|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 23 2014 08:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 07:56 WhiteDog wrote:On January 23 2014 07:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 23 2014 07:33 WhiteDog wrote:On January 23 2014 07:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 23 2014 07:19 WhiteDog wrote:On January 23 2014 07:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 23 2014 07:01 WhiteDog wrote:On January 23 2014 06:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 23 2014 06:24 aksfjh wrote:
It'd be one thing if Wal-Mart was running out small businesses and then employing a better hierarchical approach that offered those old managers/owners comparable positions and better wages, but that isn't the case. Those that are profiting from the higher efficiency are high up the chain, while those on the ground are pushed to live on reduced wages that is only made possible by the aforementioned efficiency (and government assistance). Those on the ground have lower nominal wages and lower prices. The benefits of those lower prices are distributed more so to low income people than high income people. The government assistance would exist with or without Wal-Mart - low end retail work just doesn't pay well. It's a red herring. How do you think they can make that much of a higher margin than they smaller competition ? Because the reduction in wages is more important than the reduction in prices... The simple fact that they buy in quantity doesn't entirely explain their success, nor the fact that the Walton familly is the richest familly in the US. It's an industry that never innovate, never need to invest (except in building more store I guess). Not the kind of industry really useful for the community. Just like banks basically lol. Wal-Mart has a highly innovative and technologically advanced supply chain. If you aren't familiar with the company, you probably shouldn't be stating why they're profitable! Supply chain. Innovation is a little more than that you know, like research in health, or technologies, etc. I guess making sure you have your product quickly and in the most efficient manner can be seen as an improvement in a society that has completly lost any optimism towards "progress". Just like giving you the opportunity to buy 110 % of your revenu, like american banks did prior to 2007, can be seen as progress... I guess. Lol, what? Don't you understand there is a difference of value in finding out a new way to product, a new material, or a new product by opposition to a simple improvement in the efficiency of the supply chain ? Is it too hard for you to understand that a company like Wal-Mart will never invest in research like some producers do ? no... no no no... the "supply chains are too plebeian for me" line of argument is just... ignorant. Edit: what are you going to claim next? That lean manufacturing isn't a "real" innovation? I guess I'm ignorant then. I guess it's my ignorance that prevents me from witnessing the net increase in economic growth that Walmart great supply innovations permitted, or the real improvement of americans average conditions of living. Please man, you can do better. Lean manufacturing permits firms to reallocate their ressources. It is not the case for Walmart : what they gain in productivity just becomes more profit for the Walton familly - a money that does not trickle down. I guess young people like you will do everything they can to continue believe in their tales. You see no differences in having to invest in research for more energy efficient engine - like toyota have to right now - and thus invest every available ressource into that, and just investing in the supply chain with no outlet for excess ressources ? You probably shouldn't write so much about companies you don't know. Just sayin' 
Nice response. I guess being a dick is the way you found to emerge victorious in your fight for Walmart.
And you shouldn't be condescending when you're basically the only one in the thread who kinda "defend" Wal Mart business model.
|
On January 23 2014 08:34 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 08:19 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 23 2014 07:56 WhiteDog wrote:On January 23 2014 07:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 23 2014 07:33 WhiteDog wrote:On January 23 2014 07:23 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 23 2014 07:19 WhiteDog wrote:On January 23 2014 07:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 23 2014 07:01 WhiteDog wrote:On January 23 2014 06:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
[quote]
Those on the ground have lower nominal wages and lower prices. The benefits of those lower prices are distributed more so to low income people than high income people.
