Realcent.org

Man! Talking about wanting to move!!

http://news.msn.com/world/swiss-to-vote ... all-adults

LOL. That has got to be one of the most ridiculous ideas I have ever heard.

Along with their other one - "A separate proposal to limit monthly executive pay to no more than what the company's lowest-paid staff earn in a year, the so-called 1:12 initiative, faces a popular vote on Nov. 24."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. If that does pass....all motivation....OUT THE WINDOW. Why do more work if you are going to still get paid the same as everyone else? Someone threatening to take your job if you underperform? Great! Get a new job and get the exact same pay!

Ridiculous attempt to keep the masses pacified.

Its a perfect example of how and why democracies fail, when not restrained by the laws of a Republic.

Where is the problem?

CEO's and other corporate figure-heads shouldn't make more that 12 TIMES (1:12...note the typo in the original article exploited in the post above to ridicule the concept) the average worker...Granted, its arbitrary and may need to be re-worked...But come on...the greed has to be stopped somewhere...

As for the guaranteed income provided by the state...WHERE is the problem?

Im assuming it would be generated by taxes ALREADY collected. Our government takes taxes, no? We gripe about the USE/WASTE of that collected 'revenue'...If we all got an equal cut and were taxed fairly (read: to create an equal situation among all wherein none needed to worry about livelihood or scraping by), that would be good...No?

The program proposed is limited in its ability to be exploited by the fact that there are CLOSED BORDERS and restrictions to immigration. Have fun trying to move there ...It is fair to all citizens, and represents the care and concern of the people for the most VULNERABLE...People who don't work in nordic countries are mentally unstable, physically unable due to injury or otherwise debilitated...

Detach yourself from the western/American conception of "scary socialist/communist" policies and view the way the world should be. The way a community should be. Or live in your gated mansions fearing your neighbor and government every second...whatever...

I am with you Oakair.

So this is their idea of social welfare? Are they all taxed fairly? Our system would not be a good example of how to deal with societal inequalities. Heck, I remember when our government sent everyone that worked a "stimulus" check. I didn't send it back, spent it as most everyone else did. I'm not sure it stimulated much of anything as far as our economy, and I am sure it's part of that debt that we will never be able to pay. I do know that Nordic countries have a very strong sense of community and I also know there are people in real need of assistance. I'm just not sure handing out money to every adult solves the problem the country may be trying to address.

Take Norway for an example. From an article circa Sep 2011:

"Norway deposits 100 percent of its oil and gas revenues into its sovereign wealth fund - worth about $540 billion as of late last month. It then withdraws an average of 4 percent a year to help pay for public services."

http://www.arcticgas.gov/norway%E2%80%99s-different-approach-to-oil-and-gas-development


And from last month:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-01/norway-oil-riches-up-for-grabs-as-anti-tax-group-set-for-power.html

"The Progress Party, poised to enter government for the first time since being founded in 1973, is campaigning on a platform to scrap Norway’s 4 percent spending limit on oil revenue."


As how all democracies eventually fail, eventually the voters discover that with only a slight majority, the nation's wealth can be looted and distributed.

Oakair wrote:Where is the problem?

CEO's and other corporate figure-heads shouldn't make more that 12 TIMES (1:12...note the typo in the original article exploited in the post above to ridicule the concept) the average worker...Granted, its arbitrary and may need to be re-worked...But come on...the greed has to be stopped somewhere...

So is it just CEO's or anyone in any company? I.e. Lebron now gets 12 times whatever the assistant to the sports trainer makes?

Question then: Why should government dictate how a private company spends it's money?

Question two: What happens with the excess cash? I assume it goes to the share holders right? In which case you can circumvent the rule pretty easily by just making sure the CEO has appropriate stock. And if that's also illegal then it just means that someone with no job with the corporation makes extra money, likely more than 12 times the janitor. So how do we stop that?

Oakair wrote:CEO's and other corporate figure-heads shouldn't make more that 12 TIMES the average worker

Says who? You aren't the owner of the company. And its not 12 times the average worker, its 12 times the lowest paid worker. All this means is that companies won't hire low wage workers "in house", they will hire contractors to do all the menial tasks. Example: software company will fire their 25k/yr janitor and farm the job out to a janitorial contractor company where the CEO doesn't make very much. Then they farm out the entry level software programmers overseas, leaving just senior staff so the CEO can make 12 times 80k, or whatever, just making an example.

Why do people think its normal to pay athletes 10 million dollars for their skills, but you pay an executive 2 million and they are a greedy pig? If they bring 2 million worth of management to the table and make the company money by doing so, then that's their right.

AGgressive Metal wrote:If they bring 2 million worth of management to the table and make the company money by doing so, then that's their right.

The problem with your argument is many of those CEOs cheat to make the company appear to be more profitable when it is, in fact, being gutted. When they get paid millions to cut local jobs, replace great products with Chinese crap, and run off the best minds...its not good for Americans as a whole.

The CEO's don't care. They get a golden parachute ride to the next company they intend to dismantle while the rest of us pick up the slack by paying for the social welfare benefits of the displaced workers.

barrytrot wrote:

Oakair wrote:Where is the problem?

<snip>

So is it just CEO's or anyone in any company? I.e. Lebron now gets 12 times whatever the assistant to the sports trainer makes?

I can tell you exactly where and what the problem is. The assistant athletic trainer (who's done everything from towels, to driving the bus, cleaning up players' tainted blood, passing out meal money, and tapes ankles in one minute without a wrinkle or crease) is seriously underpaid (as is the head athletic trainer) and deserves a significant pay raise!

The assistant athletic trainer now gets 1/12th of Lebron's contract.

With apologies to all, I just couldn't help my self.

OK, so back to the thread. I found this article with but a little searching. Thought it was significant to the discussion.

From: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/companie ... d=19920634

"(T)he social pact that Messrs. Cohen and Greenfield made with their employees at the start of their venture: From top to bottom, the pay ratio between the highest salaried executive and lowest-earning-worker would be no greater than 5 to 1.

To their credit, the ice cream kings kept to their pay scale deal for 16 years. At that point, Cohen was set to retire and no successor who was willing to accept B&J's compensation compact could be found.

End of an Era

So the bar was raised to 7 to 1 to attract new talent, and ultimately to 17 to 1 over the course of a half dozen years more. The company was then acquired by Unilever USA in 2000, after which the corporate cone of silence descended on what was once a very transparent practice.

These days, executive compensation is very much in the news, as the difference between the lowest-paid hourly workers and the most senior corporate executives has grown to an epic proportion. In fact, I heard one economist describe the nature of the wage disparity that exists in this country as the envy of corporate CEOs around the world.

Whether Ben and Jerry's socially responsible policies were the result of youthful exuberance or entirely too much Bonnaroo Buzz one night, they unambiguously communicated a set of corporate values that resonated with the company's employees, customers, suppliers, lenders and investors. Said differently, the founders' actions favorably influenced the views of those but for whom their company would not have been in business in the first place.

Public perception plays a big part in shaping those opinions—a sensibility that owners and leaders of smaller, privately held companies instinctively understand, and their larger-corporate contemporaries choose to ignore. After all, their executive-compensation packages are usually a function of financial performance; financial performance is derived from expense control, and expense control is achieved through wage suppression and grudging investments."

Hope this makes up for the last one.

Engineer wrote:

AGgressive Metal wrote:If they bring 2 million worth of management to the table and make the company money by doing so, then that's their right.

The problem with your argument is many of those CEOs cheat to make the company appear to be more profitable when it is, in fact, being gutted. When they get paid millions to cut local jobs, replace great products with Chinese crap, and run off the best minds...its not good for Americans as a whole.

So every company in America is simultaneously and intentionally being run into the ground? If that were the case, wouldn't shareholders have found a new way to manage the company besides having a chief executive?

Wouldn't limiting executive pay just accelerate the off-shoring trend you are upset about? Wouldn't the CEOs just move their HQ to Singapore, Hong Kong, Dubai, etc?

