Those unions watching out for their workers...

kermit said:

Agreed, but how you have defended the execs making far more. The line workers are not responsible for coming up with new products that keep up with changing market demands. That job is up to the company execs. Due to their failure to do so all the employees are without jobs. While the company was circling the drain, rather than work to revamp their product offerings, the execs chose to grant themselve lavish (by any standard) raises. That you refuse to a) call the execs out for running the company into the ground and b) criticize them for lavishly rewarding their own faillure is very telling.

Click to expand...

The workers are without jobs because they refused to work

mathetes123 said:

How would you determine the wages for hostess such that they are "fair" In your mind?

Click to expand...

But this was not my question, as I have never claimed that a CEO receiving 200-300x more in income than the lowest paid employee was "fair".

I want to know why this phenomenon is "fair", and I want to know how Christians can claim that "the market" is fair/just (which elevates the market to the status of God).

Assyrian said:

Perhaps the Republicans will learn not to leave so many minorities in desperation.

Click to expand...

Straw man

MachZer0 said:

The workers are without jobs because they refused to work

Click to expand...

One can only come to that conclusion if one has failed to familiarize oneself with the actual facts of the matter.

Thekla said:

And had everyone, regardless of the amount of time worked or skill set, receiving and equal and generous wage above their skill set.

Click to expand...

They all worked the same job. Those who agreed to their wages felt they were not paid a fair wage only after they found out others were paid more. The parable made it clear that the owner owned the jobs and it was his prerogative to pay others more out of what belonged to him and that those disgruntled workers had no reason to complain as they were paid what they mutually agreed to.

Btw they were not all paid the same as some worked more hours than others.

mathetes123 said:

Your socialist/Marxist president is managing quite well maintaining a high rate of unemployment and is pushing for more taxes for all (not just the rich) to add to those numbers as we move closer toward another recession. The lower wages are a function of a poorly performing economy, yet you would not think to blame the current administration. Instead you reward the administration by voting them back in office as a reward for the fine job they have done on the economy. You would prefer to demonize those that actually create the jobs, killing the goose that laid the golden eggs.

Click to expand...

Corporate profits are at an all time high, as are executive salaries (and somehow justifiably so, from people such as yourself), yet workers lowered wages are the result (hint: they're part of the cause, not the result).

The goose ain't laying any golden eggs. The corporate gooses are continuing to lay eggs, but all that are being offered to the workers are spoiled eggs.

Thekla said:

I asked how a fair wage is set - the answer has been "the market".
Demand and supply are part of "the market".

Click to expand...

My answer has been that the fair wage is set by mutual agreement

How much more valuable ?

Click to expand...

That varies by each company and is determined by negotiation between those that set the wage and those that perform the services.

Thekla said:

But this was not my question, as I have never claimed that a CEO receiving 200-300x more in income than the lowest paid employee was "fair".

I want to know why this phenomenon is "fair", and I want to know how Christians can claim that "the market" is fair/just (which elevates the market to the status of God).

Click to expand...

We have explained how it is fair. This is now the third time I am asking you to state how you would determine what a "fair" wage is. Are you avoiding the question?

Thekla said:

One can only come to that conclusion if one has failed to familiarize oneself with the actual facts of the matter.

Click to expand...

Really? The workers went on strike (refused to work) and were told that if they did not return immediately the company would be forced to liquidate. They refused to return (refused to work) and just as they were told, the company was forced into liquidation.

MachZer0 said:

Again, I don't know where you came up with that concept

CEO's have skill sets that are harder to find than say the skill sets required to drive a truck. That makes them more valuable as far as salary goes.

Click to expand...

And their skill sets are not any harder to find than some PHD fields, or specialized medicine, yet, their compensation is well above that of those other fields. You haven't been able to provide anything remotely substantive to support the assertion that CEOs wages are fair in the context of the free market.

whatbogsends said:

You didn't finish your last sentence:

As they invest their time in education and training and gain experience in more specialized fields that are in high demand, where they are competing with a smaller work force, wages will increase proportionately, until such time as one enters the circle of executive management, where wages are increased disproportionately to skill and experience.

Fixed it for you.

Click to expand...

Define disproportionate? How would you determine what a fair wage if not determined by free market forces of supply and demand?

