Chinese products ?

[shamrock]

It's the easy answer. People see someone making millions, and they want to take from them.

As stated in above post, if you are willing to take it on the chin (or wallet) then buy all products only produced in US. You can find them, but I promise you won't like the prices.

It's a catch-22.

I'm not necessarily against a personal (or group) boycott of Chinese product, but I think it's stupid. It's not doing anything to further real change.

actually in most markets you won't find American products anymore, sadly enough. The country that invented radio & television, now makes neither. Rca, (radio communications of America) now has nothing to do with America. Zenith was the last television you could buy manufactured in America, and that ended in the late 90s. Henry Ford and America invented the automobile, every day we lose market share to Japan and Korea, Chinese cars coming soon. The day will come in our lifetime that like the television & radio/stereo industry, not a single car will be produced in America. Like someone mentioned, Pharmaceuticals/health care, will next be outsourced.

 

[marine]

You compare a mailman to a CEO making an average of 400 times the average salary of his employees in the same boat. Don't forget we are talking an average. That means that some, if not most are making more than 400 times the average employee paycheck.

Does not compute.:shrug:

How you can say they have an average of 400 times the salary, and then say that most of them have over that number defies math.

Good try at spinning it and trying to hype things up a bit though.

I bet a CEO making 3 million a year knows what average means.
:0corn

 

[marine]

For fun, I thought I would snoop around the net a lil and see what the numbers would look like in StevieD's theory:

Present (2005 - companies valued at over 1 billion dollars)
Average CEO pay: 10 million
Average worker: 42k

The top 5 CEO earners gained the bulk of their salary by exercising stock options. One analysis of 56 large U.S. companies, for example, showed that salary made up just 22% of a CEO's total compensation in 1996, versus 27% in 1995. As Business Week reported in April, the S&P 500 companies as a whole paid out performance bonuses that significantly sweetened executive pay packages, boosting cash compensation last year by 39% to $2.3 million. The real payoff for most chief executives, though, came from stock options, which accounted for 45% of total compensation versus 40% in 1995,


So now, let's say that CEO's should be capped at 20% of the average worker.
Avg worker pay: 42k
New CEO pay: 50k

Really makes someone want to kill themselves throughout their career so they can give up their life for another 8k eh?
No thanks, I'll stay on the loading dock and work a few extra hours of OT each week and make more than the CEO.

 

[StevieD]

Marine it was 20 times not 20% so a $40,000 average would compute to $40,000 x 20 or $800,000. Also average means some higher some lower. I don't see where I spun anything. And I agree the CEO should make the bulk of his money with stock. Which I also said. So $800,000 is not good enough? Lets make it 40 times 1.6 mil. plus stocks. Plus the average salary is probably more than that anyway. Oh by the way at 400 times $40,000 is $16,000,000.

 

[dawgball]

Marine it was 20 times not 20% so a $40,000 average would compute to $40,000 x 20 or $800,000. Also average means some higher some lower. I don't see where I spun anything. And I agree the CEO should make the bulk of his money with stock. Which I also said. So $800,000 is not good enough? Lets make it 40 times 1.6 mil. plus stocks. Plus the average salary is probably more than that anyway. Oh by the way at 400 times $40,000 is $16,000,000.

I believe the report was total compensation including options, bonuses, and other compensations.

So $800,000 is not good enough?

Why do you think you or anyone else should have any opinion on this?

One other item that was mentioned earlier by someone else. The examples that the detractors like to use are the highest of the high. These are also the absolute best of the best in their field.

A-Rod makes WAAAAY more than 400 times my buddy trying to make his way in AAA ball. Is that any different?

actually in most markets you won't find American products anymore, sadly enough. The country that invented radio & television, now makes neither.

Really I don't see this as sad as all. What's innovative about making televisions and radios now? We, as a country, need to continue to innovate and move on. But with our current education system (being almost no different than our education system a century ago) this is becoming less and less likely. The more our countrymen depend on the government, the less innovative we will be.

 

[StevieD]

I believe the report was total compensation including options, bonuses, and other compensations.



Why do you think you or anyone else should have any opinion on this?

One other item that was mentioned earlier by someone else. The examples that the detractors like to use are the highest of the high. These are also the absolute best of the best in their field.

