The Pyramid is Top Heavy

[Dancing Fire]

Bill Maher had a great blog post about this a couple of days ago.

"When we don't force huge fast food corporations to pay a living wage, yes, their profits go up (McDonald's profits were up 130% during the recession) and their stockholders benefit -- but their employees need to go on public assistance and we, the taxpayers, end up footing the bill.

Why should I have to finance some rich prick's McDonald's Corporation stock staying at 99.34 instead of 97.86?"

http://www.real-time-with-bill-mahe...h-bill-maher-blog/2013/4/17/not-lovin-it.html

Thing,IYO what should the minimum be?
btw; I love Bill Maher...

The minimum should be enough for a working adult to live off of. I'm not an expert and am not sure what that number is, but it certainly isn't $7.25/hour.

And you can't possibly love Bill Maher, he disagrees with you on every issue.

Yes,but i like watching comedy shows...

 

[erinl]

And it happens at all levels except the top. My husband is upper middle-management at a large well-known company as an IT logistics consultant. The hours he works are insane, and the stress he is put under to keep schedules and budget on track is insane. And he does it, again and again, project after project. And he hasn't received a bonus or promotion in ten years, while the shareholders have profited immensely. He makes a decent salary yes, but he isn't paid nearly enough for what he is bringing in to the top guys, and he isn't promoted to the next level up because imo, he is TOO good at hitting those numbers--he is the top people's workhorse.

 

[Dancing Fire]

since you guys aren't greedy like a CEO ..let me ask you guys this Q...If your boss offered you a raise tomorrow how many of you will turn it down?

 

[packrat]

Yes, it was a fine fine day in our household when we found out that there would be no yearly bonuses where my husband worked b/c the company "couldn't afford it" and they "didn't make enough money", when in reality, they made actually a profit to the tune of about a billion + dollars, and the higher ups in the company all voted to give *themselves* bonuses---$4million, EACH, while I tried not to think about how we *could* have been FINALLY a teeny tiny bit ahead. And they sent out a looooovely memo about how they knew that in these hard times of living pay check to pay check the employees would understand that this is something they "had" to do to ensure that the company would be able to compete in today's market and continue to provide the great product they do. And you know, they felt sooo bad about it too, I'm sure.

Tyson Foods. Where we pay our employees so shabbily they can't afford to buy our food. Except for when we give them a very thoughtful $5 off coupon for Christmas. Which is their holiday bonus.

 

[packrat]

It's not about greed, turning down or accepting a raise DF. Most people getting a raise still wouldn't be making more than enough to have a pot to piss in.

 

[ksinger]

since you guys aren't greedy like a CEO ..let me ask you guys this Q...If your boss offered you a raise tomorrow how many of you will turn it down?

Red herring alert.

Yawn.

 

[iheartscience]

since you guys aren't greedy like a CEO ..let me ask you guys this Q...If your boss offered you a raise tomorrow how many of you will turn it down?

Red herring alert.

Yawn.

Yep.

 

[iLander]

since you guys aren't greedy like a CEO ..let me ask you guys this Q...If your boss offered you a raise tomorrow how many of you will turn it down?

If that raise meant that my fellow employees couldn't afford a decent standard of living, and they had to live below poverty level and get food stamps, and that raise was just another million to add to my pile of millions? Yes I would turn it down!

We are talking about integrity. Integrity is doing the right thing even when no one is looking (according to Jefferson). We are not seeing any of that with these CEOs. They are taking food out of their employees' mouths to line their own overly-full pockets.

You mentioned the Costco CEO makes almost $1 million a year, DF. I think there is nothing wrong with that because their employees make a decent wage, get excellent benefits and even bonuses. Because of this, they have less employee turnover, less employee theft and a sustainable business model.

 

[iLander]

Yes, it was a fine fine day in our household when we found out that there would be no yearly bonuses where my husband worked b/c the company "couldn't afford it" and they "didn't make enough money", when in reality, they made actually a profit to the tune of about a billion + dollars, and the higher ups in the company all voted to give *themselves* bonuses---$4million, EACH, while I tried not to think about how we *could* have been FINALLY a teeny tiny bit ahead. And they sent out a looooovely memo about how they knew that in these hard times of living pay check to pay check the employees would understand that this is something they "had" to do to ensure that the company would be able to compete in today's market and continue to provide the great product they do. And you know, they felt sooo bad about it too, I'm sure.

