Should salaries be capped?

[vern_humphrey]

Um, vern, you do realize that many People With No Abilities are, in fact, the horrifically overpaid CEO’s of corporations that plump their short term profits, and therefore stock values, by laying off and/or cutting the pay and benefits of the skilled workers who generate the revenue of the companies they had formerly worked for?

In that case, the owners of the company (the stockholders) should fire them.

That’s difficult to do because in times past, People With Abilities would buy up such companies, fire the deadwood, and make the companies profitable – and often sell them off. Because People With No Abilities lost jobs under those conditions, Congress made it harder for People With Abilities to buy and run their own companies – calling them “takeover artists.”

Personally, I think those laws should never have been passed. (But try and tell the do-gooders that!) They should all be replaced by a law that requires the compensation of corporate officers to be set annually at stockholders meetings.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Anyone advocating or participating in the advocating of capping of salaries should first be required to successfully start up and run at least two profitable companies.

It ain’t easy.

They might then appreciate the difficulties involved in recruiting and keeping successful senior managers executives, and CEOs.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Anyone advocating or participating in the advocating of capping of salaries should first be required to successfully start up and run at least two profitable companies.

It ain’t easy.

They might then appreciate the difficulties involved in recruiting and keeping successful senior managers executives, and CEOs.

Well, that’s the point, isn’t it?

People who advocate salary caps are people who don’t startup and run businesses. People who advocate higher taxes are people who don’t pay high taxes.

People who advocate that someone else be forced to do something are people who are themselves unwilling to do those things.

 

[estesbob]

Anyone advocating or participating in the advocating of capping of salaries should first be required to successfully start up and run at least two profitable companies.

It ain’t easy.

They might then appreciate the difficulties involved in recruiting and keeping successful senior managers executives, and CEOs.

It is noteworthy that I have seen nobody in this thread suggesting their salary should be capped. It’s always the other guys pay they want to cut.

 

[vern_humphrey]

It is noteworthy that I have seen nobody in this thread suggesting their salary should be capped. It’s always the other guys pay they want to cut.

You noticed that, too, did you?

 

[estesbob]

You noticed that, too, did you?

Ihave noticed over the year there is a whole slew of people ready to tell me how to run my business,what benefits I should givr my employees, and how much I should pay myself. I never noticed them showing up, however, on days when I’m supposed to pay the bills or cover payroll.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Ihave noticed over the year there is a whole slew of people ready to tell me how to run my business,what benefits I should givr my employees, and how much I should pay myself. I never noticed them showing up, however, on days when I’m supposed to pay the bills or cover payroll.

Or to put it another way, there is a whole slew of people wailing “Somebody else should pay more!!”

But none of them say, “I should get off my butt, work harder, earn more, so I can pay my share.”

 

[Byzcat]

In that case, the owners of the company (the stockholders) should fire them.

That’s difficult to do because in times past, People With Abilities would buy up such companies, fire the deadwood, and make the companies profitable – and often sell them off. Because People With No Abilities lost jobs under those conditions, Congress made it harder for People With Abilities to buy and run their own companies – calling them “takeover artists.”

Personally, I think those laws should never have been passed. (But try and tell the do-gooders that!) They should all be replaced by a law that requires the compensation of corporate officers to be set annually at stockholders meetings.

Apparently, you think money is an ability.

I think you’re referring to the buyout craze of the '80’s, when companies would borrow money to buy out other companies, lay off the hardworking people who made the company a success, then sell them off to line their own pockets?

BTW, the CEO’s with the multimillion dollar compensation packages are not generally not the ones who started up the businesses they run (into the ground).

But none of them say, “I should get off my butt, work harder, earn more, so I can pay my share.”

You ought to leave your Libertopian fantasy world and try living in the real one for a while.

There is a word for the hard-working people in this country- poor.

CEO’s plump the stock prices by laying off the hard-working people so they can show a short-term boost in profits. Meanwhile, the value of the product or service the company provides goes down, because there are fewer workers to provide the services, and the ones who are left are low-wage, inexperienced overworked and frequently offshored,

Companies don’t derive their income from the “work” of the CEO’s. It’s the airline pilots, the people running the machinery of the factories, the person behind the counter at the store, that provide the products and services that the customer is spending their money for.

Executives who trade paper, artificially boost profits by providing less value to the customer, whether in terms of less service (can’t find a sales person to help you at Wal-Mart? Waited in line for 45 minutes while more than half the registers were cashierless and closed down? Thank the execs in Bentonville.) Or poorer quality products, etc. are providing nothing of value to society, or to the customers.

Labor is what generates wealth, vern, not the other way around.

 

[mapleoak]

I think you’re referring to the buyout craze of the '80’s, when companies would borrow money to buy out other companies, lay off the hardworking people who made the company a success, then sell them off to line their own pockets?

Actually they would cut out the dead wood in middle management, usually not the production workers. A company without the ability to produce is not of much value to anybody.

There is a word for the hard-working people in this country- poor.

This is totally false.

