Welcome to NEFF

Sign up for a new account today, or log on with your old account!

Give us a try!

Welcome back to the new NEFF. Take a break from Twitter and Facebook. You don't go to Dicks for your fly fishing gear, you go to your local fly fishing store. Enjoy!

Coming to a city near you!!

Don't remember. If our working poor were not so poor, it would go a long way to providing the incentive for people to work. I have no problem with less money for lazy people who won't work. Just think there should be more money for those that do.

OK last, my last post on the subject....we obviously will never agree on this subject, but it is a nice debate...
I come from poor....I worked my way up...
I see lazy all around me, poor or not...more pay is not an incentive, hard work and the ability to get promoted to a better job, with better pay is an incentive for hard work, and this process also opens up the entry level position for the next entry level employee....If you are going to pay me more in the same job, why would I try harder?

So respond of you like, if it is titillating enough I may rejoin....:)
 
I don't see us as too far apart. Of course as you climb the ladder you should make more. I just think our society should recognize the value of the work the people on the bottom rung do and make life a little better for them. The people who are working must be able to live a better lifestyle than those that don't. While you appear to favor cutting benefits to the poor, I would prefer to raise the floor for those who work. I too would love to see our system improve on identifying and cutting benefits to the lazy, but frequently there are children, through no fault of their own, who are caught up in the problem. Even if all benefits were cut, I still think people who work should live better than they do now-not better than those who work harder and have more ability, but better than they do now. And I don't think living better should end with the poor. A rising tide raises all ships.

OK last, my last post on the subject....we obviously will never agree on this subject, but it is a nice debate...
I come from poor....I worked my way up...
I see lazy all around me, poor or not...more pay is not an incentive, hard work and the ability to get promoted to a better job, with better pay is an incentive for hard work, and this process also opens up the entry level position for the next entry level employee....If you are going to pay me more in the same job, why would I try harder?

So respond of you like, if it is titillating enough I may rejoin....:)
 
I don't see us as too far apart. Of course as you climb the ladder you should make more. I just think our society should recognize the value of the work the people on the bottom rung do and make life a little better for them. The people who are working must be able to live a better lifestyle than those that don't. While you appear to favor cutting benefits to the poor, I would prefer to raise the floor for those who work. I too would love to see our system improve on identifying and cutting benefits to the lazy, but frequently there are children, through no fault of their own, who are caught up in the problem. Even if all benefits were cut, I still think people who work should live better than they do now-not better than those who work harder and have more ability, but better than they do now. And I don't think living better should end with the poor. A rising tide raises all ships.


Poor people in America aren't poor. There is no where in this country you can't go and get three hot meals a day for free.

What you are speaking of is their standard of living. If you want to speak in terms of survival, that is another story. If someone doesn't like their standard of living they can take steps to improve them, or just accept the way their life is going to be if they are not willing to make it better.
 
Don't worry. If amnesty passes then wages will decline for at least 12 years. This was a report from the CBO. Oh, and it will increase the deficit. But hey, this is part of what Barry and his ilk want. To destroy this country.

 
Oh, and increased welfare spending. No big deal when it's not their money. The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money to spend.

 
Poor people in America aren't poor. There is no where in this country you can't go and get three hot meals a day for free.

What you are speaking of is their standard of living. If you want to speak in terms of survival, that is another story. If someone doesn't like their standard of living they can take steps to improve them, or just accept the way their life is going to be if they are not willing to make it better.
We may have the only civilization ever, where obese people can claim to be "poor".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fishhead:
Try for a moment to forget your sense of "what's right" or "should be".... and look at reality.

What you're suggesting is a sure fire formula for ensuring that American labor won't be able to compete in a world labor market...

If a trade union gets an increase that prices the product above worlds prices, the jobs will either go to Asia, or the company will fold.

When the minimum wage goes up, the low end jobs don't go to Asia, they just disappear.

You simply can't pay someone more than his work is worth.
 
Last edited:
American corporations are making record profits. Shouldn't the people who provide the labor be receiving record wages? I have a solution-the bosses make a little less, and the workers make a little more.

The ratio of CEO-to-worker pay has increased 1,000 percent since 1950, according to data from Bloomberg. Today Fortune 500 CEOs make 204 times regular workers on average, Bloomberg found. The ratio is up from 120-to-1 in 2000, 42-to-1 in 1980 and 20-to-1 in 1950.
“When CEOs switched from asking the question of ‘how much is enough’ to ‘how much can I get,’ investor capital and executive talent started scrapping like hyenas for every morsel,” Roger Martin, dean of the University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management, told Bloomberg.