A-Rod makes WAAAAY more than 400 times my buddy trying to make his way in AAA ball. Is that any different?



Really I don't see this as sad as all. What's innovative about making televisions and radios now? We, as a country, need to continue to innovate and move on. But with our current education system (being almost no different than our education system a century ago) this is becoming less and less likely. The more our countrymen depend on the government, the less innovative we will be.

Yes, A-Rod makes way too much money. Plus A-Rod is not the CEO of the Yankees. So I don't see what it has to do with the discussion.

 

[dawgball]

Yes, A-Rod makes way too much money. Plus A-Rod is not the CEO of the Yankees. So I don't see what it has to do with the discussion.

Imposing caps on someone's ability to make as much money as they can is a slippery slope.

Start at the top and it trickles all the way down. Soon skilled laborers can make no more than X% as unskilled laborers. Or does this not fit into your plan?

 

[marine]

Yes I am very serious about this. Not only CEO's but all executives. Their salaries should be no more than 20% or so above the average worker. This would create sort or a reverse trickle down effect. We do not gain anything on the extra money these greedy bastards make. But that money could be put back into the company and into employees pockets. A quick example, it could be used to pay for employees health insurance. That would put a couple of hundred dollars a month extra in the employees paycheck. Therefore putting more money into the economy. This is already being done at some companies.

:0corn

 

[StevieD]

Imposing caps on someone's ability to make as much money as they can is a slippery slope.

Start at the top and it trickles all the way down. Soon skilled laborers can make no more than X% as unskilled laborers. Or does this not fit into your plan?

No it doesn't fit into my plan. I mentioned CEO's and top execs. And this should make you happy. As the pay of the unwashed increases it also increases the ceiling on the CEO. So in reality he is not limited in how much he can make. He is just limited in how many times more he can make than the average employee. Most jobs have a pay structure that does impose limits. Granted, the worker could change jobs or get promoted to make more money but in the CEO or top exec do not have that option but they get raises as the company grows.

 

[dawgball]

No it doesn't fit into my plan. I mentioned CEO's and top execs.

Ah. So people unlike you. But don't touch the pay of people like you.

Brilliant.

 

[marine]

If the CEO's salary is capped in your plan, can you share with us how it will affect the salaries of people who are primarily commissioned based in that company? Are they now capped at what they can earn so that they do not surpass the CEO, or capped even lower so that they do not screw up the average salary for the lower guys?

What will then be the incentive for them to continue selling their company product once they have reached their cap?

 

[StevieD]

If the CEO's salary is capped in your plan, can you share with us how it will affect the salaries of people who are primarily commissioned based in that company? Are they now capped at what they can earn so that they do not surpass the CEO, or capped even lower so that they do not screw up the average salary for the lower guys?

What will then be the incentive for them to continue selling their company product once they have reached their cap?

Only the CEO and top execs are capped.

 

[StevieD]

No it doesn't fit into my plan. I mentioned CEO's and top execs. And this should make you happy. As the pay of the unwashed increases it also increases the ceiling on the CEO. So in reality he is not limited in how much he can make. He is just limited in how many times more he can make than the average employee. Most jobs have a pay structure that does impose limits. Granted, the worker could change jobs or get promoted to make more money but in the CEO or top exec do not have that option but they get raises as the company grows.

Just moving down. Sorry got phone call while posting it.

 

[marine]

Are you going to tell them how they can spend their paychecks too?

What size house they can buy?
what kind of car they can drive?


CEO's and top execs fill a critical position the company and shoulder the burden of growth and maintenance of the livliehood of the organization. I dunno about you, but I am willing to pay good money to get the best person for this job. This is not a job that I can pull someone off the street and spend 2 weeks training and have them be productive.


Maybe on the lotteries we can get the government to step in as well. No reason a single winner needs $200 million. Maybe we can cap that lottery wins at 3 million or something - then give the rest to the people that played but didn't pick a winner.

If you cap ANYONE's salary like you are proposing you are going to cripple the entire system and throw things way out of whack.

 

[StevieD]

Are you going to tell them how they can spend their paychecks too?

What size house they can buy?
what kind of car they can drive?


CEO's and top execs fill a critical position the company and shoulder the burden of growth and maintenance of the livliehood of the organization. I dunno about you, but I am willing to pay good money to get the best person for this job. This is not a job that I can pull someone off the street and spend 2 weeks training and have them be productive.


Maybe on the lotteries we can get the government to step in as well. No reason a single winner needs $200 million. Maybe we can cap that lottery wins at 3 million or something - then give the rest to the people that played but didn't pick a winner.

If you cap ANYONE's salary like you are proposing you are going to cripple the entire system and throw things way out of whack.

I would argue that the system is crippled as it stands now with the spread between top execs and the workers growing by leaps in bounds. (See Redsfan post)
But you do make a good point on lotteries that I had not thought of. I will have to think of that but maybe they should be capped too.:shrug:

 

[marine]

I don't think it is crippled the way it is. The examples you always see about high CEO pay is typically the top 2% of CEO's you are reading about. And those guys are making the big money because of stock options.. which is tied to company performance.
There's tons of CEO's out there that are making $1 a year in salary. and cashing stock options for the rest... Steve Jobs anyone?

Your essentially telling people to stop performing once they reach a certain point.
Be good, but not too good.

 

[StevieD]

I don't think it is crippled the way it is. The examples you always see about high CEO pay is typically the top 2% of CEO's you are reading about. And those guys are making the big money because of stock options.. which is tied to company performance.
There's tons of CEO's out there that are making $1 a year in salary. and cashing stock options for the rest... Steve Jobs anyone?

Your essentially telling people to stop performing once they reach a certain point.
Be good, but not too good.

I don't really see where you are coming from.
First you say these guys should get paid high salaries. Then you say most of them don't anyway. Then you argue that somehow not having a high salary will stunt their performance. Then you argue that the best work for a dollar year plus stock options. I mentioned early in the argument that they could make up the money in stocks. That is the key to the whole thing.:00hour

 

[Mags]

Only the CEO and top execs are capped.

I don't get it - why are you only picking on CEO's and senior executives? It does seem like there is some deep seated resentment on your part - something must have happened to you to make you hate so much.

But using your theory - I would say then AROD should only get 20x what the food service worker or the ticket taker at the stadium gets. Sure, AROD is the supposedly the best there is, and teams are willing to pay him $25M a year, but fair is fair.

So, the average turnstile worker probably gets $10 a hour - so AROD would get $200 per hour. A game lasts (in the AL) about 3.5 hours - so for each game, AROD DESERVES ONLY $700.

Now, AROD is currently making $154,321 per game. Do you think he'll take that kind of pay cut to keep playing?

OK, let's look at it another way - lets keep AROD's salary the same - but let's make sure that all employees in the organization are within 20x of his salary. Then we'd have to pay the person at the turnstile approximately $2,200 per hour for this example to work.

So, using that example:

1. Where can I get a job as a ticket taker for the Yankees? I wouldn't mind making $2200 per hour to scan tickets, AND

2. This would be the easiest job in the world, as since the labor costs have gone up 20 fold, the cheapest box seat would be in the thousands and thousands of dolllars.

I can see the headline now - "Yankees beat the Blue Jays 6-5 - Paid attendance was a season high 12 people!" :mj07:

 

[StevieD]

Mags, you didn't listen. A-Rod wouldn't have to worry unless he became CEO. But you have the whole theory wrong anyway. Even if he became the CEO he would be paid at a multiple of the average employess salary. Not just the ticket takers. So, he would still be over paid.

 

[Mags]

Mags, you didn't listen. A-Rod wouldn't have to worry unless he became CEO. But you have the whole theory wrong anyway. Even if he became the CEO he would be paid at a multiple of the average employess salary. Not just the ticket takers. So, he would still be over paid.

Stevie - you are not listening. Why is it always the CEO? Are you looking for the highest paid person, or just the CEO, no matter how his salary compares to anyone in the organization?

Did a CEO do something to you? I just don't get it. You are picking on one position that is highly paid - but there are so many other jobs that pay more.

Who cares about the CEO? Why pick on the position that is the hardest to fill and typically has the best set of business skills in the company?

What is your deal? It just doesn't make sense anymore. "Don't look at anyone else - I"m only talking about the CEO" :shrug: