PDA

View Full Version : Inside the wage gap



Chris
04-13-2013, 01:51 PM
Liberals point to an increasing wage gap as proof the poor are getting poorer when in fact it shows nothing of the kind. Wages are rising, and there is a great deal of socioeconomic mobility.

Liberals also use the wage gap between blacks and white, men and women, to decry discrimination.

Inside the wage gap (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/inside_the_wage_gap_GqpInYoGvjZkymS9l0OiCJ) looks at a few of the real causes.


...But might there be other reasons to explain these earnings gaps? Yes, according to a provocative new book by economists June O’Neill and Dave O’Neill. “The Declining Importance of Race and Gender in the Labor Market” makes a persuasive argument that other factors are to blame.

The O’Neills don’t downplay the role of discrimination in the past....

The differences that persist today are largely the result of divergent work-related skills between the groups. Most differences in hourly earnings disappear when black and white men with similar years of schooling, work experience and regional residence are compared.

The O’Neills use a rich source of data from the Current Population Survey and the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth to measure these factors, as well as scores from the Armed Forces Qualification Test. In 2008, when schooling, work experience, scores on the AFQT, age, region, hours worked and type of employer were accounted for, black men ages 35 to 43 earned 100 percent of the wages of similar white males.

...But when researchers don’t include these important characteristics in their analyses, the differential appears much greater. The unadjusted earnings of black males are only 70 percent of the earnings of whites, and Hispanics’ earnings are 82 percent of whites.

The same holds true for women....

Peter1469
04-13-2013, 01:54 PM
Instead, we should ponder why the dollar has less purchasing power than it once had....

bladimz
04-13-2013, 02:29 PM
From the same article that you posted in the OP:


The best way to close wage gap, the data suggest, is to encourage blacks and Hispanics to stay in school, study hard and commit to gaining work experience. When it comes to women, perhaps we should and honor women’s choices instead of trying to force them to conform to feminist priorities that place little value on families.This would be good advice if it weren't for the very real possibility that, even after following these suggestions, these people (black, purple, green, blue or white) will suffer great difficulty in actually gaining work experience. And on the chance that a job is found, current employment environment suggests that these jobs will be low or minimum-wage jobs, many times part-time or seasonal employment.

At any rate, in the 1960's the CEO to employee compensation ratio was about 20 to 1; in 2000 it was approximately 325 to 1. No amount of studying is going to close that gap. Other than greed, there's not much to explain it.

Adelaide
04-13-2013, 02:36 PM
Women do make less than men in many professions, but the reason in general why women make less than men is because they tend to favour professions that don't pay as well. Still, there are industries where women and men could be in the same position and have different pay for no good reason. It's a failing of many feminists to deny that part of the reason we make less is because of the professions we tend to choose (ex. nursing, teaching) but that is changing and more and more women are entering different professions that tend to pay more than the traditional professions. An example of that would be that I read a study saying more than of medical students are female now. Women are also going into the sciences more, and engineering, which are areas that have traditionally been mostly male.

Peter1469
04-13-2013, 03:51 PM
From the same article that you posted in the OP:

This would be good advice if it weren't for the very real possibility that, even after following these suggestions, these people (black, purple, green, blue or white) will suffer great difficulty in actually gaining work experience. And on the chance that a job is found, current employment environment suggests that these jobs will be low or minimum-wage jobs, many times part-time or seasonal employment.

At any rate, in the 1960's the CEO to employee compensation ratio was about 20 to 1; in 2000 it was approximately 325 to 1. No amount of studying is going to close that gap. Other than greed, there's not much to explain it.

And you miss the point of the OP. It isn't the gap that matters so much as compensation at the lower levels. If they get buy who cares if the CEO makes 325 times more? (Assuming the CEO makes the company profitable).

Peter1469
04-13-2013, 03:53 PM
Women do make less than men in many professions, but the reason in general why women make less than men is because they tend to favour professions that don't pay as well. Still, there are industries where women and men could be in the same position and have different pay for no good reason. It's a failing of many feminists to deny that part of the reason we make less is because of the professions we tend to choose (ex. nursing, teaching) but that is changing and more and more women are entering different professions that tend to pay more than the traditional professions. An example of that would be that I read a study saying more than of medical students are female now. Women are also going into the sciences more, and engineering, which are areas that have traditionally been mostly male.