Tyson Foods. Where we pay our employees so shabbily they can't afford to buy our food. Except for when we give them a very thoughtful $5 off coupon for Christmas. Which is their holiday bonus.

This is lying, immoral, reprehensible and disgusting.

 

[iLander]

And it happens at all levels except the top. My husband is upper middle-management at a large well-known company as an IT logistics consultant. The hours he works are insane, and the stress he is put under to keep schedules and budget on track is insane. And he does it, again and again, project after project. And he hasn't received a bonus or promotion in ten years, while the shareholders have profited immensely. He makes a decent salary yes, but he isn't paid nearly enough for what he is bringing in to the top guys, and he isn't promoted to the next level up because imo, he is TOO good at hitting those numbers--he is the top people's workhorse.

Ridiculous!

Is there any way he can do this as his own business? When you are employed, someone else decides how much you make. When you are self-employed then you decide.

 

[ksinger]

Ah! but it's not ILLEGAL, and that makes it OK...

 

[erinl]

ILander--

He could not do what he does on his own. He implements large-scale warehouse management systems for large, multi-location corporations (think petsmart, walmart, big lots, ace hardware etc). I know the bosses dictate what he makes, but the fact that profit from implementations done well goes only to shareholders and ceos without any compensation for those that implement the systems (beyond I think 2% a year raises, which is below inflation) sucks. He has been looking to jump ship for awhile but he has an old-school mentality in many ways and has very high risk aversion. Several of his colleagues who have jumped ship have found the new company downsized since 2008, and were subsequently out of a job so that hasn't helped!

Sorry to threadjack, but even those that aren't struggling or living paycheck to paycheck are getting shafted as the top spots make ridiculous portions of the company profits. I don't think very many people would argue that skills and hard work should not be rewarded, but what is happening in most corporations is above and beyond. Look at those ceos listed above in this thread. Think about if each of those CEOS were paid 20 million a year-- still a ridiculous salary that still "honors" meritocracy. That money redirected into the company could do many a great service.

 

[Dancing Fire]

since you guys aren't greedy like a CEO ..let me ask you guys this Q...If your boss offered you a raise tomorrow how many of you will turn it down?

If that raise meant that my fellow employees couldn't afford a decent standard of living, and they had to live below poverty level and get food stamps, and that raise was just another million to add to my pile of millions? Yes I would turn it down!

We are talking about integrity. Integrity is doing the right thing even when no one is looking (according to Jefferson). We are not seeing any of that with these CEOs. They are taking food out of their employees' mouths to line their own overly-full pockets.

You mentioned the Costco CEO makes almost $1 million a year, DF. I think there is nothing wrong with that because their employees make a decent wage, get excellent benefits and even bonuses. Because of this, they have less employee turnover, less employee theft and a sustainable business model.

FYI, Record of Americans are on food stamps thanks to this Admin for not creating jobs.

 

[ksinger]

since you guys aren't greedy like a CEO ..let me ask you guys this Q...If your boss offered you a raise tomorrow how many of you will turn it down?

If that raise meant that my fellow employees couldn't afford a decent standard of living, and they had to live below poverty level and get food stamps, and that raise was just another million to add to my pile of millions? Yes I would turn it down!

We are talking about integrity. Integrity is doing the right thing even when no one is looking (according to Jefferson). We are not seeing any of that with these CEOs. They are taking food out of their employees' mouths to line their own overly-full pockets.

You mentioned the Costco CEO makes almost $1 million a year, DF. I think there is nothing wrong with that because their employees make a decent wage, get excellent benefits and even bonuses. Because of this, they have less employee turnover, less employee theft and a sustainable business model.

FYI, Record of Americans are on food stamps thanks to this Admin for not creating jobs.

You can't have it both ways DF. You can't bitch about spending in one moment and bitch that government creates no jobs in the next. The government is going through the first round of cuts right now - jobs are beginning to disappear at a clip - both federal and federal contract. And the next round will happen in October. Your fondest wish, right? Reduced spending? Who care how it happens, right? What's to complain about? Besides, according to many, the government's function is NOT to create jobs. They will argue that the jobs that the government creates (when they even acknowledge that) are not 'real' jobs, and that they don't help the economy. Unless of course the jobs are created by the MILITARY. That's different. So apparently, it's not the job and the wages paid and the money circulated that matters, but the SOURCE of it. Government(but not military) source = bad. Non-government source = good. It's a terrible thing when so many legislators either never had, or totally skipped macro, or they'd know that the economy doesn't give a rat's patootie where the jobs and flow come from, just that it comes.

