CEOs earn 354 times more than average worker

[CrusaderFrank]

It's an extension of the disdain they feel for labor in general.

What you sense is our disdain for the Marxist worldview

Workers making decent money = Marxist.

Workers getting shit on = Conservative.

And you people wonder why you don't win elections anymore.

See? Perfect Marxist world view!

 

[Mr Natural]

What you sense is our disdain for the Marxist worldview

Workers making decent money = Marxist.

Workers getting shit on = Conservative.

And you people wonder why you don't win elections anymore.

See? Perfect Marxist world view!

No, perfect reasonable, common sense view.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Workers making decent money = Marxist.

Workers getting shit on = Conservative.

And you people wonder why you don't win elections anymore.

See? Perfect Marxist world view!

No, perfect reasonable, common sense view.

No, it's the Marxist view which is divorced from the reality of how business operates. As if you believe a restaurant could maximize profits by have miserable, underpaid people serving spoiled and rotten food; it's so stupid it's laughable

 

[Mr Natural]

See? Perfect Marxist world view!

No, perfect reasonable, common sense view.

No, it's the Marxist view which is divorced from the reality of how business operates. As if you believe a restaurant could maximize profits by have miserable, underpaid people serving spoiled and rotten food; it's so stupid it's laughable

And how long do you think this restaurant willl last if the help is miserable and doesn't give two shits about their jobs and whether or not they serve spoiled and rotten food?

 

[Bfgrn]

It's their money. They can do whatever they want with it.

Guess you have no reason to be critical of the economy.

few CEO's putting their money somewhere did not crash the economy.

And I can be critical of the economy because it was government policies that fucked it up not people who invest their own money wherever they please.

Bullshit. What crashed the economy was private entities, not government. You right wing turds don't even know the truth. You've been spoon fed propaganda.

 

[Bfgrn]

What you sense is our disdain for the Marxist worldview

Workers making decent money = Marxist.

Workers getting shit on = Conservative.

And you people wonder why you don't win elections anymore.

See? Perfect Marxist world view!

Then the most successful businesses must be Marxist. Because there is a direct relationship between how a business treats it's employees and ultimately how successful it is.

 

[Mr Natural]

When did the American Dream of a thriving, prosperous middle class become a Marxist worldview?

 

[Bfgrn]

Dems 2013: Redistribution, this time it'll work, we swear!

It DID work Frank. Marvelously as a matter of FACT. What hasn't worked for the working men and women was Reagan, the socialist, transferring about $3 trillion dollars of wealth from the middle class and poor to the opulent.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

http://www.businessinsider.com/corp...me-high-wages-just-hit-an-all-time-low-2012-6

If you right wing morons really don't see a correlation with this, there is just no hope for you. I mean, seriously...

Personally, I think all American workers should go on strike for a week. All of 'em. Leave the "executives" to run the companies. That would be a hoot.

 

[Mr Natural]

Corporate Profits Just Hit An All-Time High, Wages Just Hit An All-Time Low - Business Insider

If you right wing morons really don't see a correlation with this, there is just no hope for you. I mean, seriously...

Personally, I think all American workers should go on strike for a week. All of 'em. Leave the "executives" to run the companies. That would be a hoot.

Could it be that profits are highest because wages are lowest?

And if that's the case, who does that help other than a very small segment of the population?

And they wonder why they don't win elections anymore.

 

[Skull Pilot]

It amazes me that some people not only don't have an issue with the way corporation's salary structure has changed over the last few decades and how it has negatively impacted the spending power of the overwhelming majority of Americans, they actually seem to think it's a GOOD thing.

What a CEO makes has not had any effect on my life economically or otherwise.

FYI it has had no effect on your life either.

 

[Againsheila]

It amazes me that some people not only don't have an issue with the way corporation's salary structure has changed over the last few decades and how it has negatively impacted the spending power of the overwhelming majority of Americans, they actually seem to think it's a GOOD thing.

What a CEO makes has not had any effect on my life economically or otherwise.

FYI it has had no effect on your life either.