The government assistance would exist with or without Wal-Mart - low end retail work just doesn't pay well. It's a red herring. How do you think they can make that much of a higher margin than they smaller competition ? Because the reduction in wages is more important than the reduction in prices... The simple fact that they buy in quantity doesn't entirely explain their success, nor the fact that the Walton familly is the richest familly in the US. It's an industry that never innovate, never need to invest (except in building more store I guess). Not the kind of industry really useful for the community. Just like banks basically lol. Wal-Mart has a highly innovative and technologically advanced supply chain. If you aren't familiar with the company, you probably shouldn't be stating why they're profitable! Supply chain. Innovation is a little more than that you know, like research in health, or technologies, etc. I guess making sure you have your product quickly and in the most efficient manner can be seen as an improvement in a society that has completly lost any optimism towards "progress". Just like giving you the opportunity to buy 110 % of your revenu, like american banks did prior to 2007, can be seen as progress... I guess. Lol, what? Don't you understand there is a difference of value in finding out a new way to product, a new material, or a new product by opposition to a simple improvement in the efficiency of the supply chain ? Is it too hard for you to understand that a company like Wal-Mart will never invest in research like some producers do ? no... no no no... the "supply chains are too plebeian for me" line of argument is just... ignorant. Edit: what are you going to claim next? That lean manufacturing isn't a "real" innovation? I guess I'm ignorant then. I guess it's my ignorance that prevents me from witnessing the net increase in economic growth that Walmart great supply innovations permitted, or the real improvement of americans average conditions of living. Please man, you can do better. Lean manufacturing permits firms to reallocate their ressources. It is not the case for Walmart : what they gain in productivity just becomes more profit for the Walton familly - a money that does not trickle down. I guess young people like you will do everything they can to continue believe in their tales. You see no differences in having to invest in research for more energy efficient engine - like toyota have to right now - and thus invest every available ressource into that, and just investing in the supply chain with no outlet for excess ressources ? You probably shouldn't write so much about companies you don't know. Just sayin' Nice response. I guess being a dick is the way you found to emerge victorious in your fight for Walmart. And you shouldn't be condescending when you're basically the only one in the thread who kinda "defend" Wal Mart business model.
All you did is spout ideological crap. You clearly don't know the company - you think they earn "high margins". You dismiss their supply chain, which is one of the most technologically advanced and innovative in the world. You dismiss the increase in purchasing power that lower prices bring to families with low and middle class incomes.
And now you're just going to give me the "you're not in the popular crowd" response?
|
On January 23 2014 08:18 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 06:49 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 23 2014 06:24 aksfjh wrote:
It'd be one thing if Wal-Mart was running out small businesses and then employing a better hierarchical approach that offered those old managers/owners comparable positions and better wages, but that isn't the case. Those that are profiting from the higher efficiency are high up the chain, while those on the ground are pushed to live on reduced wages that is only made possible by the aforementioned efficiency (and government assistance). Those on the ground have lower nominal wages and lower prices. The benefits of those lower prices are distributed more so to low income people than high income people. The government assistance would exist with or without Wal-Mart - low end retail work just doesn't pay well. It's a red herring. Entry level retail work doesn't pay much, that is very true, but where is the opportunity to make a decent wage in the Wal-Mart pay structure? At what commitment/experience level, or managerial level, is one able to move to a comfortable middle-class lifestyle while working at Wal-Mart? Better yet, at what level are they able to come off of government assistance? The "efficiency" they command over the smaller retailers that runs those out of business certainly can afford to provide a middle class life-style to more people than a disjointed small retailer system, right?
The opportunity to make a decent wage in a Wal-Mart is roughly the same as other retailers. Assistant managers make middle class pay and there are opportunities for skilled work in logistic / corporate rolls.
When someone earns enough to get off government assistance depends on a lot of factors. I can't give a generic answer there.
Wal-Mart typically passes efficiency gains onto the consumer. Whether more should go to employees rather than the consumer doesn't have a straightforward answer.
|
On January 23 2014 08:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Wal-Mart typically passes efficiency gains onto the consumer. Whether more should go to employees rather than the consumer doesn't have a straightforward answer.
Most people aren't criticizing the cheap prices Walmart offers, they're pissed off by the payment gap between high earners and low earners within the company.
