Politics

[IrishLax]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/JNdc2-_vS0Y" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

SMDH...LOL

MSNBC: Hate Forward | Washington Free Beacon

This is the entire Democrat narrative in a nut shell, and it's incredibly well executed. Republicans "hate":
-Women
-Minorities
-Average Americans
-The environment
-LGBT
-Obama
-Etc. etc. etc.

It's effective because it turns the debate emotional. It's also effective because it's borderline impossible to prove a negative. How do you prove that you don't hate minorities? Mitt Romney has an adopted black grandchild, so that doesn't jive with the "all Republicans hate minorities" card... so MSNBC makes fun of the kid and twists it to reinforce the position saying things like "It really sums up the diversity of the Republican party and the RNC, where they have the whole convention and they find the one black person." Herman Cain gets openly called an Uncle Tom because how dare a black person side with the party that "hates black people." It's classic social psychology and it's exceedingly effective. If you say something enough, people take it at face value as indisputable fact.

Republicans absolutely do this too, but they don't have as much to work with. Democrats "hate":
-Guns
-Religion
-Etc.

All in all, the Democrats are just in a much stronger position as the 'party of inclusion' to campaign on emotion, and that's why the Republican party is a shadow of its former self.

 

[RDU Irish]

Depends on what you mean by rich? If you mean the top 1 percent, the top 2-3 percent sure they do a pay great percentage of their income. I would adovocate raising tax on that group at all.

If you mean the top 0.1 % who paid off Congress to change the tax code to their benefit then no it is not progressive. Hence you have Romney who isn't a bad guy by any means paying a 14% tax rate.

http://childhealthsafety.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/us-life-1900-1998.gif

Speaking theoretically, have not seen a study to prove/disprove this:

Could it be that the concentration of wealth in our country is nothing more than a result of longer life expectancies? Most never build much capital (i.e. wealth). Recent study showed 36% of American workers had less than $1000 of savings and HALF of those over 65 count on Social Security for more than half of their income (AARP).

Those with capital benefit from compounding returns on capital. A 10 year increase in life expectancy would likely more than double your "terminal wealth". A 15 year increase might double it.

Middle of the pack? No enough escape velocity to compound growth. Longer life expectancy with higher than expected costs of living (LTC anyone) deplete savings.

So you compound the upper limits, keep the lower limit at zero and gut the middle. Add in some inflation and the "inequality" starts to look out of control.

So the poor stay poor, and the rich get richer thus creating an illusion of widening income inequality when it is really just the same old, same old.

 

[IrishLax]

It isn't really that striking when you account for how large companies are now, relative to the 1950's. Back in the 1950's the largest company was worth less than $20 billion. Today, it's $500 billion. That's an increase in value that even larger than the increase in the ratio of the so-called "corner office/shop floor" (20/1 to 200/1).

And Tim Cook actually makes .076% of the total market cap of Apple. Even though every decision he makes can help or hurt the company by many, many times this amount. Citing his take-home pay without context seems just like more greed and envy-mongering to me.

Winner. It's a product of globalization and the rise in giant corporate conglomerates.

 

[GoIrish41]

It isn't really that striking when you account for how large companies are now, relative to the 1950's. Back in the 1950's the largest company was worth less than $20 billion. Today, it's $500 billion. That's an increase in value that even larger than the increase in the ratio of the so-called "corner office/shop floor" (20/1 to 200/1).

And Tim Cook actually makes .076% of the total market cap of Apple. Even though every decision he makes can help or hurt the company by many, many times this amount. Citing his take-home pay without context seems just like more greed and envy-mongering to me.

What is surprising is that average employee salaries have not kept pace with the cost of living, let alone the astronomical inflation of CEO salaries. Shouldn't the growth in the value of the company be reflected in the salary of the employees as well? Why just the employees at the top? Tim Cook makes 6258 times what the average employee at Apple makes, but at least the average salary is a respectable $60k or so. WalMart on the other hand has full time employees making under $25k, and many have to count on public assistance to feed their families (a labor subsidy to the nation's largest retailer, IMO) while their CEO is making 902 times that salary. That is shameful. Half of his compensation could pay for the minimum wage increase of nearly 2000 of WalMart's employees. Imagine how much difference that extra $114 a week (the difference between $7.25 an hour and $10.10 an hour) could make for all of those families. Meanwhile, the CEO of WalMart would still get $11.5 million a year or more than 28 times what the President of the United States makes.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

...Shouldn't the growth in the value of the company be reflected in the salary of the employees as well?...

