06-04-2014 08:52 PM
39 12
tools
  1. Mooncatt's Avatar
    What are the values used for number of employees and the salaries/retirement plan?
    I'm not sure how to link to a specific post, but in my post (#56) in the thread about the Switzerland potential minimum wage, I laid out the full example. I used 750,000 employees (best I could assume from the info I could find), and an article that reported the current CEO's sallary plus the retired CEO's McDonald's funded retirement combined at $41.5M in 2012. I broke that down into what it'd be per hour for a standard 40 hour week and divided into the employees.

    http://www.irle.berkeley.edu/events/...ages_graph.gif

    We've all seen this chart enough to question demanding more productivity in order to see stagnation begin to catch up to the already realized gains. Obviously now that it's this out of whack, a compromised reconciliation is required, but asking people to continue to do much more for no return is not working now, why would that change if they started doing much much more for no return?

    The market is a partnership and if it were free, you're right - it would find it's own balance. But it's not free, one side makes the rules and reaps all of the benefits while one side (approximately 60% of the country) gets either no gain or goes backwards in their spending power vs inflationary constraints.

    That isn't to say that quality of living from a technological interaction and resource abundance quotient perspective hasn't improved, but those improvements have absolutely not caught up with the gains realized by the recipients of productivity - the relationship is already one sided and you seem to be recommending to make it more so in the hopes that once it gets one sided enough that the receivers will feel suddenly feel thankful and reward the givers for their generosity of so many years.
    I already addressed that I think there are other issues surrounding this, in that it's simply more expensive to do business every day. You could also factor in the world economy where we're now competing with other countries for customers of our businesses, so that means even more cuts have to be made somewhere.Those are things that are not easily elieviated, and in these discussions, we've generally been talking about the bottom end of wage earners. If you're already highly trained at something, there may not be much more you can do to be productive. If you're just flipping burgers, there's a whole world of careers you could put yourself into if you wanted and work your way up to a lot better place than you are now.
    06-03-2014 06:56 PM
  2. Mooncatt's Avatar
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/19/bu...anted=all&_r=0 (emphasis below is mine)

    By itself, the change in the tax law did not cause the housing bubble, economists say. Several other factors — a relaxation of lending standards, a failure by regulators to intervene, a sharp decline in interest rates and a collective belief that house prices could never fall — probably played larger roles.
    The NY Time's is a left leaning outlet that can't be trusted to give non-biased stories.

    (Since this seems to be a valid debate winning point by the left )
    06-03-2014 06:58 PM
  3. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    The NY Time's is a left leaning outlet that can't be trusted to give non-biased stories.

    (Since this seems to be a valid debate winning point by the left )
    Uh, they sited Bill Clinton as the tipping point in a key policy decision that was a factor in the crash.

    Wondering if you read the article.

    Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk
    06-03-2014 07:01 PM
  4. rexxman's Avatar
    If the owner(s)/board of directors of a company are OK with that gap, then they are. I don't see why we blame the ceo's for it.

    Extremely high ceo pay is a very American idea. Places like Japan do not pay theirs nearly as much. There has been several comparisons to America auto ceo's to Japanese auto ceo's in the past.
    The CEOs and BODs are a very cushy group. You will normally find that BODs are usually made up of CEOs from other companies and vice versa. Not in every case but enough.

    Posted via Android Central App
    06-03-2014 07:03 PM
  5. Mooncatt's Avatar
    Uh, they sited Bill Clinton as the tipping point in a key policy decision that was a factor in the crash.

    Wondering if you read the article.
    I didn't read that specific one, no, but I have read similar ones in the past. I was be faciecious after a couple of other users used that exact excuse when I post an article or two not long ago. Instead of debating the points, they seemed to think labeling something as right wing biased was good enough to dissmiss everything about it and was a defacto win for their side of the arguement. I figured what's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?