CEO’s plump the stock prices by laying off the hard-working people so they can show a short-term boost in profits.

A company without the ability to produce is not of much value to anyone. Nor does it show a boost in profits.

Meanwhile, the value of the product or service the company provides goes down, because there are fewer workers to provide the services,

This doesn’t make the value of the product or service go down, other than if the quality of the product suffers due to inexperience.

Companies don’t derive their income from the “work” of the CEO’s. It’s the airline pilots, the people running the machinery of the factories, the person behind the counter at the store, that provide the products and services that the customer is spending their money for.

And it would be foolish to ‘cut’ the productive workforce. The un-productive work force is a different story.

 

[Byzcat]

This is totally false.

so, all of those Wal-Mart cashiers, employees, janitors are getting rich on $8.00 an hour?

A company without the ability to produce is not of much value to anyone. Nor does it show a boost in profits.

Key word, short term. Looks good on this quarter’s returns, but over the long haul- well, by then the execs will have packed their golden parachutes and bailed.

This doesn’t make the value of the product or service go down, other than if the quality of the product suffers due to inexperience.

Kinda what I was talking about actually. Then figure that the customers who call with a problem spend often a half hour on hold because there aren’t enough service reps to deal with the problems caused by the companies cutting back on front-end service in the first place. Ever had your bank or credit card company bought out by another company and afterward the customer service went down the toilet? Think the new owner is making more or less short term profits by doing this?

And it would be foolish to ‘cut’ the productive workforce.

and yet…

The un-productive work force is a different story.

Agreed. Let’s get rid of the unproductive execs.

 

[Byzcat]

businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_22/b3885001_mz001.htm

Here’s a link on how it isn’t true that hardworking people are poor.

 

[Byzcat]

Oh, and if you haven’t read The Corporation I recommend it highly.

books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=d3SOCcz2VQ8C&dq=the+corporation&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=2h19Yovc94&sig=LXjiZPxk6Px8Q5mlpvIkLS9gAvs&prev=http://www.google.com/search?q=The+Corporation&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7ADBS&sa=X&oi=print&ct=result&cd=2&cad=bottom-3results

sorry, I can’t get the insert link function to work.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Apparently, you think money is an ability.

The ability to make money is an ability. Or do you think money just rains out of the sky?

I think you’re referring to the buyout craze of the '80’s, when companies would borrow money to buy out other companies, lay off the hardworking people who made the company a success, then sell them off to line their own pockets?

If the “hardworking people” made the company a success, the take over would never have occurred.

BTW, the CEO’s with the multimillion dollar compensation packages are not generally not the ones who started up the businesses they run (into the ground).

I have repeatedly asked for cites to show a significant percentage of CEOs are running their businesses into the ground – and got none.

Here’s a clue – if a significant percentage of CEOs are running their businesses into the ground, the Dow would be below 130, not above 13,000!

You ought to leave your Libertopian fantasy world and try living in the real one for a while.

Another mind-reading act, eh?

There is a word for the hard-working people in this country- poor.

Actually, there are several words for hard-working people in this country; prosperous, over-taxed, and reviled by those who don’t work so hard.

CEO’s plump the stock prices by laying off the hard-working people so they can show a short-term boost in profits. Meanwhile, the value of the product or service the company provides goes down, because there are fewer workers to provide the services, and the ones who are left are low-wage, inexperienced overworked and frequently offshored,

Riiiiiiight. So how come the Dow is over 13,000 and not under 130?

Companies don’t derive their income from the “work” of the CEO’s. It’s the airline pilots, the people running the machinery of the factories, the person behind the counter at the store, that provide the products and services that the customer is spending their money for.

Riiiiiight – profitable companies run on auto-pilot, with no one at the helm, no one making any decisions. Riiiiiight.

When are you starting a business? Then you can demonstrate your theories in action!

Executives who trade paper, artificially boost profits by providing less value to the customer, whether in terms of less service (can’t find a sales person to help you at Wal-Mart? Waited in line for 45 minutes while more than half the registers were cashierless and closed down? Thank the execs in Bentonville.) Or poorer quality products, etc. are providing nothing of value to society, or to the customers.

When are you starting a business? Then you can demonstrate your theories in action!

Labor is what generates wealth, vern, not the other way around.

And most especially the labor of those far-sighted and talented managers and entrepreneurs – like Sam Walton.

If you don’t believe it, start your own business and show us how you can surpass these managers you despise.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Companies don’t derive their income from the “work” of the CEO’s. It’s the airline pilots, the people running the machinery of the factories, the person behind the counter at the store, that provide the products and services that the customer is spending their money for.

Executives who trade paper, artificially boost profits by providing less value to the customer, whether in terms of less service (can’t find a sales person to help you at Wal-Mart? Waited in line for 45 minutes while more than half the registers were cashierless and closed down? Thank the execs in Bentonville.) Or poorer quality products, etc. are providing nothing of value to society, or to the customers.

Labor is what generates wealth, vern, not the other way around.

