Thanks JPS1
What would you conclude about this statement from the following link?:
https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-compensation-2018/
“Importantly, rising CEO pay does not reflect rising value of skills, but rather CEOs’ use of their power to set their own pay. And this growing power at the top has been driving the growth of inequality in our country.”
EuclidThe country needs to find new and better things to do and move ahead with investment and creativity. Enough already with this stinking service economy. Our population is growing and everyone needs things. Just satisfying that need is enough to put everyone to work in a productive, meaningful, and rewarding way. I understand that it takes gdp growth of 5% just to produce enough jobs to keep up with population increase. So what are we doing in low gear dragging along at 1-3% year after year? Rather than cry about what China is doing to us, let's just roll up our sleeves that get going.
Euclid If the compensation of CEOs is not a function of a free labor market, what then determines how much CEOs are paid?
PsychotYou're still not addressing the salient question: if a substantial proportion of the population is put out of work by technological advances, what will those people do?
The country needs to find new and better things to do and move ahead with investment and creativity. Enough already with this stinking service economy. Our population is growing and everyone needs things. Just satisfying that need is enough to put everyone to work in a productive, meaningful, and rewarding way. I understand that it takes gdp growth of 5% just to produce enough jobs to keep up with population increase. So what are we doing in low gear dragging along at 1-3% year after year? Rather than cry about what China is doing to us, let's just roll up our sleeves that get going.
Euclid charlie hebdo Once again the myth that the compensation of CEOs is a function of a free labor market. If that were true, the ratio of CEO compensation to the rest of the labor force would not have increased by such a huge amount in the last 40 years. The change of the ratio of CEO compensation to the rest of the labor force does not prove anything about the cause of that change. If the compensation of CEOs is not a function of a free labor market, what then determines how much CEOs are paid?
charlie hebdo Once again the myth that the compensation of CEOs is a function of a free labor market. If that were true, the ratio of CEO compensation to the rest of the labor force would not have increased by such a huge amount in the last 40 years.
The change of the ratio of CEO compensation to the rest of the labor force does not prove anything about the cause of that change.
If the compensation of CEOs is not a function of a free labor market, what then determines how much CEOs are paid?
The CEO 'class' - most CEO's become director members for other companies Board of Directors both in and outside their field of employment. CEO compensation is set by the Board of Directors. Scratch my back and I'll scratch yours.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
charlie hebdoOnce again the myth that the compensation of CEOs is a function of a free labor market. If that were true, the ratio of CEO compensation to the rest of the labor force would not have increased by such a huge amount in the last 40 years.
Psychot Destabilizing the capitalist system in the myopic pursuit of efficiency and profits is neither efficient nor profitable in the long run.
I do not believe the capitalist system is being destabilized by the pursuit of efficiency and profits. I think that is a talking point of those who want to replace the capitalist system for other reasons. The capitalist system is defined by the pursuit of profits. What is wrong with that? Profit is not wrong or unfair. In a capitalist system, profit is a necessary component to make it work.
A worker goes to work each day, does his job, and gets a paycheck for the work. The transaction is complete. If a company is started, it requires people to lend it capital for the expense of startup. The people who provide that loan of capital expense are taking a risk that the company may not succeed in business. If it does not succeed, the capital loaned is lost, and people who made the loan lose their money. That is the risk of the company owners. Workers do not take such a risk.
With capitalism, a risk of failure must be offset by a reward of success. Profit is the reward for success. Nobody is going to take the risk of investing in a business if all they get back is a payoff of their original loan, and there is a risk of not getting the payback. It requires more incentive than just simple payback of the loan. The chance of profit is that incentive.
So the people who complain about companies making a profit and not dividing it up fairly between the workers are actually calling for an end to capitalism.
Israel is not the only model for a really educated public. Switzerland may be an even better one.
Education is the real answer in my opinion. Tax money should be made avaiable for universal education beyond K-12. Possibly extend to K-14. With the last two years instilling the technical skills, so that the USA can really stay ahead technologically and also have an informed and educated population to make USA Democracy work better.
In Israel, the Army does this for most of the population. 17 year-old graduating from higjschool usually learn technical skills in the Israeli Army (which includes the Air Force and Navy). The infantryman knows code encripment technology, weather forcasting, among other skills before going off active duty. A new crop of computer experts comes off active duty. Vehicle repair people, securiy guards, policemen and policrwoman, etc. Some will go on to University studies, but those that don't are still educated citizens. All young Israelis know at least two languaages fluently. Some have Hebrew and English, some Hebrew and Arabic, some all three, some all three plus Russian and/or German and/or French. And this is true of the 20% Arab Muslim minoroity as well as for the Jewish and Christian Israeli population. They are excused from Army service, although a substantial nunber volunteer, but there is an alternative service program.
There are excellent reasons why Microsoft and most USA aircraft manufacturers have research laboratories in Israel. MIT and the Technion in Haifa have multiple joint projects.
I always do tell people here that my life in Israel since moving here 23 years ago is possible because of people skills I leared in the USA Army. But I do keep up with MIT news as an alumnus, and am glad that in recent years MIT is addressing the growing-up problems that Army service resolved for me.
Anyway, education is my answer.
Euclid Psychot I don't pretend to have the answer, but the question remains: will capitalism still be viable as a system if, say, 50% of the population is unemployed as a result of technological advances and the constant drive for greater efficiency and profits? If not, what can we do about it? My problem isn't with capitalism itself, but rather with the possible consequences of technology's effects on it. Freedom to make decisions is great, but if the whole system comes crashing down, that won't do anyone any good. To your first pargraph, I would say that the answer to your question as to whether capitalism remains viable depends on what the 50% who are unemployed believe. If they blame their plight on capitalism, they might believe in a solution that will fail them. Striving for greater effiiency and profit is the cure, not the disease.
Psychot I don't pretend to have the answer, but the question remains: will capitalism still be viable as a system if, say, 50% of the population is unemployed as a result of technological advances and the constant drive for greater efficiency and profits? If not, what can we do about it? My problem isn't with capitalism itself, but rather with the possible consequences of technology's effects on it. Freedom to make decisions is great, but if the whole system comes crashing down, that won't do anyone any good.
My problem isn't with capitalism itself, but rather with the possible consequences of technology's effects on it. Freedom to make decisions is great, but if the whole system comes crashing down, that won't do anyone any good.
To your first pargraph, I would say that the answer to your question as to whether capitalism remains viable depends on what the 50% who are unemployed believe. If they blame their plight on capitalism, they might believe in a solution that will fail them. Striving for greater effiiency and profit is the cure, not the disease.
You're still not addressing the salient question: if a substantial proportion of the population is put out of work by technological advances, what will those people do? I'm not saying that's an issue for the private sector alone, but someone will need to do something about it at some point, and I would think it would have to be a cooperative effort between government and business. Destabilizing the capitalist system in the myopic pursuit of efficiency and profits is neither efficient nor profitable in the long run.
EuclidAs this happens, we may find we are in a deep and prolonged recession after believing only one man who led us into this economic morass while telling us it won't have any effect on our country.
Actually we could cut off China entirely as a trading partner without much impact to our econonmy. It's not the China relationship that is hurting us. It is the absence of an approved trade agreement with Canada and Mexico that is hurting us and continues to languish in Congress without a vote. Likewise the agreement with the EU and/or British uncertainty over Brexit is hurting us more than the Chinese flap.
China's loss of a 20% or more trading partner (United States) would definitely impact it's economy given it's economy is half the size of ours and that 20% is in areas not easily replaced. For example, we are one of the lowest cost producers of soybeans and nobody on earth can produce soybeans in the volumes or at the low cost the United States can. Likewise Boeing Aircraft sold to China is not easily replaced by flipping to Airbus. For one, Airbus does not have the joint ventures in China to produce aircraft that Boeing has. Because the Europeans chose protectionism on their state subsidized baby. Boeing had little in the way of restrictions in moving some manufacturing to China. So on a per jet basis, China earns far more economically from a Boeing Jet purchase than an Airbus purchase.
Chinese imports we can shift to other Asian countries fairly easily as few of them are uniique or in high tech areas.
Euclid Lithonia Operator charlie hebdo Yes. Average CEO to average worker compensation is 221/278:1. By contrast, it was 20:1 in 1965. Wonder where the middle class went? Look no further. https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-compensation-2018/ Are you saying ranging from 221 to 278? (To 1) In any event I agree. The disparity has gotten totally out of hand. Who gets to decide how much the CEO gets paid? The premise always seems to be that CEOs and management contribute nothing of value and so the money the company earns should go to the workers who actually do work. It seems to me that what is really happening is that demand for good CEOs is rising while demand for high paid labor is falling. If employees want to decide how much they should get paid, they are free to start their own company.
Lithonia Operator charlie hebdo Yes. Average CEO to average worker compensation is 221/278:1. By contrast, it was 20:1 in 1965. Wonder where the middle class went? Look no further. https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-compensation-2018/ Are you saying ranging from 221 to 278? (To 1) In any event I agree. The disparity has gotten totally out of hand.
charlie hebdo Yes. Average CEO to average worker compensation is 221/278:1. By contrast, it was 20:1 in 1965. Wonder where the middle class went? Look no further. https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-compensation-2018/
Yes. Average CEO to average worker compensation is 221/278:1. By contrast, it was 20:1 in 1965. Wonder where the middle class went? Look no further.
Are you saying ranging from 221 to 278? (To 1) In any event I agree. The disparity has gotten totally out of hand.
Who gets to decide how much the CEO gets paid? The premise always seems to be that CEOs and management contribute nothing of value and so the money the company earns should go to the workers who actually do work.
It seems to me that what is really happening is that demand for good CEOs is rising while demand for high paid labor is falling. If employees want to decide how much they should get paid, they are free to start their own company.
Once again the myth that the compensation of CEOs is a function of a free labor market. If that were true, the ratio of CEO compensation to the rest of the labor force would not have increased by such a huge amount in the last 40 years.
BaltACD Lithonia Operator Well, I'm going to bow out here. Everybody gets to have their own opinions. Maybe economics really is too close to politics, and we should not be discussing this either. The BUSINESS of railroading, economics and politics are so intertwined it is impossible to discuss one without getting into areas of the other two.
Lithonia Operator Well, I'm going to bow out here. Everybody gets to have their own opinions. Maybe economics really is too close to politics, and we should not be discussing this either.
Maybe economics really is too close to politics, and we should not be discussing this either.
The BUSINESS of railroading, economics and politics are so intertwined it is impossible to discuss one without getting into areas of the other two.
I think you're right.
Lithonia OperatorWell, I'm going to bow out here. Everybody gets to have their own opinions. Maybe economics really is too close to politics, and we should not be discussing this either.
Well, I'm going to bow out here. Everybody gets to have their own opinions.
EuclidNobody is obligated to pay empolyees if they don't need their service.
This is the most fundamental concept to staying employed and I wish it was taught in junior high school or high school. Nobody is entitled to a job. Everyone would have a job if they took the above to heart. I have been layed off at least 4 times in my IT career and in every case it had zero to do with performance of me but rather performance of the company. In two cases the company went out of business. In two others the company is still around but changed it's line of business to exclude my current skillset in IT.
I easily obtained employment again in three cases with a raise but one with a cut in salary........in just 4-5 months time. Age didn't matter. What mattered was were my skills current and marketable. Cheap to keep a skillset marketable. However, very expensive to fix a neglected skill set that has faded away over the years. Really it is up to the individual to stay marketable in their fields it is not the employers responsibility to keep you marketable. In every case where I see people who cannot find work in 4-5 months or less, it's always the case where they are trying to embellish a skillset that is not competitive for the position they are applying for. They all have the chance to ask the recruiter or HR person why they were not the best person for the job AND many even fail to do that. That feedback is very valuable to fix the issue and get employed again. You would think it would be on the top of all questions to ask after a rejection. It is not asked by a lot of job applicants after a rejection, instead they try to fill the gap of knowledge via rumor or lack of self confidence.
Lithonia Operator I totally believe in capitalism. But to me it's like alcohol: it's fine in moderation. But when some are drunk on profits while others are getting laid off to pay for the binge, it's time for some restraint.
I totally believe in capitalism. But to me it's like alcohol: it's fine in moderation.
But when some are drunk on profits while others are getting laid off to pay for the binge, it's time for some restraint.
I believe that is a distorted view on the part of people who lose their jobs. Nobody is obligated to pay empolyees if they don't need their service.
When you say it is time for restraint, what kind of restraint do you think would be justified? Who would apply the restraint?
IMO, things are out of whack. Out of proportion.
(I totally believe in drinking, also.)
The Chinese are not competing in the world as Communists, they are competing as government supported Capitalists!
PsychotI don't pretend to have the answer, but the question remains: will capitalism still be viable as a system if, say, 50% of the population is unemployed as a result of technological advances and the constant drive for greater efficiency and profits? If not, what can we do about it? My problem isn't with capitalism itself, but rather with the possible consequences of technology's effects on it. Freedom to make decisions is great, but if the whole system comes crashing down, that won't do anyone any good.
Euclid Psychot Euclid Lithonia Operator Euclid, I don't think companies should exist solely for the purpose of making money for the owners. I think companies have responsibilities to the people who work there, and to society in general. I think most big-company executives are grossly overpaid, and that laying off workers while CEOs are making ten of millions is just plain wrong. The people who work at companies get wages for their effort. Is that not fair enough? What other responsibilities to you think companies have toward their employees besides paying them to work? Don't companies get to decide how much to pay their executives? If laying off workers while paying large salaries to CEOs is wrong, what needs to be done about it? You make good points, but I would answer your questions with another question: what's going to happen when technology continues its inevitable march forward and the only employment available is a few well-remunerated jobs for the very best and brightest and those with connections, and relatively few low-wage service jobs for everyone else? The future of capitalism depends on the answer to that question, because if it's not addressed, that vast cohort of people who are left out of the economy completely will revolt at some point in the future and the end result will likely be some form of command economy. We're going to have to find a way to keep people gainfully employed and with a reason to get out of bed in the morning, rather than sacrificing everything at the altar of efficiency and profits. As I have said before, I could see paring train crews down from 5 to 2 people, but running 150+ car trains and gumming up the rail network to cut a few more people and some equipment out of the equation seems insane to me, and an example of the kind of corporate behavior that's going to undermine the entire capitalist system at some point. Yes, the capitalist system is always in danger of being undermined, and I am not comfortable about losing our manufacturing base and seeing the quality disappear from all consumer products. Not all decisions made in the capitalist system are good, but what defines it is the freedom to make those decisisons. One of those decisions is where to cut costs. Businesses don't exist to make employees comfortable and secure throughout their lives. They might offer some of that enticement, but they are not required to. Requiring it is not part of the capitalist system. It is part of another system.
Psychot Euclid Lithonia Operator Euclid, I don't think companies should exist solely for the purpose of making money for the owners. I think companies have responsibilities to the people who work there, and to society in general. I think most big-company executives are grossly overpaid, and that laying off workers while CEOs are making ten of millions is just plain wrong. The people who work at companies get wages for their effort. Is that not fair enough? What other responsibilities to you think companies have toward their employees besides paying them to work? Don't companies get to decide how much to pay their executives? If laying off workers while paying large salaries to CEOs is wrong, what needs to be done about it? You make good points, but I would answer your questions with another question: what's going to happen when technology continues its inevitable march forward and the only employment available is a few well-remunerated jobs for the very best and brightest and those with connections, and relatively few low-wage service jobs for everyone else? The future of capitalism depends on the answer to that question, because if it's not addressed, that vast cohort of people who are left out of the economy completely will revolt at some point in the future and the end result will likely be some form of command economy. We're going to have to find a way to keep people gainfully employed and with a reason to get out of bed in the morning, rather than sacrificing everything at the altar of efficiency and profits. As I have said before, I could see paring train crews down from 5 to 2 people, but running 150+ car trains and gumming up the rail network to cut a few more people and some equipment out of the equation seems insane to me, and an example of the kind of corporate behavior that's going to undermine the entire capitalist system at some point.
Euclid Lithonia Operator Euclid, I don't think companies should exist solely for the purpose of making money for the owners. I think companies have responsibilities to the people who work there, and to society in general. I think most big-company executives are grossly overpaid, and that laying off workers while CEOs are making ten of millions is just plain wrong. The people who work at companies get wages for their effort. Is that not fair enough? What other responsibilities to you think companies have toward their employees besides paying them to work? Don't companies get to decide how much to pay their executives? If laying off workers while paying large salaries to CEOs is wrong, what needs to be done about it?
Lithonia Operator Euclid, I don't think companies should exist solely for the purpose of making money for the owners. I think companies have responsibilities to the people who work there, and to society in general. I think most big-company executives are grossly overpaid, and that laying off workers while CEOs are making ten of millions is just plain wrong.
Euclid,
I don't think companies should exist solely for the purpose of making money for the owners. I think companies have responsibilities to the people who work there, and to society in general.
I think most big-company executives are grossly overpaid, and that laying off workers while CEOs are making ten of millions is just plain wrong.
The people who work at companies get wages for their effort. Is that not fair enough? What other responsibilities to you think companies have toward their employees besides paying them to work?