We may have the only civilization ever, where obese people can claim to be "poor".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fishhead:
Try for a moment to forget your sense of "what's right" or "should be".... and look at reality.

What you're suggesting is a sure fire formula for ensuring that American labor won't be able to compete in a world labor market...

If a trade union gets an increase that prices the product above worlds prices, the jobs will either go to Asia, or the company will fold.

When the minimum wage goes up, the low end jobs don't go to Asia, they just disappear.

You simply can't pay someone more than his work is worth.
 
American corporations are making record profits. Shouldn't the people who provide the labor be receiving record wages? I have a solution-the bosses make a little less, and the workers make a little more.

The ratio of CEO-to-worker pay has increased 1,000 percent since 1950, according to data from Bloomberg. Today Fortune 500 CEOs make 204 times regular workers on average, Bloomberg found. The ratio is up from 120-to-1 in 2000, 42-to-1 in 1980 and 20-to-1 in 1950.
“When CEOs switched from asking the question of ‘how much is enough’ to ‘how much can I get,’ investor capital and executive talent started scrapping like hyenas for every morsel,” Roger Martin, dean of the University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management, told Bloomberg.

Brilliant post fishhead. i have been harping about this for years. Your statistic also points out the hypocrisy exhibited and practiced by the modern day CEO as well as others in upper upper level management of fortune 500 companies.
 
American corporations are making record profits. Shouldn't the people who provide the labor be receiving record wages? I have a solution-the bosses make a little less, and the workers make a little more.

The ratio of CEO-to-worker pay has increased 1,000 percent since 1950, according to data from Bloomberg. Today Fortune 500 CEOs make 204 times regular workers on average, Bloomberg found. The ratio is up from 120-to-1 in 2000, 42-to-1 in 1980 and 20-to-1 in 1950.
“When CEOs switched from asking the question of ‘how much is enough’ to ‘how much can I get,’ investor capital and executive talent started scrapping like hyenas for every morsel,” Roger Martin, dean of the University of Toronto’s Rotman School of Management, told Bloomberg.

Good point.....I believe in our conversation, we were not talking about the corporate world.....which gets larger and larger everyday....that is another conversation........but we were talking about the honest small business....we do about two and a half to three million annually(which is pretty darn good for a small restaurant)..our overhead is HUGE...due to paying people well, and maintenance.....blahblahblah..small business....


The corporate world, where the CEO gets paid if the business fails......pure lunacy...The corporations are in bed with the politicians...The Supreme Court made sure of that...a completely different argument where I think you and I may agree bit more.....
 
We may have the only civilization ever, where obese people can claim to be "poor".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fishhead:
Try for a moment to forget your sense of "what's right" or "should be".... and look at reality.

What you're suggesting is a sure fire formula for ensuring that American labor won't be able to compete in a world labor market...

If a trade union gets an increase that prices the product above worlds prices, the jobs will either go to Asia, or the company will fold.

When the minimum wage goes up, the low end jobs don't go to Asia, they just disappear.

You simply can't pay someone more than his work is worth.
Gee that's funny most Ceo's are 300+% paid more than they were 40 years ago the disparity between the guy on the floor who makes the product an thus makes the profit for the company and the Worthless POS Ceo is obscene. The trouble with American companies not making profit isn't because of the guy on the floor its because of the Leagalized robbery the Corporate/Globalists are committing. So why are the Corporate phonies paid more than they are worth what value added services do they offer?
 
Good point.....I believe in our conversation, we were not talking about the corporate world.....which gets larger and larger everyday....that is another conversation........but we were talking about the honest small business....we do about two and a half to three million annually(which is pretty darn good for a small restaurant)..our overhead is HUGE...due to paying people well, and maintenance.....blahblahblah..small business....


The corporate world, where the CEO gets paid if the business fails......pure lunacy...The corporations are in bed with the politicians...The Supreme Court made sure of that...a completely different argument where I think you and I may agree bit more.....

If your business doubled because the chef was amazing and drew twice as many people in...

Would you double your dishwashers wages or would you hire a second dishwasher or would you hire a second AND double the wages?
 
Oh come on now. Corporations are not evil. They would never do things like donate to their campaigns with the expectation they will pass legislation that benefits the corporation. Or better yet have one of their former Lawyers for a big Bio Tech company or Chairman of a corporation be invited to work in the FDA or in the White House as the job czar. No, no, no. Nothing like that would everrrrrrr happen.

