Purpose of any Company is Profits - screw the workers

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by classicman

Maybe we should start there. Anyone see a problem with that?

Nope, not at all.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by classicman

Maybe we should start there. Anyone see a problem with that?

Hey, I agree about Congress. But the people in Congress don't make millions of dollars. I think BOTH Congress and the market need some serious adjusting.

[lumberjim]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

Hey, I agree about Congress. But the people in Congress don't make millions of dollars.

really?

I try to stay out of the big long serious discussions ...partly because I really don't have the time to do the necessary research that would be required in order to not say anything really stupid, and partly because they fucking bore me. You, however, have repeatedly demonstrated that you are free from any such compunctions. huzzah!

[Spexxvet]

Really.

As of January 2009, the annual salary of each Representative is $174,000.00.[7]

Senators 2008-present $169,300 per annum

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by lumberjim

really?

I try to stay out of the big long serious discussions ...partly because I really don't have the time to do the necessary research that would be required in order to not say anything really stupid, and partly because they fucking bore me. You, however, have repeatedly demonstrated that you are free from any such compunctions. huzzah!

The people in Congress who have millions of dollars did not earn that money with their salaries IN Congress. Yes, there are a LOT of rich people in Congress. But their salaries are all under $400,000 a year. The president only earns $400,000 a year. Do you honestly think anyone's salary in Congress is more than the presidents?

[sugarpop]

Also, if they want bonuses, it should be in the form of stocks to be paid out 4 quarters after it is given, so the bonuses are tied directly to the health of the company and how well it does.

[Aliantha]

Capping executive salaries is a good idea in theory, and I've put some thought into it. From where I'm standing, the only way you could do it fairly would be to make executive salaries only a certain percentage higher than their lowest paid full time employee. That percentage would be the issue, but it would certainly limit the amount multi-national corporations could pay their execs, but still allow them to pay the sort of money which is usually comensurate with the knowledge and experience required to fill such positions.

eta: This system would obviously very likely improve the salaries paid to lower income earners which could be a good thing. Kind of like re-distributing the wealth.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

Capping executive salaries is a good idea in theory, and I've put some thought into it. From where I'm standing, the only way you could do it fairly would be to make executive salaries only a certain percentage higher than their lowest paid full time employee. That percentage would be the issue, but it would certainly limit the amount multi-national corporations could pay their execs, but still allow them to pay the sort of money which is usually comensurate with the knowledge and experience required to fill such positions.

eta: This system would obviously very likely improve the salaries paid to lower income earners which could be a good thing. Kind of like re-distributing the wealth.

Only that in a free market the government can't steal the profits made by the company. So even if the salaries are capped, the profits will go to the shareholders. Many employers and employees are shareholders.

[kerosene]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

Capping executive salaries is a good idea in theory, and I've put some thought into it. From where I'm standing, the only way you could do it fairly would be to make executive salaries only a certain percentage higher than their lowest paid full time employee. That percentage would be the issue, but it would certainly limit the amount multi-national corporations could pay their execs, but still allow them to pay the sort of money which is usually comensurate with the knowledge and experience required to fill such positions.

eta: This system would obviously very likely improve the salaries paid to lower income earners which could be a good thing. Kind of like re-distributing the wealth.

Sounds like a good idea, but those who work the system the way it is now, would find a way to do it again. Not saying something shouldn't be done, but I think if we were to put a limitation on executives at all companies, we would have to limit wages all the way down to the janitors or we would end up finding a lot of slimy personnel records ten or twenty years down the road (I'm thinking instead of executives, they would take different titles, but have the same influence on the company behind the scenes.) And really, nobody wants to be limited to what they can earn...not by some other entity like the government. Would it be fair to limit the wages an admin makes? Or a sales person? Once we go there, we have fallen pretty far down that slippery slope and we are still stuck to stagnant wages for everyone.

Maybe I am just cynical, but I don't think we can force the kind of people who have that much greed to change.

I do think we should change things like not allowing CEOs to be chairmen of the board. I worked for HP when Fiorina was in charge and always felt there was something wrong with that. Too much trust put into one person who hadn't really proved she deserved it.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by case

Sounds like a good idea, but those who work the system the way it is now, would find a way to do it again. Not saying something shouldn't be done, but I think if we were to put a limitation on executives at all companies, we would have to limit wages all the way down to the janitors or we would end up finding a lot of slimy personnel records ten or twenty years down the road (I'm thinking instead of executives, they would take different titles, but have the same influence on the company behind the scenes.) And really, nobody wants to be limited to what they can earn...not by some other entity like the government. Would it be fair to limit the wages an admin makes? Or a sales person? Once we go there, we have fallen pretty far down that slippery slope and we are still stuck to stagnant wages for everyone.

Maybe I am just cynical, but I don't think we can force the kind of people who have that much greed to change.

I do think we should change things like not allowing CEOs to be chairmen of the board. I worked for HP when Fiorina was in charge and always felt there was something wrong with that. Too much trust put into one person who hadn't really proved she deserved it.

Maybe we could just put them all in prison for a few years. Doing hard labor.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

Capping executive salaries is a good idea in theory, and I've put some thought into it. From where I'm standing, the only way you could do it fairly would be to make executive salaries only a certain percentage higher than their lowest paid full time employee. That percentage would be the issue, but it would certainly limit the amount multi-national corporations could pay their execs, but still allow them to pay the sort of money which is usually comensurate with the knowledge and experience required to fill such positions.

eta: This system would obviously very likely improve the salaries paid to lower income earners which could be a good thing. Kind of like re-distributing the wealth.

I have actually proposed this before, because the real problem is that fact that executives in the US now make almost 500x more than the average worker. Bring that back down to where it should be and where it is in other countries, which more like 30%. And that is where it used to be in this country as well.

[Aliantha]

I don't have any issue with shareholders reaping the benefits of their shares. I wouldn't consider the issue of profit from shares to be the same as salary.

eta: Major shareholders should be held accountable for the decisions they influence though.

[classicman]

Limiting pay is not a good idea in any way.

[Aliantha]

From what I can tell, most lower paid and middle income workers already have to suffer the pay limitations of their job, regardless of how good they are or how hard they work.

Why should the same not apply to all levels?

[kerosene]

Yes, I agree to a point. A lot of wages for lower and middle income earners have have remained stagnant. And not because they don't work hard enough. But not all have been this way. And not for as long as it seems. For instance, my husband makes significantly more than he did 10 years ago, but he has the same title and does the same thing. There are some in his field that make more then he does and some that make less. Now, if someone came in and said "Hey, XXX is the new limit to what Sys Analysts can make" and it was less than his wage? Yeah, he and everyone who makes what he makes or more get a cut in pay. Sucks. So, how motivated is he going to be to get better at what he does? What kind of pride will people have in their work if there is no hope for advancement? I agree that the salaries are out of wack and I know that was anecdotal, but I believe there are a lot of those people out there, too.