|
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. |
The difference between Sam and me is that I have learned when it is time to just break off the conversation. He never did. We've reached that point with Roe.
|
On January 23 2014 11:40 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 11:30 Cheren wrote:On January 23 2014 11:21 Adreme wrote:On January 23 2014 11:12 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 11:04 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 11:01 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 10:48 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 10:43 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 10:36 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 10:26 aksfjh wrote:
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... Is it any wonder that CEOs at large firms never really get to take vacations? A good friend of mine was voted as the best employee within a Fortune 10 company. His reward was to get to have lunch with the CEO and chat about life. My friend was struck by how truly busy the CEO was. The guy never gets any time off. He's always on call. He's always working. I personally know plenty of other high ranking executives at large firms. The story is the same with them as well. What do you mean he's always working? Phoning people isn't the same work as digging in the coal mines, as an example. Other people who never get time off are usually those in IT. Have you ever had the "pleasure" of having to consistently work 80+ hour weeks doing white collar work? On January 23 2014 10:38 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 10:28 zlefin wrote:
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. Why does it matter? Are you proposing that we enact legislation to cap executive pay? Companies should be free to pay their executives obscenely large amounts if they want to. If the executives do poorly, then they'll be fired and the company will suffer financially for its poor hiring decision. That's how it should be. Who decides that pay though? Did the workers have any say in the matter? Why should the workers have any say in the matter? We're not communists. The owners (or the board if its public) determine the pay of the executives. It's their company. 1 you didn't answer the question. 2 because the workers are a part of the company and are the ones actually making the sales or making the product. the workers own the company, they should have a say in it. You are living in Marxist fantasy land. The workers don't own shit unless the company (ie the stockholders) allow it. Look, you should at least have a basic understanding of corporate operation and governance before you comment on this stuff. Nope, the workers own the company since they are the ones making the money for the company. Take that away and the company doesn't run and doesn't have any value. I'm still waiting for answers on why the executives and directors make the money instead of the workers who are directly interacting with the market. Also waiting on the answer of what this CEO 80+ hour work is like, I gave the comparison of a coal mine worker to contrast different types of work/effort and in order to help get you started on your own definition of said CEO work. edit: btw i'm not a marxist, at least i'm not intentionally one since i've never read any of that literature. i'm just trying to apply logic to the subject The reason is very simple because your average worker is easy to find and can be replaced at the drop of a hat. The requirements of the job are what determine your pay, to simplify it the harder it is to fill your job the more you are worth. Most low wage jobs are low wage because they require very little to no education or specific degree. There is of course a little more to it at the higher ends but at its core your value is determined by how easily replaceable you are (and what the market says you are worth but that would take longer to explain). Of course unions exist to try to help the workers get as much as they can because as I just said the value of any individual worker is usually minimal at best but as you basically stated a company can not handle losing all its workers at once. Pretty much yeah, workers are paid at market value for the most part. CEO pay has a lot more variables than supply/demand, there's cultural values of how much a CEO should be paid (the debate we're having right now), there's the personal charisma or connections of the CEO in question, and other intangibles. On January 23 2014 11:26 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 11:21 Adreme wrote:On January 23 2014 11:12 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 11:04 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 11:01 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 10:48 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 10:43 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 10:36 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Is it any wonder that CEOs at large firms never really get to take vacations?
A good friend of mine was voted as the best employee within a Fortune 10 company. His reward was to get to have lunch with the CEO and chat about life. My friend was struck by how truly busy the CEO was. The guy never gets any time off. He's always on call. He's always working. I personally know plenty of other high ranking executives at large firms. The story is the same with them as well. What do you mean he's always working? Phoning people isn't the same work as digging in the coal mines, as an example. Other people who never get time off are usually those in IT. Have you ever had the "pleasure" of having to consistently work 80+ hour weeks doing white collar work? On January 23 2014 10:38 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Why does it matter? Are you proposing that we enact legislation to cap executive pay? Companies should be free to pay their executives obscenely large amounts if they want to. If the executives do poorly, then they'll be fired and the company will suffer financially for its poor hiring decision. That's how it should be. Who decides that pay though? Did the workers have any say in the matter? Why should the workers have any say in the matter? We're not communists. The owners (or the board if its public) determine the pay of the executives. It's their company. 1 you didn't answer the question. 2 because the workers are a part of the company and are the ones actually making the sales or making the product. the workers own the company, they should have a say in it. You are living in Marxist fantasy land. The workers don't own shit unless the company (ie the stockholders) allow it. Look, you should at least have a basic understanding of corporate operation and governance before you comment on this stuff. Nope, the workers own the company since they are the ones making the money for the company. Take that away and the company doesn't run and doesn't have any value. I'm still waiting for answers on why the executives and directors make the money instead of the workers who are directly interacting with the market. Also waiting on the answer of what this CEO 80+ hour work is like, I gave the comparison of a coal mine worker to contrast different types of work/effort and in order to help get you started on your own definition of said CEO work. edit: btw i'm not a marxist, at least i'm not intentionally one since i've never read any of that literature. i'm just trying to apply logic to the subject The reason is very simple because your average worker is easy to find and can be replaced at the drop of a hat. The requirements of the job are what determine your pay, to simplify it the harder it is to fill your job the more you are worth. Most low wage jobs are low wage because they require very little to no education or specific degree. There is of course a little more to it at the higher ends but at its core your value is determined by how easily replaceable you are (and what the market says you are worth but that would take longer to explain). Of course unions exist to try to help the workers get as much as they can because as I just said the value of any individual worker is usually minimal at best but as you basically stated a company can not handle losing all its workers at once. Doesn't really matter though does it? We were talking about who does the work and who owns the company. It's most logical to assume the workers, rather than the directors of a corporation, are the ones who bring value to the company because they work at the lowest level nearest to the market (which is the source of the company's value) or the production of goods to be sold in the market. I'm not talking about low wage jobs per se, but simply the class of people known as the workers. Since they intrinsically (not extrinsically) own the company they deserve the decision of who directs them at the top level. It's hard to objectively measure value added by any one employee no matter what level they're at in any company. People like you are going to say low level employees, and people like xDaunt are going to say CEOs and directors. It's a he-said/she-said argument. No it's not. It's a simple fact that by removing the working class of a company you have no company, you have no income, you have virtually no value. They are the ones who in actuality make the money. The directors have somehow gotten the power to steal that value from the workers and redistribute it themselves. This would be fine, in fact, if the workers had say in who taxed their income. But they do not have representation in exchange for their taxation 
Yeah, and if you get rid of the suppliers you have no income. And if you get rid of the equipment you have no income. And if you get rid of the customers you have no income.
What does any of that have to do with ownership?
|
On January 23 2014 11:22 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 11:04 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 11:01 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 10:48 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 10:43 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 10:36 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 10:26 aksfjh wrote:
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... Is it any wonder that CEOs at large firms never really get to take vacations? A good friend of mine was voted as the best employee within a Fortune 10 company. His reward was to get to have lunch with the CEO and chat about life. My friend was struck by how truly busy the CEO was. The guy never gets any time off. He's always on call. He's always working. I personally know plenty of other high ranking executives at large firms. The story is the same with them as well. What do you mean he's always working? Phoning people isn't the same work as digging in the coal mines, as an example. Other people who never get time off are usually those in IT. Have you ever had the "pleasure" of having to consistently work 80+ hour weeks doing white collar work? On January 23 2014 10:38 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 10:28 zlefin wrote:
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. Why does it matter? Are you proposing that we enact legislation to cap executive pay? Companies should be free to pay their executives obscenely large amounts if they want to. If the executives do poorly, then they'll be fired and the company will suffer financially for its poor hiring decision. That's how it should be. Who decides that pay though? Did the workers have any say in the matter? Why should the workers have any say in the matter? We're not communists. The owners (or the board if its public) determine the pay of the executives. It's their company. 1 you didn't answer the question. 2 because the workers are a part of the company and are the ones actually making the sales or making the product. the workers own the company, they should have a say in it. You are living in Marxist fantasy land. The workers don't own shit unless the company (ie the stockholders) allow it. Look, you should at least have a basic understanding of corporate operation and governance before you comment on this stuff. It would be nice if you would stop the marxist/communist rhetoric as everything I have proposed so far has nothing to do communism. Also he's probably aware that workers don't legally own the company, but that's not what we are talking about anyway. We were talking about the moral responsibility that comes with owning a company/a lot of moeny, and that is not being recognized right now by many large companies and executives. Also workers and executives and shareholders are codependent. If workers don't work, shareholder and executives don't get rich. And if we're on the topic of dependencies that's also a nice moment to remind that companies are relying on public schools/infrastructure/research and whatnot to make the profits they make, so they indeed do have a responsibility towards society. Show nested quote +
There is of course a little more to it at the higher ends but at its core your value is determined by how easily replaceable you are
Yeah or we could pretend for a moment that we're actual humans and not replaceable car parts and have a discussion on that basis.
I wasn't responding to you. I was responding to Roe, who was describing something fairly close to a Marxist ideal, which clearly does not exist in the real world.
As for your other points, morality has nothing to do with executive compensation. Should it? Maybe, but that is to be decided privately.
That companies and highly paid executives benefit from public infrastructure is inaposite, too. Who do you think pays the majority of the taxes that fund those items? Obviously, it is the people with the money.
|
On January 23 2014 11:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 11:40 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 11:30 Cheren wrote:On January 23 2014 11:21 Adreme wrote:On January 23 2014 11:12 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 11:04 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 11:01 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 10:48 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 10:43 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 10:36 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Is it any wonder that CEOs at large firms never really get to take vacations?
A good friend of mine was voted as the best employee within a Fortune 10 company. His reward was to get to have lunch with the CEO and chat about life. My friend was struck by how truly busy the CEO was. The guy never gets any time off. He's always on call. He's always working. I personally know plenty of other high ranking executives at large firms. The story is the same with them as well. What do you mean he's always working? Phoning people isn't the same work as digging in the coal mines, as an example. Other people who never get time off are usually those in IT. Have you ever had the "pleasure" of having to consistently work 80+ hour weeks doing white collar work? On January 23 2014 10:38 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Why does it matter? Are you proposing that we enact legislation to cap executive pay? Companies should be free to pay their executives obscenely large amounts if they want to. If the executives do poorly, then they'll be fired and the company will suffer financially for its poor hiring decision. That's how it should be. Who decides that pay though? Did the workers have any say in the matter? Why should the workers have any say in the matter? We're not communists. The owners (or the board if its public) determine the pay of the executives. It's their company. 1 you didn't answer the question. 2 because the workers are a part of the company and are the ones actually making the sales or making the product. the workers own the company, they should have a say in it. You are living in Marxist fantasy land. The workers don't own shit unless the company (ie the stockholders) allow it. Look, you should at least have a basic understanding of corporate operation and governance before you comment on this stuff. Nope, the workers own the company since they are the ones making the money for the company. Take that away and the company doesn't run and doesn't have any value. I'm still waiting for answers on why the executives and directors make the money instead of the workers who are directly interacting with the market. Also waiting on the answer of what this CEO 80+ hour work is like, I gave the comparison of a coal mine worker to contrast different types of work/effort and in order to help get you started on your own definition of said CEO work. edit: btw i'm not a marxist, at least i'm not intentionally one since i've never read any of that literature. i'm just trying to apply logic to the subject The reason is very simple because your average worker is easy to find and can be replaced at the drop of a hat. The requirements of the job are what determine your pay, to simplify it the harder it is to fill your job the more you are worth. Most low wage jobs are low wage because they require very little to no education or specific degree. There is of course a little more to it at the higher ends but at its core your value is determined by how easily replaceable you are (and what the market says you are worth but that would take longer to explain). Of course unions exist to try to help the workers get as much as they can because as I just said the value of any individual worker is usually minimal at best but as you basically stated a company can not handle losing all its workers at once. Pretty much yeah, workers are paid at market value for the most part. CEO pay has a lot more variables than supply/demand, there's cultural values of how much a CEO should be paid (the debate we're having right now), there's the personal charisma or connections of the CEO in question, and other intangibles. On January 23 2014 11:26 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 11:21 Adreme wrote:On January 23 2014 11:12 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 11:04 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 11:01 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 10:48 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 10:43 Roe wrote:
[quote]
What do you mean he's always working? Phoning people isn't the same work as digging in the coal mines, as an example. Other people who never get time off are usually those in IT. Have you ever had the "pleasure" of having to consistently work 80+ hour weeks doing white collar work? [quote]
Who decides that pay though? Did the workers have any say in the matter? Why should the workers have any say in the matter? We're not communists. The owners (or the board if its public) determine the pay of the executives. It's their company. 1 you didn't answer the question. 2 because the workers are a part of the company and are the ones actually making the sales or making the product. the workers own the company, they should have a say in it. You are living in Marxist fantasy land. The workers don't own shit unless the company (ie the stockholders) allow it. Look, you should at least have a basic understanding of corporate operation and governance before you comment on this stuff. Nope, the workers own the company since they are the ones making the money for the company. Take that away and the company doesn't run and doesn't have any value. I'm still waiting for answers on why the executives and directors make the money instead of the workers who are directly interacting with the market. Also waiting on the answer of what this CEO 80+ hour work is like, I gave the comparison of a coal mine worker to contrast different types of work/effort and in order to help get you started on your own definition of said CEO work. edit: btw i'm not a marxist, at least i'm not intentionally one since i've never read any of that literature. i'm just trying to apply logic to the subject The reason is very simple because your average worker is easy to find and can be replaced at the drop of a hat. The requirements of the job are what determine your pay, to simplify it the harder it is to fill your job the more you are worth. Most low wage jobs are low wage because they require very little to no education or specific degree. There is of course a little more to it at the higher ends but at its core your value is determined by how easily replaceable you are (and what the market says you are worth but that would take longer to explain). Of course unions exist to try to help the workers get as much as they can because as I just said the value of any individual worker is usually minimal at best but as you basically stated a company can not handle losing all its workers at once. Doesn't really matter though does it? We were talking about who does the work and who owns the company. It's most logical to assume the workers, rather than the directors of a corporation, are the ones who bring value to the company because they work at the lowest level nearest to the market (which is the source of the company's value) or the production of goods to be sold in the market. I'm not talking about low wage jobs per se, but simply the class of people known as the workers. Since they intrinsically (not extrinsically) own the company they deserve the decision of who directs them at the top level. It's hard to objectively measure value added by any one employee no matter what level they're at in any company. People like you are going to say low level employees, and people like xDaunt are going to say CEOs and directors. It's a he-said/she-said argument. No it's not. It's a simple fact that by removing the working class of a company you have no company, you have no income, you have virtually no value. They are the ones who in actuality make the money. The directors have somehow gotten the power to steal that value from the workers and redistribute it themselves. This would be fine, in fact, if the workers had say in who taxed their income. But they do not have representation in exchange for their taxation Yeah, and if you get rid of the suppliers you have no income. And if you get rid of the equipment you have no income. And if you get rid of the customers you have no income. What does any of that have to do with ownership?
So you agree that ownership is much more complex than dictatorship of the directors?
On January 23 2014 11:46 Danglars wrote:RoeShow nested quote +No it's not. It's a simple fact that by removing the working class of a company you have no company, you have no income, you have virtually no value. They are the ones who in actuality make the money. The directors have somehow gotten the power to steal that value from the workers and redistribute it themselves. This would be fine, in fact, if the workers had say in who taxed their income. But they do not have representation in exchange for their taxation Show nested quote +because the workers are a part of the company and are the ones actually making the sales or making the product. the workers own the company, they should have a say in it. And you say Show nested quote +btw i'm not a marxist, at least i'm not intentionally one since i've never read any of that literature. i'm just trying to apply logic to the subject I feel like I'm getting massively trolled here. Twins separated at birth, unaware of each other's existence, if I can twist a phrase to this situation.
