It is more about attracting the best and brightest at the very top. If I’m on the board of a major corporation that is in a bit of trouble, I want to attract the very best CEO available. I’m especially interested in one that has a proven track record of turning companies around. Towards that end, I’m willing to pay whatever is necessary to attract that person.
2 Likes
And what kind of people at the very top could Walmart hope to attract if they simply paid them the same as what everyone else in the company is being paid?
2 Likes
Interesting.
That’s how it always goes. The government can only half-assed fix what the government broke in the first place.
2 Likes
As you might suspect the short response to the image is “No. The worker will not get triple pay just because his boss invested more money to make him more productive.”
The way it works has many moving parts and they have more to do with
- the consumer,
- prevailing interest rates, and
- the competition.
Briefly:
-
If buying the hand truck reduces costs by 10-cents per parcel the boss is gonna keep some of that and pass some of that on to the consumer.
-
How much does the consumer get? Could be nothing, could be 1-cent, could be 9-cents.
-
How much will the boss keep? Well if he could made 4% putting his money in bonds then he is gonna want a >4% return on buying the handtruck.
Well first the answer to my question is that each employee of Walmart would be a whole $50 richer each year! So, in other words, this idea that people like Guilds have that if we just distributed the salary of all top the executives to every employee then everyone would make $100,000 per year is pure nonsense.
They reality is that for MANY reasons over the course of a number of decades the salaries of CEO’s, athletes, etc., have gone up exponentially more than that of the average worker in the US. As you pointed out though is that those in charge of such businesses are able to pay such salaries.
3 Likes
That is not what I am saying at all.
The rules of commerce, that sets the tax rates and regulations, changed in the 1980’s (Reagan Revolution) . And those changes are a major reason why we now have large wealth and income inequity and/or inequality.
Is it possible to do that, and still ensure the working folks get a fair share of the company’s prosperity?
Again, I never stated that.
No, that would be the average, in the country, not the minimum. I am not suggesting a national min wage of $48 per hour.
What changed that took away from workers? Just one example?
Are you demanding profit sharing?
Are you willing to accept loss sharing?
What do you want? You want to set a limit?
What are you suggesting?
That’s pretty much the norm.
Starting in the lower half and working your way into the upper half.
That’s the way it worked for me and my Dad before me.
Works that way for the working class.
Those content to stay on the dole not so much but then they don’t deserve to wind up in the upper half if they are allergic to work.
1 Like
You are old (as am I) and your dad is even older. There was a time when a HS diploma was all one needed, and even times not needed, to get a good job, eventually making decent money to be a part of the middle class. Those opportunities are now greatly reducedn, for a number of factors.
So, you story is nice and all, but it is ot today’s reality in the job market.
As far as people preferring to be “on the dole” that simply does not happen in any kind of large scale. Most people would prefer to work, and earn a decent wage…the Welfare Queen that Reagan pushed was a lie…and just fed red meat to the gullible.
We have segregated parking in our little mall parking lot. One row for EV’s to charge. It makes parking harder for the rest of US.
I had to pay taxes to have less parking so wealthy people can charge their car while shopping.
The govt did not have to force gas stations on the people.
1 Like
YUP
-
85% of the Forbes 400 are the first generation on the list.
(That’s down btw. Used to be higher.) -
Over 60% of the world’s billionaires are self-made, having built their fortunes from the ground up.
-
79% of millionaires received no inheritance at all
. . . . and guess how rich we could make the bottom half of Americans if we seized all the income from all the billionaires in the world? (HINT: Taking their money wouldn’t even run the government very long, yet alone make the lower-half wealthy.)
1 Like
No they aren’t. Especially not for men.
2/3rds of Americans don’t have a college degree.
You are regurgitating lies.
1 Like