No. Salary is a reflection of how much value you can bring to a company, subject to labor-market competition. For many employees, how much value they bring is not tied to how large the company is or how much it grows.

A Wal-Mart Greeter in Arkansas doesn't add more value just because another store is opened in Louisiana. A McDonald's janitor isn't more valuable just because the McCafe becomes a profit center. And the twenty-something working in the Apple store doesn't create any more wealth when Apple wins patent litigation. But the CEO's, who can devise the strategy to make these growth moves, are. That's just the way the world works.

 

[GoIrish41]

No. Salary is a reflection of how much value you can bring to a company, subject to labor-market competition. For many employees, how much value they bring is not tied to how large the company is or how much it grows.

A Wal-Mart Greeter in Arkansas doesn't add more value just because another store is opened in Louisiana. A McDonald's janitor isn't more valuable just because the McCafe becomes a profit center. And the twenty-something working in the Apple store doesn't create any more wealth when Apple wins patent litigation. But the CEO's, who can devise the strategy to make these growth moves, are. That's just the way the world works.

All those positions at these companies contribute to the success by executing their functions. Apple store employees move products to consumers. Janitors keeping the cafe clean add to the environment that keeps customers coming back and Walmart greeters are iconic to the brand. No matter the decisions that are made people make them work. While CEOs compensation skyrockets all the workers you describe lose money as cost of living continues to grow. I understand that is the way the world works but question if it should. I submit that it should not.

 

[chicago51]

SMDH...LOL

MSNBC: Hate Forward | Washington Free Beacon

What do you expect from corporate run media?

News is simply infotainment these days.

MSNBC and Fox pretty much try to give red meat to their audience by telling them what they want to here. They try to draw ratings to sell advertising that is it.

There is no fact based news anymore. Plus there is stuff out there the corporate media outlets across the board simply refuse to cover.

This kind of stuff is why I stop watching MSNBC. After about 4 consecutive days of MSNBC focusing on the "Bridge Scandal" with Gov Christie I just had enough. I've never been a Christie fan even when a lot of Democratic party folks where high on the guy but it just frustrated the hell out me that is all the network covered for day after day when that wasn't the only thing going on in the country.

And Fox News hasn't had any credibility for some time now.

Thomas Jefferson said that having an informed educated electorate was the ultimate corrector of bad government. I tend to agree. The problem is with a corporate run media that is all about making the bucks and political ads from both sides that are hardly factual we don't have this.

 

[GowerND11]

All those positions at these companies contribute to the success by executing their functions. Apple store employees move products to consumers. Janitors keeping the cafe clean add to the environment that keeps customers coming back and Walmart greeters are iconic to the brand. No matter the decisions that are made people make them work. While CEOs compensation skyrockets all the workers you describe lose money as cost of living continues to grow. I understand that is the way the world works but question if it should. I submit that it should not.

Just to play Devil's Advocate here: do those employees you just mentioned really help large companies/corporations that much?I mean, if the bathroom in McDonald's A are disgusting is that really going to stop people from eating at McDonald's B, C, D, etc? Apple products essentially sell themselves. Many people don't need to be talked into buying the product in an Apple store by a "Genius." They are already at that company specific store because they like Apple or heard great things and want an iPhone, iPad, etc. Yeah maybe the "Genius" can give you the specs and steer you to something more suitable to you, but in this day and age many already know the specs they want when it comes to technology. Also who really cares if they get a hello from some old man or woman as they enter the absolute worst place on the planet? I mean is that going to effect your shopping experience THAT much?

Look I think salaries are behind the curve, but those jobs are not really ones I see that need to be raised.

 

[Bluto]

No. Salary is a reflection of how much value you can bring to a company, subject to labor-market competition. For many employees, how much value they bring is not tied to how large the company is or how much it grows.