MachZer0 said:

My answer has been that the fair wage is set by mutual agreement

Click to expand...

A mutual agreement between the CEO who is being hired and the Board of Directors who are, themselves, CEO's of other companies in many cases. In addition the numbers are set by a committee often made up in part by people who will report to the CEO who is hired.

Imagine if you could remind your boss that you worked to get him a couple million dollars a year in income?

Further: when Joe CEO is hired he will probably sit on the Board of some company where his buddy Jane CEO helped set his pay.

This isn't a "market" based decision. This is pure CRONY CAPITALISM at it's worst.

This is about as CRONY as CRONY can be.

That varies by each company and is determined by negotiation between those that set the wage and those that perform the services.

Click to expand...

So why don't I, the person who is most directly impacted by the CEO's decisions have a say in CEO hiring? Until the "Say for Pay" rules get taken up seriously by all companies even the shareholders "desires" are not necessarily able to overrule the Board.

Again, how is this "market"?

whatbogsends said:

And their skill sets are not any harder to find than some PHD fields, or specialized medicine, yet, their compensation is well above that of those other fields. You haven't been able to provide anything remotely substantive to support the assertion that CEOs wages are fair in the context of the free market.

Click to expand...

Sure I have. the service they provide is deemed as valuable to the company contracting for that service. They negotiate the salary and reach a mutual agreement. That is fair.

If you hire someone to paint your house and they organize a union in your front yard and go on strike how much should you make a year at your job? Anyone know of any good home cures for schizophrenia?

TeddyReceptus said:

A mutual agreement between the CEO who is being hired and the Board of Directors who are, themselves, CEO's of other companies in many cases. In addition the numbers are set by a committee often made up in part by people who will report to the CEO who is hired.

Imagine if you could remind your boss that you worked to get him a couple million dollars a year in income?

Further: when Joe CEO is hired he will probably sit on the Board of some company where his buddy Jane CEO helped set his pay.

This isn't a "market" based decision. This is pure CRONY CAPITALISM at it's worst.

This is about as CRONY as CRONY can be.



So why don't I, the person who is most directly impacted by the CEO's decisions have a say in CEO hiring? Until the "Say for Pay" rules get taken up seriously by all companies even the shareholders "desires" are not necessarily able to overrule the Board.

Again, how is this "market"?

Click to expand...

Just wondering if you missed this

whatbogsends said:

And their skill sets are not any harder to find than some PHD fields, or specialized medicine, yet, their compensation is well above that of those other fields. You haven't been able to provide anything remotely substantive to support the assertion that CEOs wages are fair in the context of the free market.

Click to expand...

Moving along. Your contribution toward the CEO's salary is miniscule. Without other laborers working in concert, your contribution is likely nil. It is the CEO who brings all the contributors together to make the company successful. Moreover, you as a laborer are highly expendable and can be replaced without much notice, thus, your contribution is less valuable than that of the CEO

MachZer0 said:

Because doing a PhD level job isn't the same as running the company.

Click to expand...

So you are differentiating our skill set, not relying on the "Rarity" of the skillset. OK. By the same token, the skill it takes to do my job (which is part of the company's success) cannot be done by an MBA.

I'm actually OK with paying a CEO a good high salary because running a company is a special skill and it takes some amount of desire to be out there on the edge.

What I'm not in favor of is paying them several human lifetimes worth of pay just for getting up in the morning, larding on all manner of extras like ability to fly the family on the corporate jet, and then giving them golden parachutes even when they fail to guide the company well.

Pay a CEO a good salary, don't let them off the hook with millions in pay offs and let them make their own way (ie pay for their own financial advisors and home security and airplane tickets for family travel).

Having a PhD doesn't necessarily even qualify you to run the company.

Click to expand...

And you know this how? Do YOU have a PhD or are you thinking you know all about this level of achievement? Easy to talk. Not easy to get.

As pointed out earlier, there are people with no college education that make far more money than you do working at a PhD level job.

Click to expand...

Not necessarily true in most cases today. I pull down close to 6 figures. And I don't do overtime. So...

The reason is, DEMAND. There are far fewer NBA level shooting guards than there are PhD's, ;so the demand is greater and the salary is higher, regardless of the athlete's education.

Click to expand...

So are we back on "rarity"?

The CEO makes more money than you because of supply and demand.