![[image loading]](http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/290-width/images/print-edition/20120114_BRC371.gif)
Not too long ago managers and CEO's earned ten or twenty times of what the average worker earned(sounds pretty reasonable). Today your average manager earns about three- or four-hundred times of what the average worker makes.(sounds really unreasonable). Are today's mangers and other high ranking officials now working ten or twenty times harder?
I'd like a law that caps the highest wages a company is allowed to pay to twenty times of what the worst paid employee makes. I'd bet we would've solved the low pay problem within a week.
|
On January 23 2014 09:02 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 08:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Wal-Mart typically passes efficiency gains onto the consumer. Whether more should go to employees rather than the consumer doesn't have a straightforward answer. Most people aren't criticizing the cheap prices Walmart offers, they're pissed off by the payment gap between high earners and low earners within the company. Not too long ago managers and CEO's earned ten or twenty times of what the average worker earned(sounds pretty reasonable). Today your average manager earns about three- or four-hundred times of what the average worker makes.(sounds really unreasonable). Are today's mangers and other high ranking officials now working ten or twenty times harder? I'd like a law that caps the highest wages a company is allowed to pay to twenty times of what the worst paid employee makes. I'd bet we would've solved the low pay problem within a week.
"Working hard" is not the same as adding value to the company. High level executives add a lot more value to their companies than the average employee. They also tend to work a lot harder than the average employee as well, but that's irrelevant.
|
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) and a key executive for a firm linked to the latest allegations against his administration have more than a decade of deep ties to the same charity.
Both Christie and Rockefeller Group Executive Vice President Leslie "Les" Smith have served on the board of Daytop New Jersey, a nonprofit substance abuse treatment and education program with facilities throughout the state. They have also attended and chaired Daytop events together.
On Saturday, Hoboken, N.J. Mayor Dawn Zimmer alleged Christie administration officials threatened to withhold Sandy aid to her city unless she approved a real estate project planned for land partially owned by Rockefeller Group.
Smith leads Rockefeller Group's development efforts in New Jersey. He has also donated $2,000 to Christie since 2009.
The executive has been involved with the charity for more than a decade. The spring 2011 "Spirit of Daytop" newsletter featured an interview with Smith in which he said he became interested in supporting drug treatment after a priest who ministered to addicts spoke to the Rockefeller Group. Smith said the priest died in 2000, and he became involved with Daytop New Jersey "shortly thereafter." His current biography on his company's website describes him as a member of Daytop's executive committee.
Christie's association with Daytop New Jersey began even earlier. According to a spring 2010 Daytop publication, Christie "served on the Daytop Board of Directors for five years, until he became U.S. attorney for New Jersey in 2001." In 1997, the Newark Star-Ledger newspaper reported that Christie, who was serving as a member of the Morris County government, cut his own salary and refused to accept "county-funded" health benefits "with the savings applied to treatment beds at Daytop Village for drug-addicted county residents." In December 2001, when Christie was nominated as U.S. attorney for New Jersey, the Associated Press described him as "a trustee of Daytop-NJ."
Source
|
On January 23 2014 09:02 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 08:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Wal-Mart typically passes efficiency gains onto the consumer. Whether more should go to employees rather than the consumer doesn't have a straightforward answer. Most people aren't criticizing the cheap prices Walmart offers, they're pissed off by the payment gap between high earners and low earners within the company. Not too long ago managers and CEO's earned ten or twenty times of what the average worker earned(sounds pretty reasonable). Today your average manager earns about three- or four-hundred times of what the average worker makes.(sounds really unreasonable). Are today's mangers and other high ranking officials now working ten or twenty times harder? I'd like a law that caps the highest wages a company is allowed to pay to twenty times of what the worst paid employee makes. I'd bet we would've solved the low pay problem within a week.