AGgressive Metal wrote:

Engineer wrote:

AGgressive Metal wrote:If they bring 2 million worth of management to the table and make the company money by doing so, then that's their right.

The problem with your argument is many of those CEOs cheat to make the company appear to be more profitable when it is, in fact, being gutted. When they get paid millions to cut local jobs, replace great products with Chinese crap, and run off the best minds...its not good for Americans as a whole.

So every company in America is simultaneously and intentionally being run into the ground? If that were the case, wouldn't shareholders have found a new way to manage the company besides having a chief executive?

Wouldn't limiting executive pay just accelerate the off-shoring trend you are upset about? Wouldn't the CEOs just move their HQ to Singapore, Hong Kong, Dubai, etc?

Not every. Many.

Enterprising people start companies, run them smart, make better stuff for a decent price, and dream of cashing in on an IPO. Once the company is publicly owned, the CEO can take the path of expanding with even more good products or making quick gains by running it into the ground. If they can get a second chance with a government bailout, even better.

The people who start and build great companies tend to have patience and fairly good character...but like everyone else, they do have their price. Once they've cashed in, it isn't uncommon to see a sociopath put in their pace in order to maximize gains for the stockholders who only care about the next quarter.

Of late I am putting in 20 hour days to keep up with business demands. (Notice the time stamp on this comment.)

I started to join the debate, but WTF, it would be pointless. If you don't have the desire to risk it all on running your own company.... you just would not understand.

Sheikh_yer_Bu'Tay wrote:Of late I am putting in 20 hour days to keep up with business demands. (Notice the time stamp on this comment.)

I started to join the debate, but WTF, it would be pointless. If you don't have the desire to risk it all on running your own company.... you just would not understand.

Good for you, Rick. I'm picking up as many consecutive shifts at my RN job as I can. Get while the getting is good. Go Ants!

beauanderos wrote:

Sheikh_yer_Bu'Tay wrote:Of late I am putting in 20 hour days to keep up with business demands. (Notice the time stamp on this comment.)

I started to join the debate, but WTF, it would be pointless. If you don't have the desire to risk it all on running your own company.... you just would not understand.

Good for you, Rick. I'm picking up as many consecutive shifts at my RN job as I can. Get while the getting is good. Go Ants!

Thanks Ray!

I like that cheer! Go Ants!!!

AGgressive Metal wrote:

Oakair wrote:CEO's and other corporate figure-heads shouldn't make more that 12 TIMES the average worker

Says who? You aren't the owner of the company. And its not 12 times the average worker, its 12 times the lowest paid worker. All this means is that companies won't hire low wage workers "in house", they will hire contractors to do all the menial tasks. Example: software company will fire their 25k/yr janitor and farm the job out to a janitorial contractor company where the CEO doesn't make very much. Then they farm out the entry level software programmers overseas, leaving just senior staff so the CEO can make 12 times 80k, or whatever, just making an example.

To take this point further, say the company then pays a markup to hire a contracting company instead of employees for the convenience factor of using contractors at say $35k/yr. per janitor. That company needs to then hire janitors. They are going to make a profit as a business because they have overhead, administrative costs, advertising, etc. so they pay their employees $20k/yr. so in the end the janitor makes $5k less a year because some socialist do good-er was trying to punish the CEOs. In the end, the small guy gets hurt the most. Because, guaranteed, a $5k a year loss at that level hurts way more than the decrease of the CEO's pay. This is what happens when someone tries to "punish" someone through legislation. The one getting punished always finds loopholes and ways around the punishment to make the situation worse.

Trust me, it boggles my mind what some corporations pay the top brass. It's their choice to do that. It is also your choice to invest your money there, or somewhere else. Back in the day the USA operated under the concept of "let the buyer beware". China & India do that now the their economies are booming.

What boggles my mind far more is this is the wrong debate. The REAL DEBATE should be: "If you don't like the dead-end $h!t job you have, why the hell didn't you educate yourself better??????!!!!"

In this day of information technology, the world's vast libraries are just a few clicks away. You can study anything you want, anytime you want. It is easier to educate yourself today more than ever before.

