10 Dec 13
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThe social security payroll tax decreases the employee's income. The OP wants to increase employee income by increasing the minimum wage.
What does the type (in effect, just the name since a payroll tax is completely equivalent to an income tax) of taxation have to do with either a minimum wage or Social Security benefits?
10 Dec 13
Originally posted by bill718You make a good point about the overpaid executives. Never thought about that.
Too all those out there who think raising the minimum wage is a bad idea, consider this. While the minimum wage has slowly climbed in the last few decades (amid the whailings of multi billion dollar companies who claim they can't afford it) executive pay, even for medium sized business's has gone up much faster. This begs a few questions:
1. Are these exe ...[text shortened]... w.faireconomy.org/news/ceo_pay_charts
http://www.verisi.com/resources/us-ceo-compensation.htm
11 Dec 13
Originally posted by KazetNagorraBoth the FICA tax, and the minimum wage bestow a blessing on the worker at the expense of the employer, making government look good. In both cases the costs are separated from the benefits, just as any good con man does.
What does the type (in effect, just the name since a payroll tax is completely equivalent to an income tax) of taxation have to do with either a minimum wage or Social Security benefits?
Finally, in both cases the government doesn't calculate the cost, or worry about it at all, as it doesn't about any spending item in the budget.
11 Dec 13
Originally posted by vivifyLet's for a moment presume that the executives are overpaid. That is, any shlub off the street could do their job as well or better. That means the company is overpaying, and is endangering its profitable future. In many cases this appears to be true, as the concerns are debt zombies, and will eventually go belly up, waiting for the next government bailout.
You make a good point about the overpaid executives. Never thought about that.
However, what about the executive that seems to perform miracles? Alan Mullaly at Ford, Lee Iacoca at Chrysler, Jack Welch at GE. What if to save money the company had hired someone for a tenth the money, and the company failed? Then where are the workers? We basically only hear about executives of the top tier international companies, not even of the fortune 500.
Bill runs a concern employing 3 workers, and thinks he knows how to run a concern that may employ a million, or millions.
11 Dec 13
1 edit
Originally posted by normbenignNo norm, I didn't suggest I know how to manage a company employing millions, again, you're straying off topic, but since you brought it up...what do you run norm?? Do you work for "the man" every night and day, or do write the paychecks? Its a lot different when you're sitting on the other side of the desk like I am!
Let's for a moment presume that the executives are overpaid. That is, any shlub off the street could do their job as well or better. That means the company is overpaying, and is endangering its profitable future. In many cases this appears to be true, as the concerns are debt zombies, and will eventually go belly up, waiting for the next government bai ...[text shortened]... ying 3 workers, and thinks he knows how to run a concern that may employ a million, or millions.
11 Dec 13
Originally posted by bill718I've been middle management, commissioned sales person, independent contractor. I'm now retired, meaning tired once again.
No norm, I didn't suggest I know how to manage a company employing millions, again, you're straying off topic, but since you brought it up...what do you run norm?? Do you work for "the man" every night and day, or do write the paychecks? Its a lot different when you're sitting on the other side of the desk like I am!
I respect that you do hire workers, and pay them decently, but that doesn't make the rate you pay right for every job on the ladder. I seriously doubt any of your employees would consider taking a job at Mickey Ds if yours ran out.
12 Dec 13
Originally posted by normbenignAnother good point. Although, who was it that voted to give themselves raises with bailout money, even though their failures brought about the need for a bailout? I bring that up only because I'm sure we can find just as many examples of people who don't deserve their outrageous salaries.
Let's for a moment presume that the executives are overpaid. That is, any shlub off the street could do their job as well or better. That means the company is overpaying, and is endangering its profitable future. In many cases this appears to be true, as the concerns are debt zombies, and will eventually go belly up, waiting for the next government bai ...[text shortened]... ying 3 workers, and thinks he knows how to run a concern that may employ a million, or millions.
12 Dec 13
Originally posted by normbenignI don't think "anyone" could do the job better than, say, a Kenneth Lay. But surely quite many could for much less money. Now certainly not all CEOs are as bad as Kenneth Lay, but many are incompetent if not also corrupt. A Rick Wagoner (nomen est omen?) comes to mind.
Let's for a moment presume that the executives are overpaid. That is, any shlub off the street could do their job as well or better. That means the company is overpaying, and is endangering its profitable future. In many cases this appears to be true, as the concerns are debt zombies, and will eventually go belly up, waiting for the next government bai ...[text shortened]... ying 3 workers, and thinks he knows how to run a concern that may employ a million, or millions.
13 Dec 13
Originally posted by bill718Of course they can afford it, and they're sitting on enormous amounts of wealth. They just enjoy exploiting workers and ripping the guts out of them if they can get away with it. Lots of people once enjoyed owning slaves. It's easier to send unskilled work (such as Nike factory work) overseas, than to do the same to a CEO; plus the CEO makes a lot of the decisions, for personal benefit. A CEO doesn't have the best interests of the corporation at heart, and that's a moral hazard. There's no excuse not to regulate corporations so they can't do this stuff. IMO a corporation is FAR too big if it exists in more than one country, thus making it harder for a single government to regulate it.
Too all those out there who think raising the minimum wage is a bad idea, consider this. While the minimum wage has slowly climbed in the last few decades (amid the whailings of multi billion dollar companies who claim they can't afford it) executive pay, even for medium sized business's has gone up much faster. This begs a few questions:
1. Are these exe ...[text shortened]... w.faireconomy.org/news/ceo_pay_charts
http://www.verisi.com/resources/us-ceo-compensation.htm
14 Dec 13
Originally posted by karnachzSurely it wouldn't be practical for a country like Liechtenstein to have it own car manufacturing, clothing production etc.?
Of course they can afford it, and they're sitting on enormous amounts of wealth. They just enjoy exploiting workers and ripping the guts out of them if they can get away with it. Lots of people once enjoyed owning slaves. It's easier to send unskilled work (such as Nike factory work) overseas, than to do the same to a CEO; plus the CEO makes a lot of the de ...[text shortened]... t exists in more than one country, thus making it harder for a single government to regulate it.