A Wal-Mart Greeter in Arkansas doesn't add more value just because another store is opened in Louisiana. A McDonald's janitor isn't more valuable just because the McCafe becomes a profit center. And the twenty-something working in the Apple store doesn't create any more wealth when Apple wins patent litigation. But the CEO's, who can devise the strategy to make these growth moves, are. That's just the way the world works.

Yes, but this is where the whole concept of "globalization" and "free trade" hit a slippery slope. The reason labor is cheaper in China, Mexico ect...is because of the rampant exploitation of workers, crappy working conditions and zero environmental regulations in many of those "emerging economies" that by comparison would have a US operation shut down pretty quickly. If we are going to globalize shouldn't everyone play by the same rules? Also, why is labor so hamstrung by national borders when corporations are not? Doesn't that alone skew the true value of labor?

 

[IrishLax]

Yes, but this is where the whole concept of "globalization" and "free trade" hit a slippery slope. The reason labor is cheaper in China, Mexico ect...is because of the rampant exploitation of workers, crappy working conditions and zero environmental regulations in many of those "emerging economies" that by comparison would have a US operation shut down pretty quickly. If we are going to globalize shouldn't everyone play by the same rules? Also, why is labor so hamstrung by national borders when corporations are not? Doesn't that alone skew the true value of labor?

These are huge questions that not enough people appreciate.

I always hearken back to a firsthand example I saw in Arizona a bunch of mining companies shut down operations because EPA regulations made them unprofitable. They literally moved right across the border to the point where standing on the abandoned mines I could see the new sites. American owned corporation moved a couple of miles, and then gets to pollute the same air even more while paying workers even less.

Is it the EPA's fault for trying to protect the environment? No. It's Mexico's fault for having lax environmental standards, but can you blame them when they have so many out of work? This is a common issue all over the world... as you said, "emerging" economies get away with quasi-slave labor and whole different set of rules. With the move towards globalization, there really should be more wide-ranging enforceable international standards set for all participating nations in 'free trade' that govern everything from human rights to environmental policy. It'll never happen to the degree it needs to as long as nations are independent and not part of some futuristic global hegemony... but it would go a long way to fixing a lot of issues.

 

[GoIrish41]

Just to play Devil's Advocate here: do those employees you just mentioned really help large companies/corporations that much?I mean, if the bathroom in McDonald's A are disgusting is that really going to stop people from eating at McDonald's B, C, D, etc? Apple products essentially sell themselves. Many people don't need to be talked into buying the product in an Apple store by a "Genius." They are already at that company specific store because they like Apple or heard great things and want an iPhone, iPad, etc. Yeah maybe the "Genius" can give you the specs and steer you to something more suitable to you, but in this day and age many already know the specs they want when it comes to technology. Also who really cares if they get a hello from some old man or woman as they enter the absolute worst place on the planet? I mean is that going to effect your shopping experience THAT much?

Look I think salaries are behind the curve, but those jobs are not really ones I see that need to be raised.

I am thinking on more of a collective level. A single McDonald's, Apple Store or WalMart employee don't make a whole lot of difference in the big picture, but collectively those employees make an incalculable difference -- a difference that I would argue can make a much larger difference in the company's success or failure than that of the CEO. What if all the janitors at McDonalds restaurants worldwide would do a bad job at keeping bathrooms clean. That could have a dramatic effect on customer loyalty. Very little the CEO could do in the way of critical decisions that would overcome the stigma of unsanitary conditions at the restaurant. What if, collectively, all the "Geniuses" at Apple Stores provided poor customer service and were not knowedgeable about the products they are selling. One of them wouldn't likely make a huge difference for the company's success, but all of them certainly could. And while you might not care personally about the WalMart greeter, that is part of that company's schtick of a family friendly retailer and cutting them lose would signal a shift away from the atmosphere they are trying to convey. What might be next? The point is that we are talking about average salaries of employees across the expanse of each company. It is really not a fair comparisson to speak in terms of a single employee at a single store and the difference he or she would make to the entire company. What if, on average, employee performance was poor? That would have a dramatic effect on the bottom line for each of these companies. Employees are vital to success, and when the company thrives, it does so because employees are executing the policies passed down from managers, corporate and even the CEO who makes 902 times their salary. Collectively, the value of employees is critical, but it is not reflected in their pay when they perform at a level that makes their company one of the largest and most successful in the world. In short, they do not value their employees' contributions to that success -- at least they don't do so in any way that is obvious in terms of compensation. Meanwhile, CEO salaries continue to rise and the problem of income disparity continues to grow.