    Honestly, I just don't have the time to read it right now, but I may go back later. Sufice it to say, it's another of those issues with many causes.
    06-03-2014 07:20 PM
  6. Aquila's Avatar
    I'm not sure how to link to a specific post, but in my post (#56) in the thread about the Switzerland potential minimum wage, I laid out the full example. I used 750,000 employees (best I could assume from the info I could find), and an article that reported the current CEO's sallary plus the retired CEO's McDonald's funded retirement combined at $41.5M in 2012. I broke that down into what it'd be per hour for a standard 40 hour week and divided into the employees.
    Okay, it wouldn't make much of a difference to the main point, but I'd scale the # of employees down significantly. McDonald's claims to have 1.9 million employees but that includes franchises that equate to at least 80% of the workforce and they'd be unrelated to the corporate entity so we'd max at around 380,000 or around half of the number of employees. Corporate employees will also be disproportionately professionals compared to the franchise business model, further reducing the 380,000 impacted by minimum wage reforms, etc. Then all of the articles that came up when trying to find figures for their income described massive raises in 2013 (iirc the current CEO went from around 8 million to almost 30 million) and so our numerator may be significantly deflated. Finally, a 40 hour work week or 2080 hours is too aggressive for the modifier given the disproportionate volume of part time workers who will receive around 20 hours per week with a cap of 30 hours per week. This keeps them ineligible for most benefits, which could easily cost an owner or the corporation nearly as much as their actual wages to support. I'd recommend using 1040 for that value. So if we have roughly half the workforce working half the hours and twice the revenue divided among those hours, 2^3=8, .03*8 = $.24 assuming that the $.03 per hour was correct - we''d be looking at an average raise of $0.24/hr per employee.

    Again, it doesn't change the larger point that it's not a lot of money and I agree that it wouldn't help to pay the leadership nothing to only increase annual income by $250-500 per employee, the relative values of productivity:income are still applicable when discussing income inequality. Obviously the solution isn't to take from one person to give to another; theft is unethical in just about every situation. But reexamining our own assumptions about how much a person's time and energy ought to be worth is totally fine. I get that people think flipping burgers is brianless work but we almost need to pick one extreme or the other and stick with it - either it require's a person (human being) to invest their time and energy in it - in which case they should be compensated for their contribution.... or it doesn't, in which case we should automate the processes fully and free that person up to do something more productive.
    06-04-2014 01:35 AM
  7. Mooncatt's Avatar
    I figured you'd reply to that example at some point and be able to break it down further. Granted, we could argue which numbers to use (like weekly hours or how to consider franchise workers), but you're right that it doesn't matter when the raise would be so low no matter how you slice it. Though I'm going to add a third option to your last point instead of going to extremes.

    I'm of the belief that the vast majority of low wage jobs serve a propose in that they allow new job entrants (I.e. teens and others with little employment history) a place to start and learn the ropes of being employed. If you pay them the mythical "living wage" for simply being there, then you'll price them out of a job. If you replace them with machines, then these people will have no safe, for lack of a better term, place to learn those skills. You'd have people with no customer relation skills, no real job knowledge, and no sense of what it's like to be employed coming in as management and the like. That's simply too much to ask for and would jeopardize the company due to their mistakes, lack of dependability, treating customers badly, etc. Management is there to help hone those skills (the good ones anyway), not to learn those skills themselves.

    That's part of why I have no problem with most of these jobs as they exist today. What else would you do? Have special schooling for everyone before they can get a job, even if it's not a trade skill?
    06-04-2014 02:27 AM
  8. NoYankees44's Avatar
    http://www.irle.berkeley.edu/events/...ages_graph.gif

    We've all seen this chart enough to question demanding more productivity in order to see stagnation begin to catch up to the already realized gains. Obviously now that it's this out of whack, a compromised reconciliation is required, but asking people to continue to do much more for no return is not working now, why would that change if they started doing much much more for no return?

    The market is a partnership and if it were free, you're right - it would find it's own balance. But it's not free, one side makes the rules and reaps all of the benefits while one side (approximately 60% of the country) gets either no gain or goes backwards in their spending power vs inflationary constraints.