You can't reduce spending AND create government jobs. It's illogical to expect both, but then logic from both legislators and the general public is in pretty short supply these days.

 

[iheartscience]

since you guys aren't greedy like a CEO ..let me ask you guys this Q...If your boss offered you a raise tomorrow how many of you will turn it down?

If that raise meant that my fellow employees couldn't afford a decent standard of living, and they had to live below poverty level and get food stamps, and that raise was just another million to add to my pile of millions? Yes I would turn it down!

We are talking about integrity. Integrity is doing the right thing even when no one is looking (according to Jefferson). We are not seeing any of that with these CEOs. They are taking food out of their employees' mouths to line their own overly-full pockets.

You mentioned the Costco CEO makes almost $1 million a year, DF. I think there is nothing wrong with that because their employees make a decent wage, get excellent benefits and even bonuses. Because of this, they have less employee turnover, less employee theft and a sustainable business model.

FYI, Record of Americans are on food stamps thanks to this Admin for not creating jobs.

You can't have it both ways DF. You can't bitch about spending in one moment and bitch that government creates no jobs in the next. The government is going through the first round of cuts right now - jobs are beginning to disappear at a clip - both federal and federal contract. And the next round will happen in October. Your fondest wish, right? Reduced spending? Who care how it happens, right? What's to complain about? Besides, according to many, the government's function is NOT to create jobs. They will argue that the jobs that the government creates (when they even acknowledge that) are not 'real' jobs, and that they don't help the economy. Unless of course the jobs are created by the MILITARY. That's different. So apparently, it's not the job and the wages paid and the money circulated that matters, but the SOURCE of it. Government(but not military) source = bad. Non-government source = good. It's a terrible thing when so many legislators either never had, or totally skipped macro, or they'd know that the economy doesn't give a rat's patootie where the jobs and flow come from, just that it comes.

You can't reduce spending AND create government jobs. It's illogical to expect both, but then logic from both legislators and the general public is in pretty short supply these days.

And let's not forget that DF's own wife is eating at the gov't trough-she works for the state of CA, last I heard.

 

[Dancing Fire]

KS..We needed create more private sector jobs so that Americans can out of poverty and off welfare.

 

[vc10um]

KS..We needed create more private sector jobs so that Americans can out of poverty and off welfare.

And DF, how, exactly, would you suggest doing that? The *ENTIRE* point of this thread is that American CEOs are NOT creating jobs because THEY ARE REDUCING STAFF, INCREASING WORKLOADS OF THE REMAINING WORKERS, AND TAKING HOME ALL THE MONEY. Short of Congress (note: NOT the President, he can't make the laws himself) MANDATING that all companies create X number of jobs over the next X number of years, there is NOTHING THEY CAN DO until people start demanding some sort of repercussions for this type of blatant ridiculous greed. The private sector is JUST as broken, if not more so, than the public sector.

 

[ksinger]

KS..We needed create more private sector jobs so that Americans can out of poverty and off welfare.

You just made my point about being illogical.

 

[iheartscience]

KS..We needed create more private sector jobs so that Americans can out of poverty and off welfare.

And DF, how, exactly, would you suggest doing that? The *ENTIRE* point of this thread is that American CEOs are NOT creating jobs because THEY ARE REDUCING STAFF, INCREASING WORKLOADS OF THE REMAINING WORKERS, AND TAKING HOME ALL THE MONEY. Short of Congress (note: NOT the President, he can't make the laws himself) MANDATING that all companies create X number of jobs over the next X number of years, there is NOTHING THEY CAN DO until people start demanding some sort of repercussions for this type of blatant ridiculous greed. The private sector is JUST as broken, if not more so, than the public sector.

Preach.

 

[ksinger]

since you guys aren't greedy like a CEO ..let me ask you guys this Q...If your boss offered you a raise tomorrow how many of you will turn it down?

If that raise meant that my fellow employees couldn't afford a decent standard of living, and they had to live below poverty level and get food stamps, and that raise was just another million to add to my pile of millions? Yes I would turn it down!

We are talking about integrity. Integrity is doing the right thing even when no one is looking (according to Jefferson). We are not seeing any of that with these CEOs. They are taking food out of their employees' mouths to line their own overly-full pockets.

You mentioned the Costco CEO makes almost $1 million a year, DF. I think there is nothing wrong with that because their employees make a decent wage, get excellent benefits and even bonuses. Because of this, they have less employee turnover, less employee theft and a sustainable business model.

FYI, Record of Americans are on food stamps thanks to this Admin for not creating jobs.

You can't have it both ways DF. You can't bitch about spending in one moment and bitch that government creates no jobs in the next. The government is going through the first round of cuts right now - jobs are beginning to disappear at a clip - both federal and federal contract. And the next round will happen in October. Your fondest wish, right? Reduced spending? Who care how it happens, right? What's to complain about? Besides, according to many, the government's function is NOT to create jobs. They will argue that the jobs that the government creates (when they even acknowledge that) are not 'real' jobs, and that they don't help the economy. Unless of course the jobs are created by the MILITARY. That's different. So apparently, it's not the job and the wages paid and the money circulated that matters, but the SOURCE of it. Government(but not military) source = bad. Non-government source = good. It's a terrible thing when so many legislators either never had, or totally skipped macro, or they'd know that the economy doesn't give a rat's patootie where the jobs and flow come from, just that it comes.

You can't reduce spending AND create government jobs. It's illogical to expect both, but then logic from both legislators and the general public is in pretty short supply these days.

And let's not forget that DF's own wife is eating at the gov't trough-she works for the state of CA, last I heard.

And this is an odd thing. I find that THE most rabid anti-government ranters I know (and I know a BUNCH: consider where I live) work for....(wait for it)....the federal government. The never seem to think that THEIR jobs are "the waste" they are always talking about. Hmmmm.....

 

[Dancing Fire]

[quote="thing2of2|1366326025|

And let's not forget that DF's own wife is eating at the gov't trough-she works for the state of CA, last I heard.[/quote]


yes,and don't forget my daughter whom also works for the state... but they don't get to soak in a hot tub like Jeff Neely...

 

[ksinger]

KS..We needed create more private sector jobs so that Americans can out of poverty and off welfare.

And DF, how, exactly, would you suggest doing that? The *ENTIRE* point of this thread is that American CEOs are NOT creating jobs because THEY ARE REDUCING STAFF, INCREASING WORKLOADS OF THE REMAINING WORKERS, AND TAKING HOME ALL THE MONEY. Short of Congress (note: NOT the President, he can't make the laws himself) MANDATING that all companies create X number of jobs over the next X number of years, there is NOTHING THEY CAN DO until people start demanding some sort of repercussions for this type of blatant ridiculous greed. The private sector is JUST as broken, if not more so, than the public sector.

Preach.

What?? You mean creating jobs rather than amassing money for themselves is NOT the primary goal of business? That business has no moral obligation to the country that allows it to exist? That business is mostly Amoral? That the goals of business and government are not actually the SAME??? Say it isn't SO!!!!

 

[ksinger]

[quote="thing2of2|1366326025|

And let's not forget that DF's own wife is eating at the gov't trough-she works for the state of CA, last I heard.

yes,and don't forget my daughter whom also works for the state... but they don't get to soak in a hot tub like Jeff Neely... [/quote]

Right. YOUR family sucking on the government teat isn't the problem. It's everybody ELSE.

Typical. VERY typical.

 

[Dancing Fire]

[quote="thing2of2|1366326025|

And let's not forget that DF's own wife is eating at the gov't trough-she works for the state of CA, last I heard.

yes,and don't forget my daughter whom also works for the state... but they don't get to soak in a hot tub like Jeff Neely...

Right. YOUR family sucking on the government teat isn't the problem. It's everybody ELSE.

Typical. VERY typical. [/quote]


Yup!!,like $500 mil on Solyndra.

 

[vc10um]

[quote="thing2of2|1366326025|]

And let's not forget that DF's own wife is eating at the gov't trough-she works for the state of CA, last I heard.

yes,and don't forget my daughter whom also works for the state... but they don't get to soak in a hot tub like Jeff Neely...

Right. YOUR family sucking on the government teat isn't the problem. It's everybody ELSE.

Typical. VERY typical.

Yup!!,like $500 mil on Solyndra.[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]

I'd rather spend $500 million on a failed venture trying valiantly to get our country out of the grips of oil than TRILLIONS of dollars trying to secure our access to foreign oil by force. **cough**IraqWar**cough**

But that is NOT the point of this thread, DF, and I'm not sure about anyone else, but I'm not going to let you derail it any further. The problem we are discussing does NOT center on the President. It does NOT center on Congress. It centers on the CEOs OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC INDUSTRIES and the warped realities they live in, where it is okay to walk away with TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS each and every year, while their employees are working themselves to the bone and barely able to feed their families, AND HAVING TO RELY ON THOSE ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS YOU RAIL AGAINST SO FREQUENTLY. I am sick and tired of you refusing to see that the problem does NOT start with the Federal Government. THEY ARE FORCED TO PICK UP THE SLACK WHERE THE PRIVATE SECTOR REFUSES TO PROVIDE.