 

[Ndaccountant]

I am thinking on more of a collective level. A single McDonald's, Apple Store or WalMart employee don't make a whole lot of difference in the big picture, but collectively those employees make an incalculable difference -- a difference that I would argue can make a much larger difference in the company's success or failure than that of the CEO. What if all the janitors at McDonalds restaurants worldwide would do a bad job at keeping bathrooms clean. That could have a dramatic effect on customer loyalty. Very little the CEO could do in the way of critical decisions that would overcome the stigma of unsanitary conditions at the restaurant. What if, collectively, all the "Geniuses" at Apple Stores provided poor customer service and were not knowedgeable about the products they are selling. One of them wouldn't likely make a huge difference for the company's success, but all of them certainly could. And while you might not care personally about the WalMart greeter, that is part of that company's schtick of a family friendly retailer and cutting them lose would signal a shift away from the atmosphere they are trying to convey. What might be next? The point is that we are talking about average salaries of employees across the expanse of each company. It is really not a fair comparisson to speak in terms of a single employee at a single store and the difference he or she would make to the entire company. What if, on average, employee performance was poor? That would have a dramatic effect on the bottom line for each of these companies. Employees are vital to success, and when the company thrives, it does so because employees are executing the policies passed down from managers, corporate and even the CEO who makes 902 times their salary. Collectively, the value of employees is critical, but it is not reflected in their pay when they perform at a level that makes their company one of the largest and most successful in the world. In short, they do not value their employees' contributions to that success -- at least they don't do so in any way that is obvious in terms of compensation. Meanwhile, CEO salaries continue to rise and the problem of income disparity continues to grow.

I get what you are saying, but I think you are missing the point.

If janitor A isn't doing a good job, how hard do you think it would be to find a replacement? It's not just the value they provide (singularly or collectively) but how hard it would be to replace.

As far as CEO compensation goes, a few points to consider. First, there are some excessive plans out there, I think we can all agree. But a few facts to consider:

1. Comparing CEO pay to others in the company has no bearing on whether or not the pay is justified. To the extent that one person is over/under paid does not directly impact what someone else is paid in massive corporations.

2. If we believe the CEO comp is unfair, the money that is "saved" by the corporation is not going to magically find it's way to the paychecks of other employees. Rather, it will be retained by the corporation or distributed to shareholders. If CEO compensation is too high, the real victims are not employees, but rather shareholders.

3. CEO pay has grown faster than workers' pay, but the reasons for this are not entirely sinister. Whereas workers' pay depends on the labor market (and has been kept down by the huge numbers of people joining the global economy), managers' bonuses are chiefly tied to returns on capital.

4. Determining the extent of profits derived from the CEO's strategy is nearly impossible to compute. This makes it incredibly difficult to ever answer the question of whether or not CEO's are over compensated.

5. Last numbers I saw indicated that the average CEO of the Fortune 200 makes roughly $15M per year. In the middle of the Fortune 200 is Phillip Morris (99th on the Fortune 500 list for 2013) and has a market cap of roughly $127B. The 2013 revenue was roughly $31B. If the CEO would do a terrible job and would underperform the sector by 1%, that would cost shareholders almost $1.3B.

6. Compare the CEO average compensation to that of athletes. Eli Manning makes roughly $15M. According to Forbes, the Giants are worth roughly $1.5B and bring in roughly $340M in revenue per year. If Eli Manning were to suck so bad that it destroyed 5% of the value of the Giants (far fetched), it would erode the owners value $75M.

When you compare 5 and 6, not only on compensation relative to revenue, but also on the financial impact of performance, shouldn't we be much more upset at how much athletes are over paid?

New York Giants on the Forbes NFL Team Valuations List

 

[RDU Irish]

Collectively they DO make more than the CEO.

Seriously, GoIrish, can you do an ounce of research on at least the REVENUE PER employee and then the profit per employee before acting like the common man is being excessively exploited? I already broke down the hourly "cost" of the CEO per worker (pennies per hour btw).

Class envy is only productive if you are running for office.

 

[DSully1995]

These are huge questions that not enough people appreciate.

I always hearken back to a firsthand example I saw in Arizona a bunch of mining companies shut down operations because EPA regulations made them unprofitable. They literally moved right across the border to the point where standing on the abandoned mines I could see the new sites. American owned corporation moved a couple of miles, and then gets to pollute the same air even more while paying workers even less.

Is it the EPA's fault for trying to protect the environment? No. It's Mexico's fault for having lax environmental standards, but can you blame them when they have so many out of work? This is a common issue all over the world... as you said, "emerging" economies get away with quasi-slave labor and whole different set of rules. With the move towards globalization, there really should be more wide-ranging enforceable international standards set for all participating nations in 'free trade' that govern everything from human rights to environmental policy. It'll never happen to the degree it needs to as long as nations are independent and not part of some futuristic global hegemony... but it would go a long way to fixing a lot of issues.

Its just the sad reality, they dont have the human capital to do anything else, without the menial labour they would starve/fight, and raising standards too high would remove any advantage they have. Its a process you have to live with, capital accumulation, just as the western world did before.

 

[enrico514]

.

 

[enrico514]

.

 

[enrico514]

.

 

[Rizzophil]

Did anyone see the Drudge issue this week?

 

[GoIrish41]

Collectively they DO make more than the CEO.

Seriously, GoIrish, can you do an ounce of research on at least the REVENUE PER employee and then the profit per employee before acting like the common man is being excessively exploited? I already broke down the hourly "cost" of the CEO per worker (pennies per hour btw).

Class envy is only productive if you are running for office.

I would think that when you add up the pay of the 2.1 million people that WalMart employs you would find that they make more than the single salary of the CEO. The CEO pay would have to be completely and utterly obscene for it to be otherwise. That said, the average WalMart employee makes about $22k per year compared to the $23 million in compensation of the company's chief executive. Also irrelevant is the revenue per employee. The company's income last year was $22 billion with a "b". Incidetnly, that is enough to give every one of its employees a $10k raise. It is astonishing that this company cannot afford to pay its workers a wage that at least keeps them above the poverty line. Instead, every tax payer in the country subsidizes WalMart's labor force when its workers collect government assistance to feed their families.

WalMart's founder, Sam Walton, died in 1992 and he divided the ownership of the company prior to his death among his wife and their 4 children. Those five beneficiaries instantly became five of the 10 richest individuals in the world -- not because they worked harder than those who toil in their stores, but because the riduculous wealth accumulated by the founder of the company was passed on to them. Meanwhile, people who work in their stores can't feed their families. It has absolutely nothing to do with class envy, and it is just insulting for you to suggest that anyone who recognizes the inherent lack of humanity in this is just jealous. What it does have to do with is fairness. All of those with means profit from the wild success of the company -- those who inherited the bulk of the shares, the stockholders who invest in the company, even the consumers who buy the cheap clothing produced by children in miserable conditions in 3rd world countries -- have done no work to make the company successful, outside of senior management. The only people who don't get to benefit from the prosperity of the company are those who actually made it happen -- the employees -- because in most cases they were not financially positioned to invest. And, thanks to their low wages they probably never will be. Sounds like a pretty exploitive business model to me, but I guess that is just my jealous nature coming out.

 

[RDU Irish]

I was just curious... hourly "cost" of the CEO per worker... why do you believe this is an adequate way to justify CEO pay ?

It is pointing out how ridiculous it is to say cutting CEO pay could somehow raise average worker salaries in any meaningful way. CEO pay "justification" should hinge on the scope of their work in the context of increasing shareholder value.

If you were to argue that shareholders are too passive and should do a better job hiring a board of directors that puts their interests first....

 

[RDU Irish]

Kobe Bryant should give his salary to concession workers, ushers and parking attendants.

Tom Cruise should give his pay to key grips and stunt men.

Do you have the same vehement distaste for "over-compensated" actors and athletes? I can at least appreciate that CEOs are doing real work that creates jobs versus those clowns. Towns and states subsidize venues so teams make more money and increase pay to athletes rather than cut ticket prices or pay behind scenes workers more.