Of course it has an effect on your life and my life. You think we're not all connected? That the decisions made by the CEOs don't affect us? You think my job going to India didn't affect me? That my lost wages didn't affect the economy? You think my sister's job going to China didn't affect her? That her lost wages didn't affect the economy? Do you think you are separate from the rest of us in this country and that the lousy economy doesn't affect you?

 

[Vandalshandle]

Actually, there is some hope for change. The CEO who brought J.C. Penney to the brink of extinction who was recently fired, only got $149,000 in severance. I suspect that is about all they had left in the bank account, by the time they got rid of him.

 

[hunarcy]

Personally, I think all American workers should go on strike for a week. All of 'em. Leave the "executives" to run the companies. That would be a hoot.

It's not a good time to strike with 11.5 million people sitting at home because they can't find a job and have run out of benefits.

 

[Skull Pilot]

It amazes me that some people not only don't have an issue with the way corporation's salary structure has changed over the last few decades and how it has negatively impacted the spending power of the overwhelming majority of Americans, they actually seem to think it's a GOOD thing.

What a CEO makes has not had any effect on my life economically or otherwise.

FYI it has had no effect on your life either.

Of course it has an effect on your life and my life. You think we're not all connected? That the decisions made by the CEOs don't affect us? You think my job going to India didn't affect me? That my lost wages didn't affect the economy? You think my sister's job going to China didn't affect her? That her lost wages didn't affect the economy? Do you think you are separate from the rest of us in this country and that the lousy economy doesn't affect you?

What does that have to do with the salary of a CEO? The whole gist here is that if CEOs were paid less then somehow we would all magically be paid more.

 

[Againsheila]

What a CEO makes has not had any effect on my life economically or otherwise.

FYI it has had no effect on your life either.

Of course it has an effect on your life and my life. You think we're not all connected? That the decisions made by the CEOs don't affect us? You think my job going to India didn't affect me? That my lost wages didn't affect the economy? You think my sister's job going to China didn't affect her? That her lost wages didn't affect the economy? Do you think you are separate from the rest of us in this country and that the lousy economy doesn't affect you?

What does that have to do with the salary of a CEO? The whole gist here is that if CEOs were paid less then somehow we would all magically be paid more.

CEO makes more for laying people off because the stockholders make more when people are laid off. If they didn't make more for laying people off, do you think they would be making so much now, when so many people aren't working and the ones who are make so much less than they did? Of course that only works in the short run. Eventually, nobody can afford their products and they lose.

 

[Mr. Peepers]

What does that have to do with the salary of a CEO? The whole gist here is that if CEOs were paid less then somehow we would all magically be paid more.

Um, well wasn't that the whole gist of the myth of Trickle Down Economics? That's what the American people were told... that the wealth would eventually reach them. Didn't happen at all, did it? The top kept the profits for themselves. Isn't that also what the wealthy told us when they were begging for that tax breaK - that jobs and prosperity would come of that? Also didn't happen, did it?

This gross income inequality has EVERYTHING to do with the salary of the CEO... and all his other CEO buddies who collude on boards to give each other obscene compensation. If you can't see this, you are sorely naive.

 

[Mr Natural]

Personally, I think all American workers should go on strike for a week. All of 'em. Leave the "executives" to run the companies. That would be a hoot.

It's not a good time to strike with 11.5 million people sitting at home because they can't find a job and have run out of benefits.

Yep, and keep the rest fearful for their jobs and they'll shut up and put out.

 

[Bfgrn]

I called on thousands of businesses from large corporations to mom and pop operations for over 20 years. One common theme I recognized was the most successful companies were run by people who valued their employees and treated them well. Workers are not stupid. Their loyalty or lack of it will manifest when no one is watching. At highly successful companies, I saw a sense of ownership on the part of employees, it was THEIR company. And they took personal responsibility for the companies success. On the flip side, workers who were exploited returned that exploitation at every opportunity, any business that has contempt for their employees, will ultimately have contempt for their customers...and customers aren't stupid either.