    That isn't to say that quality of living from a technological interaction and resource abundance quotient perspective hasn't improved, but those improvements have absolutely not caught up with the gains realized by the recipients of productivity - the relationship is already one sided and you seem to be recommending to make it more so in the hopes that once it gets one sided enough that the receivers will feel suddenly feel thankful and reward the givers for their generosity of so many years.
    All the times I seen this graph and other similar metrics, I have never found the answer to this question: How is "Productivity" defined and determined?
    06-04-2014 07:19 AM
  9. nolittdroid's Avatar
    With the wealth gap growing, the time will come whem we don't have a middle class...just the wealthy and poor. The unfortunate losers will be the kids and the cycle will continue....I mean it pretty has already, hasn't it? Why do the Koch brothers have more voting power than I do? Because they have a lot more money and can afford to buy off politicians. Which is despicable but both parties are exactly the same, no matter what Harry Reid thinks.

    Sent from my SCH-I535 using AC Forums mobile app
    06-04-2014 07:41 AM
  10. Timelessblur's Avatar
    Have not gotten to watch yet and wont for a few days, but a few tid bits for discussion:

    1. When the economy is weak, the income gap grows. When the economy is strong, the gap narrows. Fix the economy and you will more than likely mitigate a significant portion of the problem.

    2. To say "the top has too much" imply that there is a finite amount of wealth in the country. There is not a set amount of wealth.

    3. The value of labor often gets ignored in these conversations. Skill-less labor will one day soon be dead to this country and eventually to the world. The closer it comes do death, the less value it will have. People making themselves more valuable will be the only way that they can honestly demand more pay. Demanding more pay without more value artificially inflates wages and causes issues for both business and individuals.

    4. Fixing the education systems in this country and demanding that our citizens develop valuable skills, trades, work ethic, and creative thinking habits is the only way to truly raise the median wage. In the global market we now live in, we cannot compete for low skill jobs while also raising the quality of life. Places like China and Mexico will always win. We do not live in the world of 50+ years ago where shipping across an ocean was costed more than 50 cent an hour labor saved. Our citizens have to become workers with value and education that lead the world with intelligence and creativity instead of mindless button pushers or part loaders in a factory.
    Just going to point out that your argument 1 flaw. It does not work.
    Unless you want to explain the massive and I mean massive gap that has been growing since the 80's unless you want to say the economy has been crap since the 80.

    That is a bs arguments you used as history shows otherwise.

    The gap grows faster during bad times but almost always growing. Things need to change. We need to shink the wealth gap.


    Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
    06-04-2014 07:59 AM
  11. anon8126715's Avatar
    The American Dream is out of reach - Jun. 4, 2014 Sounds about right. Granted, we did it to ourselves with voting in the wrong people, allowing all that money to permeate our electoral system, and most importantly, letting special interest groups twist and manipulate policy that benefits them and does nothing for the majority.
    06-04-2014 08:35 AM
  12. Aquila's Avatar
    That's part of why I have no problem with most of these jobs as they exist today. What else would you do? Have special schooling for everyone before they can get a job, even if it's not a trade skill?
    I'm totally comfortable with a different paradigm of where humans don't derive meaning from "hard work" but rather from personal investment and craftsmanship, for lack of a better term. I get no benefit from the fact that a human presses a button instead of a machine pressing it or there being no button, etc. I don't believe in the sustainability of scarcity based economics and would love to see them evolve into something that allows for abundance without requiring concept slavery. If a person is happy sitting on their couch and playing video games all day, I couldn't care less. That's them, I'm not. I don't feel they should be punished for working more or less than I do.

    I don't find reward in being given money for working more. I find rewards in creating a quality project and by being able to help my employees professionally and personally grow. That's me; I'm broken. I'm not monetarily motivated. If you give me $100 to do something I was about to do anyways, I probably won't do it. My time is worth more than money - even a lot of it - and as long as I have enough to cover whatever it is that I want to do, I don't concern myself with how much I make or spend, etc. My habits are fairly modest and I have trouble comprehending people that do things they don't want to do in exchange for money. It seems like a contradiction.