 

[GoIrish41]

Kobe Bryant should give his salary to concession workers, ushers and parking attendants.

Tom Cruise should give his pay to key grips and stunt men.

Do you have the same vehement distaste for "over-compensated" actors and athletes? I can at least appreciate that CEOs are doing real work that creates jobs versus those clowns. Towns and states subsidize venues so teams make more money and increase pay to athletes rather than cut ticket prices or pay behind scenes workers more.

Yes.

 

[IrishLax]

WalMart's founder, Sam Walton, died in 1992 and he divided the ownership of the company prior to his death among his wife and their 4 children. Those five beneficiaries instantly became five of the 10 richest individuals in the world -- not because they worked harder than those who toil in their stores, but because the riduculous wealth accumulated by the founder of the company was passed on to them. Meanwhile, people who work in their stores can't feed their families. It has absolutely nothing to do with class envy, and it is just insulting for you to suggest that anyone who recognizes the inherent lack of humanity in this is just jealous. What it does have to do with is fairness. All of those with means profit from the wild success of the company -- those who inherited the bulk of the shares, the stockholders who invest in the company, even the consumers who buy the cheap clothing produced by children in miserable conditions in 3rd world countries -- have done no work to make the company successful, outside of senior management. The only people who don't get to benefit from the prosperity of the company are those who actually made it happen -- the employees -- because in most cases they were not financially positioned to invest. And, thanks to their low wages they probably never will be. Sounds like a pretty exploitive business model to me, but I guess that is just my jealous nature coming out.

Frankly, that's exactly how this paragraph reads. You sound like someone who is jealous they don't have an inheritance and have to work for everything you'll get.

This paragraph is nothing more than one giant complaint about "fairness." And anyone with even a cursory understanding of philosophy and psychology can tell you that "fair" is a completely subjective concept.

I can only speak for myself, I'd be much more interested to read and discuss your pragmatic solutions to this perceived problem (i.e. an increase in minimum wage or whatever else you can think of).

 

[GoIrish41]

It is pointing out how ridiculous it is to say cutting CEO pay could somehow raise average worker salaries in any meaningful way. CEO pay "justification" should hinge on the scope of their work in the context of increasing shareholder value.

If you were to argue that shareholders are too passive and should do a better job hiring a board of directors that puts their interests first....

At Apple, for example, there are 47,000 employees. The CEO made $378 million last year. Half of the CEO's salary would give the other 47,000 employees a $4k raise. That isn't insignificant ... nor is compensation of $189 million a year for one person.

WalMart made $23 billion last year. Maybe the CEO salary wouldn't make a dent because they have soooo many employees being undervalued that the simple division reveals a low number, but again, they made $23 BILLION last year. The Walton heirs to WalMart have more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of the populatiion in this country. It is insane that they can't pay their employees enough to stay off of public assistance. Nobody expects them to pay their employees $75k a year, just enough to live on.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

...You sound like someone who is jealous they don't have an inheritance and have to surf the internet for everything you'll get...

Fixed. I think it may be time that us regulars on here are honest with ourselves and how hard we "work". Myself included.

 

[GoIrish41]

Frankly, that's exactly how this paragraph reads. You sound like someone who is jealous they don't have an inheritance and have to work for everything you'll get.

This paragraph is nothing more than one giant whiny complaint about "fairness." And anyone with even a cursory understanding of philosophy and psychology can tell you that "fair" is a completely subjective concept.

I can only speak for myself, I'd be much more interested to read and discuss your pragmatic solutions to this perceived problem (i.e. an increase in minimum wage or whatever else you can think of).

I didn't realiize a desire for fairness was a weakness. My bad. And thanks for doubling down when I suggested that the original comment was insulting. That shows a lot of class and tact. This topic has been discussed at length throughout this thread -- feel free to go back through the thousands of posts to find my thoughts on any number of topics including minimum wage reform and a wide variety of others. If you cannot have a conversation without being deliberately insulting, I don't care to have a discussion with you.

 

[Ndaccountant]

At Apple, for example, there are 47,000 employees. The CEO made $378 million last year. Half of the CEO's salary would give the other 47,000 employees a $4k raise. That isn't insignificant ... nor is compensation of $189 million a year for one person.

