Blame the corporations.

[Jim in Anchorage]

You suck at trolling. You're really, REALLY bad at it.

No he's not. You swallow the bait right down to your gut every time. Fish on!.

[birdog1960]

I asked you to provide the reference and context, not for you to tell me to research it. I am aware of the oft-misapplied thesis.

 

Do you understand the accounting numbers that go into executive compensation figures? Is it fair to compare compensation schemes of Drucker's time to now? Do you understand what happened in between?

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.

 

The problem with folks who don't support 'full socialism' is they still support socialism, and the simple fact that is lost on such folks is that there is a significant reason why many people are CEOs of companies providing jobs to thousands, and many others are simply people work for the CEOs. The inability to track the reasoning for the differences is what pokes a hole in the idea of "Well, we need to make things more fair."

 

I would also argue that if the CEOs thought raising their employees' wages would increase their profits, wouldn't they...y'know...be raising their wages?

 

While I appreciate your thinking, it is ridiculously flawed. Focus on why some are eagles and some are ducks, and you'll stop thinking that more money to man a microwave to heat up a burger is a win-win for everyone.

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.

[Chef Jim]

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.

 

Why does it have to be one or the other? So without government handouts and minimum wage people are going to starve, freeze, and die from untreated diseases?

 

You really have very little faith in the ingenuity of man. But then again all the handouts and coddling have done a good job to get rid of the ingenuity.

[Jauronimo]

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.

These are not the only two choices. We've been over this and you clearly took away nothing from the last time you presented this false choice.

[GG]

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.

 

Wash Post article is not the context of his thesis - which was put forward before the IRS rules changed. Those rules changed over 30 years ago because executive cash compensation started rising and someone thought it was a good idea to invoke Drucker's rule and start taxing companies a greater amount for executives' cash comp than what polite society considered proper. It was also a time where it seemed to be a good idea to align a CEO's pay with the company's profits, so deferred compensation and stock options became a much larger component of CEO pay. So while cash pay was held in check, the non-cash portion continued to rise. But accounting rules still mandate that the non-cash portion are expensed, and the total figure is what everyone uses.

 

Of course that total comp figure for a CEO is not a true representation of differential between a worker and boss, since polite society likes to use workers' wages vs CEO's total comps. You know, kind of like saying you didn't like your apple, because the orange was too sour.

[birdog1960]

Wash Post article is not the context of his thesis - which was put forward before the IRS rules changed. Those rules changed over 30 years ago because executive cash compensation started rising and someone thought it was a good idea to invoke Drucker's rule and start taxing companies a greater amount for executives' cash comp than what polite society considered proper. It was also a time where it seemed to be a good idea to align a CEO's pay with the company's profits, so deferred compensation and stock options became a much larger component of CEO pay. So while cash pay was held in check, the non-cash portion continued to rise. But accounting rules still mandate that the non-cash portion are expensed, and the total figure is what everyone uses.

 

Of course that total comp figure for a CEO is not a true representation of differential between a worker and boss, since polite society likes to use workers' wages vs CEO's total comps. You know, kind of like saying you didn't like your apple, because the orange was too sour.

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.

Edited October 24, 2013 by birdog1960

[Chef Jim]

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.

 

The robber Barons way around their efforts. Are you kidding me. Really, this is what you think of people that have led companies like Google, Apple, Ebay, Amazon, Ford, McDonald's to the world leaders that they are? And just an FYI those big company CEO's make up a very small percentage of the CEO's in this country. And what on earth do you mean by their way around their efforts?

[GG]

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.

 

Way to understand the topic.

[Jauronimo]

The robber Barons way around their efforts. Are you kidding me. Really, this is what you think of people that have led companies like Google, Apple, Ebay, Amazon, Ford, McDonald's to the world leaders that they are? And just an FYI those big company CEO's make up a very small percentage of the CEO's in this country. And what on earth do you mean by their way around their efforts?