Monsanto Lawyer
http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OfficeofFoods/ucm196721.htm

GE Chairman
http://m.whitehouse.gov/administration/advisory-boards/jobs-council/members/immelt
 
A variation of the vaunted trickle down economic theory but the government isn't using worker's money to provide economic benefits and tax breaks for the wealthy in the vain hope that some of it will make it back to those same workers. When corporate workers make more, they have more to spend for the products and services provided by small businesses who then can afford to pay their workers better.

Citizen's United? A ruling that allows the wealthy to influence politicians and buy elections. How in the world can anybody who believes in democracy support this or the politicians who do?

Good point.....I believe in our conversation, we were not talking about the corporate world.....which gets larger and larger everyday....that is another conversation........but we were talking about the honest small business....we do about two and a half to three million annually(which is pretty darn good for a small restaurant)..our overhead is HUGE...due to paying people well, and maintenance.....blahblahblah..small business....


The corporate world, where the CEO gets paid if the business fails......pure lunacy...The corporations are in bed with the politicians...The Supreme Court made sure of that...a completely different argument where I think you and I may agree bit more.....
 
Oh come on now. Corporations are not evil. They would never do things like donate to their campaigns with the expectation they will pass legislation that benefits the corporation.

But if that is true, that is, legislation gets passed that benefits a corporation, does that not also benefit the 1000s (or tens of 1000s) of people that the corporation employs? Or new employees that the corporation needs to hire? Or the businesses that supply that corporation with raw materials? Or subcontrators?
 
But if that is true, that is, legislation gets passed that benefits a corporation, does that not also benefit the 1000s (or tens of 1000s) of people that the corporation employs? Or new employees that the corporation needs to hire? Or the businesses that supply that corporation with raw materials? Or subcontrators?

It only benefits those at the top, and in fact, with regards to the Monsanto protection act, it put smaller farms out of business.
 
Trickle down Redux.

But if that is true, that is, legislation gets passed that benefits a corporation, does that not also benefit the 1000s (or tens of 1000s) of people that the corporation employs? Or new employees that the corporation needs to hire? Or the businesses that supply that corporation with raw materials? Or subcontrators?
 
If the legislation causes the corporation to increase production 20%...

does that not also benefit the 1000s (or tens of 1000s) of people that the corporation employs? Or new employees that the corporation needs to hire? Or the businesses that supply that corporation with raw materials? Or subcontrators...

Or all the people who risked their money and bought shares?
Or all the working folks who have their retirement funds invested in those corporations?
 
Last edited:
If your business doubled because the chef was amazing and drew twice as many people in...

Would you double your dishwashers wages or would you hire a second dishwasher or would you hire a second AND double the wages?

The scenario you propose is impossible, as we are full to capacity every evening.....the chef is amazing, and business is booming......we are maxed out on dishwashers, our Hobart couldn't be running more efficiently....:)
 
The scenario you propose is impossible, as we are full to capacity every evening.....the chef is amazing, and business is booming......we are maxed out on dishwashers, our Hobart couldn't be running more efficiently....:)

So extend me a little fictional latitude...

Maxed out... so you'll expand... build a new wing... does the dishwasher help the owner with the costs of that build(since the dishwasher will be getting more of the profits)? Or is it just the owner who has to invest and risk HIS money while the "workers" JUST expect to get more of a share of the profits?

Or should he get a share of the profits at all since it is the amazing chef who is bringing in all the new business? It's the skills HE amassed over his lifetime (and at his expense) that are bringing up the profits, while the owner can find just about ANYBODY can wash a dish. Maybe the dishwasher should be paying the chef a little bit because he owes the safety of HAVING a job to that amazing chef who keeps bringing 'em in... ;)
 
So extend me a little fictional latitude...

Maxed out... so you'll expand... build a new wing... does the dishwasher help the owner with the costs of that build(since the dishwasher will be getting more of the profits)? Or is it just the owner who has to invest and risk HIS money while the "workers" JUST expect to get more of a share of the profits?

Or should he get a share of the profits at all since it is the amazing chef who is bringing in all the new business? It's the skills HE amassed over his lifetime (and at his expense) that are bringing up the profits, while the owner can find just about ANYBODY can wash a dish. Maybe the dishwasher should be paying the chef a little bit because he owes the safety of HAVING a job to that amazing chef who keeps bringing 'em in... ;)

Fictional is the proper word here. We are speaking about fortune 500 companies that are PUBLIC, the CEO and all upper level management have no skin in the game, it isn't their money they are using to grow the business, yet they posture themselves and reward themselves as if they deserve their largesse. In private business I would agree with you, the owner has the risk.Todays CEO has no risk, no special or unique skill that isn't posessed by thousands of others, yet is rewarded as if he does, and should he fail he loses nothing other than his position and walks away with a prenegotiated golden parachute, while everyone else gets a golden shower.
 
