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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The BUSINESS of railroading, economics and politics are so intertwined it is impossible to discuss one without getting into areas of the other two.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
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.
I think you're right.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
Israel is not the only model for a really educated public. Switzerland may be an even better one.
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.
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.
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?
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 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.
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 If the compensation of CEOs is not a function of a free labor market, what then determines how much CEOs are paid?
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.
Thanks JPS1
What would you conclude about this statement from the following link?:
“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.”
chutton01 Euclid 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. The service economy is estimated as over 67% of the US economy, and I am not certain what you would plan to replace it with. Actually, a lot of economists are not certain with what to replace it with as well.
Euclid 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.
The service economy is estimated as over 67% of the US economy, and I am not certain what you would plan to replace it with. Actually, a lot of economists are not certain with what to replace it with as well.
We replace the service economy with determined intent to grow in new product development, innovation, and manufacturing. Obviously we have the capability to excel in that. We are not in this manufacturing malaise simply because we have run out of things to manufacture. But as long as we blame CEOs and corporate “greed” for all our problems it is no wonder that manufacturing is at a standstill. The idea that we should all be satisfied with the service economy is like saying that we have had it too good and now we must repent by offering service. We have been told to get used to lower wages because this is the way of the future. No, that is the way of those who say this country has taken more than its share, and must now atone or its sins. That is the kind of attitude that hands us a service economy.
EuclidWe replace the service economy with determined intent to grow in new product development, innovation, and manufacturing. Obviously we have the capability to excel in that. We are not in this manufacturing malaise simply because we have run out of things to manufacture. But as long as we blame CEOs and corporate “greed” for all our problems it is no wonder that manufacturing is at a standstill. The idea that we should all be satisfied with the service economy is like saying that we have had it too good and now we must repent by offering service. We have been told to get used to lower wages because this is the way of the future. No, that is the way of those who say this country has taken more than its share, and must now atone or its sins. That is the kind of attitude that hands us a service economy.
More hollow words have yet to be written. Great buzz word BS!
EuclidWe 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 ... We replace the service economy with determined intent to grow in new product development, innovation, and manufacturing. Obviously we have the capability to excel in that. We are not in this manufacturing malaise simply because we have run out of things to manufacture. But as long as we blame CEOs and corporate “greed” for all our problems it is no wonder that manufacturing is at a standstill. The idea that we should all be satisfied with the service economy is like saying that we have had it too good and now we must repent by offering service. We have been told to get used to lower wages because this is the way of the future. No, that is the way of those who say this country has taken more than its share, and must now atone or its sins. That is the kind of attitude that hands us a service economy.
You forgot the soundtrack.
(Fittingly, supplied courtesy of Warner Brothers corporate.)
Overmod You forgot the soundtrack. (Fittingly, supplied courtesy of Warner Brothers corporate.)
This soundtrack should have been playing when I missed my train back to Michigan this past June...
JPS1 Euclid If the compensation of CEOs is not a function of a free labor market, what then determines how much CEOs are paid? The compensation packages of the CEOs of most large corporations are approved by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors. The committee usually engages a national or an international consultant to structure the packages. They have large comparative data basses showing what similar positions command. In the three Fortune 200 companies that I worked for they always adopted the consultant’s recommendations. The bulk of a typical Fortune 500 CEO’s compensation package usually is represented by stock options. It is usually deferred for at least two years. Whether the options can be exercised advantageously depends on the financial performance of the corporation. Incentive based compensation options are subject to abuse, although the incidents of it, I suspect, are over blown. Persons with the skills to manage a large organization, irrespective of its mission, are few and far between. Whether they are over compensated is a legitimate question. In the case of the two corporations where I reported to the CEO and the Board Audit Committee, they earned every dollar. The sacrifices made by them and their families are beyond what most of us would accept. It amuses me that so many people get upset over the compensation packages of CEOs but seem to be OK with the large amounts of money paid to entertainers, sports figures, etc. It strikes me that the CEO of CSX, as an example, creates a lot more value than a guy that throws a football around on Sunday afternoons or Monday evenings.
I think it’s important to realize the role of modern mass communication technologies in combination with demonstrating unique skill that make possible the high incomes of entertainers in their various forms.
As for the criticism of top leadership pay levels, I think a lot of it is envy, one of the 7 deadly sins. Certainly there are abuses, but overall, the demands of those jobs are extensive. I know that you couldn’t pay me enough to take one of those jobs. I want a life.
Homework assignmnent: Read Factory Man by Beth Macy to inform this discussion.
Mike
MikeFFHomework assignment: Read Factory Man by Beth Macy to inform this discussion.
And follow it with a careful study of Nickeled and Dimed by Barbara Ehrenreich, translating some of the examples and discussion to the wider context of a post-corporate economy involving a large number of small manufacturers or providers.
Euclidhttps://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.”
Thanks for posting a link to info which refutes your point.
Lithonia Operator Euclid 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.” Thanks for posting a link to info which refutes your point.
Euclid 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.”
It does not refute my point. If you look at the context that you failed to quote, you can see that I did not post the quoted point saying that I agreed with it. I just cited it to ask JPS1 what he thought of it. The fact is that I completely disagree with it.
There is no question that CEOs get paid more than workers. That is normal. They do not use their power to set their own pay. The fact that their pay has been rising faster than the pay of workers does not prove anything about "the growth of inequality in our country," whatever that is supposed to mean.
It does refute your point, and I don't care why you posted it.
I just wanted to be neighborly and thank you.
And "inequality in our country" refers to inequality on our country.
Lithonia Operator It does refute your point, and I don't care why you posted it. I just wanted to be neighborly and thank you. And "inequality in our country" refers to inequality on our country.
I interpret the source as meaning that inequality in our country is a bad thing, and it is even worse if someone is using their power to increase inequality. What would you even include in a measure of equality? Should all wages be equal? If they were, would that get rid of all inequality?
But if you made all wages equal, what if some people were less happy than others? Maybe we could adjust their wages so the happiness challenged could buy a little more happiness. What about health? What can we do to insure equality of health?
What if some people are happier than they need to be? Does that mean that they are taking more than their fair share of happiess, and making the rest of is a little less happy?
Euclid If you look at the context that you failed to quote, you can see that I did not post the quoted point saying that I agreed with it. I just cited it to ask JPS1 what he thought of it. The fact is that I completely disagree with it.
Why, then, did you not so state explicitly that you disagreed with it in the original context?
NOTE: I have deleted the balance of what I originally wrote in this post, as I see the original appears to have been redacted so my objections are largely solved.
Note that Brian screwed up the original TOS when he wrote the sticky with FORUM RULES UPDATED 8-31-17. In the section of the the original, and still valid, Kalmbach Media TOS that deals with 'forums', the #1 provision is simply
Please keep discussions on topic
and it was clearly understood, for years, that this meant 'keep them on the original topic' -- in part, to prevent the kind of trolling thread drift that so marred threads started by certain participants over the years. (I think it was tacitly assumed that topics would be 'railroad-related' on a railroad-specific forum, or that off-topic posts would either be ignored or removed by moderator action.)
Those with longer participation may remember that an older version of the forum software explicitly gave the OP of a particular thread the ability to delete posts in it that the OP thought were 'off topic'. I remember a couple by Juniatha where she wielded this with some zeal; some of you might, too. Apparently interpretation of 'intellectual property' law has removed the ability for moderators to redact posts, only to delete them; I don't know if the ability for the OP to delete posts was removed in the current version, or only disabled by Kalmbach.
I thought it was amusing that I had a link to the TOS itself in the original version of this post, and got a terrifying 'virus download prevented!' warning when I tried to post it...
Here's a reasonable succinct and clear discussion of various inequalities and their various metrics.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_metrics#Common_income_inequality_metrics
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.