What has distinguished Wal-Mart from its competitors is its computer systems that control inventory. And the store clerks had nothing to do with that.

Airline pilots don’t make decisions about whether to buy or lease airplanes or when to park a plane or how many new planes to acquire and what their fleet mix should be … especially when new planes are sold out for several years in advance. Airline pilots don’t make decisions about what new markets to enter or how to structure their pricing or what new computer hardware and software will be needed for fleet management, crew scheduling, aircraft maintenance, or fuel efficiency … or maximizing the daily utilization of the aircraft and getting them back to a maintenance base each night.

It takes a lot of executive juggling to get their staffs to do the analyses that they can use to make the decisions. And if the company doesn’t have the large staffs to do those analyses, then the executives have to make those decisions based on their understanding of the factors that make an airline tick. The unhappy thing about an airline is that it is “both” labor-intensive AND capital-intensive … AND energy-intensive. All three … which is pretty unique. And an airline pilot isn’t going to be able to make those decisions. AND the decisions have to be constantly made … on a daily basis … to accommodate market and economic conditions.

Running a business is a LOT more complicated than it seems.

Tell you what … go and buy one of those “quick print” franchises. And see how you do with it. Some people do really well and some people go bankrupt.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Running a business is a LOT more complicated than it seems.

Tell you what … go and buy one of those “quick print” franchises. And see how you do with it. Some people do really well and some people go bankrupt.

Now, now, Al. You know when it comes to the critics of business it’s “Do as I say, not do as I do ('cause I can’t do squat.)”

 

[rlg94086]

What has distinguished Wal-Mart from its competitors is its computer systems that control inventory. And the store clerks had nothing to do with that.

Not just that, but also some clever business practices. I recall hearing a speaker (Paul Zane Pilzer) discuss how they instituted a different relationship with their suppliers than other retailers had. I’m sure some retailers have followed suit.

1. They told their suppliers that they should stock Walmart’s shelves rather than Walmart employees. I’m not sure if that’s completely accurate, but something to that effect.
2. They told their supplilers “you know, I don’t think we should have to pay you until the product is actually purchased by the consumer.” They use their computer systems to accomplish that. I don’t know if it is a full consignment program like some of my customers have used, but it sounds pretty much the same.

Others think those sort of tactics are unfair, but they are not as long as both parties agree. In fact, when I was in distribution, consignment programs, just-in-time systems and kitting programs were a key part of my sales tools to OEMs. Applying the same services to retail is fine.

 

[mapleoak]

so, all of those Wal-Mart cashiers, employees, janitors are getting rich on $8.00 an hour?

‘Wal-Mart cashiers making $8.00 an hour’ is to ‘hard working people are poor’ as ‘Mother Goose wrote fairy tales’ is to ‘Waterfowl are talented’.

Key word, short term. Looks good on this quarter’s returns, but over the long haul- well, by then the execs will have packed their golden parachutes and bailed.

And of course the poor mythical mishap who would happen to buy a company which is historically unprofitable and shows a sudden spike one period due to artificial manuevering would be better off handing his money over to those folks to line their golden parachutes…
Doesn’t happen.

Kinda what I was talking about actually. Then figure that the customers who call with a problem spend often a half hour on hold because there aren’t enough service reps to deal with the problems caused by the companies cutting back on front-end service in the first place.

Then that customer takes his business elsewhere where he will get the service he desires. How many times would you stand line for 45 minutes at checkout before deciding to shop elsewhere? Once, twice? That wouldn’t be a very profitable decision for the execs to make, as any short term profit gained from lower cost of production or service is eventually lost due to customer disatisfaction. Again only a fool would buy such a business that is showing such a short term spike in artificial profit.

Ever had your bank or credit card company bought out by another company and afterward the customer service went down the toilet? Think the new owner is making more or less short term profits by doing this?

And they have lost my business.

 

[mapleoak]

1. They told their suppliers that they should stock Walmart’s shelves rather than Walmart employees. I’m not sure if that’s completely accurate, but something to that effect.
2. They told their supplilers “you know, I don’t think we should have to pay you until the product is actually purchased by the consumer.” They use their computer systems to accomplish that. I don’t know if it is a full consignment program like some of my customers have used, but it sounds pretty much the same.

I heard something to that effect a while back. Don’t know if that is what they do or not, but it is quite common with small mom and pop stores. Around here anyway.

 

[vern_humphrey]

I heard something to that effect a while back. Don’t know if that is what they do or not, but it is quite common with small mom and pop stores. Around here anyway.

Talk to vendors who sell to Army commissaries. Ask them what “reset day” means.

It means the vendors not only stock the shelves, but periodically, they strip the shelves down and re-set them. Standar business practice.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Talk to vendors who sell to Army commissaries. Ask them what “reset day” means.

It means the vendors not only stock the shelves, but periodically, they strip the shelves down and re-set them. Standar business practice.

If you visit a supermarket, you will find the bread shelf stocker and the soda shelf stocker are all working for the vendors, not for the supermarket. This is a very common practice.