birdog1960

i don't know anyone that argues this. but nice attempt at a straw man. the alternative argument begins with the premise that some ratio of lowest to highest wages approaches the point of diminishing returns regarding incentives for all to work their hardest for the benefit of the corporation. Is it 20:1? that's one respected business expert's considered opinion. perhaps it is dynamic and ranges from say, 10:1 to 50:1. any of these ratios acknowledges one workers inherent worth over another's, contrary to what you postulate. does a ceo require 500x the lowest employees salary to motivate him more than 50x? 5000? why not 5 million? what is the incremental gain in incentive from 5000x to 5 million x? there is a point where more money can't produce much more incentive. at a certain point, money practically becomes meaningless (based on their philanthropy, bill gates and warren buffet have reached that point). at the other end of the spectrum, there is a ratio that incentivizes and satisfies low wage workers to put out the best effort for the corporation. below this, the risk of subpar work and even theft increases. above it, little is incrementally gained. it's really not that complicated of a thesis. whether you choose to accept it is a different matter. and then there's civil discord. at what level does it occur? certainly it has occurred at finite ratios in early 20th century russia or 18th century france. there is likely a threshold for the usa as well.

so you are arguing that the entire progressive tax system is illegal? the only legal way to tax is a flat tax? good luck with that. has as much chance of succeeding as the recent gov't shutdown to defund the aca. you can't get blood from a stone. there's too many stones without blood in the us. hence the need for a livable wage.

reread your post. my interpretation: the irs made changes in order to attempt to stem the tide of escalating and already mammoth ceo salaries and maintain ceo compensation at a ratio somewhere closer to that prescribed by drucker. deferred compensation and the like were devised to circumvent (ie work around) those rules. what am i misunderstanding?

don't know who you mean by polite society (perhaps, people like drucker and deming - their writings and philosophies seem polite) but they are correct. and what you've described is the robber barons way around their efforts. don't see how this changes what you've termed drucker's rule. the intent was clearly to follow it. it was and is considered still relevant.

i read it. no one mentioned anything abouut the senate prior to that. and certainly not in thew context of redistricting. you introduced that little tidbit all by your lonesome.

i provided a reference and context: the wash post article. you don't like it? look elsewhere. there are plenty of economists and business folks that throw around drucker's assertion still. you obviously don't agree. many still do. if you have a point, make it. so which is more socialistic: requiring companies to pay a living wage to workers or making up the difference between a living wage and what is paid by the companies through gov't handouts? i'd say the latter. the political reality is that no one, not even the tea party, is going to remove both options leaving even more low wage people to starve, freeze or die from untreated diseases. realistically,you have to pick one. i just don't get why the gov't handout scheme is a slam dunk winner for cons. and, no, i don't buy that a higher minimum wage adds massively to unemployment. don't believe there's precedent for that in other countries but would be happy to look at the proof if someone provides it.

yes, legacy"s with non honors basketweaving degrees excluded. i assumed that would be understood.

yup. you did. when you get you magna cum laude jd from an ivy league law school, you might be able to call him that buyt you probably wouldn't as you'd be much smarter then.

how many get sellable degrees? pretty difficult to do chem engineering in 4 years on a d1 football scholarship. reference is made in the wash post article i linked including his revised ratio of 25:1. for more, search drucker,peter.

now there's a shift. way up thread you wrote about the repubs taking over the senate. no i'm against simpleton, opportunist, self aggrandizing jerks.

there is available contradictory data but i'll wait for this http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/01/29/nfl-players-union-and-harvard-team-landmark-study-football-injuries-and-illness/YTbnGypzJXb1VkZSr1hbdP/story.html to make a better judgement on the issue.

well, you could account for the average length of career, shortened life expectancy, unpaid on the job training (college sports) and reasonably conclude that you are comparing apples and mangoes.

that does it, i'm renewing my subscription: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/10/schocker-newsweek-attacks-ted-cruz-and-tea-party-in-latest-cover/

i suspect it's empirical. don't know. never went to business school. my understanding is that a generous dose of drucker is standard fare there, however. probably some selective memory loss from past students when it comes time to set policies for ceo pay.

my mistake. it was drucker who stated the 20:1 ratio http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-leadership/wp/2013/09/19/whats-the-right-ratio-for-ceo-to-worker-pay/

or they feel demming was wrong and they're right.

it's much more in keeping with the 20x principle than the fast food industry. never thought i'd hold up the nil as an example of compensation fairness, but there you go.

i believe he's referring to one of demming's quality principles. i also believe the number is that historically 20X the lowest workers salary is thought to be the most efficient business model to maximize profits. isn't that what businesses and stockholders should most desire?

the double negative has confused me. you're saying that the profit motivation is enough to warrant the sub living wage or you're not? either way, increasing the minimum wage may well increase the cost of goods (especially cheap goods like pink slime burgers). but those costs will be spread over the populace (perhaps even more concentrated on lower wage earners) so it amounts to a flat tax. and if less is spent on welfare because of this. taxes in general can decrease or require less of an increase. isn't that exactly what the repubs want? why the obstructionism?

this is corporate welfare, plain and simple. i started an entire thread on this: a living, minimum wage versus welfare. the actual numbers make it all the more compelling. increasing the minimum wage will lower govt subsidies and costs and increase tax revenues. the first part is what yall cons are always squaking about, non? what's uniquely wrong with cutting gov't spending via this mechanism?

thanks, i'll pass. i'm not clever enough to make violence funny.

as a rule, i try not to publicly ask a question that i don't already know the answer to.

if it pleases the court, i'll sub for oc and argue the side untaken by chef. hate to see a good topic and opponent go to waste.

can't say i've been to many other places in Buffalo recently to compare but when i go back, i'll go right to Bar Bills for lunch. couldn't imagine much better beef on weck and a very friendly place on a friday afternoon. i'd forgotten the local way of giving directions. i asked the best way to rochester and the guy at the bar gave me 3 options, all including " you take THE 26 (or whatever) to THE 90...i don't know of anywhere else that says "the' before a route number but it seems pretty universal in WNY. anyway, good food, nice folks and characteristically local to me.

walt patulski. notre dame. top prospect. and his sister was my sister's college friend. i was shocked and sorely disappointed when he was a huge bust.