I have lost count how many books I have given away to new hires about the job they have been hired to perform. They don't read them. OR, if they do read them, they have almost zero retention of what they read. Yet, those are the same sluggards who whine about their sorry lot in life. Jeeessshh!!

Now, if you will excuse me, I have to get back to work.

inflationhawk wrote:

AGgressive Metal wrote:

Oakair wrote:CEO's and other corporate figure-heads shouldn't make more that 12 TIMES the average worker

Says who? You aren't the owner of the company. And its not 12 times the average worker, its 12 times the lowest paid worker. All this means is that companies won't hire low wage workers "in house", they will hire contractors to do all the menial tasks. Example: software company will fire their 25k/yr janitor and farm the job out to a janitorial contractor company where the CEO doesn't make very much. Then they farm out the entry level software programmers overseas, leaving just senior staff so the CEO can make 12 times 80k, or whatever, just making an example.

To take this point further, say the company then pays a markup to hire a contracting company instead of employees for the convenience factor of using contractors at say $35k/yr. per janitor. That company needs to then hire janitors. They are going to make a profit as a business because they have overhead, administrative costs, advertising, etc. so they pay their employees $20k/yr. so in the end the janitor makes $5k less a year because some socialist do good-er was trying to punish the CEOs. In the end, the small guy gets hurt the most. Because, guaranteed, a $5k a year loss at that level hurts way more than the decrease of the CEO's pay. This is what happens when someone tries to "punish" someone through legislation. The one getting punished always finds loopholes and ways around the punishment to make the situation worse.

That's a very good point and very true with lots of historical facts to back it up. Exactly similar to the "required medical coverage" rules where instead of paying it or the penalty the company just shifts from hiring 40 hour workers to 30 hour workers in order to avoid both the penalty and the additional coverage.

Sheikh_yer_Bu'Tay wrote:Now, if you will excuse me, I have to get back to work.

This is a summation of the entire subject. The hard working and enterprising will continue to be hard working and enterprising and SURPRISE will generally do substantially better than those that aren't both of those things! Shocking! And whatever hoops the various governments set up only prove to be distractions to the motivated.

inflationhawk wrote:To take this point further, say the company then pays a markup to hire a contracting company instead of employees for the convenience factor of using contractors at say $35k/yr. per janitor. That company needs to then hire janitors. They are going to make a profit as a business because they have overhead, administrative costs, advertising, etc. so they pay their employees $20k/yr. so in the end the janitor makes $5k less a year because some socialist do good-er was trying to punish the CEOs. In the end, the small guy gets hurt the most. Because, guaranteed, a $5k a year loss at that level hurts way more than the decrease of the CEO's pay. This is what happens when someone tries to "punish" someone through legislation.

Yes, perfect elaboration of what might happen. Do-gooders are sometimes the most harmful people in society - I'd much rather be free and live in a country where there are a few "robber barons" running wild than a socialist country where bureaucrats are running wild and everyone is forced down to a level of mediocrity and conformity.

Let the swiss try. Its a great idea if it works, bad idea if it doesn't. The BIG (basic income guaranteed) idea has been around for a while now and always encites good conversation no matter who you are around. I know the main argument is that people wouldn't work. I feel it doesn't matter if some people dont work. They dont work now and still get our tax money. So lets just make everyone else equal. Its not like our tax money is spent on something better.

frugalcanuck wrote:Let the swiss try. Its a great idea if it works, bad idea if it doesn't. The BIG (basic income guaranteed) idea has been around for a while now and always encites good conversation no matter who you are around. I know the main argument is that people wouldn't work. I feel it doesn't matter if some people dont work. They dont work now and still get our tax money. So lets just make everyone else equal. Its not like our tax money is spent on something better.

2500 a month is like double the minimum wage, so the argument that people won't work is, in this case, completely valid.

US minimum wage $7.25/hr x 40 hr week x 4 weeks a month = $1160/month. And that is before factoring in two weeks vacation without pay every year, not to mention payroll taxes and in some cases union dues.