    In our current paradigm they're dangerous because if everyone did that everyone would starve.... but if we stopped forcing ourselves to be dependent on human "work" and to instead focus on the deliverable functions and let go of the archaic methodology, then a lot of assumptions become meaningless and we're left with a lot of freedom to figure out what human meaning is. Just like most of us agree that many or most people don't need a 4 year degree.... I don't think many or most people need to function in order for everyone to have a high quality of life. It's not zero sum.

    Think about it. How would you spend your time if your material quality of life wasn't dependent upon you trading your time for food, shelter, etc? I'd still be productive but it probably wouldn't be as a manager or in this industry. Obviously we need to have some task association to define roles we portray and we need to find those tasks worthy of our time in order to find fulfillment. Nothing says it has to be in exchange for food or that the value or quality of anything has to do with how hard you "worked" for it.

    If wages kept up with productivity and we normalized for inflation, in order to keep our current standard of living we ought to all be working about a 7 hour work week. But most of us are working 40+ if not 60+ and for far less in apples to apples currency conversion. It's not the same comparison because in the 70's you couldn't buy an Android phone or 5 TV's for one room or have anything shipped to your door for free the next morning. It is a different world and we in the US generally ought not complain about quality of life... but even here there are giant populations of abject poverty and every politician who professes to defend the "middle class" should hang their heads in shame - yet they crow!

    The idea that anyone anywhere is living in involuntary squalor is just simply insanity. We have no shortage of resources except for one: the will to act in defense of the most basic of human needs for all persons. As time goes on those standards should rise for all humans. Why are those standards getting worse in most of the world while a select few consolidate their empire? Why do we tolerate any of this illusion of scarcity and the culture of fear it promotes? We shouldn't act this stupid - or if we're going to, we ought to cease complaining about getting trampled on. But even if people are acting stupid, it doesn't lessen the immorality of exploiting them.

    The "market" is, in my estimation, supposed to be a partnership - where you and I agree on a price for a good or service and trade free of other influences except the market. If the value to me is better from buying from your friend, sorry for your luck. But that value isn't just numerical, there are also ethical, relational, indirect and deferred costs and benefits to consider in value. The market, in purity, isn't supposed to be about "getting one over on" people, cheating or exploiting desperation. That's not mutually beneficial and it's a definition of no kind of true partnership. That's the macro, on a micro level of course some people win and some people lose - but the intent matters. Finding the best VALUE is the intent, or it was or maybe I misunderstood the point all along.
    toober and oz123 like this.
    06-04-2014 07:08 PM
  13. anon8126715's Avatar
    I'm totally comfortable with a different paradigm of where humans don't derive meaning from "hard work" but rather from personal investment and craftsmanship, for lack of a better term. I get no benefit from the fact that a human presses a button instead of a machine pressing it or there being no button, etc. I don't believe in the sustainability of scarcity based economics and would love to see them evolve into something that allows for abundance without requiring concept slavery. If a person is happy sitting on their couch and playing video games all day, I couldn't care less. That's them, I'm not. I don't feel they should be punished for working more or less than I do.

    I don't find reward in being given money for working more. I find rewards in creating a quality project and by being able to help my employees professionally and personally grow. That's me; I'm broken. I'm not monetarily motivated. If you give me $100 to do something I was about to do anyways, I probably won't do it. My time is worth more than money - even a lot of it - and as long as I have enough to cover whatever it is that I want to do, I don't concern myself with how much I make or spend, etc. My habits are fairly modest and I have trouble comprehending people that do things they don't want to do in exchange for money. It seems like a contradiction.

    In our current paradigm they're dangerous because if everyone did that everyone would starve.... but if we stopped forcing ourselves to be dependent on human "work" and to instead focus on the deliverable functions and let go of the archaic methodology, then a lot of assumptions become meaningless and we're left with a lot of freedom to figure out what human meaning is. Just like most of us agree that many or most people don't need a 4 year degree.... I don't think many or most people need to function in order for everyone to have a high quality of life. It's not zero sum.

