The Disparity of CEO's and Workers salaries

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, herbie said:

It's the natural order of things.
If you don't agree you're a communist subversive and should be shot.

Ohhh herbie -  i'm pretty sure you were a communist subversive who should be shot long before this question came along  

[Queenmandy85]

I like the idea of people being wealthy. I find it curious that CEO's are singled out for criticism when there are many other people who make more money without criticism.  Provided the wealth is legally acquired, I am all for it. 

When I posted the OP, I figured I would be lucky to have two or three responses. Thank you all for offering your views.

[CdnFox]

49 minutes ago, eyeball said:

What about when people are simply concerned at how much need there is in the world and how to address it without going the usual violent route when inequity gets to the point it's unsustainable?

This is what makes the left so stupid.

There is not a 'finite' amount of 'wealth' in the world.  It's not like we mine 'wealthonium' or something and thats all there is

wealth is created.  We can ALWAYS create more wealth.  Wealth redistribution is a complete and utter myth.

If you take the wealth away from very successful then you just remove very successful people from creating more wealth.

 

Capitalism has taken more people out of poverty than any other model in the history of man by leaps and bounds because it creates more wealth. Very wealthy people CANNOT get that wealthy without creating more wealth for other people around them.

So what you're really talking about is "when people are so bitter and spiteful that they would happily reduce everyone to a lower state of wealth and poorer quality of life just so they can enjoy the illusion that somehow they're owed something they're not".

Anyone can create more wealth for themselves. GO do that if you want more and stop worrying about stealing someone else's.

[eyeball]

13 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Clearly not CEO level though so, you are whining about them again.

Sure, if that's how you want to characterize concern.

15 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Oh, so now you are concerned about world poverty?

That too but mostly the nonchalance shown towards scales of inequity that usually leads to violence.

Quote

Please stop, what others make here, there, anywhere is none of your concern since you had your best year ever and are going to get more.. Kinda hypocritical eh? LOL

Not at all, I just pointed that out to counter a snotty characterization.

[Michael Hardner]

32 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

1.   Salary caps are for team owners benefits, not players or fans or even market value.

2. Besides, businesses are not team sports

1. But we have them.  They were anti-market measures for developed in response to a wider problem

 

2. And yet team sports is a business.

 

One of the things I'm going to be trying to bring into discussions a little bit more is imagination.

A lot of people told us in the past that certain things weren't possible.... Health insurance, environmental regulations, the idea of a corporation, The list goes on.

I personally don't think CEO salaries are as much of a problem, as the outrage is more of a collective expression of frustration over how difficult it is to make a living these days.

The left of the 20th century used to just point at rich people and say it's their fault.  I don't think that was accurate, nor do I think CEOs, ball players or musicians are the problem.

 

 

 

[ExFlyer]

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Sure, if that's how you want to characterize concern.

That too but mostly the nonchalance shown towards scales of inequity that usually leads to violence.

Not at all, I just pointed that out to counter a snotty characterization.

Nothing snotty at all.

You whine and complain about CEO wages then when you don't have a valid argument for you take on it, you resort to "concerned at how much need there is in the world and how to address it ".

There is inequity and has been inequity from the beginning of man. Some are leaders and some are followers and the followers always seem to whine the most but when told to or asked to do more to better their position, they resort to some righteous attempt at making it someone else's fault.

 

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

A lot of people told us in the past that certain things weren't possible.... Health insurance, environmental regulations, the idea of a corporation, The list goes on.

Dude. nobody ever said any of those things were impossible ever.

like - no one.

What are you going on about?

[ExFlyer]

2 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. But we have them.  They were anti-market measures for developed in response to a wider problem

 

2. And yet team sports is a business.

 

One of the things I'm going to be trying to bring into discussions a little bit more is imagination.

A lot of people told us in the past that certain things weren't possible.... Health insurance, environmental regulations, the idea of a corporation, The list goes on.

I personally don't think CEO salaries are as much of a problem, as the outrage is more of a collective expression of frustration over how difficult it is to make a living these days.

The left of the 20th century used to just point at rich people and say it's their fault.  I don't think that was accurate, nor do I think CEOs, ball players or musicians are the problem.

 

 

 

Michael, my only point is that some things are worth more than others and some things cost ore than others. The whole thing is determined by what folks will pay for those things, be they products or people.

Some peoples obsession with what other earn is just bizarre. Jealousy at best.

[Army Guy]

4 hours ago, herbie said:

It's the natural order of things.
If you don't agree you're a communist subversive and should be shot.

if that was the case i'd would have run out of ammo a long time ago...

[Michael Hardner]

6 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

1. Michael, my only point is that some things are worth more than others and some things cost ore than others. The whole thing is determined by what folks will pay for those things, be they products or people.