I don't get your point, but I assure you I'm not trying to troll you (isn't calling someone a troll against the TL commandments? doesn't seem like a nice thing to say at any rate).
|
On January 23 2014 12:25 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 11:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 23 2014 11:40 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 11:30 Cheren wrote:On January 23 2014 11:21 Adreme wrote:On January 23 2014 11:12 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 11:04 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 11:01 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 10:48 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 10:43 Roe wrote:
[quote]
What do you mean he's always working? Phoning people isn't the same work as digging in the coal mines, as an example. Other people who never get time off are usually those in IT. Have you ever had the "pleasure" of having to consistently work 80+ hour weeks doing white collar work? [quote]
Who decides that pay though? Did the workers have any say in the matter? Why should the workers have any say in the matter? We're not communists. The owners (or the board if its public) determine the pay of the executives. It's their company. 1 you didn't answer the question. 2 because the workers are a part of the company and are the ones actually making the sales or making the product. the workers own the company, they should have a say in it. You are living in Marxist fantasy land. The workers don't own shit unless the company (ie the stockholders) allow it. Look, you should at least have a basic understanding of corporate operation and governance before you comment on this stuff. Nope, the workers own the company since they are the ones making the money for the company. Take that away and the company doesn't run and doesn't have any value. I'm still waiting for answers on why the executives and directors make the money instead of the workers who are directly interacting with the market. Also waiting on the answer of what this CEO 80+ hour work is like, I gave the comparison of a coal mine worker to contrast different types of work/effort and in order to help get you started on your own definition of said CEO work. edit: btw i'm not a marxist, at least i'm not intentionally one since i've never read any of that literature. i'm just trying to apply logic to the subject The reason is very simple because your average worker is easy to find and can be replaced at the drop of a hat. The requirements of the job are what determine your pay, to simplify it the harder it is to fill your job the more you are worth. Most low wage jobs are low wage because they require very little to no education or specific degree. There is of course a little more to it at the higher ends but at its core your value is determined by how easily replaceable you are (and what the market says you are worth but that would take longer to explain). Of course unions exist to try to help the workers get as much as they can because as I just said the value of any individual worker is usually minimal at best but as you basically stated a company can not handle losing all its workers at once. Pretty much yeah, workers are paid at market value for the most part. CEO pay has a lot more variables than supply/demand, there's cultural values of how much a CEO should be paid (the debate we're having right now), there's the personal charisma or connections of the CEO in question, and other intangibles. On January 23 2014 11:26 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 11:21 Adreme wrote:On January 23 2014 11:12 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 11:04 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 11:01 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 10:48 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Have you ever had the "pleasure" of having to consistently work 80+ hour weeks doing white collar work?
[quote]
Why should the workers have any say in the matter? We're not communists. The owners (or the board if its public) determine the pay of the executives. It's their company. 1 you didn't answer the question. 2 because the workers are a part of the company and are the ones actually making the sales or making the product. the workers own the company, they should have a say in it. You are living in Marxist fantasy land. The workers don't own shit unless the company (ie the stockholders) allow it. Look, you should at least have a basic understanding of corporate operation and governance before you comment on this stuff. Nope, the workers own the company since they are the ones making the money for the company. Take that away and the company doesn't run and doesn't have any value. I'm still waiting for answers on why the executives and directors make the money instead of the workers who are directly interacting with the market. Also waiting on the answer of what this CEO 80+ hour work is like, I gave the comparison of a coal mine worker to contrast different types of work/effort and in order to help get you started on your own definition of said CEO work. edit: btw i'm not a marxist, at least i'm not intentionally one since i've never read any of that literature. i'm just trying to apply logic to the subject The reason is very simple because your average worker is easy to find and can be replaced at the drop of a hat. The requirements of the job are what determine your pay, to simplify it the harder it is to fill your job the more you are worth. Most low wage jobs are low wage because they require very little to no education or specific degree. There is of course a little more to it at the higher ends but at its core your value is determined by how easily replaceable you are (and what the market says you are worth but that would take longer to explain). Of course unions exist to try to help the workers get as much as they can because as I just said the value of any individual worker is usually minimal at best but as you basically stated a company can not handle losing all its workers at once. Doesn't really matter though does it? We were talking about who does the work and who owns the company. It's most logical to assume the workers, rather than the directors of a corporation, are the ones who bring value to the company because they work at the lowest level nearest to the market (which is the source of the company's value) or the production of goods to be sold in the market. I'm not talking about low wage jobs per se, but simply the class of people known as the workers. Since they intrinsically (not extrinsically) own the company they deserve the decision of who directs them at the top level. It's hard to objectively measure value added by any one employee no matter what level they're at in any company. People like you are going to say low level employees, and people like xDaunt are going to say CEOs and directors. It's a he-said/she-said argument. No it's not. It's a simple fact that by removing the working class of a company you have no company, you have no income, you have virtually no value. They are the ones who in actuality make the money. The directors have somehow gotten the power to steal that value from the workers and redistribute it themselves. This would be fine, in fact, if the workers had say in who taxed their income. But they do not have representation in exchange for their taxation Yeah, and if you get rid of the suppliers you have no income. And if you get rid of the equipment you have no income. And if you get rid of the customers you have no income. What does any of that have to do with ownership? So you agree that ownership is much more complex than dictatorship of the directors?
No, and I have no idea why you are trying to reinvent what ownership means.
|
I think everything is working great how it is set up now.
You can't pay people the same wage or even the same pay structure. Which of the following pay structures do you have a problem with and how would you fix it?
Labor "I will be a coal miner for 20 dollars an hour"
Management "I will complete my tasks and objectives for 100k a year"
Salesmen "I will make sales for a 10% commission"
Contractors "I will build that deck for 1000 dollars"
Exectutives "I will run this company for 400k a year with stock options"
Lenders "I want 5% for the use of my capital"
Owners "I want a percentage of the equity in the company"
All are fair except for the wage earner who thinks that executives were hired for ten thousand dollars an hour even though that's what it can work out to.
|
On January 23 2014 12:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 12:25 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 11:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 23 2014 11:40 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 11:30 Cheren wrote:On January 23 2014 11:21 Adreme wrote:On January 23 2014 11:12 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 11:04 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 11:01 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 10:48 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Have you ever had the "pleasure" of having to consistently work 80+ hour weeks doing white collar work?
[quote]
Why should the workers have any say in the matter? We're not communists. The owners (or the board if its public) determine the pay of the executives. It's their company. 1 you didn't answer the question. 2 because the workers are a part of the company and are the ones actually making the sales or making the product. the workers own the company, they should have a say in it. You are living in Marxist fantasy land. The workers don't own shit unless the company (ie the stockholders) allow it. Look, you should at least have a basic understanding of corporate operation and governance before you comment on this stuff. Nope, the workers own the company since they are the ones making the money for the company. Take that away and the company doesn't run and doesn't have any value. I'm still waiting for answers on why the executives and directors make the money instead of the workers who are directly interacting with the market. Also waiting on the answer of what this CEO 80+ hour work is like, I gave the comparison of a coal mine worker to contrast different types of work/effort and in order to help get you started on your own definition of said CEO work. edit: btw i'm not a marxist, at least i'm not intentionally one since i've never read any of that literature. i'm just trying to apply logic to the subject The reason is very simple because your average worker is easy to find and can be replaced at the drop of a hat. The requirements of the job are what determine your pay, to simplify it the harder it is to fill your job the more you are worth. Most low wage jobs are low wage because they require very little to no education or specific degree. There is of course a little more to it at the higher ends but at its core your value is determined by how easily replaceable you are (and what the market says you are worth but that would take longer to explain). Of course unions exist to try to help the workers get as much as they can because as I just said the value of any individual worker is usually minimal at best but as you basically stated a company can not handle losing all its workers at once. Pretty much yeah, workers are paid at market value for the most part. CEO pay has a lot more variables than supply/demand, there's cultural values of how much a CEO should be paid (the debate we're having right now), there's the personal charisma or connections of the CEO in question, and other intangibles. On January 23 2014 11:26 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 11:21 Adreme wrote:On January 23 2014 11:12 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 11:04 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 11:01 Roe wrote:
[quote]
1 you didn't answer the question.
2 because the workers are a part of the company and are the ones actually making the sales or making the product. the workers own the company, they should have a say in it. You are living in Marxist fantasy land. The workers don't own shit unless the company (ie the stockholders) allow it. Look, you should at least have a basic understanding of corporate operation and governance before you comment on this stuff. Nope, the workers own the company since they are the ones making the money for the company. Take that away and the company doesn't run and doesn't have any value. I'm still waiting for answers on why the executives and directors make the money instead of the workers who are directly interacting with the market. Also waiting on the answer of what this CEO 80+ hour work is like, I gave the comparison of a coal mine worker to contrast different types of work/effort and in order to help get you started on your own definition of said CEO work. edit: btw i'm not a marxist, at least i'm not intentionally one since i've never read any of that literature. i'm just trying to apply logic to the subject The reason is very simple because your average worker is easy to find and can be replaced at the drop of a hat. The requirements of the job are what determine your pay, to simplify it the harder it is to fill your job the more you are worth. Most low wage jobs are low wage because they require very little to no education or specific degree. There is of course a little more to it at the higher ends but at its core your value is determined by how easily replaceable you are (and what the market says you are worth but that would take longer to explain). Of course unions exist to try to help the workers get as much as they can because as I just said the value of any individual worker is usually minimal at best but as you basically stated a company can not handle losing all its workers at once. Doesn't really matter though does it? We were talking about who does the work and who owns the company. It's most logical to assume the workers, rather than the directors of a corporation, are the ones who bring value to the company because they work at the lowest level nearest to the market (which is the source of the company's value) or the production of goods to be sold in the market. I'm not talking about low wage jobs per se, but simply the class of people known as the workers. Since they intrinsically (not extrinsically) own the company they deserve the decision of who directs them at the top level. It's hard to objectively measure value added by any one employee no matter what level they're at in any company. People like you are going to say low level employees, and people like xDaunt are going to say CEOs and directors. It's a he-said/she-said argument. No it's not. It's a simple fact that by removing the working class of a company you have no company, you have no income, you have virtually no value. They are the ones who in actuality make the money. The directors have somehow gotten the power to steal that value from the workers and redistribute it themselves. This would be fine, in fact, if the workers had say in who taxed their income. But they do not have representation in exchange for their taxation Yeah, and if you get rid of the suppliers you have no income. And if you get rid of the equipment you have no income. And if you get rid of the customers you have no income. What does any of that have to do with ownership? So you agree that ownership is much more complex than dictatorship of the directors? No, and I have no idea why you are trying to reinvent what ownership means.
Because the directors don't solely own the company
edit: I'm using your definition of ownership aren't I? Just the people who own the company, which means they control the value of the company.
|
A second chemical was mixed in with the previously identified MCHM crude that leaked from a storage tank at Freedom Industries chemical company earlier this month and tainted drinking water in a large swath of West Virginia, a spokeswoman for Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin confirmed to Al Jazeera Tuesday evening.
State authorities said that earlier Tuesday they had received a document from Freedom Industries indicating the presence of the second substance, a modified form of a chemical called PPH. The chemical spill into the Elk River prompted authorities to impose a Jan. 9 ban on drinking, bathing or even touching water from taps.
The ban was lifted Jan. 19, but residents this week were still reporting symptoms such as rashes or nausea after coming into contact with the water. Some also complained of a strange, licorice-like odor coming from taps and toilets.
Some residents are still refusing to drink the water, and authorities have warned pregnant women against drinking it until levels of MCHM are undetectable.
Source
|
On January 23 2014 13:11 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 12:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 23 2014 12:25 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 11:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 23 2014 11:40 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 11:30 Cheren wrote:On January 23 2014 11:21 Adreme wrote:On January 23 2014 11:12 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 11:04 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 11:01 Roe wrote:
[quote]
1 you didn't answer the question.
2 because the workers are a part of the company and are the ones actually making the sales or making the product. the workers own the company, they should have a say in it. You are living in Marxist fantasy land. The workers don't own shit unless the company (ie the stockholders) allow it. Look, you should at least have a basic understanding of corporate operation and governance before you comment on this stuff. Nope, the workers own the company since they are the ones making the money for the company. Take that away and the company doesn't run and doesn't have any value. I'm still waiting for answers on why the executives and directors make the money instead of the workers who are directly interacting with the market. Also waiting on the answer of what this CEO 80+ hour work is like, I gave the comparison of a coal mine worker to contrast different types of work/effort and in order to help get you started on your own definition of said CEO work. edit: btw i'm not a marxist, at least i'm not intentionally one since i've never read any of that literature. i'm just trying to apply logic to the subject The reason is very simple because your average worker is easy to find and can be replaced at the drop of a hat. The requirements of the job are what determine your pay, to simplify it the harder it is to fill your job the more you are worth. Most low wage jobs are low wage because they require very little to no education or specific degree. There is of course a little more to it at the higher ends but at its core your value is determined by how easily replaceable you are (and what the market says you are worth but that would take longer to explain). Of course unions exist to try to help the workers get as much as they can because as I just said the value of any individual worker is usually minimal at best but as you basically stated a company can not handle losing all its workers at once. Pretty much yeah, workers are paid at market value for the most part. CEO pay has a lot more variables than supply/demand, there's cultural values of how much a CEO should be paid (the debate we're having right now), there's the personal charisma or connections of the CEO in question, and other intangibles. On January 23 2014 11:26 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 11:21 Adreme wrote:On January 23 2014 11:12 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 11:04 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
You are living in Marxist fantasy land. The workers don't own shit unless the company (ie the stockholders) allow it. Look, you should at least have a basic understanding of corporate operation and governance before you comment on this stuff. Nope, the workers own the company since they are the ones making the money for the company. Take that away and the company doesn't run and doesn't have any value. I'm still waiting for answers on why the executives and directors make the money instead of the workers who are directly interacting with the market. Also waiting on the answer of what this CEO 80+ hour work is like, I gave the comparison of a coal mine worker to contrast different types of work/effort and in order to help get you started on your own definition of said CEO work. edit: btw i'm not a marxist, at least i'm not intentionally one since i've never read any of that literature. i'm just trying to apply logic to the subject The reason is very simple because your average worker is easy to find and can be replaced at the drop of a hat. The requirements of the job are what determine your pay, to simplify it the harder it is to fill your job the more you are worth. Most low wage jobs are low wage because they require very little to no education or specific degree. There is of course a little more to it at the higher ends but at its core your value is determined by how easily replaceable you are (and what the market says you are worth but that would take longer to explain). Of course unions exist to try to help the workers get as much as they can because as I just said the value of any individual worker is usually minimal at best but as you basically stated a company can not handle losing all its workers at once. Doesn't really matter though does it? We were talking about who does the work and who owns the company. It's most logical to assume the workers, rather than the directors of a corporation, are the ones who bring value to the company because they work at the lowest level nearest to the market (which is the source of the company's value) or the production of goods to be sold in the market. I'm not talking about low wage jobs per se, but simply the class of people known as the workers. Since they intrinsically (not extrinsically) own the company they deserve the decision of who directs them at the top level. It's hard to objectively measure value added by any one employee no matter what level they're at in any company. People like you are going to say low level employees, and people like xDaunt are going to say CEOs and directors. It's a he-said/she-said argument. No it's not. It's a simple fact that by removing the working class of a company you have no company, you have no income, you have virtually no value. They are the ones who in actuality make the money. The directors have somehow gotten the power to steal that value from the workers and redistribute it themselves. This would be fine, in fact, if the workers had say in who taxed their income. But they do not have representation in exchange for their taxation Yeah, and if you get rid of the suppliers you have no income. And if you get rid of the equipment you have no income. And if you get rid of the customers you have no income. What does any of that have to do with ownership? So you agree that ownership is much more complex than dictatorship of the directors? No, and I have no idea why you are trying to reinvent what ownership means. Because the directors don't solely own the company edit: I'm using your definition of ownership aren't I? Just the people who own the company, which means they control the value of the company.
You need to be more clear about what you mean when you say "ownership." Factually, neither employees, CEOs, nor directors own a corporation. The owners are the shareholders (though this group often includes many employees, including CEOs and directors). They get to decide who sits on the board, which generally decides who gets to be the CEO, and directly or indirectly control the company.
Now, if you argue that employees ought to be the owners of a corporation then you could have a coherent argument.
|
On January 23 2014 13:18 Mercy13 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 13:11 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 12:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 23 2014 12:25 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 11:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 23 2014 11:40 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 11:30 Cheren wrote:On January 23 2014 11:21 Adreme wrote:On January 23 2014 11:12 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 11:04 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
You are living in Marxist fantasy land. The workers don't own shit unless the company (ie the stockholders) allow it. Look, you should at least have a basic understanding of corporate operation and governance before you comment on this stuff. Nope, the workers own the company since they are the ones making the money for the company. Take that away and the company doesn't run and doesn't have any value. I'm still waiting for answers on why the executives and directors make the money instead of the workers who are directly interacting with the market. Also waiting on the answer of what this CEO 80+ hour work is like, I gave the comparison of a coal mine worker to contrast different types of work/effort and in order to help get you started on your own definition of said CEO work. edit: btw i'm not a marxist, at least i'm not intentionally one since i've never read any of that literature. i'm just trying to apply logic to the subject The reason is very simple because your average worker is easy to find and can be replaced at the drop of a hat. The requirements of the job are what determine your pay, to simplify it the harder it is to fill your job the more you are worth. Most low wage jobs are low wage because they require very little to no education or specific degree. There is of course a little more to it at the higher ends but at its core your value is determined by how easily replaceable you are (and what the market says you are worth but that would take longer to explain). Of course unions exist to try to help the workers get as much as they can because as I just said the value of any individual worker is usually minimal at best but as you basically stated a company can not handle losing all its workers at once. Pretty much yeah, workers are paid at market value for the most part. CEO pay has a lot more variables than supply/demand, there's cultural values of how much a CEO should be paid (the debate we're having right now), there's the personal charisma or connections of the CEO in question, and other intangibles. On January 23 2014 11:26 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 11:21 Adreme wrote:On January 23 2014 11:12 Roe wrote:
[quote]
Nope, the workers own the company since they are the ones making the money for the company. Take that away and the company doesn't run and doesn't have any value. I'm still waiting for answers on why the executives and directors make the money instead of the workers who are directly interacting with the market. Also waiting on the answer of what this CEO 80+ hour work is like, I gave the comparison of a coal mine worker to contrast different types of work/effort and in order to help get you started on your own definition of said CEO work.
edit: btw i'm not a marxist, at least i'm not intentionally one since i've never read any of that literature. i'm just trying to apply logic to the subject The reason is very simple because your average worker is easy to find and can be replaced at the drop of a hat. The requirements of the job are what determine your pay, to simplify it the harder it is to fill your job the more you are worth. Most low wage jobs are low wage because they require very little to no education or specific degree. There is of course a little more to it at the higher ends but at its core your value is determined by how easily replaceable you are (and what the market says you are worth but that would take longer to explain). Of course unions exist to try to help the workers get as much as they can because as I just said the value of any individual worker is usually minimal at best but as you basically stated a company can not handle losing all its workers at once. Doesn't really matter though does it? We were talking about who does the work and who owns the company. It's most logical to assume the workers, rather than the directors of a corporation, are the ones who bring value to the company because they work at the lowest level nearest to the market (which is the source of the company's value) or the production of goods to be sold in the market. I'm not talking about low wage jobs per se, but simply the class of people known as the workers. Since they intrinsically (not extrinsically) own the company they deserve the decision of who directs them at the top level. It's hard to objectively measure value added by any one employee no matter what level they're at in any company. People like you are going to say low level employees, and people like xDaunt are going to say CEOs and directors. It's a he-said/she-said argument. No it's not. It's a simple fact that by removing the working class of a company you have no company, you have no income, you have virtually no value. They are the ones who in actuality make the money. The directors have somehow gotten the power to steal that value from the workers and redistribute it themselves. This would be fine, in fact, if the workers had say in who taxed their income. But they do not have representation in exchange for their taxation Yeah, and if you get rid of the suppliers you have no income. And if you get rid of the equipment you have no income. And if you get rid of the customers you have no income. What does any of that have to do with ownership? So you agree that ownership is much more complex than dictatorship of the directors? No, and I have no idea why you are trying to reinvent what ownership means. Because the directors don't solely own the company edit: I'm using your definition of ownership aren't I? Just the people who own the company, which means they control the value of the company. You need to be more clear about what you mean when you say "ownership." Factually, neither employees, CEOs, nor directors own a corporation. The owners are the shareholders (though this group often includes many employees, including CEOs and directors). They get to decide who sits on the board, which generally decides who gets to be the CEO, and directly or indirectly control the company. Now, if you argue that employees ought to be the owners of a corporation then you could have a coherent argument.
Read back a page or so. I already said that. There's nothing incoherent about the argument. Respondents have only replied with pro status quo arguments like you have, effectively saying "this is the way it is, it shouldn't be any other way". Or if you like a Bruce Hornsby quote, "that's just the way it is", and they leave it at that.
|
On January 23 2014 13:11 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 12:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 23 2014 12:25 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 11:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 23 2014 11:40 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 11:30 Cheren wrote:On January 23 2014 11:21 Adreme wrote:On January 23 2014 11:12 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 11:04 xDaunt wrote:On January 23 2014 11:01 Roe wrote:
[quote]
1 you didn't answer the question.
2 because the workers are a part of the company and are the ones actually making the sales or making the product. the workers own the company, they should have a say in it. You are living in Marxist fantasy land. The workers don't own shit unless the company (ie the stockholders) allow it. Look, you should at least have a basic understanding of corporate operation and governance before you comment on this stuff. Nope, the workers own the company since they are the ones making the money for the company. Take that away and the company doesn't run and doesn't have any value. I'm still waiting for answers on why the executives and directors make the money instead of the workers who are directly interacting with the market. Also waiting on the answer of what this CEO 80+ hour work is like, I gave the comparison of a coal mine worker to contrast different types of work/effort and in order to help get you started on your own definition of said CEO work. edit: btw i'm not a marxist, at least i'm not intentionally one since i've never read any of that literature. i'm just trying to apply logic to the subject The reason is very simple because your average worker is easy to find and can be replaced at the drop of a hat. The requirements of the job are what determine your pay, to simplify it the harder it is to fill your job the more you are worth. Most low wage jobs are low wage because they require very little to no education or specific degree. There is of course a little more to it at the higher ends but at its core your value is determined by how easily replaceable you are (and what the market says you are worth but that would take longer to explain). Of course unions exist to try to help the workers get as much as they can because as I just said the value of any individual worker is usually minimal at best but as you basically stated a company can not handle losing all its workers at once. Pretty much yeah, workers are paid at market value for the most part. CEO pay has a lot more variables than supply/demand, there's cultural values of how much a CEO should be paid (the debate we're having right now), there's the personal charisma or connections of the CEO in question, and other intangibles. On January 23 2014 11:26 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 11:21 Adreme wrote:On January 23 2014 11:12 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 11:04 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
You are living in Marxist fantasy land. The workers don't own shit unless the company (ie the stockholders) allow it. Look, you should at least have a basic understanding of corporate operation and governance before you comment on this stuff. Nope, the workers own the company since they are the ones making the money for the company. Take that away and the company doesn't run and doesn't have any value. I'm still waiting for answers on why the executives and directors make the money instead of the workers who are directly interacting with the market. Also waiting on the answer of what this CEO 80+ hour work is like, I gave the comparison of a coal mine worker to contrast different types of work/effort and in order to help get you started on your own definition of said CEO work. edit: btw i'm not a marxist, at least i'm not intentionally one since i've never read any of that literature. i'm just trying to apply logic to the subject The reason is very simple because your average worker is easy to find and can be replaced at the drop of a hat. The requirements of the job are what determine your pay, to simplify it the harder it is to fill your job the more you are worth. Most low wage jobs are low wage because they require very little to no education or specific degree. There is of course a little more to it at the higher ends but at its core your value is determined by how easily replaceable you are (and what the market says you are worth but that would take longer to explain). Of course unions exist to try to help the workers get as much as they can because as I just said the value of any individual worker is usually minimal at best but as you basically stated a company can not handle losing all its workers at once. Doesn't really matter though does it? We were talking about who does the work and who owns the company. It's most logical to assume the workers, rather than the directors of a corporation, are the ones who bring value to the company because they work at the lowest level nearest to the market (which is the source of the company's value) or the production of goods to be sold in the market. I'm not talking about low wage jobs per se, but simply the class of people known as the workers. Since they intrinsically (not extrinsically) own the company they deserve the decision of who directs them at the top level. It's hard to objectively measure value added by any one employee no matter what level they're at in any company. People like you are going to say low level employees, and people like xDaunt are going to say CEOs and directors. It's a he-said/she-said argument. No it's not. It's a simple fact that by removing the working class of a company you have no company, you have no income, you have virtually no value. They are the ones who in actuality make the money. The directors have somehow gotten the power to steal that value from the workers and redistribute it themselves. This would be fine, in fact, if the workers had say in who taxed their income. But they do not have representation in exchange for their taxation Yeah, and if you get rid of the suppliers you have no income. And if you get rid of the equipment you have no income. And if you get rid of the customers you have no income. What does any of that have to do with ownership? So you agree that ownership is much more complex than dictatorship of the directors? No, and I have no idea why you are trying to reinvent what ownership means. Because the directors don't solely own the company edit: I'm using your definition of ownership aren't I? Just the people who own the company, which means they control the value of the company.
Directors aren't really owners at all - they're fiduciaries who act on behalf of shareholders (the legal owners) and in accordance with corporate bylaws.
I'm not sure what you mean by "control the value" but shareholders exert control over the corporation by controlling who sits on the board and the board controls the executive team that runs it (at least in theory, in reality many boards are somewhat impotent, which is somewhat fitting because they tend to all be old men  ).
But anyways, shareholders are the residual claimants - meaning they're the last to get paid (if at all). It makes sense to give them ownership authority since it would be all too easy to otherwise simply not pay the residual claimant... which would make the whole endeavor a non-starter.
Another way to look at it is that there is only one class of owner - the shareholders.
But there are many people affected by the corporation - the stakeholders.
|
That's because you seem unclear on the standard meaning of the word "ownership", you are using it in a very different way than others are.
|
On January 23 2014 13:27 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 13:18 Mercy13 wrote:On January 23 2014 13:11 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 12:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 23 2014 12:25 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 11:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 23 2014 11:40 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 11:30 Cheren wrote:On January 23 2014 11:21 Adreme wrote:On January 23 2014 11:12 Roe wrote:
[quote]
Nope, the workers own the company since they are the ones making the money for the company. Take that away and the company doesn't run and doesn't have any value. I'm still waiting for answers on why the executives and directors make the money instead of the workers who are directly interacting with the market. Also waiting on the answer of what this CEO 80+ hour work is like, I gave the comparison of a coal mine worker to contrast different types of work/effort and in order to help get you started on your own definition of said CEO work.
edit: btw i'm not a marxist, at least i'm not intentionally one since i've never read any of that literature. i'm just trying to apply logic to the subject The reason is very simple because your average worker is easy to find and can be replaced at the drop of a hat. The requirements of the job are what determine your pay, to simplify it the harder it is to fill your job the more you are worth. Most low wage jobs are low wage because they require very little to no education or specific degree. There is of course a little more to it at the higher ends but at its core your value is determined by how easily replaceable you are (and what the market says you are worth but that would take longer to explain). Of course unions exist to try to help the workers get as much as they can because as I just said the value of any individual worker is usually minimal at best but as you basically stated a company can not handle losing all its workers at once. Pretty much yeah, workers are paid at market value for the most part. CEO pay has a lot more variables than supply/demand, there's cultural values of how much a CEO should be paid (the debate we're having right now), there's the personal charisma or connections of the CEO in question, and other intangibles. On January 23 2014 11:26 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 11:21 Adreme wrote:
[quote]
The reason is very simple because your average worker is easy to find and can be replaced at the drop of a hat. The requirements of the job are what determine your pay, to simplify it the harder it is to fill your job the more you are worth. Most low wage jobs are low wage because they require very little to no education or specific degree. There is of course a little more to it at the higher ends but at its core your value is determined by how easily replaceable you are (and what the market says you are worth but that would take longer to explain).
Of course unions exist to try to help the workers get as much as they can because as I just said the value of any individual worker is usually minimal at best but as you basically stated a company can not handle losing all its workers at once.
Doesn't really matter though does it? We were talking about who does the work and who owns the company. It's most logical to assume the workers, rather than the directors of a corporation, are the ones who bring value to the company because they work at the lowest level nearest to the market (which is the source of the company's value) or the production of goods to be sold in the market. I'm not talking about low wage jobs per se, but simply the class of people known as the workers. Since they intrinsically (not extrinsically) own the company they deserve the decision of who directs them at the top level. It's hard to objectively measure value added by any one employee no matter what level they're at in any company. People like you are going to say low level employees, and people like xDaunt are going to say CEOs and directors. It's a he-said/she-said argument. No it's not. It's a simple fact that by removing the working class of a company you have no company, you have no income, you have virtually no value. They are the ones who in actuality make the money. The directors have somehow gotten the power to steal that value from the workers and redistribute it themselves. This would be fine, in fact, if the workers had say in who taxed their income. But they do not have representation in exchange for their taxation Yeah, and if you get rid of the suppliers you have no income. And if you get rid of the equipment you have no income. And if you get rid of the customers you have no income. What does any of that have to do with ownership? So you agree that ownership is much more complex than dictatorship of the directors? No, and I have no idea why you are trying to reinvent what ownership means. Because the directors don't solely own the company edit: I'm using your definition of ownership aren't I? Just the people who own the company, which means they control the value of the company. You need to be more clear about what you mean when you say "ownership." Factually, neither employees, CEOs, nor directors own a corporation. The owners are the shareholders (though this group often includes many employees, including CEOs and directors). They get to decide who sits on the board, which generally decides who gets to be the CEO, and directly or indirectly control the company. Now, if you argue that employees ought to be the owners of a corporation then you could have a coherent argument. Read back a page or so. I already said that. There's nothing incoherent about the argument. Respondents have only replied with pro status quo arguments like you have, effectively saying "this is the way it is, it shouldn't be any other way". Or if you like a Bruce Hornsby quote, "that's just the way it is", and they leave it at that.
If you would like to use a different definition for the term ownership then I think the onus should be on you to tell everyone what it is so we know what you are talking about...
Based on what you said earlier, perhaps you would define ownership to mean that a person owns something when he or she generates value for it or something?
Even if that's what you mean you're not making a very good argument. Collectively, I think it's a fair argument that employees generate most of a corporation's value which is probably why collectively they also get paid a lot more than the CEO.
|
People who are talking about how things should be don't typically express those sentiments using present statements of fact.
|
On January 23 2014 13:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 13:11 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 12:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 23 2014 12:25 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 11:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 23 2014 11:40 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 11:30 Cheren wrote:On January 23 2014 11:21 Adreme wrote:On January 23 2014 11:12 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 11:04 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
You are living in Marxist fantasy land. The workers don't own shit unless the company (ie the stockholders) allow it. Look, you should at least have a basic understanding of corporate operation and governance before you comment on this stuff. Nope, the workers own the company since they are the ones making the money for the company. Take that away and the company doesn't run and doesn't have any value. I'm still waiting for answers on why the executives and directors make the money instead of the workers who are directly interacting with the market. Also waiting on the answer of what this CEO 80+ hour work is like, I gave the comparison of a coal mine worker to contrast different types of work/effort and in order to help get you started on your own definition of said CEO work. edit: btw i'm not a marxist, at least i'm not intentionally one since i've never read any of that literature. i'm just trying to apply logic to the subject The reason is very simple because your average worker is easy to find and can be replaced at the drop of a hat. The requirements of the job are what determine your pay, to simplify it the harder it is to fill your job the more you are worth. Most low wage jobs are low wage because they require very little to no education or specific degree. There is of course a little more to it at the higher ends but at its core your value is determined by how easily replaceable you are (and what the market says you are worth but that would take longer to explain). Of course unions exist to try to help the workers get as much as they can because as I just said the value of any individual worker is usually minimal at best but as you basically stated a company can not handle losing all its workers at once. Pretty much yeah, workers are paid at market value for the most part. CEO pay has a lot more variables than supply/demand, there's cultural values of how much a CEO should be paid (the debate we're having right now), there's the personal charisma or connections of the CEO in question, and other intangibles. On January 23 2014 11:26 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 11:21 Adreme wrote:On January 23 2014 11:12 Roe wrote:
[quote]
Nope, the workers own the company since they are the ones making the money for the company. Take that away and the company doesn't run and doesn't have any value. I'm still waiting for answers on why the executives and directors make the money instead of the workers who are directly interacting with the market. Also waiting on the answer of what this CEO 80+ hour work is like, I gave the comparison of a coal mine worker to contrast different types of work/effort and in order to help get you started on your own definition of said CEO work.
edit: btw i'm not a marxist, at least i'm not intentionally one since i've never read any of that literature. i'm just trying to apply logic to the subject The reason is very simple because your average worker is easy to find and can be replaced at the drop of a hat. The requirements of the job are what determine your pay, to simplify it the harder it is to fill your job the more you are worth. Most low wage jobs are low wage because they require very little to no education or specific degree. There is of course a little more to it at the higher ends but at its core your value is determined by how easily replaceable you are (and what the market says you are worth but that would take longer to explain). Of course unions exist to try to help the workers get as much as they can because as I just said the value of any individual worker is usually minimal at best but as you basically stated a company can not handle losing all its workers at once. Doesn't really matter though does it? We were talking about who does the work and who owns the company. It's most logical to assume the workers, rather than the directors of a corporation, are the ones who bring value to the company because they work at the lowest level nearest to the market (which is the source of the company's value) or the production of goods to be sold in the market. I'm not talking about low wage jobs per se, but simply the class of people known as the workers. Since they intrinsically (not extrinsically) own the company they deserve the decision of who directs them at the top level. It's hard to objectively measure value added by any one employee no matter what level they're at in any company. People like you are going to say low level employees, and people like xDaunt are going to say CEOs and directors. It's a he-said/she-said argument. No it's not. It's a simple fact that by removing the working class of a company you have no company, you have no income, you have virtually no value. They are the ones who in actuality make the money. The directors have somehow gotten the power to steal that value from the workers and redistribute it themselves. This would be fine, in fact, if the workers had say in who taxed their income. But they do not have representation in exchange for their taxation Yeah, and if you get rid of the suppliers you have no income. And if you get rid of the equipment you have no income. And if you get rid of the customers you have no income. What does any of that have to do with ownership? So you agree that ownership is much more complex than dictatorship of the directors? No, and I have no idea why you are trying to reinvent what ownership means. Because the directors don't solely own the company edit: I'm using your definition of ownership aren't I? Just the people who own the company, which means they control the value of the company. Directors aren't really owners at all - they're fiduciaries who act on behalf of shareholders (the legal owners) and in accordance with corporate bylaws. I'm not sure what you mean by "control the value" but shareholders exert control over the corporation by controlling who sits on the board and the board controls the executive team that runs it (at least in theory, in reality many boards are somewhat impotent, which is somewhat fitting because they tend to all be old men ). But anyways, shareholders are the residual claimants - meaning they're the last to get paid (if at all). It makes sense to give them ownership authority since it would be all too easy to otherwise simply not pay the residual claimant... which would make the whole endeavor a non-starter. Another way to look at it is that there is only one class of owner - the shareholders. But there are many people affected by the corporation - the stakeholders.
You're not sure what it means to control the value of a company? Aren't you supposed to be a business man of some sort? Listen Johnny, I'm not interested in defending the status quo. I've spent the past page or so arguing against that.
But to help you out, why does a shareholder have ownership of a company?
On January 23 2014 13:48 xDaunt wrote:
People who are talking about how things should be don't typically express those sentiments using present statements of fact.
Your point? Be specific with your criticism, otherwise you're just rambling about marxists again
|
My point is that you weren't arguing for a change in the status quo like you are now pretending. You were erroneously describing the status quo using an absolutely bizarre concept of ownership as others have pointed out.
|
On January 23 2014 13:48 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 13:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 23 2014 13:11 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 12:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 23 2014 12:25 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 11:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 23 2014 11:40 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 11:30 Cheren wrote:On January 23 2014 11:21 Adreme wrote:On January 23 2014 11:12 Roe wrote:
[quote]
Nope, the workers own the company since they are the ones making the money for the company. Take that away and the company doesn't run and doesn't have any value. I'm still waiting for answers on why the executives and directors make the money instead of the workers who are directly interacting with the market. Also waiting on the answer of what this CEO 80+ hour work is like, I gave the comparison of a coal mine worker to contrast different types of work/effort and in order to help get you started on your own definition of said CEO work.
edit: btw i'm not a marxist, at least i'm not intentionally one since i've never read any of that literature. i'm just trying to apply logic to the subject The reason is very simple because your average worker is easy to find and can be replaced at the drop of a hat. The requirements of the job are what determine your pay, to simplify it the harder it is to fill your job the more you are worth. Most low wage jobs are low wage because they require very little to no education or specific degree. There is of course a little more to it at the higher ends but at its core your value is determined by how easily replaceable you are (and what the market says you are worth but that would take longer to explain). Of course unions exist to try to help the workers get as much as they can because as I just said the value of any individual worker is usually minimal at best but as you basically stated a company can not handle losing all its workers at once. Pretty much yeah, workers are paid at market value for the most part. CEO pay has a lot more variables than supply/demand, there's cultural values of how much a CEO should be paid (the debate we're having right now), there's the personal charisma or connections of the CEO in question, and other intangibles. On January 23 2014 11:26 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 11:21 Adreme wrote:
[quote]
The reason is very simple because your average worker is easy to find and can be replaced at the drop of a hat. The requirements of the job are what determine your pay, to simplify it the harder it is to fill your job the more you are worth. Most low wage jobs are low wage because they require very little to no education or specific degree. There is of course a little more to it at the higher ends but at its core your value is determined by how easily replaceable you are (and what the market says you are worth but that would take longer to explain).
Of course unions exist to try to help the workers get as much as they can because as I just said the value of any individual worker is usually minimal at best but as you basically stated a company can not handle losing all its workers at once.
Doesn't really matter though does it? We were talking about who does the work and who owns the company. It's most logical to assume the workers, rather than the directors of a corporation, are the ones who bring value to the company because they work at the lowest level nearest to the market (which is the source of the company's value) or the production of goods to be sold in the market. I'm not talking about low wage jobs per se, but simply the class of people known as the workers. Since they intrinsically (not extrinsically) own the company they deserve the decision of who directs them at the top level. It's hard to objectively measure value added by any one employee no matter what level they're at in any company. People like you are going to say low level employees, and people like xDaunt are going to say CEOs and directors. It's a he-said/she-said argument. No it's not. It's a simple fact that by removing the working class of a company you have no company, you have no income, you have virtually no value. They are the ones who in actuality make the money. The directors have somehow gotten the power to steal that value from the workers and redistribute it themselves. This would be fine, in fact, if the workers had say in who taxed their income. But they do not have representation in exchange for their taxation Yeah, and if you get rid of the suppliers you have no income. And if you get rid of the equipment you have no income. And if you get rid of the customers you have no income. What does any of that have to do with ownership? So you agree that ownership is much more complex than dictatorship of the directors? No, and I have no idea why you are trying to reinvent what ownership means. Because the directors don't solely own the company edit: I'm using your definition of ownership aren't I? Just the people who own the company, which means they control the value of the company. Directors aren't really owners at all - they're fiduciaries who act on behalf of shareholders (the legal owners) and in accordance with corporate bylaws. I'm not sure what you mean by "control the value" but shareholders exert control over the corporation by controlling who sits on the board and the board controls the executive team that runs it (at least in theory, in reality many boards are somewhat impotent, which is somewhat fitting because they tend to all be old men ). But anyways, shareholders are the residual claimants - meaning they're the last to get paid (if at all). It makes sense to give them ownership authority since it would be all too easy to otherwise simply not pay the residual claimant... which would make the whole endeavor a non-starter. Another way to look at it is that there is only one class of owner - the shareholders. But there are many people affected by the corporation - the stakeholders. You're not sure what it means to control the value of a company? Aren't you supposed to be a business man of some sort? Listen Johnny, I'm not interested in defending the status quo. I've spent the past page or so arguing against that. But to help you out, why does a shareholder have ownership of a company?