Fictional is the proper word here. We are speaking about fortune 500 companies that are PUBLIC, the CEO and all upper level management have no skin in the game, it isn't their money they are using to grow the business, yet they posture themselves and reward themselves as if they deserve their largesse. In private business I would agree with you, the owner has the risk. Todays CEO has no risk, no special or unique skill that isn't posessed by thousands of others, yet is rewarded as if he does, and should he fail he loses nothing other than his position and walks away with a prenegotiated golden parachute, while everyone else gets a golden shower.

OK

Why is THAT person hired to be the CEO over any of the thousands who possess his skills? And why would the Board pay him ANY MORE than what THEY feel is necessary? If there are so many people with the same skills (those needed to run a fortune 500 company), why would a company pay so much when they could get someone cheaper?

Any "prenegotiated golden parachute" is just that. It's what the corporation deemed necessary to ensure that THEIR CHOICE became the CEO. How is that any different than any other company negotiating a contract with any other worker? Is it the huge sums of money? Do you think that these boards don't know what is best for the company and its owners/investors? Who are we to tell ANY company how to value the skills of any of their workers. If they are unhappy with the performance of their CEO, they can get a new one. If owners/investors don't like the bottom line of a company or how it spends its money, they can always sell the stock and invest in another...

As far as business is concerned, people are a product like any other. Supply and demand. You "buy" that product for whatever price the market decides it is worth. Hiring someone is an investment. You pay an amount based upon what you believe the return on that investment will be.
 
If the legislation causes the corporation to increase production 20%...

does that not also benefit the 1000s (or tens of 1000s) of people that the corporation employs? Or new employees that the corporation needs to hire? Or the businesses that supply that corporation with raw materials? Or subcontrators...

Or all the people who risked their money and bought shares?
Or all the working folks who have their retirement funds invested in those corporations?

Sure it would benefit investors. That is of course if the stock market wasn't propped up with fiat money.

Increased business will mean more money. One plus one does still equal two. But when Sen. Roy Blunt helps Monsanto right a provision in the law that in effect allows them to keep selling seeds even in the event they are found to be harmful for human consumption, something is very wrong.

Basically your government is making it legal to poision you whle certain companies make millions. Well, that's been going on for a long time now anyways.
 
I'll take the bait, even though I suspect you're just arguing for the sake of argument.

Executive compensation is very often totally detached from the performance of the company. This is at least partly because the CEOs and the Board members take care of each other. The vast majority of Board members are current or former executives and the Executives often sit on the boards of other companies so there's a "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours mentality" - basically it's a circle jerk. There's also a culture surrounding it - if every other company in your field is handing out large bonuses to attract executives then you have to compete. There are always exceptions to every rule - look at Costco's executive pay structure.

Another reason why the problem persists is due to the use of proxy voting. Shareholders technically have the right to vote on many of these decisions but they don't. They ignore the voting forms that arrive by mail and by doing nothing, they just cede their proxy votes to the Board members. So the board excercises the proxy rights, and votes for the shareholders. The effect of which is that the Board can basically do whatever they want.

Lately though we've started to see shareholder rebellions, where shareholders actually use their votes to disapprove of the bonuses and other crappy decisions that the Boards make. This actually happened at Citibank, where the shareholders rebelled against the board and nullified the proposed bonuses and compensation. I don't think that had ever happened before.
 
Maxed out... so you'll expand... build a new wing... does the dishwasher help the owner with the costs of that build(since the dishwasher will be getting more of the profits)? Or is it just the owner who has to invest and risk HIS money while the "workers" JUST expect to get more of a share of the profits?

Or should he get a share of the profits at all since it is the amazing chef who is bringing in all the new business? It's the skills HE amassed over his lifetime (and at his expense) that are bringing up the profits, while the owner can find just about ANYBODY can wash a dish. Maybe the dishwasher should be paying the chef a little bit because he owes the safety of HAVING a job to that amazing chef who keeps bringing 'em in... ;)

Unfortunately the government has labeled our building an historic landmark.......and we are in the highlands......and we already have the limit of impervious surface on our plot.....again an impossible scenario ;)
 
Sure it would benefit investors. That is of course if the stock market wasn't propped up with fiat money.

Increased business will mean more money. One plus one does still equal two. But when Sen. Roy Blunt helps Monsanto right a provision in the law that in effect allows them to keep selling seeds even in the event they are found to be harmful for human consumption, something is very wrong.

Basically your government is making it legal to poision you whle certain companies make millions. Well, that's been going on for a long time now anyways.

That's not the way I read it.

Farmers bought seeds that the government said were Okie Dokie.
The government then changed their mind.
The law would allow farmers to plant the seeds they ALREADY purchased back when the government had said they were fine.
It wasn't to protect Monsanto per se, but the farmer who had already invested thousands of dollars in seed the GOV said were ok before they said they weren't.
 
I'll take the bait, even though I suspect you're just arguing for the sake of argument.

Executive compensation is very often totally detached from the performance of the company. This is at least partly because the CEOs and the Board members take care of each other. The vast majority of Board members are current or former executives and the Executives often sit on the boards of other companies so there's a "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours mentality" - basically it's a circle jerk. There's also a culture surrounding it - if every other company in your field is handing out large bonuses to attract executives then you have to compete. There are always exceptions to every rule - look at Costco's executive pay structure.

Another reason why the problem persists is due to the use of proxy voting. Shareholders technically have the right to vote on many of these decisions but they don't. They ignore the voting forms that arrive by mail and by doing nothing, they just cede their proxy votes to the Board members. So the board excercises the proxy rights, and votes for the shareholders. The effect of which is that the Board can basically do whatever they want.

Lately though we've started to see shareholder rebellions, where shareholders actually use their votes to disapprove of the bonuses and other crappy decisions that the Boards make. This actually happened at Citibank, where the shareholders rebelled against the board and nullified the proposed bonuses and compensation. I don't think that had ever happened before.
I don't what kind of companies you've been working for, but that's contrary to my experience (1967 - 2005).
Directors are generally also large stockholders, an ineffective executive is wasting their money.

The person most likely to be fired is the executive in charge of a company/division/plant that's not making a profit that meets or exceeds it's goals.

Bonuses were a small percentage of the profits that exceeded the goals.
"Golden Parachutes" and other perks, are recruitment/retention tools, to get them to take what could easily be a career killing position.

As to compensation... There's only one CEO, and a handful of VPs. Their compensation is a drop in the bucket compared to the total payroll cost.
 
The way I am reading (now that I found the exact verbiage) is that even if a seed and crop has been found harmful they can continue to sell those seeds and crops, as you stated.


Sec. 735. In the event that a determination of non-regulated status made pursuant to section 411 of the Plant Protection Act is or has been invalidated or vacated, the Secretary of Agriculture shall, notwithstanding any other provision of law, upon request by a farmer, grower, farm operator, or producer, immediately grant temporary permit(s) or temporary deregulation in part, subject to necessary and appropriate conditions consistent with section 411(a) or 412(c) of the Plant Protection Act, which interim conditions shall authorize the movement, introduction, continued cultivation, commercialization and other specifically enumerated activities and requirements, including measures designed to mitigate or minimize potential adverse environmental effects, if any, relevant to the Secretary's evaluation of the petition for non-regulated status, while ensuring that growers or other users are able to move, plant, cultivate, introduce into commerce and carry out other authorized activities in a timely manner: Provided, That all such conditions shall be applicable only for the interim period necessary for the Secretary to complete any required analyses or consultations related to the petition for non-regulated status: Provided further, That nothing in this section shall be construed as limiting the Secretary's authority under section 411, 412 and 414 of the Plant Protection Act.[1]


Here's an idea! Have the company (that knowingly created) compensate the farmers for their lost revenue. This is the same company the said DDT and agent orange was safe.

Not to get too off topic.
 
OK

Why is THAT person hired to be the CEO over any of the thousands who possess his skills? And why would the Board pay him ANY MORE than what THEY feel is necessary? If there are so many people with the same skills (those needed to run a fortune 500 company), why would a company pay so much when they could get someone cheaper?

Any "prenegotiated golden parachute" is just that. It's what the corporation deemed necessary to ensure that THEIR CHOICE became the CEO. How is that any different than any other company negotiating a contract with any other worker? Is it the huge sums of money? Do you think that these boards don't know what is best for the company and its owners/investors? Who are we to tell ANY company how to value the skills of any of their workers. If they are unhappy with the performance of their CEO, they can get a new one. If owners/investors don't like the bottom line of a company or how it spends its money, they can always sell the stock and invest in another...

The hiring of upper level management is a very flawed and faulty practice, but your question is logical and one to be expected from a naive Alpaca farmer. Yet , the compensation system is completely flawed and flies in the face of what these so called capitalists actually profess. Do you really think that on a planet of over 6 billion people there are 500 persons who have this unique and unparalelled ability to CEO a company? We're not talking about the rare ability to farm Alpacas. Why do you think it is that CEO compensation has risen over the last 60 years as fishhead cited? Are you saying that quality CEO's have become rarer while lower level employees have become more available? Really?
 
Back
Top