    Think about it. How would you spend your time if your material quality of life wasn't dependent upon you trading your time for food, shelter, etc? I'd still be productive but it probably wouldn't be as a manager or in this industry. Obviously we need to have some task association to define roles we portray and we need to find those tasks worthy of our time in order to find fulfillment. Nothing says it has to be in exchange for food or that the value or quality of anything has to do with how hard you "worked" for it.

    If wages kept up with productivity and we normalized for inflation, in order to keep our current standard of living we ought to all be working about a 7 hour work week. But most of us are working 40+ if not 60+ and for far less in apples to apples currency conversion. It's not the same comparison because in the 70's you couldn't buy an Android phone or 5 TV's for one room or have anything shipped to your door for free the next morning. It is a different world and we in the US generally ought not complain about quality of life... but even here there are giant populations of abject poverty and every politician who professes to defend the "middle class" should hang their heads in shame - yet they crow!

    The idea that anyone anywhere is living in involuntary squalor is just simply insanity. We have no shortage of resources except for one: the will to act in defense of the most basic of human needs for all persons. As time goes on those standards should rise for all humans. Why are those standards getting worse in most of the world while a select few consolidate their empire? Why do we tolerate any of this illusion of scarcity and the culture of fear it promotes? We shouldn't act this stupid - or if we're going to, we ought to cease complaining about getting trampled on. But even if people are acting stupid, it doesn't lessen the immorality of exploiting them.

    The "market" is, in my estimation, supposed to be a partnership - where you and I agree on a price for a good or service and trade free of other influences except the market. If the value to me is better from buying from your friend, sorry for your luck. But that value isn't just numerical, there are also ethical, relational, indirect and deferred costs and benefits to consider in value. The market, in purity, isn't supposed to be about "getting one over on" people, cheating or exploiting desperation. That's not mutually beneficial and it's a definition of no kind of true partnership. That's the macro, on a micro level of course some people win and some people lose - but the intent matters. Finding the best VALUE is the intent, or it was or maybe I misunderstood the point all along.
    Eloquently said. As I mentioned in another thread, if we're going to come to an agreement that someone putting in an honest week's worth of work as a "burger flipper" doesn't deserve to at least earn enough to support themselves then eventually we're going to have to ask ourselves what other professions can we marginalize? Driving a truck for a living may as well be the next profession that's targeted as IMO something as simple as directing a large vehicle through the U.S. highway system can be completely automated in the next few years. Hell, my profession involves me diagnosing computer hardware/software and making necessary changes to computer servers/clients, running diagnostic software, which can all be automated via varying software like MIcrosoft's "Fix it". I remember several years ago I used to go to my local gym and got to know a pilot for American Airlines that was easily pulling in $200,000 a year and had crazy amounts of leisure time. Even by today's standards it was good money, but back in the late 90s, even more so. A quick google search shows that pilots are compensated at "bus driver" type rates ($30,000 1st year pilots). What's even more frightening is how many of these pilots are flying fatigued. Why such a drastic change? I dare not look down my nose at some of these fast food employees just for the simple fact that they're putting in their time. It's both demeaning and immoral for me to insist that they shouldn't at least be afforded a decent living considering the alternatives (a life of crime for instance).
    06-04-2014 08:32 PM
  14. palandri's Avatar
    If you are just looking at the base salary of the CEO of McDonald's, you're missing the biggest part, the benefit package that they use to hide everything else, so it doesn't show up as taxable income.
    06-04-2014 08:52 PM
39 12

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-29-2014, 10:17 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-28-2014, 02:27 PM
  3. [FREE] Waves Incoming! v.1.0.1
    By Kordgorn in forum Android Games
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-25-2014, 03:55 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-21-2014, 10:56 AM
  5. Sprint Galaxy S5 Incoming Calls Wouldn't Work On LTE
    By GoreJak in forum Samsung Galaxy S5
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-20-2014, 05:11 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD