Printable View
Last try, I promise.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
What do you propose we do about it? Raise taxes? How does that help? Increase minimum wage? How does that help? Something else that I can't think of?
Once again I will ask you to please try to refrain from trying to convince me there is a problem. For the sake of moving this argument forward, I am agreeing with you, there is a problem with a "wealth gap". Now what do we do about it? Please, I really do want to hear your ideas.
chuck, take a look back through the thread and you'll find some suggestions in response to your question.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
Perhaps as you agree (for the sake of argument) you might provide your own solutions :)Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
You said FAIR share. And the only truly FAIR form of Taxation is a Flat Tax. So you did say that.Quote:
Originally Posted by race aficionado
That industries in the UK have been deregulated over the past few decades is laughable. Privatized in some cases but deregulated? Don't be silly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rollo
On the specific issue of the growing salary gap:
One Society » The gulf between employees
- Mandatory reporting of top-to-bottom (as well as top-to-median) pay ratios, and an expectation that policies on low-paid staff and contractors will be published.[/*:m:2j1x6ynp]
- Widen the composition of remuneration committees to include employees (who are more likely to have a longer- term perspective and to require proper justifications for high executive pay). Also widen the agenda of committees (to discourage the idea that executive pay and performance is the only lever in company performance), and reviewing the role of remuneration consultants.[/*:m:2j1x6ynp]
- Measures to encourage investor assertiveness, by making investors and companies more transparent and remuneration votes binding.[/*:m:2j1x6ynp]
I have been in and out for the past week or so. Perhaps I missed it. Can you point me to a post, or give a quick summation? Honestly, the only thing I have seen is people trying to convince one another that this is some sort of tragedy, and that it is going to cause the next comming of the French Revolution. I really haven't actually seen any solutions being proposed.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
It is very hard for me to step outside of my own philosophy. I can not see how it is government's responsibility to "narrow the gap". And beyond that I can not see how government stepping in to "do something" won't just make the problem worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
If I personally felt there was too wide a gap between my income and my boss's income, I would take some personal responsibilty for the situation, put together a list of what I do for the company, what value that adds to the company, and how much my wages should increase to reflect that value. But that's just me, I believe in that outdated concept of personal responsibility.
Hey thoses actually sound like reasonable measues that might actually have an effect over the long term. Congratulations, it only took 47 pages to get to a reasonable response.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
Now, why is there a need for mass protests for this?
You didn't miss them because you've responded to most, if not all, of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
It's not outdated in my book, and people can certainly attempt to address their own situation but one individual in isolation is unlikely to solve the widespread nature of growing inequality.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
See above.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
I sure don't remember responding to any solutions, except the one you just posted. Just people vaguly talking about charities, and governments, and on and on, about nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
Why not? One stone can start an avalanche. If your individual situation is not your responsibility who's is it? Who do you propose takes on the responsibility for "fairness" and "equality"?Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
A mass protest with no clear message is how you propose to change the "wealth gap"? May I suggest at least some clairity of purpose?Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
Perhaps those on remuneration committees should take a look at their own responsibilities as part of the "reasonable measures" (your view) linked to in my earlier post.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
No, but perhaps it has started an avalanche.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
Are those renumeration committees solely made up of persons with affiliations to the companies, ie owners, board members, employees?Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
So you've seen wages start to go up since this started?Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
No. Non-executive directors from other companies often sit on these committees - described as "members of a ‘cosy club’" by a Parliamentary Committee (link). Lower level employees are rarely, as far as I know, involved.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
:dozey:Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
I would definitly like to see lower level employees involved with something like this. Also, I do not see the point of having directors from other companies involved. Why would they protect the best interests of a potential competitor?Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
The argument is that they each protect their own individual interests by sitting on eachothers renumeration committees and rewarding themselves with the kind of pay increases that we see. Hence the ever widening wage gap.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
Bring in a law that sets the minimum wage in all companies to 10% of the highest earnings (wage + bonuses) in the respective company.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
I bet the stock holders won't agree anymore that the CEO earns millions every year.
And don't tell us that it isn't fair to punish the poor CEOs.
The message is clear, we need to change the huge gap.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
What is unclear about it?
Just say you were kidding when you posted the above question.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
Come on Anthony . . . . that's you saying that, no need to go "ventriloquist' on me. :p :Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
:s mokin:
On what basis would you propose to base this Flat Tax on?Quote:
Originally Posted by anthonyvop
You tell me why that is fair then. Do you really think that all CEOs only put in 10% more work than the janitor? Do they really only have 10% more at risk in their company? Have they really only invested 10% more than anyone else?Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
And what do you suppose will happen to prices? How many companies do you suspect will flee to China and elsewhere at that point.
Is that really what you hear coming from the "Occupy" protests? I hear a confusing mess of differing ideas. From tax the rich, to end corporate greed, to destroy the system and rebuild it, to simple gimmie, gimmie, gimmie.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
I do not talk only about the Occupy movement, what matters to me is the fact that this movement exists and that it is the result of the huge differences that have been mentioned in this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
What I see is that if there is no serious change to reduce this enormous financial difference then the resulting social issue might culminate in something we do not want to see in our lifetime. And I sincerely hope that there will be a solution to avoid a huge fallout.
So do you perhaps now understand why there is, at the very least, concern about the way those at the top maintain and increase their wealth?Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
Sure. I never said there wasn't corruption, or crony-ism, or anything like that. What I question is the need for massive protests, particularly on Wall Street. I think that if there is a need for protests, the center of those protests should be centered around Capital Hill, not Wall Street. But honestly most of the issues that have been brought up on this thread (pay gaps, etc.) are not a matter for massive protests, or mass movements. They are individual matters that should be delt with individually. What I believe should be protested are all sweet-heart deals that Congresscritters get, the kick-backs that corporations get from them, and the corruption within our politicians. I honestly can't blame the CEO's from trying to get the best deals they can, that's only natural. I tend to blame our elected officials for being so short sighted as to allow themselves to be bought in such a manner.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
Whether or not 10 per cent is correct, who on earth could ever come up with a measure? I suspect it would even be beyond you.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
I suspect you would be of the view that there is never a need to protest against the private sector, no matter what it did.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
How hard is it to measure when a CEO has sunk his life savings into a company, and a "low earner" has zero invested? How hard is it to measure when a CEO dips into his own personal income to make ends meet, and a laborer has not a care in the world how the lights stay on? How hard is it to measure when the owner of the company works well over 100 hours a week, and the janitor barely works 40?Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
But yes, it may be beyond me to pin the exact value. But I am not the one that came up with a hair-brained concept of pegging earnings at 10%, so why should I be the one charged with defending such a scheme?
There are certainly times where protests are warranted. That is actually a vital part of the free market in my view. But you should be protesting something specific such as a company that has ripped you off, or discriminated against you, or other such specific instances. I just don't see what the point is in protesting a company you have no dealings with because you feel their CEO is making too much. Who cares? How does that effect you? Who are you to put a price on that CEO's value?Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Huh?! What kind of Maths is that?Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
I think you'll find that the CEO in my proposal would get 10 times what the janitor gets.
That's some kind of urban legend that the usual suspects bring up again and again around here!Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
How much money did Bill Gates invest in MS? I think you'll find that it wasn't exactly his lifetime savings, especially given his age when he started the company.
How much money did invest Porsche's CEO in the Porsche Company? Pretty much nothing as it was set up by someone else a long time ago.
And there is a bunch of example out there about how those who are paid most didn't really invest much in the business they are in charge of right now, mostly because most of the companies/banks paying exorbitant wages were not set up by their present CEOs, and the founders did not have a similar politics back in the day when they invested their 'lifetime savings'.
But the CEO has more than 10 times invested into the company. Why is it fair to only allow him to earn 10x as much?Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
I don't honestly know how much those two particular individuals invested. But again it isn't all about money. How much time and energy did those individuals put into getting their respective companies off the ground? Especially when you compare Gate's and Prosche's investment (time, energy, money, reputation, etc) with the janitor's, do you think that would be more or less than a 10% ratio.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
And since we're speaking of specific examples ... The owner of the company I work for literally mortgaged his farm to start the business. I sure as heck didn't do anything like that to work here, so who am I to deny him whatever he wants? Particularly as long as he continues to pay me what I think I'm worth.
How?Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
How does an individual make such fundamental change happen alone?
