The Disparity of CEO's and Workers salaries

[CdnFox]

31 minutes ago, Legato said:

 

Putin on the Ritz.

 

Oh my god.  Go home, you're drunk.   

[eyeball]

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

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 🤫

The real question is why so many of our blue-collar grandfather's were so highly valued back in the day?  Almost worth a  30th of a CEO instead of 300 times as much less today.  Were CEO's a dime a dozen back then or something?

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, eyeball said:

The real question is why so many of our blue-collar grandfather's were so highly valued back in the day?  Almost worth a  30th of a CEO instead of 300 times as much less today.  Were CEO's a dime a dozen back then or something?

For the most part the businesses were smaller.

You get paid to run a 100 person outfit worth 10 million (adjusted dollars) you get x -  if you're good enough to run a 10,000 person out fit worth 5 billion - you get more.

That's  the benefit of the market system - it creates more wealth and more opportunity and more people make more money. 

[Michael Hardner]

8 hours ago, eyeball said:

The real question is why so many of our blue-collar grandfather's were so highly valued back in the day?  Almost worth a  30th of a CEO instead of 300 times as much less today.  Were CEO's a dime a dozen back then or something?

Value comes from an assessment based on what people think is important.  Shareholder return is just more important today.

[eyeball]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Value comes from an assessment based on what people think is important.  Shareholder return is just more important today.

Sure, people's feels rule. So it's only a matter of time until more important feelings rise to the fore. Shouldn't be long.

[CdnFox]

47 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Sure, people's feels rule. So it's only a matter of time until more important feelings rise to the fore. Shouldn't be long.

 Da Comrade - just been waiting 75 years so far but any day now the people will rise up!!!!! 

First off - ceo's ARE employees.  So you're talking about the disparity between worker's and worker's.

And any worker can get the job or create their own company and do as well.  If they don't have the skills they aren't worth as much. Pretty simple.

And today's kids aren't going to start any revolutions.  They can't even start a lawn mower unless it's bluetooth enabled with an app.

The execs are worth executive salaries for a reason. That is not the ONLY way to earn lots and lots of money, if that is someone's focus and what's important to them they absolutely can do it and there are MANY skill paths to get there.

And if you don't want to make that sacrifice or you have no skills for ANY of the paths well, you're just not worth that much.  Sorry . Maybe focus on being a great parent.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Sure, people's feels rule. So it's only a matter of time until more important feelings rise to the fore. Shouldn't be long.

I agree that it should be happening soon.  If you look at the wording used by the populists there's a strong theme of "anti-elitism".  The problem is that the elites are convincing them that they're not elite.  But, like the street dupe who loses at 3-card monte over and over, the people may start to figure out that so-called Populists are no more for the people than the milquetoast centrist neo-liberals were.

 

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

I agree that it should be happening soon.  If you look at the wording used by the populists there's a strong theme of "anti-elitism".  The problem is that the elites are convincing them that they're not elite.  But, like the street dupe who loses at 3-card monte over and over, the people may start to figure out that so-called Populists are no more for the people than the milquetoast centrist neo-liberals were.

 

And which of the currently 437 definitions of "populist" are you using?

There's no such thing in the end - it's mostly just a pejorative term that people use to suggest the guy they don't like is bad or illegitimate. Which is pretty much how you used it.

 

[Michael Hardner]

18 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

And which of the currently 437 definitions of "populist" are you using?

There's no such thing in the end - it's mostly just a pejorative term that people use to suggest the guy they don't like is bad or illegitimate. Which is pretty much how you used it.

 

I don't think populism is bad.

[eyeball]

32 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I don't think populism is bad.

It's what's made of populism that matters.

[Michael Hardner]

4 minutes ago, eyeball said:

It's what's made of populism that matters.

This strikes me as akin to the emotional response of an individual.  When considering a strong emotional response, an individual thereafter thinks "What can I do about this now?"

