than give it to one person. If you are not going to raise the wages the paltry fifty cents, you could reinvest in benefits or capital. But, you like changing the argument.
Finally, tearing the big guy down? Paying him 12M a year? That is tearing down? Geez, you truly are a cake eater. Oil on beaches, 12M is tearing down. You must be a troll...
Just pointing out the flimsiness of your thought process here. There is no better way to demonstrate you're out of productive ideas than to blame CEO pay for all the ills of a society. Reality is, the dollars involved are infinitesimally small, absolutely inconsequential to the material issues on either end of the spectrum - worker pay on one end and investment on the other. It's rhetorical virtue posturing at its finest, exactly the kind of nonsense pay CEOs a lot of money to overcome on behalf of the shareholders.
Is there a "jacking off" emoji I can put in here as my response?
the onanism is the reflexive false dilemma.
Why does raising worker pay have anything to do with limiting CEO pay?
Instead of banging the class warfare drum, why not focus on raising labor rates? Stop policies which not merely allow but actually encourage unrestricted flows of cheap goods and illegals across our borders.. That will increase demand for domestically produced goods which will increase the demand for domestic labor. We do have a POTUS working such policies.
Capitalists try to solve problems by influencing supply/demand.
Marxists play class warfare and don't really care about what happens to supply/demand. They'll blame the capitalists for bad outcomes (which means, of course, bad outcomes are good for marxists.....)
?c=16x9&q=h_270,w_480,c_fill 