Here is a great example of how to turn a company around. Paul O'Neill who George W. Bush hired as his first Treasury Secretary and then fired when O'Neill disagreed with Bush's second round of tax cuts for the rich and our going to war with Iraq turn Alcoa around. He had zero experience in the aluminum business. O’Neill was the CEO who turned Alcoa around during his tenure from 1987 – 2000. He joined a company in turmoil, and under his leadership, the value of the company doubled and the annual revenue went from $1.5 Billion in 1987 to $23 Billion.

O'Neill started with a focus on the MOST important way of valuing your employees, making sure at the end of the day they return home safely to their families.

'Habitual excellence': The workplace according to Paul O'Neill - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

In an extensive interview, Mr. O'Neill, who left Alcoa in 2000, said he wasn't sure how comfortable he was in having his worker safety emphasis described as a method for creating good habits because, "I have a little negative reaction to the idea that human beings are infinitely malleable into habit robots."

He saw his safety goal as part of a broader emphasis on creating "habitual excellence."

"I believe an organization has the potential for greatness if every person can say yes to three questions without reservation," Mr. O'Neill said. "The first is, 'Can I say every day I am treated with dignity and respect by everyone I encounter without respect to my pay grade, or my title, or my race, or ethnicity or religious beliefs or gender?' And you know, there are not a lot of places like that.

"The second question is, 'Am I given the things I need - education, training, tools, encouragement - so I can make a contribution to this organization that gives meaning to my life?' And the third question is, 'Am I recognized for what I do by someone I care about?'

"Every company I know of says somewhere in its annual report, 'People are our most important resource,' but my observation from all these places I had worked was that there was no evidence it was true."

The worker safety campaign at Alcoa, which already had a well-regarded injury rate, was more than mere rhetoric. In his 13 years at the helm, Alcoa went from 1.86 lost work days per 100 workers to 0.2. And the ethos has continued: as of last week, the rate stood at 0.125.



Discretionary Energy and Paul O’Neill

Before becoming the 72nd US Treasury Secretary Mr. O’Neill was the CEO of Alcoa. When he came into the organization, by all accounts Alcoa was lagging behind in terms of both employee morale and revenues and not delighting users. Instead of focusing on increasing revenues, Mr. O’Neill zeroed in on safety. At first glance it seemed like a very curious choice and one that did get immediate negative feedback from his management team and some of the long time tenured employees at Alcoa.

So why would a new CEO spend most of his time on an initiative focused on safety? Really, how would that lead to profit and revenue growth? The answer is the concept of Discretionary Energy.

Discretionary energy is the amount of attention you are getting from your employees and it speaks to their willingness to be “checked-in” vs. their willingness to be “checked-out” during work hours. What Mr. O’Neill recognized was that there was a correlation between his employees’ safety violations decreasing and discretionary energy increasing. Amazingly, even with his internal detractors, his theory played out. What he saw was a huge decrease in safety violations and a huge increase in discretionary energy.

Once the employee base discretionary energy was at a heightened level, Mr. O’Neill could begin leveraging his successful experiment by rolling out additional top-down initiatives that would spur additional activities / yielding results that he wanted. With employees already going the extra mile and sending additional energy around safety it wouldn’t be a stretch to ask them to do the same around other tasks.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Of course it has an effect on your life and my life. You think we're not all connected? That the decisions made by the CEOs don't affect us? You think my job going to India didn't affect me? That my lost wages didn't affect the economy? You think my sister's job going to China didn't affect her? That her lost wages didn't affect the economy? Do you think you are separate from the rest of us in this country and that the lousy economy doesn't affect you?

What does that have to do with the salary of a CEO? The whole gist here is that if CEOs were paid less then somehow we would all magically be paid more.

CEO makes more for laying people off because the stockholders make more when people are laid off. If they didn't make more for laying people off, do you think they would be making so much now, when so many people aren't working and the ones who are make so much less than they did? Of course that only works in the short run. Eventually, nobody can afford their products and they lose.

The CEO gets paid for making the company more profitable.

If there are too many employees what should he do? What would you do?

Nothing a CEO does affects me because I don't work for a corporation with a CEO.

And again if that CEO made less you would not make more.