That and studies do show that women tend to not be as aggressive in negotiating their salaries. I always asked for a bit more than the first offer. I don't want to lose that ability just because others take the first offer.

Edit (of course not in the military)

Greenridgeman
04-13-2013, 03:53 PM
Women do make less than men in many professions, but the reason in general why women make less than men is because they tend to favour professions that don't pay as well. Still, there are industries where women and men could be in the same position and have different pay for no good reason. It's a failing of many feminists to deny that part of the reason we make less is because of the professions we tend to choose (ex. nursing, teaching) but that is changing and more and more women are entering different professions that tend to pay more than the traditional professions. An example of that would be that I read a study saying more than of medical students are female now. Women are also going into the sciences more, and engineering, which are areas that have traditionally been mostly male.

I worked under equal pay for equal work, with women, for 25 years.

We were on the exact same pay scale.

Women missed a lot more work because of illness, and sick family, and were notoriously tardy.

In the private sector, I can see how that would cause women to earn less for approximately the same job.

Greenridgeman
04-13-2013, 04:02 PM
That and studies do show that women tend to not be as aggressive in negotiating their salaries. I always asked for a bit more than the first offer. I don't want to lose that ability just because others take the first offer.

Edit (of course not in the military)


That is one reason teachers were so poorly paid back in the day, most were women, and the job was the secondary income for the family.

No need to rock the boat for higher wages under those conditions.

Back 35 years ago, when men agitated for higher wages, women teachers often got angry, and told us to "go get a real job".

I think, in Texas at that time, they knew with decent pay was going to come rigorous certification and accountability.

Mister D
04-13-2013, 04:25 PM
I worked under equal pay for equal work, with women, for 25 years.

We were on the exact same pay scale.

Women missed a lot more work because of illness, and sick family, and were notoriously tardy.

In the private sector, I can see how that would cause women to earn less for approximately the same job.

Those earnings studies are also notoriously dishonest. You have to be understand how they arrived at their conclusions before you can believe anything.

Greenridgeman
04-13-2013, 04:31 PM
Those earnings studies are also notoriously dishonest. You have to be understand how they arrived at their conclusions before you can believe anything.



They arrived at their conclusions via an agenda that determined the conclusions in the first place.

Not all men teachers showed up early, not all women teachers were late, not all men had significantly higher attendance rates, nor did all women have significantly lower attendance rates, but when it came to punctuality and attendance in the teaching world, women did not give equal work for equal pay.

zelmo1234
04-13-2013, 04:41 PM
From the same article that you posted in the OP:

This would be good advice if it weren't for the very real possibility that, even after following these suggestions, these people (black, purple, green, blue or white) will suffer great difficulty in actually gaining work experience. And on the chance that a job is found, current employment environment suggests that these jobs will be low or minimum-wage jobs, many times part-time or seasonal employment.

At any rate, in the 1960's the CEO to employee compensation ratio was about 20 to 1; in 2000 it was approximately 325 to 1. No amount of studying is going to close that gap. Other than greed, there's not much to explain it.

So as long as the gap between the poor and the CEO is small it is totally OK with you if the poor are even poorer than they are now.

And why would it be any differetn for anyone to get work experence and what the hell is wrong with the jobs that you listed. I did those things when I started out!

You make the poor out to be victoms, and you may be correct, but they are not a victom of the CEO, but a victom of a government that would have them beleive that there is no hope for them to experence the american dream.

You are stuck in thinking that wealth is a pie and there are only so many pieces. it is not it is like candle light, no matter how many candles you light, the first one is still as bright as when it started.

This is my problem with liberal policies, in order to sell people on them youhave to fill them with dispare

Greenridgeman
04-13-2013, 04:51 PM
So as long as the gap between the poor and the CEO is small it is totally OK with you if the poor are even poorer than they are now.

And why would it be any differetn for anyone to get work experence and what the hell is wrong with the jobs that you listed. I did those things when I started out!

You make the poor out to be victoms, and you may be correct, but they are not a victom of the CEO, but a victom of a government that would have them beleive that there is no hope for them to experence the american dream.

You are stuck in thinking that wealth is a pie and there are only so many pieces. it is not it is like candle light, no matter how many candles you light, the first one is still as bright as when it started.

This is my problem with liberal policies, in order to sell people on them youhave to fill them with dispare


Poverty is a state of mind, people lifting themselves out of it pass people dooming themselves to it all the time.

The poor, middle class and rich are not the always same people.

bladimz
04-13-2013, 05:07 PM
So as long as the gap between the poor and the CEO is small it is totally OK with you if the poor are even poorer than they are now.I don't remember saying anything about the poor being even poorer... why would you bring that into the equation?


And why would it be any differetn for anyone to get work experence and what the hell is wrong with the jobs that you listed. I did those things when I started out!Ahhh, the good ol' days. "I did that when i started out". How long ago was that? Did you have a family? Kids? A Mortgage? Car payments, etc. Those jobs are fine for people who aren't responsible for anyone but themselves. But there's a heluva lot of people who head up a household who have a job just like those. Those are the ones that are in serious need.


You make the poor out to be victoms, and you may be correct, but they are not a victom of the CEO, but a victom of a government that would have them beleive that there is no hope for them to experence the american dream.We can argue all day about why, how and who made them poor. I'm not blaming the CEO for their poverty. The CEO is going to get as much as he can, which is fine as long as it's not at the expense of his underlings. I don't blame the CEO, my bitch is with the inequity itself. Why is it there, and why is the gap getting wider and wider?


You are stuck in thinking that wealth is a pie and there are only so many pieces. it is not it is like candle light, no matter how many candles you light, the first one is still as bright as when it started.
2343

I'm sorry but when wealth distribution is measured in percentages, that kind of tells me it's more like a pie than a bunch of candles.


This is my problem with liberal policies, in order to sell people on them youhave to fill them with dispareThe despair is there, it's real... you just have to open your eyes.

zelmo1234
04-13-2013, 05:17 PM
Exactly, you hate the disparity and would return to a time when the CEO was a lot closer in wages to the poor and lower middle class, but if you look at what it would take to make the equality happen, it doens not bring the poor up, it brings everyone down.

As far as the jobs, yes the suck and when you have rent to make they suck even more, but if you work hard you will not be there long, you will get noticed, And when you are on unemployment and welfare, corporate leaders notice that too! There are people that start out in the mail room everyday, and make it to the top and there are people that never will, And not aways, but most of the time, if they are of able body and mind, it is a choice!

I know I was poor for a lot longer than I have been wealthy, and trust me it was notihing but attitude and hard work that got me here!

Chris
04-13-2013, 06:24 PM
...my bitch is with the inequity itself. Why is it there, and why is the gap getting wider and wider?

Why does it matter? Why do you want the gap smaller? That will not result in the poor being better off, they are, we are all better off with the gap.

Dr. Who
04-13-2013, 06:52 PM
Why does it matter? Why do you want the gap smaller? That will not result in the poor being better off, they are, we are all better off with the gap.
Do you not find inequity in a situation where the CEO is provided with a healthy bonus in an unprofitable year, but the rank and file are denied any raise at all, irrespective of how much effort was put in by the workers? The more money that must be paid to the CEO and executive management, the less there is left for the workers. Typically business rationalizes profits by eliminating job positions and requiring more work from fewer people, particularly those who are salaried as opposed to those who receive an hourly rate.

Peter1469
04-13-2013, 06:57 PM
Do you not find inequity in a situation where the CEO is provided with a healthy bonus in an unprofitable year, but the rank and file are denied any raise at all, irrespective of how much effort was put in by the workers? The more money that must be paid to the CEO and executive management, the less there is left for the workers. Typically business rationalizes profits by eliminating job positions and requiring more work from fewer people, particularly those who are salaried as opposed to those who receive an hourly rate.


I certainly do. The CEO's compensation should be a percentage of what he brings in profits. If he can't do that, he should get very little.

Dr. Who
04-13-2013, 07:06 PM
I certainly do. The CEO's compensation should be a percentage of what he brings in profits. If he can't do that, he should get very little.
I agree, but that often does not happen, as the CEO is often the one who determines such compensation.

Peter1469
04-13-2013, 07:08 PM
Isn't it the Board that determines the compensation- at least for publicly traded companies?

Dr. Who
04-13-2013, 07:56 PM
Isn't it the Board that determines the compensation- at least for publicly traded companies?
Sure, but who are the members of the board - often fellow CEOs and cronies who all serve together in various combinations on various boards.

Chris
04-13-2013, 08:00 PM
Do you not find inequity in a situation where the CEO is provided with a healthy bonus in an unprofitable year, but the rank and file are denied any raise at all, irrespective of how much effort was put in by the workers? The more money that must be paid to the CEO and executive management, the less there is left for the workers. Typically business rationalizes profits by eliminating job positions and requiring more work from fewer people, particularly those who are salaried as opposed to those who receive an hourly rate.

Before I answer, same question posed blad: Why do you care if the gap does not, and it does not, imply lower wages for anyone? If in fact, despite an increasing gap, wages are rising. Why do you care?

Let me answer by looking at various situations. Because I have trouble dealing with nonexistent abstractions.

One, a company I have nothing to do with. Don't care. It's not my money, none of my business.

Two, a company I work for. I might care. I would either consider my compensation (salary, benefits, the work, coworkers, etc) worth my effort and continue working, or leave for a company I could hopefully find better.

Three, a company I own and control. Well, then I would take all sorts of things into consideration. Is the well-paid CEO worth it? Even if the company suffers a loss, did he keep it from going bust? Is he competing with the competition? Can I let him go when he might go to work for the competition. --None of these decisions concern perceived fairness though.

If it were the old days, prior to government issued and incentivizing earnings guidance, that says the company must report annual profits, that says the company must adopt a high time preference and focus on the short term, if it was prior to that, I don't think I'd pay a CEO so much for just turning a quick profit, I think I'd look for one who had long-term vision, who sought to develop the company into the future, and was willing to take a cut in pay for the opportunity and greater pay off down the road. --Alas! Because of government those days are long gone.

Peter1469
04-13-2013, 08:01 PM
Sure, but who are the members of the board - often fellow CEOs and cronies who all serve together in various combinations on various boards.

Yes, that is true.

Ransom
04-13-2013, 08:09 PM
Do you not find inequity in a situation where the CEO is provided with a healthy bonus in an unprofitable year, but the rank and file are denied any raise at all, irrespective of how much effort was put in by the workers? The more money that must be paid to the CEO and executive management, the less there is left for the workers. Typically business rationalizes profits by eliminating job positions and requiring more work from fewer people, particularly those who are salaried as opposed to those who receive an hourly rate.

What kind of business is it? Large corporations for example contract their Execs, stock options, other performance bonuses decided when the hire was made on many occasions. In the case of a medium sized biz, the CEO has probably toiled for years helping to build the company, setting standards, meeting payrolls, helping to make the place an employer to begin with. In the case of a small business, the CEO may be the owner. Who has spent countless hours of his or her own sweat and time away from family and risked everything for the opportunity at self determination and deserves to either make or lose money.

And what is this "typically business 'rationalizes' profits." Why is the business.....in business to begin with? For God's sake. To maxmize profit at the least cost reasonable would be anyone's reasoned guess.

What of you, Dr. Who? Where do you stand on the planet in regards to income and standard of living. Looking across mankind, how many have access to a pc, internet, money to access it? Would you say top 2% of the entire planet. Is that equitable?

Common
04-13-2013, 08:12 PM
There is no point even discussing a topic such as this. EVERYONE knows wages have stagnated and have gone down, everyone knows it, but of course theres always those that will deny until they take their last breath if its politically favorable to them. The fact remains politics aside the truth and reality is what it really is.
In 1978 when the first casino opened in atlantic city New Jersey they paid 18,000 a year to start for a security officer on the floor. Today 35 yrs later they start at 8.00 an hr. They started porters at 9.00 an hr they now start at minimum wage and thats just one example.

Dr. Who
04-13-2013, 08:48 PM
What kind of business is it? Large corporations for example contract their Execs, stock options, other performance bonuses decided when the hire was made on many occasions. In the case of a medium sized biz, the CEO has probably toiled for years helping to build the company, setting standards, meeting payrolls, helping to make the place an employer to begin with. In the case of a small business, the CEO may be the owner. Who has spent countless hours of his or her own sweat and time away from family and risked everything for the opportunity at self determination and deserves to either make or lose money.

And what is this "typically business 'rationalizes' profits." Why is the business.....in business to begin with? For God's sake. To maxmize profit at the least cost reasonable would be anyone's reasoned guess.

What of you, Dr. Who? Where do you stand on the planet in regards to income and standard of living. Looking across mankind, how many have access to a pc, internet, money to access it? Would you say top 2% of the entire planet. Is that equitable?
First of all I am not really talking about owner operated businesses as an owner operator is the least likely to be making 300 times more than his employees, since owners tend to reinvest in their own businesses. I am primarily talking about publically traded companies.

I can see a business rationalizing profits if everyone is taking a hit, but not if the CEO makes the same, if not more than the prior year, but everyone else is being forced to work more hours for the same money and before you you suggest that they can quit, keep in mind that there are fewer and fewer jobs available and people may have many years invested in pension plans that they don't want to upset, particularly if currently contributing to a defined benefit plan. Additionally, many non-CEOs have toiled for years at the self-same company and many CEOs have not. And why is it in the last 10 years that CEO compensation has increased so much relative to the average worker? Do current CEOs contribute 100 times more than they used to? I doubt it. However more and more CEOs serve as board members on other boards and I believe they have been colluding to drive up executive compensation.

As to stock options, I have personally witnessed the kind of corruption that can be inherent in that type of compensation. I won't name the company, but some years ago they essentially put themselves on the market. Prior to that the executive hid as many of the liabilities as possible while at the same time personally acquiring as much preferred stock as possible, though they already had quite a bit through stock options. The company was sold. The buying company had done their due dilligence, but the executive had been very clever at hiding the liabilities. (This involves an insurance company, so the liabilities were hidden in deliberately low actuarially driven loss reserves in a certain segment of business which was on the cusp of exploding into massive class action lawsuits and the executive was well aware of the exposure.). Each member of that executive walked away a multi-millionaire after the buy-out because the selling price of the shares was over valued by at least 30%. Once the buying company discovered the hidden liabilities, there was a great rationalization of personnel - at least 10%, if not more of the staff were let go. If that's not greed on the part of the former executive, I don't know else you might define it.

Ransom
04-13-2013, 09:38 PM
And the focus Dr. Who...also tends to land on conservative CEOs or big execs. Where a Steve Jobs will receive a moment of silence by Occupiers occupying Wall Street......I mean...if that didn't define that whole fiasco. They all turn their smart device facewards and their hero's sad passing is mourned and, what in the world? Steve Jobs whose products are built in factories in China thus taking American jobs, perhaps the most famous of big time capitalists......mourned and momented by Occupiers. Ransom sat there scratching his head, that one still throws me.

You can be an Oprah. Television mogul. Channel owner. Job creator. You ain't inequitable if yer Oprah. What say your name is George Soros? Are you inequitable?

Larry Page from Google? Gates?

Dr. Who
04-13-2013, 09:49 PM
And the focus Dr. Who...also tends to land on conservative CEOs or big execs. Where a Steve Jobs will receive a moment of silence by Occupiers occupying Wall Street......I mean...if that didn't define that whole fiasco. They all turn their smart device facewards and their hero's sad passing is mourned and, what in the world? Steve Jobs whose products are built in factories in China thus taking American jobs, perhaps the most famous of big time capitalists......mourned and momented by Occupiers. Ransom sat there scratching his head, that one still throws me.

You can be an Oprah. Television mogul. Channel owner. Job creator. You ain't inequitable if yer Oprah. What say your name is George Soros? Are you inequitable?

Larry Page from Google? Gates?

Who said any of the above are exempt? I don't care if the CEO is conservative or liberal, my issue is greed consuming the resources of so many companies that the result is less employment or outsourcing employment to other countries.

Ransom
04-14-2013, 07:01 PM
Who said any of the above are exempt? I don't care if the CEO is conservative or liberal, my issue is greed consuming the resources of so many companies that the result is less employment or outsourcing employment to other countries.

I say many of the above are exempt and I say the consumer is as well by your arguments. I also think you ignore the obvious job creation capacity of these people. An Ellison from Oracle, Microsoft's Gates, Apple's Jobs, Oprah's Oprah, Page's Google, or Kroenke's sports empires.

Let's take an NFL Owner Doc. Let's say Dr. Who owns the Peatown Candystripers. Before the season, contracts are signed, employment is agreed upon,...is it not the Owners endeavor now to make as much money beyond obligations(costs) as possible? And should not executives like the gen manager or director of football operations get bonuses if certain criteria or goals are reached. More than the locker room cleanup crew or the groundskeepers or equipment manager?

And if the team is successful......who should reap the reward. Sure pay out contractual player bonuses, pay your coaching staff bonus bucks, but the chicken feed isn't what I am talking about, who should reap what they've sown?