If my boss is making way more than I am, and I feel I should be making closer wages to him, I go to him with the facts about what I do to add value to the company and ask for a raise. Why does it take massive protests for me to ask for a raise?Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
Than why do you use it as a means to justify their huge incomes?Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
Again, most of them didn't get their respective companies off the ground, and even if they did they didn't do it single handedly, they did it with their partners and employees, who most probably did work their but1s off to make the company grow and become successful.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
There is simply no way to justify what your are trying to justify, and that is paying peanuts to those who keep an empire running day after day, or do you believe that a CEO, or his VPs and managers can do it on their own?
I think all of them do it, they all first go to their boss/manager and ask for a raise.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34
What if instead of getting a raise they get the boot?
How much leverage do you think that Joe has to ask for a higher pay? The answer from the boss will be: 'There's 10 others knocking on the door to work for less!'
Everyone does what's easiest first, in this case ask for a raise, before choosing to slip in a park or on Wall Street. I am 100% sure of that, it's because of natures law of least resistance.
Where have I tried to justify Bill Gate's or Ferdinand Porsche's (or whomever is currently running his company) income? I honestly have not delved into either one of their specific instances.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
But to get specific ... I don't think that Porsche's CEO's income is justified, they make over-priced cars that do not perform that well. So I don't buy their cars. Therefore his income is of no concern to me. He is not stealing from me. I do find value in Microsoft's products, and I do use them. Yes they are a bit overpriced, and a bit "buggy". But I don't think that the cost/benifit scale is too far out of whack. So Bill Gates makes massive amounts of money, but I get something of value in return. That's how this whole system works. How are their incomes hurting you?
And those partners, and employees have been compensated at a rate which was negotiated between the two parties. Or are you suggesting the use of slave labor?Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
If you believe you are being paid peanuts, ask for a raise. If you feel a company is mistreating their employees, don't buy their products. What is the justification for the protests?Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
Are you sure?Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
There are other jobs out there. Yes they may be harder to find now than in the past, but there are jobs out there.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
And what if their boss finds out they are using up sick days to go sleep in a park, and fires them for that?
And you have just described the free market system my friend. The market will pay what the value of an employee is. If a boss fires a high value employee simply for asking for a raise, then they deserve the quality of employee they get. Which will be lower, if you hadn't figured that out.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
Perhaps. But I am not willing to say that everyone Occupying Wall Street, or wherever else, has presented a well thought out case for why they deserve a raise. If I go by the people that I've seen on the news, I'd say the majority have not presented such a case.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
It's not feasible to peg board members wages against the profits of the company because as soon as you'd set any statutory limit, there'd be people like me looking at the rules and finding some method of subverting it.
Set up a shell company in another country and have the first firm pay them administration fees (which would be written as an expense), or even a Discretionary Unit Trust where all profits would be paid into and then pay people from that. You'd have to look at what the proposed law actually said but I'm sure that there'd be some method to avoid any statutory requirement.
It would wager that virtually every listed company on most börsen/equities exchanges didn't invest terribly much in the businesses they are in charge of right now; to wit, Rupert Murdoch's personal holdings in News Corp are no more than about 9% with the Murdoch family owning about 27% of the company.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
The actual money for most listed equities comes from savings and/or retirement funds. Managers of those funds then use that money to purchase shares and then they control the voting rights owing to those shares; not the people's money who it was in the first place.
Owing to disclosure requirements in a lot of Western countries, board members know what the board members in other companies are being paid and then demand similar amounts.
Even if "mom and pop" shareholders do get together and vote against the pay that board members get, fund managers and people in similar situations (who are also often on boards themselves) will vote against them and vote in board members' pay anyway.
That scenario was played out exactly at the Annual General Meeting of Qantas in Australia on 27th October 2011 when institutional investors (including CEO Alan Joyce's $10m holdings) collectively voted against private shareholdings and the CEO Alan Joyce got his 71% pay increase. Two days later he grounded the airline, leaving 70,000 people stranded around the world and he blamed it on the Federal Govt for not acting.
The demand curve for labour shifts to the left when companies find a cheaper source of labour overseas and when the supply and demand curves don't meet, people don't get employed - simple as that. The problem is that people still need to pay for the rent and the electric and the gas and whatnot, so it's not like as a group they can shift the supply curve so easily.Quote:
Originally Posted by chuck34