Apparently this rule which he can't explain the origin of any more than stating Deming/Drucker said CEO pay should be capped at 20-25 times the lowest paid employee, should be followed blindly because all business structures are the same and all CEOs are of equal talent.

[birdog1960]

Way to understand the topic.

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?

Edited October 24, 2013 by birdog1960

[GG]

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?

 

What you are not understanding, comrade is that any scheme to prevent the free market from operating will inevitably lead to unintended consequences and will almost certainly hurt the people you ostensibly tried to help. That's why I always laugh at the supposed educated people like you, who can't get it through their heads that wealth redistribution policies don't work. They are only good in making people like you feel better about themselves because you think you helped the little guy by holding down his boss's compensation. But you actually did nothing to improve the little guy's fate. Yet you still have a celebratory cocktail and notch another vote in the DEM column.

[IDBillzFan]

Apparently this rule which he can't explain the origin of any more than stating Deming/Drucker said CEO pay should be capped at 20-25 times the lowest paid employee, should be followed blindly because all business structures are the same and all CEOs are of equal talent.

 

And again...the one thing the birdogs and gator folks never want to consider: WHY are some people CEOs and others are those who hope to get work from the CEOs? They seem to believe that the only difference between the two was happenstance; a mere fluke that renders the entire concept of personal efforts moot. It's simply not fair that one gets to be boss and the other doesn't. So they need to oversee the equity.

Edited October 24, 2013 by LABillzFan

[DC Tom]

No he's not. You swallow the bait right down to your gut every time. Fish on!.

 

Don't confuse "responding to it" with being a victim of it.

[Tiberius]

What you are not understanding, comrade is that any scheme to prevent the free market from operating will inevitably lead to unintended consequences and will almost certainly hurt the people you ostensibly tried to help. That's why I always laugh at the supposed educated people like you, who can't get it through their heads that wealth redistribution policies don't work. They are only good in making people like you feel better about themselves because you think you helped the little guy by holding down his boss's compensation. But you actually did nothing to improve the little guy's fate. Yet you still have a celebratory cocktail and notch another vote in the DEM column.

 

You have to be pretty f'n stupid to believe the garbage you just wrote there. You'd have to believe that the rich, who pay most of the taxes (stop wealth distribution), should get a massive tax cut and all the jobs, services, research, health care, etc. provided by said government would be cut and this would be a better country. Only a completely ideologically blind idiot could believe such trash.

 

Does the wealth distribution that created the VA work? Or that helps the elderly get care work?

 

It just amazes me how some one knows how to write sentences can be so blind to something that is so obviously true. But carry on Mr. Free Market, carry on...

[3rdnlng]

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?

 

Where does the IRS get this authority?

[Tiberius]

Where does the IRS get this authority?

 

Article I of the Constitution, Duh!

[3rdnlng]

Article I of the Constitution, Duh!

 

Read it over and show me where the IRS has authority over someone's compensation.

[Jauronimo]

You have to be pretty f'n stupid to believe the garbage you just wrote there. You'd have to believe that the rich, who pay most of the taxes (stop wealth distribution), should get a massive tax cut and all the jobs, services, research, health care, etc. provided by said government would be cut and this would be a better country. Only a completely ideologically blind idiot could believe such trash.

 

Does the wealth distribution that created the VA work? Or that helps the elderly get care work?

 

It just amazes me how some one knows how to write sentences can be so blind to something that is so obviously true. But carry on Mr. Free Market, carry on...

I've read this at least 10 times now and it gets funnier each time. Not only does it have nothing to do with what GG wrote but it makes no sense on its own merit.

[birdog1960]

Read it over and show me where the IRS has authority over someone's compensation.

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.

[birdog1960]

And again...the one thing the birdogs and gator folks never want to consider: WHY are some people CEOs and others are those who hope to get work from the CEOs? They seem to believe that the only difference between the two was happenstance; a mere fluke that renders the entire concept of personal efforts moot. It's simply not fair that one gets to be boss and the other doesn't. So they need to oversee the equity.

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.