Don't companies get to decide how much to pay their executives? If laying off workers while paying large salaries to CEOs is wrong, what needs to be done about it?
You make good points, but I would answer your questions with another question: what's going to happen when technology continues its inevitable march forward and the only employment available is a few well-remunerated jobs for the very best and brightest and those with connections, and relatively few low-wage service jobs for everyone else?
The future of capitalism depends on the answer to that question, because if it's not addressed, that vast cohort of people who are left out of the economy completely will revolt at some point in the future and the end result will likely be some form of command economy. We're going to have to find a way to keep people gainfully employed and with a reason to get out of bed in the morning, rather than sacrificing everything at the altar of efficiency and profits.
As I have said before, I could see paring train crews down from 5 to 2 people, but running 150+ car trains and gumming up the rail network to cut a few more people and some equipment out of the equation seems insane to me, and an example of the kind of corporate behavior that's going to undermine the entire capitalist system at some point.
Yes, the capitalist system is always in danger of being undermined, and I am not comfortable about losing our manufacturing base and seeing the quality disappear from all consumer products. Not all decisions made in the capitalist system are good, but what defines it is the freedom to make those decisisons.
One of those decisions is where to cut costs. Businesses don't exist to make employees comfortable and secure throughout their lives. They might offer some of that enticement, but they are not required to. Requiring it is not part of the capitalist system. It is part of another system.
I don't pretend to have the answer, but the question remains: will capitalism still be viable as a system if, say, 50% of the population is unemployed as a result of technological advances and the constant drive for greater efficiency and profits? If not, what can we do about it?
Thanks Paul .. Not showing OCT in the graph yet, but you can see the trend.
I wonder what the impact of the GM strike will be as well.
Paul_D_North_Jr From https://www.aar.org/news/rail-traffic-for-the-week-ending-october-19-2019/ : For this week, total U.S. weekly rail traffic was 507,381 carloads and intermodal units, down 8.6 percent compared with the same week last year. Total carloads for the week ending October 19 were 245,002 carloads, down 7.8 percent compared with the same week in 2018, while U.S. weekly intermodal volume was 262,379 containers and trailers, down 9.3 percent compared to 2018.
From https://www.aar.org/news/rail-traffic-for-the-week-ending-october-19-2019/ :
For this week, total U.S. weekly rail traffic was 507,381 carloads and intermodal units, down 8.6 percent compared with the same week last year.
Total carloads for the week ending October 19 were 245,002 carloads, down 7.8 percent compared with the same week in 2018, while U.S. weekly intermodal volume was 262,379 containers and trailers, down 9.3 percent compared to 2018.
Thanks Paul. Pretty clear evidence of slowdown and the impact of trade interference.
And as the election cycle continues to amp up there will be no shortage of opinion, rhetoric, and "analysis" from politicians and media!
An interesting thing about economic statistics. You can read them all day, but all that matters to probably 85% of people are their personal economies, and, to some extent those of their friends and extended family. If you are doing well/poorly, that's your economy, and the rest is noise.
charlie hebdo Does anyone seriously think the slowing economy isn't the primary factor in slumping carloadings?
Does anyone seriously think the slowing economy isn't the primary factor in slumping carloadings?
I think it is the primary factor. Economic prosperity comes and goes in waves. The waves seem to have causes, but understanding the cause is always uncertain. The people who know the causes best can see the waves coming, but they are often reluctant to sound warnings because warnings change beliefs. And changing beliefs can be part of the cause. There are also many who want to change those beliefs because they have a self-interest in doing so.
I keep hearing that the economy is roaring. You can always tell if an economy is successful if you can hear it roar. Recessions are serious trouble. If you are comfortably employed through it, you don't experience the recession. If you are a business or self-employed, recessions are like losing a limb. Quite a problem at the time, but you get through it and life goes on.
Whatever is happening now does not seem to be have a cause that is widely agreed on yet. I think we will soon learn a lot more as the Christmas season comes and goes and we get a few months further into this.
Good comment. And other systems have other ways of removing one's livelyhood and ability to support a family.
And the USA does not have a pure capitalistic system anyway. There are unions, and many federal, state, and local laws and regulations that limit management's freedom.
Democracy is poor and troublesome form of government. Until you compare it with all other forms of government that Humanity has tried.
The same can be said for Capitalism as an economic system.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.