Because they bought a portion of it... which has value... that the owner can't directly control...
Edit: the phrase "control the value" is non-standard... do you mean control the management? the assets? the valuation?
Edit 2: more importantly do you understand the part about residual claimants that I wrote? You have to if you want to envision a different ownership structure.
|
On January 23 2014 13:48 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 13:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 23 2014 13:11 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 12:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 23 2014 12:25 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 11:53 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On January 23 2014 11:40 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 11:30 Cheren wrote:On January 23 2014 11:21 Adreme wrote:On January 23 2014 11:12 Roe wrote:
[quote]
Nope, the workers own the company since they are the ones making the money for the company. Take that away and the company doesn't run and doesn't have any value. I'm still waiting for answers on why the executives and directors make the money instead of the workers who are directly interacting with the market. Also waiting on the answer of what this CEO 80+ hour work is like, I gave the comparison of a coal mine worker to contrast different types of work/effort and in order to help get you started on your own definition of said CEO work.
edit: btw i'm not a marxist, at least i'm not intentionally one since i've never read any of that literature. i'm just trying to apply logic to the subject The reason is very simple because your average worker is easy to find and can be replaced at the drop of a hat. The requirements of the job are what determine your pay, to simplify it the harder it is to fill your job the more you are worth. Most low wage jobs are low wage because they require very little to no education or specific degree. There is of course a little more to it at the higher ends but at its core your value is determined by how easily replaceable you are (and what the market says you are worth but that would take longer to explain). Of course unions exist to try to help the workers get as much as they can because as I just said the value of any individual worker is usually minimal at best but as you basically stated a company can not handle losing all its workers at once. Pretty much yeah, workers are paid at market value for the most part. CEO pay has a lot more variables than supply/demand, there's cultural values of how much a CEO should be paid (the debate we're having right now), there's the personal charisma or connections of the CEO in question, and other intangibles. On January 23 2014 11:26 Roe wrote:On January 23 2014 11:21 Adreme wrote:
[quote]
The reason is very simple because your average worker is easy to find and can be replaced at the drop of a hat. The requirements of the job are what determine your pay, to simplify it the harder it is to fill your job the more you are worth. Most low wage jobs are low wage because they require very little to no education or specific degree. There is of course a little more to it at the higher ends but at its core your value is determined by how easily replaceable you are (and what the market says you are worth but that would take longer to explain).
Of course unions exist to try to help the workers get as much as they can because as I just said the value of any individual worker is usually minimal at best but as you basically stated a company can not handle losing all its workers at once.
Doesn't really matter though does it? We were talking about who does the work and who owns the company. It's most logical to assume the workers, rather than the directors of a corporation, are the ones who bring value to the company because they work at the lowest level nearest to the market (which is the source of the company's value) or the production of goods to be sold in the market. I'm not talking about low wage jobs per se, but simply the class of people known as the workers. Since they intrinsically (not extrinsically) own the company they deserve the decision of who directs them at the top level. It's hard to objectively measure value added by any one employee no matter what level they're at in any company. People like you are going to say low level employees, and people like xDaunt are going to say CEOs and directors. It's a he-said/she-said argument. No it's not. It's a simple fact that by removing the working class of a company you have no company, you have no income, you have virtually no value. They are the ones who in actuality make the money. The directors have somehow gotten the power to steal that value from the workers and redistribute it themselves. This would be fine, in fact, if the workers had say in who taxed their income. But they do not have representation in exchange for their taxation Yeah, and if you get rid of the suppliers you have no income. And if you get rid of the equipment you have no income. And if you get rid of the customers you have no income. What does any of that have to do with ownership? So you agree that ownership is much more complex than dictatorship of the directors? No, and I have no idea why you are trying to reinvent what ownership means. Because the directors don't solely own the company edit: I'm using your definition of ownership aren't I? Just the people who own the company, which means they control the value of the company. Directors aren't really owners at all - they're fiduciaries who act on behalf of shareholders (the legal owners) and in accordance with corporate bylaws. I'm not sure what you mean by "control the value" but shareholders exert control over the corporation by controlling who sits on the board and the board controls the executive team that runs it (at least in theory, in reality many boards are somewhat impotent, which is somewhat fitting because they tend to all be old men ). But anyways, shareholders are the residual claimants - meaning they're the last to get paid (if at all). It makes sense to give them ownership authority since it would be all too easy to otherwise simply not pay the residual claimant... which would make the whole endeavor a non-starter. Another way to look at it is that there is only one class of owner - the shareholders. But there are many people affected by the corporation - the stakeholders. You're not sure what it means to control the value of a company? Aren't you supposed to be a business man of some sort? Listen Johnny, I'm not interested in defending the status quo. I've spent the past page or so arguing against that. But to help you out, why does a shareholder have ownership of a company? If you keep confusing activities and people that create value within a company with who has control over various decisions, you're going to confuse everyone here and maybe even yourself.
I'll try to convey to you, Roe, exactly why your thoughts are very much aligned with a Marxist ideal. Why your average Joe would presume you read and agreed with him. Marx wrote the most famous book with your argument, alleging that this economy exploits the labor class, the little guy that is the real cause of their profits and created value. The employer is just laying claim to them and he is heavily criticized. I'm trying to simplify since you say you have never read him.
When you say,
No it's not. It's a simple fact that by removing the working class of a company you have no company, you have no income, you have virtually no value. They are the ones who in actuality make the money. The directors have somehow gotten the power to steal that value from the workers and redistribute it themselves. ,
a casual observer really might think you're quoting Das Kapital chapter and verse. That's all.
|
On January 23 2014 13:54 xDaunt wrote:
My point is that you weren't arguing for a change in the status quo like you are now pretending. You were erroneously describing the status quo using an absolutely bizarre concept of ownership as others have pointed out.
Yeah, I was arguing for a change in the status quo. I thought that was pretty obvious when I argued a different definition of ownership right from the get-go of this conversation. Not sure why mine is a bizarre concept of ownership when it's based on the facts of who generates value for the company, not to mention my version isn't so reductionist as to assume only the stockholders control the company. (To own something is to control it, wouldn't you agree? Since workers for the most part control the company - its value and its production and maintenance - they own the company in my view. This ownership is not represented in the current legal standard, and as such this argument is anti-status quo).
I hope this may clarify some points or shed light on my thought process.
|
On January 23 2014 14:02 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 13:54 xDaunt wrote:
My point is that you weren't arguing for a change in the status quo like you are now pretending. You were erroneously describing the status quo using an absolutely bizarre concept of ownership as others have pointed out. Yeah, I was arguing for a change in the status quo. I thought that was pretty obvious when I argued a different definition of ownership right from the get-go of this conversation. Not sure why mine is a bizarre concept of ownership when it's based on the facts of who generates value for the company, not to mention my version isn't so reductionist as to assume only the stockholders control the company. (To own something is to control it, wouldn't you agree? Since workers for the most part control the company - its value and its production and maintenance - they own the company in my view. This ownership is not represented in the current legal standard, and as such this argument is anti-status quo). I hope this may clarify some points or shed light on my thought process.
See my last couple posts.
Basing ownership on "value creation" doesn't, by itself, fundamentally work... unless you turn value creators into a hybrid of their current position plus the role of equity holder.
But then you're effectively just running with the status quo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