Click to expand...

Such naivete. Again, it is charming.

As noted earlier, you can test the law of supply and demand by applying for the CEO's job, offer your services at a lower rather than the current CEO, note your qualifications as a PhD, then let us know how it works out.

Click to expand...

You have completely missed the point, time and again!

I'm not saying that CEO's aren't special and that they don't earn a good pay. I'm simply saying that CEO compensation is grotesquely out of proportion to reality. It ISN'T a market. It ISN'T demand. It's a bunch of other executives scratching each others' backs!

That's the whole point!

Again, think of how CEO salaries are actually set in the real world (not your fantasy world). They are set by the BOD which is often made up of execs of other companies...so it's a club of sorts and it is quite incestuous. It is also set by a "Compensation Committee" which is often staffed by people who will ultimatley report to the CEO (again; what if you could remind your boss you personally helped make him a multimillionaire even before he walked in the door of the company), and of course, until recently the Shareholders were not always guaranteed a significant say in the matter.

Assyrian said:

So, 'gonna make him an offer he can't refuse' was actually fair.

Click to expand...

Conservatives seem to define fair as accepting an unfair offer. Liberals define fair as not making an unfair offer in the first place.

mathetes123 said:

They all worked the same job. Those who agreed to their wages felt they were not paid a fair wage only after they found out others were paid more. The parable made it clear that the owner owned the jobs and it was his prerogative to pay others more out of what belonged to him and that those disgruntled workers had no reason to complain as they were paid what they mutually agreed to.

Btw they were not all paid the same as some worked more hours than others.

Click to expand...

Yes, those who worked longer received the same amount as those who fewer hours. Still, the disparity was not 200 or 300x, but a much closer ratio.

The mutual agreement was in a parable, not "the market".

TeddyReceptus said:

So you are differentiating our skill set, not relying on the "Rarity" of the skillset. OK. By the same token, the skill it takes to do my job (which is part of the company's success) cannot be done by an MBA.

I'm actually OK with paying a CEO a good high salary because running a company is a special skill and it takes some amount of desire to be out there on the edge.

What I'm not in favor of is paying them several human lifetimes worth of pay just for getting up in the morning, larding on all manner of extras like ability to fly the family on the corporate jet, and then giving them golden parachutes even when they fail to guide the company well.

Pay a CEO a good salary, don't let them off the hook with millions in pay offs and let them make their own way (ie pay for their own financial advisors and home security and airplane tickets for family travel).



And you know this how? Do YOU have a PhD or are you thinking you know all about this level of achievement? Easy to talk. Not easy to get.



Not necessarily true in most cases today. I pull down close to 6 figures. And I don't do overtime. So...



So are we back on "rarity"?



Such naivete. Again, it is charming.



You have completely missed the point, time and again!

I'm not saying that CEO's aren't special and that they don't earn a good pay. I'm simply saying that CEO compensation is grotesquely out of proportion to reality. It ISN'T a market. It ISN'T demand. It's a bunch of other executives scratching each others' backs!

That's the whole point!

Again, think of how CEO salaries are actually set in the real world (not your fantasy world). They are set by the BOD which is often made up of execs of other companies...so it's a club of sorts and it is quite incestuous. It is also set by a "Compensation Committee" which is often staffed by people who will ultimatley report to the CEO (again; what if you could remind your boss you personally helped make him a multimillionaire even before he walked in the door of the company), and of course, until recently the Shareholders were not always guaranteed a significant say in the matter.

Click to expand...

Again, if you think your PhD qualifies you for the CEO's job, go for it. Apply for his job and explain to the Board of Directors that you can match or better the current CEO's performance at a much lower salary, then let us know how it works out for you.

MachZer0 said:

Really? The workers went on strike (refused to work) and were told that if they did not return immediately the company would be forced to liquidate. They refused to return (refused to work) and just as they were told, the company was forced into liquidation.

Click to expand...

But the company was in poor financial shape because of mismanagement. Had the company been well run this issue would have never arisen.

You are trying to blame the company closing on the workers, when the facts show that the company was in financial straits because of mismanagement. Even if the union had accepted the contact it was extremely unlikely that Hostess would have lasted more than a few months.

It's worth noting that you still have yet to criticize the execs of Hostess for lavishing rewarding their own failure.