Part of the reason for the rise in CEO pay in the US (can't say for the UK - your graph) was a trend in "pay for performance" that got codified into the tax code (section 162 m). Ironically, what was intended to reduce CEO pay ended up increasing it.
+ Show Spoiler +Section 162 (m) and the rise of option-based compensation:
Section 162 (m) was enacted in 1993 as a means of mitigating
excessive pay The statue disallows tax deductibility for all compensation
paid to “proxy-named executives” in excess of $1 million,
unless such compensation is “performance-based” However, it
ended up creating unintended consequences On an after tax basis,
performance-based compensation, particularly stock options,
became less expensive than base salaries and stock grants Stock
options did satisfy the “performance-based” test, since they are
directly linked to the underlying stock This must have lead to a
dramatic rise in option-based compensation In fact, the average
grant-date value of options soared from near zero in 1970 to over
$7 million in 2000 (Hall and Murphy, 2003)
Overly generous compensation packages with large-sized stock
option grants may have created incentives for managers to manipulate
company financial statements in order to drive up stock prices,
contributing to the corporate scandals of the post-dot-com era
Over paying CEO's is a widely acknowledged problem that fwiw has been getting marginally better since peaking around 2000. We should probably be a bit more careful next time we try to fix the problem though
I'm not sure how much of this is really relevant to Wal-Mart specifically though. Wal-Mart is bad because of a problem that exists pretty much throughout the US and Europe?
|
On January 23 2014 09:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 09:02 Nyxisto wrote:On January 23 2014 08:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Wal-Mart typically passes efficiency gains onto the consumer. Whether more should go to employees rather than the consumer doesn't have a straightforward answer. Most people aren't criticizing the cheap prices Walmart offers, they're pissed off by the payment gap between high earners and low earners within the company. Not too long ago managers and CEO's earned ten or twenty times of what the average worker earned(sounds pretty reasonable). Today your average manager earns about three- or four-hundred times of what the average worker makes.(sounds really unreasonable). Are today's mangers and other high ranking officials now working ten or twenty times harder? I'd like a law that caps the highest wages a company is allowed to pay to twenty times of what the worst paid employee makes. I'd bet we would've solved the low pay problem within a week. Part of the reason for the rise in CEO pay in the US (can't say for the UK - your graph) was a trend in "pay for performance" that got codified into the tax code (section 162 m). Ironically, what was intended to reduce CEO pay ended up increasing it. + Show Spoiler +Section 162 (m) and the rise of option-based compensation:
Section 162 (m) was enacted in 1993 as a means of mitigating
excessive pay The statue disallows tax deductibility for all compensation
paid to “proxy-named executives” in excess of $1 million,
unless such compensation is “performance-based” However, it
ended up creating unintended consequences On an after tax basis,
performance-based compensation, particularly stock options,
became less expensive than base salaries and stock grants Stock
options did satisfy the “performance-based” test, since they are
directly linked to the underlying stock This must have lead to a
dramatic rise in option-based compensation In fact, the average
grant-date value of options soared from near zero in 1970 to over
$7 million in 2000 (Hall and Murphy, 2003)
Overly generous compensation packages with large-sized stock
option grants may have created incentives for managers to manipulate
company financial statements in order to drive up stock prices,
contributing to the corporate scandals of the post-dot-com era Over paying CEO's is a widely acknowledged problem that fwiw has been getting marginally better since peaking around 2000. We should probably be a bit more careful next time we try to fix the problem though I'm not sure how much of this is really relevant to Wal-Mart specifically though. Wal-Mart is bad because of a problem that exists pretty much throughout the US and Europe?