2. Some peoples obsession with what other earn is just bizarre. Jealousy at best.

1. Yes, I am being stubborn and pedantic I admit.  The market can't be ignored, and you are 100% right on that.

2. Agreed.  But I do think that economic equality is happening, and the game is fixed by government as it always has been.

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

There is inequity and has been inequity from the beginning of man. Some are leaders and some are followers and the followers always seem to whine the most but when told to or asked to do more to better their position, they resort to some righteous attempt at making it someone else's fault.

There was a time, however brief following WW2, when people who employ CEO's in North America hoped that sharing their capital gains more broadly might avoid the sort of social upheaval that led to the worst wars with the greatest waste of human capital in history.

Whatever eroded that hope is what's at fault - something mostly systemic and institutional in my opinion - these seem to lead to a sociopathic tendency that puts interests peculiar to themselves before the interests of the human beings they serve and that even run them on occasion.

This bites everyone in the ass - its economic blowback.

[CdnFox]

5 minutes ago, eyeball said:

There was a time, however brief following WW2, when people who employ CEO's in North America hoped that sharing their capital gains more broadly might avoid the sort of social upheaval that led to the worst wars with the greatest waste of human capital in history.

Yeah - that led to a strong interest in socialism and communism that dragged people's quality of life down dramatically in many parts of the world.

You can't have "Pure" capitalism because that model is quite happy to leave the weak behind  to starve if necessary. But a mostly capitalistic market based system that is mostly free and allowed to function on it's own with basic protections backed up with a very simple social safety net and very strong 'opportunity enhancers' like strong education and strong promotion of the 'many ladders' model will always always always produce greater wealth for EVERYONE than  any other model.

And yes - for some it will produce a disproportionately high level.  But it will also produce far more than normal for the lower end too. So no sour grapes.  Just do your best and see where it gets you.

[DUI_Offender]

They say the average Russian prostitute would have to give 3,477,517 rimjobs to Donald Trump before she made his salary in one year.  That is nearly one rimjob for every man, woman, and child in the province of Alberta.

 

That would take the average woman over 151 lifetimes to achieve if she did this everyday to Trump from the age of 18 to 75. In America it is somewhat better. The average American prostitute would only have to give 1,488,622 rimjobs to earn Trump's 2023 salary, or roughly 65 lifetimes. 

 

Melania is very lucky...she only had to do it 3 times a day from 1999 until 2005, when pregnant with Barron. After that, she could not longer tolerate the smell. Trump then hired Stormy Davis, and others.

Edited January 3 by DUI_Offender

[CdnFox]

6 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

They say the average Russian prostitute would have to give 3,477,517 rimjobs to Donald Trump before she made his salary in one year.  That is nearly one rimjob for every man, woman, and child in the province of Alberta.

 

That would take the average woman over 151 lifetimes to achieve if she did this everyday to Trump from the age of 18 to 75. In America it is somewhat better. The average American prostitute would only have to give 1,488,622 rimjobs to earn Trump's 2023 salary, or roughly 65 lifetimes. 

 

Melania is very lucky...she only had to do it 3 times a day from 1999 until 2005, when pregnant with Barron. After that, she could not longer tolerate the smell. Trump then hired Stormy Davis, and others.

My therapist would like to have a word with you.

[ExFlyer]

11 hours ago, eyeball said:

There was a time, however brief following WW2, when people who employ CEO's in North America hoped that sharing their capital gains more broadly might avoid the sort of social upheaval that led to the worst wars with the greatest waste of human capital in history.

Whatever eroded that hope is what's at fault - something mostly systemic and institutional in my opinion - these seem to lead to a sociopathic tendency that puts interests peculiar to themselves before the interests of the human beings they serve and that even run them on occasion.

This bites everyone in the ass - its economic blowback.

Not sure where you got that little nugget but, CEO's, company presidents and officers always got huge renumeraiton.  While actual money may have remained somewhat stagnant, high level management was offered stock options and long term incentive compensation to offset cash.

"sociopathic tendency that puts interests peculiar to themselves before the interests of the human beings they serve"???? What does that mean??  Companies have always been in business to make money for their shareholders and before that, owners were in the business to make money for themselves.

You are trying very hard to make corporations and businesses be responsible for society's faults. You are out of line and very naive. All people have opportunity and it is upon themselves to do what they can or want to better themselves. Whine and complain and stay your course and that is all on you.

 

Edited January 3 by ExFlyer

[eyeball]

5 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Not sure where you got that little nugget but, CEO's, company presidents and officers always got huge renumeraiton. 

Lets try to quantify these terms to better understand what they actually mean.  

"Big" is a general term for something larger than average.
"Large" is similar to big but may imply a more substantial or significant size.
"Huge" suggests something very large or massive, typically larger than "big" or "large."
"Massive" implies an even greater size or mass, often used for things that are exceptionally large or heavy.
"Enormous" is the strongest these words, indicating something extremely large or gigantic.

As for the term always there was a time when the people working for the CEO's, company presidents and officers got much fairer remuneration than they get today. Now I suppose some might characterize fairer to mean anything but I think you can probably glean what I think fairer means after reading this little nugget...of course to some wealthy people I suppose big will always feel little compared to enormous... It's so unfair sometimes. 

The Top 1% of Americans Have Taken $50 Trillion From the Bottom 90%

This is not some back-of-the-napkin approximation.

According to a groundbreaking new working paper by Carter C. Price and Kathryn Edwards of the RAND Corporation,had the more equitable income distributions of the three decades following World War II (1945 through 1974) merely held steady, the aggregate annual income of Americans earning below the 90th percentile would have been $2.5 trillion higher in the year 2018 alone. That is an amount equal to nearly 12 percent of GDP—enough to more than double median income—enough to pay every single working American in the bottom nine deciles an additional $1,144 a month. Every month. Every single year.

https://time.com/5888024/50-trillion-income-inequality-america/

Another thing to consider is the effect this redistribution of wealth to the top 1% has had on the capacity of ordinary taxpayers to pay back an enormous public debt.  Of course almost all of that debt would likely have never been accumulated for two reasons that come to my mind, 1. people would have been able to afford to take care of themselves better on their own dime and 2. it's unlikely ordinary taxpayers would have been able to lobby governments to shift their tax burden onto someone else's backs. I doubt the notion would have even occured to ordinary taxpayers and if it was introduced to them they would reacted with disgust at the thought people shouldn't pay their 'fair' share.

Edited January 3 by eyeball

[ExFlyer]

23 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Lets try to quantify these terms to better understand what they actually mean.  

"Big" is a general term for something larger than average.
"Large" is similar to big but may imply a more substantial or significant size.
"Huge" suggests something very large or massive, typically larger than "big" or "large."
"Massive" implies an even greater size or mass, often used for things that are exceptionally large or heavy.
"Enormous" is the strongest these words, indicating something extremely large or gigantic.

As for the term always there was a time when the people working for the CEO's, company presidents and officers got much fairer remuneration than they get today. Now I suppose some might characterize fairer to mean anything but I think you can probably glean what I think fairer means after reading this little nugget...of course to some wealthy people I suppose big will always feel little compared to enormous... It's so unfair sometimes. 

The Top 1% of Americans Have Taken $50 Trillion From the Bottom 90%

This is not some back-of-the-napkin approximation.

According to a groundbreaking new working paper by Carter C. Price and Kathryn Edwards of the RAND Corporation,had the more equitable income distributions of the three decades following World War II (1945 through 1974) merely held steady, the aggregate annual income of Americans earning below the 90th percentile would have been $2.5 trillion higher in the year 2018 alone. That is an amount equal to nearly 12 percent of GDP—enough to more than double median income—enough to pay every single working American in the bottom nine deciles an additional $1,144 a month. Every month. Every single year.

https://time.com/5888024/50-trillion-income-inequality-america/

Another thing to consider is the effect this redistribution of wealth to the top 1% has had on the capacity of ordinary taxpayers to pay back an enormous public debt.  Of course almost all of that debt would likely have never been accumulated for two reasons that come to my mind, 1. people would have been able to afford to take care of themselves better on their own dime and 2. it's unlikely ordinary taxpayers would have been able to lobby governments to shift their tax burden onto someone else's backs. I doubt the notion would have even occured to ordinary taxpayers and if it was introduced to them they would reacted with disgust at the thought people shouldn't pay their 'fair' share.

Resorting to playing word definition games again??? LOL

We were talking Canadian, not American or is there no good Canadian argument you can provide for your foolishness.?  The US system is not even close to the Canadian tax system so using the American data is nonsensical

"study shows the top 20 per cent of income-earning households already pay more in total income taxes than the other 80 per cent do."  https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/top-20-of-income-earners-fund-majority-of-ottawas-income-tax-revenue-report

Give it up, you have no argument, let alone a point.

[eyeball]

10 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

We were talking Canadian, not American or is there no good Canadian argument you can provide for your foolishness.? 

Yes, yesterday Canadian CEO's earned as much as it will take Canadians the rest of the year to earn.  Disparity, like climate change, is a global problem.

[ExFlyer]

6 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Yes, yesterday Canadian CEO's earned as much as it will take Canadians the rest of the year to earn.  Disparity, like climate change, is a global problem.

So what?

Clearly in the opinions of corporations and companies the CEO is worth more than you and the rest of Canadians.

Your inane obsession with how much a CEO makes and inequity is something that you should seek psychiatric attention for LOL

Disparity is not a problem, it is life.

[Perspektiv]

13 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

They say the average Russian prostitute would have to give 3,477,517 rimjobs to Donald Trump before she made his salary in one year. 

Or, if she were smart, she would poke holes in the condom and get pregnant. Put hidden cameras, and ask for rough sex and tell him she loves simulated rape.

That or tell him she swallowed, then turkey baster herself to a fortune.

Thinking like that will keep her poor. Not the lack of opportunity. 

Also, if she had to give that many, wouldn't it be wiser to invest in school and then a career?

This doesn't make her a victim. This makes her a short school bus taking type who deserves her situation. I would pee on her face and pay her 40 Rubles for her trouble. No way in hell am touching a woman like that.

[eyeball]

2 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Disparity is not a problem, it is life.

It's a big problem. A growing one too, like climate change and denial with predictable consequences based on historical  precedents.

Even modern precedents if complaints about Russia's 1% partying like it was 1999 prompted Putin to do a little crackin' down and gettin' tough.

Now that's really fu cked up, Putin cracking down on the obscenely and probably unaccountably wealthy.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

As for the term always there was a time when the people working for the CEO's, company presidents and officers got much fairer remuneration than they get today. Now I suppose some might characterize fairer to mean anything but I think you can probably glean what I think fairer means after reading this little nugget...of course to some wealthy people I suppose big will always feel little compared to enormous... It's so unfair sometimes. 

Its what the companies are willing to pay - it is ALWAYS fair.  Sorry.

Quote

 

The Top 1% of Americans Have Taken $50 Trillion From the Bottom 90%

This is not some back-of-the-napkin approximation.

 

LOL - its just a lie.  Straight up.  The money was not "taken from" anyone.   And that's where the left always goes wrong.

If someone earns more money than them (or than the arbitrary limit they set as what is "Fair" in their little heads which they can never explain WHY it's "Fair",)  then it MUST be because the person STOLE it from someone else.  That's the only explination. If you get paid more than me - you MUST be stealing from me.  That is the theory.

But that is not how it works in the slightest. 

 

According to a groundbreaking new working paper by Carter C. Price and Kathryn Edwards of the RAND Corporation,had the more equitable income distributions of the three decades following World War II (1945 through 1974) merely held steady, the aggregate annual income of Americans earning below the 90th percentile would have been $2.5 trillion higher in the year 2018 alone. That is an amount equal to nearly 12 percent of GDP—enough to more than double median income—enough to pay every single working American in the bottom nine deciles an additional $1,144 a month. Every month. Every single year.

https://time.com/5888024/50-trillion-income-inequality-america/

Another thing to consider is the effect this redistribution of wealth to the top 1% has had on the capacity of ordinary taxpayers to pay back an enormous public debt.  Of course almost all of that debt would likely have never been accumulated for two reasons that come to my mind, 1. people would have been able to afford to take care of themselves better on their own dime and 2. it's unlikely ordinary taxpayers would have been able to lobby governments to shift their tax burden onto someone else's backs. I doubt the notion would have even occured to ordinary taxpayers and if it was introduced to them they would reacted with disgust at the thought people shouldn't pay their 'fair' share.

[Michael Hardner]

Another nugget to muddy the mix -> CEOs are employees.   They get a paycheque with deductions for taxes, healthcare benefits, stock plan etc.  At the end of the year they do their taxes like anybody who has a job.

Maybe CEOs are paid too much.  But does anybody wonder who could afford to pay a salary so high ?  Hmmmm 🤫

[ExFlyer]

32 minutes ago, eyeball said:

It's a big problem. A growing one too, like climate change and denial with predictable consequences based on historical  precedents.

Even modern precedents if complaints about Russia's 1% partying like it was 1999 prompted Putin to do a little crackin' down and gettin' tough.

Now that's really fu cked up, Putin cracking down on the obscenely and probably unaccountably wealthy.

Give it up and smell the real world.

As I told you a while ago, there are leaders and there are followers. In life, you're either the steamroller or the pavement. Which one you are now, and which one you'll be in the future, is determined by your mindset.

There will always be those better than you. Accept it and your life will be less fu*ked up LOL

Oh and quit with Putin and climate change and any other useless comparison you are trying to make to sound reasonable. Yours is a lost cause LOL

Edited January 3 by ExFlyer

[Legato]

54 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Even modern precedents if complaints about Russia's 1% partying like it was 1999 prompted Putin to do a little crackin' down and gettin' tough.

 

 

Putin on the Ritz.