That's right. $he Owner of the Candystripers

Chris
04-14-2013, 07:07 PM
my issue is greed consuming the resources of so many companies that the result is less employment or outsourcing employment to other countries.

Temporarily, perhaps, but in the long run, if this so-called, or so-meant, greed is such a bad thing for companies, then those companies will be weeded out and better will replace them. What Schumpeter called creative-destruction. What Hayek would describe as natural evolutionary group selection.

Dr. Who
04-14-2013, 07:50 PM
I say many of the above are exempt and I say the consumer is as well by your arguments. I also think you ignore the obvious job creation capacity of these people. An Ellison from Oracle, Microsoft's Gates, Apple's Jobs, Oprah's Oprah, Page's Google, or Kroenke's sports empires.

Let's take an NFL Owner Doc. Let's say Dr. Who owns the Peatown Candystripers. Before the season, contracts are signed, employment is agreed upon,...is it not the Owners endeavor now to make as much money beyond obligations(costs) as possible? And should not executives like the gen manager or director of football operations get bonuses if certain criteria or goals are reached. More than the locker room cleanup crew or the groundskeepers or equipment manager?

And if the team is successful......who should reap the reward. Sure pay out contractual player bonuses, pay your coaching staff bonus bucks, but the chicken feed isn't what I am talking about, who should reap what they've sown?

That's right. $he Owner of the Candystripers

Again, I reiterate, I have no qualm against performance bonuses within reason. I do have an issue where bonuses are paid to the executive management in the absence of performance, when profits are down and the difference is made up through employee termination, leaving the salaried employees to take up the slack essentially on their own time, which effectively means that they are making less on an hourly basis.

Dr. Who
04-14-2013, 07:54 PM
Temporarily, perhaps, but in the long run, if this so-called, or so-meant, greed is such a bad thing for companies, then those companies will be weeded out and better will replace them. What Schumpeter called creative-destruction. What Hayek would describe as natural evolutionary group selection.
America is currently paying the price of this learning curve and it is not certain that she will recover.

Chris
04-14-2013, 08:05 PM
America is currently paying the price of this learning curve and it is not certain that she will recover.

You have some evidence for that?

America's problem is its government mucking with the economy. Its government more than anything is responsible for CEO pay and other short-sighted practices: The misguided practice of earnings guidance (http://www.uic.edu/classes/actg/actg516rtr/Readings/Markets/Earnings-Guidance-1-McKinsey-Full.pdf).

Ransom
04-14-2013, 08:07 PM
Again, I reiterate, I have no qualm against performance bonuses within reason. I do have an issue where bonuses are paid to the executive management in the absence of performance, when profits are down and the difference is made up through employee termination, leaving the salaried employees to take up the slack essentially on their own time, which effectively means that they are making less on an hourly basis.

If profits are down Dr, you are correct, employees go. You don't make as much money, it means business is off, it would be foolhardy to pay people to stand around and do nothing. Departments will need to trim up, efficiency the key word now, but any owner, CEO, manager who isn't trying to get the most out of his or her employee is I believe remiss. I'm sure exceptions occur, you seem to be able to quote a few. But, for the most part, if profits are down, everyone makes less money. Everyone in the company doesn't do as well.

zelmo1234
04-14-2013, 08:11 PM
Again, I reiterate, I have no qualm against performance bonuses within reason. I do have an issue where bonuses are paid to the executive management in the absence of performance, when profits are down and the difference is made up through employee termination, leaving the salaried employees to take up the slack essentially on their own time, which effectively means that they are making less on an hourly basis.

Who gets to decide what is excessive??

Ransom
04-15-2013, 10:36 AM
Who gets to decide what is excessive??

Why the good doctor I would presume.

Dr. Who
04-15-2013, 05:44 PM
If profits are down Dr, you are correct, employees go. You don't make as much money, it means business is off, it would be foolhardy to pay people to stand around and do nothing. Departments will need to trim up, efficiency the key word now, but any owner, CEO, manager who isn't trying to get the most out of his or her employee is I believe remiss. I'm sure exceptions occur, you seem to be able to quote a few. But, for the most part, if profits are down, everyone makes less money. Everyone in the company doesn't do as well.
Let's not forget the recent financial meltdown that resulted in government bailouts and how many of those institutions had the unmitigated gall to pay out enormous bonuses to their executive management (who were complicit in causing the financial fiasco), although they were ostensibly broke. People who should have been fired were given bonuses. Rank and file lost jobs. Owner operated business works according to your theory, publically traded companies are overseen by boards of directors. What happens when the boards of directors don't have the well being of the company at heart but instead the well being of the CEO and senior management. Every CEO of every major traded company serves on other boards. Guess what, they all know each other, they all scratch each others backs. It comes down to collusion among the boards of directors - the shareholders have to get paid and so does the CEO and all of his/her right hand men/women. Given the job shortage out there, they can afford to squeeze every last drop of blood from the employees. If they quit, so what, there are 200 others waiting to take their place. It may be legal, but it is short sighted and it's not good for the long term viability of these corporations, because loss of long term employees means the loss of the kind of information that isn't stored in computer databases. Heck if the fortunes of the company seem to be going south, the first rats to jump ship are the CEO, CFO and all of the executive VPs, long before anyone, including the shareholders know that anything is wrong.

You can blame everything that is wrong with the economy on taxation and I'm sure there is some basis for that complaint, but don't overlook the culture of greed that began in the 80's and is gradually destroying the economic infrastructure of the country. Look back at the beginnings of the trend. The purchasing of viable companies by financial corporations who cut them up and sold off the pieces and left entire towns and smaller cities without employment. The mergers and acquisitions and hostile takeovers that have resulted in the loss of millions of businesses. Preferred shareholders have made a fortune from this feeding frenzy, but the country has lost. The government has been influenced by the wealty few to allow foreign takeover of businesses, whether or not that may involve the elimination of those businesses because they were annoying competitors. If you look at what has been happening over the long term, the future looks rather bleak.

Ransom
04-15-2013, 08:37 PM
Number one, I don't believe the economic woes are to be placed in the laps of corporations. Secondly, who is blaming everything that is wrong on taxation. I believe it's the Dem Party that believes tax increases will solve our issues, I see no one here arguing taxation. At all. And the culture of greed did start in the 80s. The 1780's.

zelmo1234
04-15-2013, 08:41 PM
Let's not forget the recent financial meltdown that resulted in government bailouts and how many of those institutions had the unmitigated gall to pay out enormous bonuses to their executive management (who were complicit in causing the financial fiasco), although they were ostensibly broke. People who should have been fired were given bonuses. Rank and file lost jobs. Owner operated business works according to your theory, publically traded companies are overseen by boards of directors. What happens when the boards of directors don't have the well being of the company at heart but instead the well being of the CEO and senior management. Every CEO of every major traded company serves on other boards. Guess what, they all know each other, they all scratch each others backs. It comes down to collusion among the boards of directors - the shareholders have to get paid and so does the CEO and all of his/her right hand men/women. Given the job shortage out there, they can afford to squeeze every last drop of blood from the employees. If they quit, so what, there are 200 others waiting to take their place. It may be legal, but it is short sighted and it's not good for the long term viability of these corporations, because loss of long term employees means the loss of the kind of information that isn't stored in computer databases. Heck if the fortunes of the company seem to be going south, the first rats to jump ship are the CEO, CFO and all of the executive VPs, long before anyone, including the shareholders know that anything is wrong.

You can blame everything that is wrong with the economy on taxation and I'm sure there is some basis for that complaint, but don't overlook the culture of greed that began in the 80's and is gradually destroying the economic infrastructure of the country. Look back at the beginnings of the trend. The purchasing of viable companies by financial corporations who cut them up and sold off the pieces and left entire towns and smaller cities without employment. The mergers and acquisitions and hostile takeovers that have resulted in the loss of millions of businesses. Preferred shareholders have made a fortune from this feeding frenzy, but the country has lost. The government has been influenced by the wealty few to allow foreign takeover of businesses, whether or not that may involve the elimination of those businesses because they were annoying competitors. If you look at what has been happening over the long term, the future looks rather bleak.

What caused that financial meltdown again? Oh! the Equity in housing legislation might have had something to do with that?

The banks should have been allowed to go bust!

Dr. Who
04-15-2013, 09:00 PM
What caused that financial meltdown again? Oh! the Equity in housing legislation might have had something to do with that?

The banks should have been allowed to go bust!
Who do you suppose influenced the legislation? Clearly they knew they had a safety net.