Please, I beg you to take Annette's advice from earlier in the thread and "Try to give some breadth to your mind."

 

[Dancing Fire]

KS..We needed create more private sector jobs so that Americans can out of poverty and off welfare.

And DF, how, exactly, would you suggest doing that? The *ENTIRE* point of this thread is that American CEOs are NOT creating jobs because THEY ARE REDUCING STAFF, INCREASING WORKLOADS OF THE REMAINING WORKERS, AND TAKING HOME ALL THE MONEY. Short of Congress (note: NOT the President, he can't make the laws himself) MANDATING that all companies create X number of jobs over the next X number of years, there is NOTHING THEY CAN DO until people start demanding some sort of repercussions for this type of blatant ridiculous greed. The private sector is JUST as broken, if not more so, than the public sector.

Preach.

Preach??,Ok i will... since most of you weren't even born yet (the 80's). Both Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher (Conservatives) took over a country with extremely high unemployment rates and by the time they left office both country had a mid single digit unemployment rate.

 

[Dancing Fire]

[quote="vc10um|1366329693|

But that is NOT the point of this thread, DF, and I'm not sure about anyone else, but I'm not going to let you derail it any further. The problem we are discussing does NOT center on the President. It does NOT center on Congress. It centers on the CEOs OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC INDUSTRIES and the warped realities they live in, where it is okay to walk away with TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS each and every year, while their employees are working themselves to the bone and barely able to feed their families, AND HAVING TO RELY ON THOSE ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS YOU RAIL AGAINST SO FREQUENTLY. I am sick and tired of you refusing to see that the problem does NOT start with the Federal Government. THEY ARE FORCED TO PICK UP THE SLACK WHERE THE PRIVATE SECTOR REFUSES TO PROVIDE.

Please, I beg you to take Annette's advice from earlier in the thread and "Try to give some breadth to your mind."[/quote]


so,IYO...what would be a fair salary for a CEO? 10X? 50X? 100 X the avg employee's salary?

 

[iLander]

so,IYO...what would be a fair salary for a CEO? 10X? 50X? 100 X the avg employee's salary?

From my original post:

In 1980, the average CEO made 42 times what the average ($34K) worker made. So, it took them a little over a week to match the yearly wage of a worker.

That is from 1980 (I was very much alive then), when Ronald Reagan first took office. I think that was reasonable. A LOT of money, but still reasonable. It is now over 300 times, which the economy (obviously) can't sustain.

 

[smitcompton]

Hi,

I will give you some good news. Last yr The shareholders of Citi-bank voted no to a salary increase for the CEO(Vikram Pandit, and BAnk of America also had the question ( vote )on their shareholder proxy. These are non-binding votes, but the boards of these companies honored the shareholders "no" vote. The compensation plans have changed so that their stock bonuses do not vest immediately. Both these banks and J.P. Morgan return about 30 % of profits to shareholders. Of course in the last 5 yrs there has been a small token amount only returned to shareholders.

Typical share buybacks don't benefit the shareholders as promised, but are then distribted to the top executives. So, you look for a company that says it will retire the buyback shares. It is quite true that the top executives run the company for their own benefit. It is obcene what they pay themselves. The shareholder have to put the pressure on.

I own shares of 2 of these stocks and am happy to say I voted for no increase in salary--Which is a bit over 1 million.

Its obvious DF has made money and now has become a proponent of the Republican party because only he worked hard, and is smart enough to utilize the capitalist system. The rest of the pop, must be democrats and are undeserving lowly workers. His wife supports him, so he can play with the fish.


Annette

 

[MichelleCarmen]

since you guys aren't greedy like a CEO ..let me ask you guys this Q...If your boss offered you a raise tomorrow how many of you will turn it down?

Give me a break. Most of us aren't making 20 million a year and asking for another 5 million

How many years has it been since you had a job, DF? And, what did you do for a living before your wife let you be a stay-at-home-husband? I'm confused why you often come across as so bitter when it sounds like you have it pretty d*mn good.