I fail to understand what a company's profits have to do with the prevailing wage of an entry level unskilled worker. The wage is set by market forces including the current supply of available bodies to fill the positions, not by the individual companies.
Quoting profits as justification for a higher entry level wage is simple wealth redistribution. I understand the inherent flaw in the free market, that the wealth tends to concentrate, but I don't think reducing the income of the stockholders of the company for the sake of the unskilled worker is the right way to remedy that flaw.
"Whatever you are, be a good one." ~ Abraham Lincoln
Nobody that matters wrote: I fail to understand what a company's profits have to do with the prevailing wage of an entry level unskilled worker. The wage is set by market forces including the current supply of available bodies to fill the positions, not by the individual companies.
Quoting profits as justification for a higher entry level wage is simple wealth redistribution. I understand the inherent flaw in the free market, that the wealth tends to concentrate, but I don't think reducing the income of the stockholders of the company for the sake of the unskilled worker is the right way to remedy that flaw.
All I'm trying to do is to point out the income disparity/inequality (not that all income must be equal - that simply is NOT what I'm trying to say) between the top and the bottom. It just seems a bit on the "immoral" side of things from my perspective to see a company CEO rake in millions in salary while the employees of that same company are forced to work for poverty level (or less) wages.
Why should it be any different for those CEOs than it is for all the complaining we keep on hearing for politician's salaries and benefits which, by the way are a LOT less than the CEOs make (at least while they are in office )?
I also do not believe for one second a company's bottom line (profits for shareholders) is being, or would be, sacrificed for the sake of the unskilled worker. But that's just me. How would you go about remedying the inherent flaw in the free market to help make it better for all concerned?
And, when one comes right down to it, how does one justify the salaries of so many of the CEOs we see in the news? Is one person really worth that much? We've talked briefly about determining the "worth" of a job in a free market economy. How can a company justify the salaries they currently give their CEOs in this regard?
I'll give you a hint Z. How many employees is the CEO of McDonald's responsible for? How many jobs depend on the CEO doing their job well? How important is it that the CEO keep the restaurant chain on the leading instead of the trailing edge?
When you really boil it down, the CEO of the company may be working their last job or adding reasons for the next company to hire them as that company's CEO. The reality that if you do a poor job you might never work again means that a large risk is being taken when one accepts the job as CEO of a company. Great risks require the potential for a great reward, otherwise there is no incentive to take the risk.
How much risk is involved in taking a job as a potato fryer?
PrintSmith wrote: I'll give you a hint Z. How many employees is the CEO of McDonald's responsible for? How many jobs depend on the CEO doing their job well? How important is it that the CEO keep the restaurant chain on the leading instead of the trailing edge?
When you really boil it down, the CEO of the company may be working their last job or adding reasons for the next company to hire them as that company's CEO. The reality that if you do a poor job you might never work again means that a large risk is being taken when one accepts the job as CEO of a company. Great risks require the potential for a great reward, otherwise there is no incentive to take the risk.
How much risk is involved in taking a job as a potato fryer?
Oh, for crying out loud, PS. This post is just one of the many reasons I choose not to engage with you very often - and this is one of those times.
PrintSmith wrote: I'll give you a hint Z. How many employees is the CEO of McDonald's responsible for? How many jobs depend on the CEO doing their job well? How important is it that the CEO keep the restaurant chain on the leading instead of the trailing edge?
When you really boil it down, the CEO of the company may be working their last job or adding reasons for the next company to hire them as that company's CEO. The reality that if you do a poor job you might never work again means that a large risk is being taken when one accepts the job as CEO of a company. Great risks require the potential for a great reward, otherwise there is no incentive to take the risk.
How much risk is involved in taking a job as a potato fryer?
Oh, for crying out loud, PS. This post is just one of the many reasons I choose not to engage with you very often - and this is one of those times.
Which part of his comment is unreasonable? Why are CEOs always the boogeymen for liberals but others who make as much or more with fewer or no employees get a pass? Hillary Clinton can go to a college and talk about the high cost of education, then gets handed a check for $200k. Where is the outrage? $100k an hour is pretty sickening don't you think?
It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers−out of unorthodoxy
PrintSmith wrote: I'll give you a hint Z. How many employees is the CEO of McDonald's responsible for? How many jobs depend on the CEO doing their job well? How important is it that the CEO keep the restaurant chain on the leading instead of the trailing edge?
When you really boil it down, the CEO of the company may be working their last job or adding reasons for the next company to hire them as that company's CEO. The reality that if you do a poor job you might never work again means that a large risk is being taken when one accepts the job as CEO of a company. Great risks require the potential for a great reward, otherwise there is no incentive to take the risk.
How much risk is involved in taking a job as a potato fryer?
Oh, for crying out loud, PS. This post is just one of the many reasons I choose not to engage with you very often - and this is one of those times.
Which part of his comment is unreasonable? Why are CEOs always the boogeymen for liberals but others who make as much or more with fewer or no employees get a pass? Hillary Clinton can go to a college and talk about the high cost of education, then gets handed a check for $200k. Where is the outrage? $100k an hour is pretty sickening don't you think?
The part I find unreasonable is the condescension in tone. If PS wants to have a reasonable debate, he's going to have to tone down coming across as holier than thou know it all position. Much of what he says is valid. It's the way in which he says it that chafes my chaps to the point I won't engage him very often.
And, for the record, I've previously stated in another thread I used to be that way, too. In fact, I took it to such a point I didn't like what I was doing very much at all. A change in my ways resulted, and I refuse to go down into the gutter with anyone who tries to bait me into doing so. PS may not intend it as such, but he and I have had our go-rounds in other threads in other forums on other sites. So, when this one came up, I decided not to play. That's all.
So, in trying to look past the condescension in tone, in answer, I'll say I still cannot understand how any CEO merits the kind of pay so many of them are now receiving. A company's structure takes much of the burden off the CEO except from a final decisionmaking perspective. That's why companies hire managers and executive staff. If a CEO is involved in every single decision to be made in a company, they'd be accused of micro-management. So, I will never buy into the posit that CEOs are deserving of the salaries/golden parachutes they so often receive.
I've looked through what he said a few times noow and don't see this condescension in tone, unless saying "I'll give you a hint" is what you are talking about. Too bad LJ isn't here, then you could really see what a condescension in tone looks like.
Oh well, this thread has run it's course anyway.
It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers−out of unorthodoxy
)?