When we collectively encounter an effect that goes against our collective values, there is often a strong response especially an emotional one.  The thinking response necessarily comes later, and hopefully stays in place.  At one point in our human history, people decided that a community edict against murder would be worth establishing.  The idea was effective, and was thereby absorbed into our community values.

So, people have a strong sense that you should be able to work and succeed.  When that becomes difficult, there's a collective emotional response that leads to policy ideas such as... reducing immigration, cutting/increasing taxes and so on.  

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

I don't think populism is bad.

so you can't define it.  Is it productive to use a word you can't define like that?

54 minutes ago, eyeball said:

It's what's made of populism that matters.

So you can't define it either

Well it's nice to see that neither of you knows what you're talking about - literally  

[eyeball]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

This strikes me as akin to the emotional response of an individual.  When considering a strong emotional response, an individual thereafter thinks "What can I do about this now?"

When we collectively encounter an effect that goes against our collective values, there is often a strong response especially an emotional one.  The thinking response necessarily comes later, and hopefully stays in place.  At one point in our human history, people decided that a community edict against murder would be worth establishing.  The idea was effective, and was thereby absorbed into our community values.

So, people have a strong sense that you should be able to work and succeed.  When that becomes difficult, there's a collective emotional response that leads to policy ideas such as... reducing immigration, cutting/increasing taxes and so on.  

This makes sense but I don't see much of a collective myself. I'm reminded of the book Jihad vs Mcworld by Benjamin Barber written 30 years ago, here's an Atlantic Monthly article on the books topic. You might recall I've mentioned the book before a few times. It's been pretty prescient I think. Despite the implication from the title of the book it's not about Islam and in fact the author wished he had come up with a different title on the wake of events.

Just beyond the horizon of current events lie two possible political futures—both bleak, neither democratic. The first is a retribalization of large swaths of humankind by war and bloodshed: a threatened Lebanonization of national states in which culture is pitted against culture, people against people, tribe against tribe—a Jihad in the name of a hundred narrowly conceived faiths against every kind of interdependence, every kind of artificial social cooperation and civic mutuality. The second is being borne in on us by the onrush of economic and ecological forces that demand integration and uniformity and that mesmerize the world with fast music, fast computers, and fast food—with MTV, Macintosh, and McDonald's, pressing nations into one commercially homogenous global network: one McWorld tied together by technology, ecology, communications, and commerce. The planet is falling precipitantly apart AND coming reluctantly together at the very same moment.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1992/03/jihad-vs-mcworld/303882/

 

I think it's coming together a little too reluctantly, if at all.

Edited January 5, 2024 by eyeball

[CdnFox]

5 minutes ago, eyeball said:

This makes sense but I don't see much of a collective myself. I'm reminded of the book Jihad vs Mcworld by Benjamin Barber written 30 years ago, here's an Atlantic Monthly article on the books topic. You might recall I've mentioned the book before a few times. It's been pretty prescient I think. Despite the implication from the title of the book it's not about Islam and in fact the author wished he had come up with a different title on the wake of events.

Just beyond the horizon of current events lie two possible political futures—both bleak, neither democratic. The first is a retribalization of large swaths of humankind by war and bloodshed: a threatened Lebanonization of national states in which culture is pitted against culture, people against people, tribe against tribe—a Jihad in the name of a hundred narrowly conceived faiths against every kind of interdependence, every kind of artificial social cooperation and civic mutuality. The second is being borne in on us by the onrush of economic and ecological forces that demand integration and uniformity and that mesmerize the world with fast music, fast computers, and fast food—with MTV, Macintosh, and McDonald's, pressing nations into one commercially homogenous global network: one McWorld tied together by technology, ecology, communications, and commerce. The planet is falling precipitantly apart AND coming reluctantly together at the very same moment.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1992/03/jihad-vs-mcworld/303882/

 

I think it's coming together a little too reluctantly, if at all.

And you wonder why people think you're a commie

Still cant' come up with that definition i see.