The problem people have, and you know this, is the amount of employees they have that still require government assistance
|
On January 23 2014 09:29 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 09:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 23 2014 09:02 Nyxisto wrote:On January 23 2014 08:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Wal-Mart typically passes efficiency gains onto the consumer. Whether more should go to employees rather than the consumer doesn't have a straightforward answer. Most people aren't criticizing the cheap prices Walmart offers, they're pissed off by the payment gap between high earners and low earners within the company. Not too long ago managers and CEO's earned ten or twenty times of what the average worker earned(sounds pretty reasonable). Today your average manager earns about three- or four-hundred times of what the average worker makes.(sounds really unreasonable). Are today's mangers and other high ranking officials now working ten or twenty times harder? I'd like a law that caps the highest wages a company is allowed to pay to twenty times of what the worst paid employee makes. I'd bet we would've solved the low pay problem within a week. Part of the reason for the rise in CEO pay in the US (can't say for the UK - your graph) was a trend in "pay for performance" that got codified into the tax code (section 162 m). Ironically, what was intended to reduce CEO pay ended up increasing it. + Show Spoiler +Section 162 (m) and the rise of option-based compensation:
Section 162 (m) was enacted in 1993 as a means of mitigating
excessive pay The statue disallows tax deductibility for all compensation
paid to “proxy-named executives” in excess of $1 million,
unless such compensation is “performance-based” However, it
ended up creating unintended consequences On an after tax basis,
performance-based compensation, particularly stock options,
became less expensive than base salaries and stock grants Stock
options did satisfy the “performance-based” test, since they are
directly linked to the underlying stock This must have lead to a
dramatic rise in option-based compensation In fact, the average
grant-date value of options soared from near zero in 1970 to over
$7 million in 2000 (Hall and Murphy, 2003)
Overly generous compensation packages with large-sized stock
option grants may have created incentives for managers to manipulate
company financial statements in order to drive up stock prices,
contributing to the corporate scandals of the post-dot-com era Over paying CEO's is a widely acknowledged problem that fwiw has been getting marginally better since peaking around 2000. We should probably be a bit more careful next time we try to fix the problem though I'm not sure how much of this is really relevant to Wal-Mart specifically though. Wal-Mart is bad because of a problem that exists pretty much throughout the US and Europe? The problem people have, and you know this, is the amount of employees they have that still require government assistance
And I still don't understand why that's an issue. It's the same for any other employer. If it were Europe, the benefits would be higher, no?
|
On January 23 2014 09:10 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 09:02 Nyxisto wrote:On January 23 2014 08:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Wal-Mart typically passes efficiency gains onto the consumer. Whether more should go to employees rather than the consumer doesn't have a straightforward answer. Most people aren't criticizing the cheap prices Walmart offers, they're pissed off by the payment gap between high earners and low earners within the company. Not too long ago managers and CEO's earned ten or twenty times of what the average worker earned(sounds pretty reasonable). Today your average manager earns about three- or four-hundred times of what the average worker makes.(sounds really unreasonable). Are today's mangers and other high ranking officials now working ten or twenty times harder? I'd like a law that caps the highest wages a company is allowed to pay to twenty times of what the worst paid employee makes. I'd bet we would've solved the low pay problem within a week. "Working hard" is not the same as adding value to the company. High level executives add a lot more value to their companies than the average employee. They also tend to work a lot harder than the average employee as well, but that's irrelevant.
Did I say anything else? If you read my post again you might notice that I think that it's perfectly reasonable for high ranking officials to earn ten or twenty times of what your average employee makes. I didn't call for the dictatorship of the proletariat. But the proportions have gotten out of control. Executives are working hard, but they're not working a magnitude harder than they did two decades ago.
I'm not sure how much of this is really relevant to Wal-Mart specifically though. Wal-Mart is bad because of a problem that exists pretty much throughout the US and Europe?
It's not Walmart specific, it's just one example.
And I still don't understand why that's an issue.
Because in basically every big company the highest earning guys own helicopters and yachts, while the lowest paid guy in the exact same company can't buy schoolbooks for their children. What don't you understand? Shall I draw you a sketch?
|
On January 23 2014 09:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 09:29 Gorsameth wrote:On January 23 2014 09:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 23 2014 09:02 Nyxisto wrote:On January 23 2014 08:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Wal-Mart typically passes efficiency gains onto the consumer. Whether more should go to employees rather than the consumer doesn't have a straightforward answer. Most people aren't criticizing the cheap prices Walmart offers, they're pissed off by the payment gap between high earners and low earners within the company. Not too long ago managers and CEO's earned ten or twenty times of what the average worker earned(sounds pretty reasonable). Today your average manager earns about three- or four-hundred times of what the average worker makes.(sounds really unreasonable). Are today's mangers and other high ranking officials now working ten or twenty times harder? I'd like a law that caps the highest wages a company is allowed to pay to twenty times of what the worst paid employee makes. I'd bet we would've solved the low pay problem within a week. Part of the reason for the rise in CEO pay in the US (can't say for the UK - your graph) was a trend in "pay for performance" that got codified into the tax code (section 162 m). Ironically, what was intended to reduce CEO pay ended up increasing it. + Show Spoiler +Section 162 (m) and the rise of option-based compensation:
Section 162 (m) was enacted in 1993 as a means of mitigating
excessive pay The statue disallows tax deductibility for all compensation
paid to “proxy-named executives” in excess of $1 million,
unless such compensation is “performance-based” However, it
ended up creating unintended consequences On an after tax basis,
performance-based compensation, particularly stock options,
became less expensive than base salaries and stock grants Stock
options did satisfy the “performance-based” test, since they are
directly linked to the underlying stock This must have lead to a
dramatic rise in option-based compensation In fact, the average
grant-date value of options soared from near zero in 1970 to over
$7 million in 2000 (Hall and Murphy, 2003)
Overly generous compensation packages with large-sized stock
option grants may have created incentives for managers to manipulate
company financial statements in order to drive up stock prices,
contributing to the corporate scandals of the post-dot-com era Over paying CEO's is a widely acknowledged problem that fwiw has been getting marginally better since peaking around 2000. We should probably be a bit more careful next time we try to fix the problem though I'm not sure how much of this is really relevant to Wal-Mart specifically though. Wal-Mart is bad because of a problem that exists pretty much throughout the US and Europe? The problem people have, and you know this, is the amount of employees they have that still require government assistance And I still don't understand why that's an issue. It's the same for any other employer. If it were Europe, the benefits would be higher, no?
Its not a problem that only applies to Walmart but it is mentioned because of its size.
|
On January 23 2014 09:10 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 09:02 Nyxisto wrote:On January 23 2014 08:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Wal-Mart typically passes efficiency gains onto the consumer. Whether more should go to employees rather than the consumer doesn't have a straightforward answer. Most people aren't criticizing the cheap prices Walmart offers, they're pissed off by the payment gap between high earners and low earners within the company. Not too long ago managers and CEO's earned ten or twenty times of what the average worker earned(sounds pretty reasonable). Today your average manager earns about three- or four-hundred times of what the average worker makes.(sounds really unreasonable). Are today's mangers and other high ranking officials now working ten or twenty times harder? I'd like a law that caps the highest wages a company is allowed to pay to twenty times of what the worst paid employee makes. I'd bet we would've solved the low pay problem within a week. "Working hard" is not the same as adding value to the company. High level executives add a lot more value to their companies than the average employee. They also tend to work a lot harder than the average employee as well, but that's irrelevant.
But that's that not what he is saying, and you know that's not what he is saying, you are just being deliberately obtuse :p
|
On January 23 2014 09:37 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 09:10 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 09:02 Nyxisto wrote:On January 23 2014 08:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Wal-Mart typically passes efficiency gains onto the consumer. Whether more should go to employees rather than the consumer doesn't have a straightforward answer. Most people aren't criticizing the cheap prices Walmart offers, they're pissed off by the payment gap between high earners and low earners within the company. Not too long ago managers and CEO's earned ten or twenty times of what the average worker earned(sounds pretty reasonable). Today your average manager earns about three- or four-hundred times of what the average worker makes.(sounds really unreasonable). Are today's mangers and other high ranking officials now working ten or twenty times harder? I'd like a law that caps the highest wages a company is allowed to pay to twenty times of what the worst paid employee makes. I'd bet we would've solved the low pay problem within a week. "Working hard" is not the same as adding value to the company. High level executives add a lot more value to their companies than the average employee. They also tend to work a lot harder than the average employee as well, but that's irrelevant. Did I say anything else? If you read my post again you might notice that I think that it's perfectly reasonable for high ranking officials to earn ten or twenty times of what your average employee makes. I didn't call for the dictatorship of the proletariat. But the proportions have gotten out of control. Executives are working hard, but they're not working a magnitude harder than they did two decades ago. Show nested quote +
I'm not sure how much of this is really relevant to Wal-Mart specifically though. Wal-Mart is bad because of a problem that exists pretty much throughout the US and Europe?
It's not Walmart specific, it's just one example. Because in basically every big company the highest earning guys own helicopters and yachts, while the lowest paid guy in the exact same company can't buy schoolbooks for their children. What don't you understand? Shall I draw you a sketch?
No, it is not reasonable to cap an executive's pay at 10-20 times more than the "average" employee. The value that they add to the company is often (if not usually) so significant that their compensation should be greater.
|
On January 23 2014 09:37 Nyxisto wrote:Because in basically every big company the highest earning guys own helicopters and yachts, while the lowest paid guy in the exact same company can't buy schoolbooks for their children. What don't you understand? Shall I draw you a sketch?
Isn't the remedy for that redistribution? i.e the very thing being complained about?
|
Maybe in a land where CEOs were plentiful and you just swap them to try something new in a bad month, their pay would be less. The skill-set of the best and the capability to spot it is just hard. Maybe right now is not what it'll be in 10 years, but that needs to be a discussion between the company's board of directors (etc) and candidates.
Any caps on the pay system would realistically just become a political bargaining chip in the wide world of class warfare politics. Just like higher taxes on the rich than those earning less, it would be the new playing field for lobbyist in terms of exemptions. I could just see the new wave of politicians building on any pay caps passed promising to reduce CEO max pay by 2%, 5%, 10%.
|
On January 23 2014 09:59 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 09:37 Nyxisto wrote:On January 23 2014 09:10 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 09:02 Nyxisto wrote:On January 23 2014 08:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Wal-Mart typically passes efficiency gains onto the consumer. Whether more should go to employees rather than the consumer doesn't have a straightforward answer. Most people aren't criticizing the cheap prices Walmart offers, they're pissed off by the payment gap between high earners and low earners within the company. Not too long ago managers and CEO's earned ten or twenty times of what the average worker earned(sounds pretty reasonable). Today your average manager earns about three- or four-hundred times of what the average worker makes.(sounds really unreasonable). Are today's mangers and other high ranking officials now working ten or twenty times harder? I'd like a law that caps the highest wages a company is allowed to pay to twenty times of what the worst paid employee makes. I'd bet we would've solved the low pay problem within a week. "Working hard" is not the same as adding value to the company. High level executives add a lot more value to their companies than the average employee. They also tend to work a lot harder than the average employee as well, but that's irrelevant. Did I say anything else? If you read my post again you might notice that I think that it's perfectly reasonable for high ranking officials to earn ten or twenty times of what your average employee makes. I didn't call for the dictatorship of the proletariat. But the proportions have gotten out of control. Executives are working hard, but they're not working a magnitude harder than they did two decades ago.
I'm not sure how much of this is really relevant to Wal-Mart specifically though. Wal-Mart is bad because of a problem that exists pretty much throughout the US and Europe?
It's not Walmart specific, it's just one example. And I still don't understand why that's an issue. Because in basically every big company the highest earning guys own helicopters and yachts, while the lowest paid guy in the exact same company can't buy schoolbooks for their children. What don't you understand? Shall I draw you a sketch? No, it is not reasonable to cap an executive's pay at 10-20 times more than the "average" employee. The value that they add to the company is often (if not usually) so significant that their compensation should be greater.
The fact that the payment - gap has multiplied over the course of years shows that there's little correlation between performance and compensation. Because if there were , everyone would have profited equally, and the inequality wouldn't have gotten any bigger. It's fair to assume that a manager is 'X' times more worth to a company then a blue colour worker, but 'x' doesn't magically change.
Isn't the remedy for that redistribution? i.e the very thing being complained about?
I'd prefer to have a fair set of rules in place so that companies act responsibly in the first place.
|
Man, I'd hate to work at a company where the CEO added 100x more to the company than the average worker. The CEO taking a vacation for a week would likely send the company under...
|
I would like to see stronger data on ceo pay vs company performance; it feels like boards of directors aren't independent enough and are too much part of a collective group that scratches each others' backs. And executives receive too much pay when the companies do poorly.
Some ceos (Steve Jobs) truly are worth a LOT to a company, but for others it seems far more questionable.
|
On January 23 2014 10:25 Nyxisto wrote:
I'd prefer to have a fair set of rules in place so that companies act responsibly in the first place.
That's pretty vague. What does that mean?
|
On January 23 2014 10:25 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 09:59 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 09:37 Nyxisto wrote:On January 23 2014 09:10 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 09:02 Nyxisto wrote:On January 23 2014 08:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Wal-Mart typically passes efficiency gains onto the consumer. Whether more should go to employees rather than the consumer doesn't have a straightforward answer. Most people aren't criticizing the cheap prices Walmart offers, they're pissed off by the payment gap between high earners and low earners within the company. Not too long ago managers and CEO's earned ten or twenty times of what the average worker earned(sounds pretty reasonable). Today your average manager earns about three- or four-hundred times of what the average worker makes.(sounds really unreasonable). Are today's mangers and other high ranking officials now working ten or twenty times harder? I'd like a law that caps the highest wages a company is allowed to pay to twenty times of what the worst paid employee makes. I'd bet we would've solved the low pay problem within a week. "Working hard" is not the same as adding value to the company. High level executives add a lot more value to their companies than the average employee. They also tend to work a lot harder than the average employee as well, but that's irrelevant. Did I say anything else? If you read my post again you might notice that I think that it's perfectly reasonable for high ranking officials to earn ten or twenty times of what your average employee makes. I didn't call for the dictatorship of the proletariat. But the proportions have gotten out of control. Executives are working hard, but they're not working a magnitude harder than they did two decades ago.
I'm not sure how much of this is really relevant to Wal-Mart specifically though. Wal-Mart is bad because of a problem that exists pretty much throughout the US and Europe?
It's not Walmart specific, it's just one example. And I still don't understand why that's an issue. Because in basically every big company the highest earning guys own helicopters and yachts, while the lowest paid guy in the exact same company can't buy schoolbooks for their children. What don't you understand? Shall I draw you a sketch? No, it is not reasonable to cap an executive's pay at 10-20 times more than the "average" employee. The value that they add to the company is often (if not usually) so significant that their compensation should be greater. The fact that the payment - gap has multiplied over the course of years shows that there's little correlation between performance and compensation. Because if there were , everyone would have profited equally, and the inequality wouldn't have gotten any bigger. It's fair to assume that a manager is 'X' times more worth to a company then a blue colour worker, but 'x' doesn't magically change. Show nested quote +
Isn't the remedy for that redistribution? i.e the very thing being complained about?
I'd prefer to have a fair set of rules in place so that companies act responsibly in the first place.
I'd argue that executives were grossly underpaid back when they were only paid 10-20x the amount paid to an average worker. The dramatic increase in executive pay is a simply market correction to account for the true value that a good executive adds to the company.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
