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
Printable View
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