WalMart made $23 billion last year. Maybe the CEO salary wouldn't make a dent because they have soooo many employees being undervalued that the simple division reveals a low number, but again, they made $23 BILLION last year. The Walton heirs to WalMart have more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of the populatiion in this country. It is insane that they can't pay their employees enough to stay off of public assistance. Nobody expects them to pay their employees $75k a year, just enough to live on.

First, thank you for the reps and the comment with it.

The $378M is incredibly deceiving.

First, that was a restricted stock grant of 1M shares in 2011. Half vest in 2016 and the rest in 2021. So, he has not seen a dime of that money yet (Though even over 10 years, it's a hefty stock grant). For a point of reference, he made under $5M in 2013. To be fair, Apple has been awarding large stock grants to higher management as a retention tool, which creates significant variances in year to year compensation.

 

[GoIrish41]

First, thank you for the reps and the comment with it.

The $378M is incredibly deceiving.

First, that was a restricted stock grant of 1M shares in 2011. Half vest in 2016 and the rest in 2021. So, he has not seen a dime of that money yet (Though even over 10 years, it's a hefty stock grant). For a point of reference, he made under $5M in 2013. To be fair, Apple has been awarding large stock grants to higher management as a retention tool, which creates significant variances in year to year compensation.

Whether it is paid today or five or 10 years from now, it is still compensation that has significant financial value, no? If he doesn't make that next year is really beside the point in my opiinion. I think the point is this: Large companies by and large do not value their employees. When they shower their CEO's with such retention bonuses, it makes their low pay for their average employees even more striking. And when the current CEO says things like this ...

“Some people took those jobs because they were the only ones available and haven’t been able to figure out how to move out of that,” Bill Simon, CEO of Walmart U.S., acknowledged in an interview with The Associated Press.

If Walmart employees can go to another company and another job and make more money and develop, they’ll be better,” Simon explained. “It’ll be better for the economy. It’ll be better for us as a business, to be quite honest, because they’ll continue to advance in their economic life.”

... he acknowledges that there is not a long-term home at Walmart for current employees and they have little value. It demonstrates that they have no intention of ever paying their employees a fair wage. Essentially, he is saying, "fuck 'em, we'll just hire the next desperate sucker willing to accept crappy wages."

 

[IrishLax]

I didn't realiize a desire for fairness was a weakness. My bad.

You still simply cannot grasp that "fairness" is a fundamentally subjective concept and accordingly can never be achieved.

And thanks for doubling down when I suggested that the original comment was insulting. That shows a lot of class and tact. This topic has been discussed at length throughout this thread -- feel free to go back through the thousands of posts to find my thoughts on any number of topics including minimum wage reform and a wide variety of others. If you cannot have a conversation without being deliberately insulting, I don't care to have a discussion with you.

Just calling it how it is. Your post screamed jealously of the Walmart heirs, and your posting in general screams jealously of anyone given a leg up by being born into a family where someone's hard work or good fortune gives them a leg up. Don't know how this is insulting, it's a more a critique of the content of the paragraph I quoted.

Towards employee compensation, the attitude you're expressing is endemic of non-military, non-law enforcement government employees I've encountered. Most of them expect the world to be run like the government where the gap between GS-1 and GS-15 is minuscule relative to the equivalent difference in corporate America.* We've had this discussion quite a bit in my family between people who fall on different sides of the fence, and it's an interesting topic. There's not a simple solution because the concept of what is "fair" and "good" varies ostensibly person to person.

*There are others that think pay grades and a lack incentives aren't fair because they don't reward the best workers, especially since so many promotions are entirely political because there isn't a "bottom line" being worried about.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

This CEO conversation is always a little ridiculous. Imagine, for example, we had to hire someone to save the world from an asteroid. The country would pay that person a billion dollars if they demanded it.

But you'd be an idiot to say that if they get paid a billion dollars, a janitor should get paid a million dollars, since "there's no way saving the world is 1,000 harder than being a janitor! The guy saving the world doesn't work 1,000 harder!"

The two are totally unrelated. They're both in different roles adding different values to the person paying them. There's absolutely no reason to link the two other than class warfare.