CEO salaries, corporate power and employees

[PLAYER57832]

My company's yearly meeting:

Average hourly labor cost : $13.00/hour

Picked out this, because averages in a workplace mean very little. What is more important is how far down the bottom stretches along with the location/basic living expenses of the area. Also, that average might or might not include salaried employees. If it does, then the average is probably weighted a tad high.

[PLAYER57832]

Few will admit to that, but when you decide that its perfectly OK to pay someone only $7.50, though you know they cannot possibly rent an apartment or eat without subsidies for that.. it IS what you are saying. Worse, you are expecting the rest of society to pick up the tab.

I need to know how many people make $7.50 an hour. Further, I need to know, of those people, how many hours they work on a weekly basis at that particular job. I need to understand these things before I can get on a soapbox.

I have provided this data before and you've ignored. I've even provided data showing what the minimum amount a person living in Philadelphia must be paid to live (i.e. buy food, pay rent, pay for transportion, etc.). You've ignored that as well. I think that puts the onus on you at this point.

I don't know where you posted that information. If I did not answer it, I did not see it.. or maybe I found several other contradictory sources of information? I did counter Nightrikes "information" on compensation, suing average rent, etc. costs. (actually, I posted a range.. the rate here, the average US and rates I know in CA).

That said, knowing the exact numbers is sort of irrelevant to this, kind of a "red herring argument". Does it really matter if 2000 or 2,000,000 people are being abused, it is still wrong. In fact, if anything showing that fewere people actually work for the lowest wage really shows that the minimum needs to be increased even more, that the impact of that increase won't be as huge as some people project, since more people are there already.

No politician who is in favor of raising the minimum wage is thinking about a single mother of four making minimum wage and working 60 hours a week. They are thinking of union agreements where salary increases tie to minimum wage. Why? Because the former people don't exist in any great numbers.

I have never referred to single mothers of 4. In fact, they have the least to worry about in our current system, because their incomes will be shown as deceptively low, but exclude child support and many other types of aid they recieve. I don't believe single mothers should be treated any differently than married individuals.. maybe held to higher task, because they generally ARE getting more than just their wages and most of it goes uncounted for a lot of aid purposes, but married people have to count every penny as their wages. If I get into that issue, its usually from the other side.. the payers of support who are shown to be making a decent wage, but who in truth have to give away 1/2 their income or more. That is, they should support their kids, but counting that as the non-custodial parent's earnings instead of as the custodial parent's income skews a LOT of aid statistics. (talking about reporting and counting issues, not payment)

MY "soapbox" is people working 2 jobs, often married, who either are only able to get by due to aid they recieve or who make just a tad too much to get any aid. AND.. that number is a lot higher than you seem to believe.

For the pure minimum wage bit -- wikki puts the number of minimum wage earners at 4.9% of wage earners. That might not seem like that much, but note that anyone making even a penny more won't appear in that 4.9%. Also, many localities mandate more than a minimum wage..(Alaska sets their minimum at $0.50 over minimum wage, for example) so they would also be excluded from the above. BUT, given that the current minimum wage is so far below what it really takes people to live upon today, that point is rather moot.

This site here:

Says that one in four households is living on under $25,000 a year. They offer a good, but short discussion.
http://www.mybudget360.com/how-much-doe ... e-numbers/
gives a nice general discussion of average wages and income distribution.

one point.. the author is obviously in CA, so when he talks of living on $46,000 in CA... I would be quite happy to live off that here!

On that point, I will lay out a basic budget, (NOT my own.. we actually don't spend this much on most categories, but have some very significant debt on which we are paying over 28% interest). These are rough averages for our area, for a family of 4

Rent -- $500
garbage, sewage, water: $100
electric $50
Natural gas (budget plan) $120
Food $400
phone $50
Gasoline, clothing, etc. $200
Childcare, fulltime ($120 a week per child -- children under 11 must be supervised in PA), 480
Medical insurance (employer-subsidized) $400


TOTAL: 23000 a year + various withholdings.

I tentatively set withholdings at 10% , just to be simple.. you can put better figures into this.
So... that equals 25300 / 52 = 487 a week or $12.16 an hour.

That might not seem so bad. One person makes $12 or two average out to $6.00 an hour, BUT -- a lot of people will dispute my $400 a month for food (does depend on a lot of freebies, getting outdated stuff on extreme sales, etc.) I have not included a lot of costs, such as even co-payments for medical care, and my utility costs are pretty low.

A lot of other costs can vary a great deal. Our household spends a lot more on gasoline than many people becuase my husband is a firefighter, (we spend about $400 a month on average). A few people in this area can almost walk, but others have to drive 30 minutes or more.

BUT.. note that you can probably triple those in any big city. AND...many of the above are low, even for here.

This USED to be the case. Now the "product" most companies "sell" is stock profits and other kinds of "financial products". Ultimately, there are real products and services down there holding the system up, true.. but far, far, far too many people feel they have the right to siphon whatever they want off, leaving the actual workers with less than it takes them to live on. That is just not right.

What in the hell are you talking about? For companies that buy and sell financial products, the employees are (a) not making minimum wage and (b) perfectly happy with their salaries.[/quote]
LOL... I think you need to step outside your office and look at what is really happening. This discussion began over CEO salaries. My point is that worker compensation is too low, but CEO compensations keep rising in ways not tied to profits from products. CEO salaries are tied to things like stock profits, other types of profits more than to the basic product sold. Beyond that, in a general sense, most of the wealth in the nation is no longer tied to making a product except indirectly. It is tied far more to more esoteric financial products and ideas.

Just look at something like home ownership. There we are talking about what should be a "reall good", solid property, something tangible. It used to be that way. We got low rates on mortgages, in part because banks could always repossess the house and make their money back. That was in the past. The last debacle happened because the whole mortgage industry went from loaning people real money for real products to loaning money under essentially fictitious grounds over what property would have been truly worth on any real market. Few people cared becuase so many had vested interests in making a few bucks off the operations. As long as people made money, they chose not to challenge too much. People all over the world were investing in the US real estate market and making profits, so when things crashed it hit everyone.. not just a few here. Soo... now we have thousands of people left with mortgages exceeding the "real value" of their homes, some of whom took advantage and deserve consequences, but many of whom were either duped themselves into believing they could afford what they were getting and many others who legitimately should have been able to afford their homes, who would have been able to afford their homes if the system were more honestly based on real profits instead of fictional creations. Guess who is paying almost nothing??? The heads of the banks! Guess who is making what profits there are left in the system? The Banks! Guess who is paying for all this --- we ALL are, more in the municipalities with heavy foreclosure rates, but ultimately, we are all paying for the fact that mortgages were no longer tied to real and true housing costs in a real sense.

A similar debacle is happening with goods. I will fast forward through a lot of analysis and debate and say that the biggest issue facing our country right now is that we are losing our natural resources, particularly our farm lands and to a lesser extent our forests and wetlands. Those things are not just magically replaceable. There is no foreclosure sale to bring back a farm that was plowed under for a shopping mall.. no matter if that shopping mall fails. The building may rot and become an eyesore, but won't return to farmland without some very, very serious monetary input.. if at all. BUT... most people like yourself in positions to make somewhat real decisions about finances, financing and various rules are mostly utterly unaware that there even is a problem, never mind having the knowledge to fix or deal with these many issues. AND.. too many of you have been taught, like BBS that a bit of financial knowledge gives you the right to claim higher intelligence and more right to make decisions than those of us trained in other areas. It doesn't matter what I know.... most people will thumb your nose because its not to their liking. I don't have an economics degree, so I cannot possibly understand anything about how money is generated (and yes, you have actually tried to listen to a large extent). Except.. as you noted, money, ultimately does come from making and selling products. The whole system depends upon people eating and having food, basics and then the rest is from left over money. When the makers get a smaller and smaller percentage, then at some point the system breaks. When 99% of the people are supporting the wealth of 1% who hold 99% of the wealth, then the system is not just skewed, its broken.

The intangible result is people depend more and more on government aid, seem like they are "getting by" because we have a lot of fall backs in our society that keep people from truly reaching a real, ultimate bottom. Teh tangible result is that company after company fails and people in even worse off areas start to get really angry, resort to things like terrorism to get a tiny piece of the big pie they see others have.. and think most of the US has.

[thegreekdog]

Okay, here's part one:

http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2011.htm

(1) In 2011, 73.9 million American workers (which eliminates all non-workers) age 16 and over were paid at hourly rates, representing 59.1 percent of all wage and salary workers. So that eliminates 40.9% of workers.
(2) Among those paid by the hour, 1.7 million earned exactly the prevailing Federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. About 2.2 million had wages below the minimum. Together, these 3.8 million workers with wages at or below the Federal minimum made up 5.2 percent of all hourly-paid workers.
(3) Minimum wage workers tend to be young. Although workers under age 25 represented only about one-fifth of hourly-paid workers, they made up about half of those paid the Federal minimum wage or less. Among employed teenagers paid by the hour, about 23 percent earned the minimum wage or less, compared with about 3 percent of workers age 25 and over.

There are a lot more relevant statistics in the website. But what the above and the other statistics tend to show is that raising the minimum wage, on its own, will affect a very small portion of the population, a lot of whom cannot vote and a lot of whom are not taking care of themselves, much less a family. So, why do we care so much about minimum wage again?

And here's part two:

http://livingwage.mit.edu/

The living wage calculator takes into account the following items: food, child care, medical, housing, transportation, and other. The calculator assumes merely a 40 hour work week.

Let's look at Philadelphia and let's look at Allentown Pennsylvania:

Philadelphia - http://livingwage.mit.edu/places/4210160000

A single person can make a living wage on $10.09 an hour (the lowest). One adult caring for three non-working children can make a living wage on $31.43 an hour (the highest). Let's say a person making $10.09 works 40 hours a week - that's $20,987 a year. Let's say that person works 60 hours a week - that's $31,480 a year. The person with three children is likely receiving welfare from the government in some form, in addition to refundable tax credits and potentially the Earned Income Tax Credit.

http://www.bizjournals.com/philadelphia ... ily10.html

This website (from 2010) analyzed the various wages in Philadelphia. The lowest mean wage was for food service ($8.25 an hour, well over minimum wage).

Allentown - http://livingwage.mit.edu/places/4207702000

A single person can make a living wage on $8.58 an hour (the lowest). One adult caring for three non-working children can make a living wage on $29.77 an hour (the highest).

[thegreekdog]

This discussion began over CEO salaries. My point is that worker compensation is too low, but CEO compensations keep rising in ways not tied to profits from products. CEO salaries are tied to things like stock profits, other types of profits more than to the basic product sold. Beyond that, in a general sense, most of the wealth in the nation is no longer tied to making a product except indirectly. It is tied far more to more esoteric financial products and ideas.

I don't agree with your point at all. And while it may be a good idea for me to step out of my offices, my clients tend to be those companies that sell products and services in the United States, so I deal with the companies you are maligning on a regular basis (which may make me biased, I suppose).

(1) If CEO compensation is tied to profits from stocks (which it probably is to a certain extent, I suppose), the stock price is directly tied to the financial performance of the company. The financial performance of the company is tied primarily to its products and services.
(2) While most of the employees in the United States are not in production jobs, the wealth of the United States is certainly tied directly to production. General Electric may manufacture things outside the United States, but it is a US corporation.

Rehashes bank/mortgage/housing crisis

While it is true that banks and investors made money on toxic mortgages and other financial products, I challenge you to provide me with a reason why home buyers who purchased homes well above their financial ability are blameless. Furthermore, this has little or nothing to do with living wages or CEO salaries. For the most part, the people who made the money off of these assets lost money and lost jobs. Admittedly, some of them were given tax dollars to continue on their merry ways, which I obviously did not and do not agree with. But this issue has nothing to do with CEOs or living wages.

Good point on government aid

It is very concerning that more of our population relies upon the government on a daily basis for their financial stability. This is concerning for any number of reasons. First, it is concerning because it is clear that our system of welfare does not do what it should be doing, which is putting people back in a position to find a job and work; or, alternatively or additionally, to provide a safety net. This is less a safety net and more a blanket. Second, it is concerning because when people become dependent on the government, they cannot contribute to the government, which results in less tax revenues in addition to more expenses. Third, it is concerning because as the baby boomers begin to retire, the amount of people relying on the government for their financial security will increase drastically. This will put even more pressure on the system.

I liked the president's idea (which he said in his last two States of the Union) to train people for new jobs. Frankly, I think it's the individual's responsibility to get that training and pay for that training (or, alternatively, the employer's responsibility), but I think it's in the best interest of the country to get people trained up on high tech jobs (or anything else) so they get off the financial rolls of the government.

[PLAYER57832]

Okay, here's part one:

http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2011.htm

(1) In 2011, 73.9 million American workers (which eliminates all non-workers) age 16 and over were paid at hourly rates, representing 59.1 percent of all wage and salary workers. So that eliminates 40.9% of workers.
(2) Among those paid by the hour, 1.7 million earned exactly the prevailing Federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. About 2.2 million had wages below the minimum. Together, these 3.8 million workers with wages at or below the Federal minimum made up 5.2 percent of all hourly-paid workers.
(3) Minimum wage workers tend to be young. Although workers under age 25 represented only about one-fifth of hourly-paid workers, they made up about half of those paid the Federal minimum wage or less. Among employed teenagers paid by the hour, about 23 percent earned the minimum wage or less, compared with about 3 percent of workers age 25 and over.

There are a lot more relevant statistics in the website. But what the above and the other statistics tend to show is that raising the minimum wage, on its own, will affect a very small portion of the population, a lot of whom cannot vote and a lot of whom are not taking care of themselves, much less a family. So, why do we care so much about minimum wage again?

Because, as I said, anyone making even a penny more is not making minimum wage any longer.
But making 7.36, or even 7.75 doesn' cut it in today's world, without government subsidies. THAT is the real issue.. do we subsidize businesses by supporting their employees or do we make companies pay the wages people actually need and then either fail or gain based on more real costs.
THAT, by-the way, includes people making salaried wages. It used to be that only higher end managers worked salaried jobs, but that, too has changed.

And here's part two:

http://livingwage.mit.edu/

The living wage calculator takes into account the following items: food, child care, medical, housing, transportation, and other. The calculator assumes merely a 40 hour work week.

Let's look at Philadelphia and let's look at Allentown Pennsylvania:

Philadelphia - http://livingwage.mit.edu/places/4210160000

A single person can make a living wage on $10.09 an hour (the lowest). One adult caring for three non-working children can make a living wage on $31.43 an hour (the highest). Let's say a person making $10.09 works 40 hours a week - that's $20,987 a year. Let's say that person works 60 hours a week - that's $31,480 a year. The person with three children is likely receiving welfare from the government in some form, in addition to refundable tax credits and potentially the Earned Income Tax Credit.

http://www.bizjournals.com/philadelphia ... ily10.html

This website (from 2010) analyzed the various wages in Philadelphia. The lowest mean wage was for food service ($8.25 an hour, well over minimum wage).

NOTE that this is well above minimum... and actually above what I have said should be the minimum (which is $8, though many figures do say $9 is more realistic)

Tell me again how you think this in any way shape or form disputes what I am saying????

Allentown - http://livingwage.mit.edu/places/4207702000

A single person can make a living wage on $8.58 an hour (the lowest). One adult caring for three non-working children can make a living wage on $29.77 an hour (the highest).

Can make and will make are two very different measures. But again, what you are actually showing is why the federal minimum should be raised, not the reverse. Because you show quite well that people really do need more than 7.35 to get by.


BUT.. the worst issues have to do with part-time abuse. That is another topic and I have to leave now.

[thegreekdog]

Because, as I said, anyone making even a penny more is not making minimum wage any longer.
But making 7.36, or even 7.75 doesn' cut it in today's world, without government subsidies. THAT is the real issue.. do we subsidize businesses by supporting their employees or do we make companies pay the wages people actually need and then either fail or gain based on more real costs.
THAT, by-the way, includes people making salaried wages. It used to be that only higher end managers worked salaried jobs, but that, too has changed.

I need you to provide statistics with how many people aren't making a living wage; and not a "per hour" living wage because if you work 40 hours a week and make $10 an hour, you need to work more than 40 hours a week.

I guess we have to go back to basics a little. Employer pays employee. Employer pays taxes. Employee pays taxes. Government uses tax dollars to give money to employers and employees. So this idea that "we can subsidize business or require companies to pay employees more instead of giving them government subsidies" is irrelevant.

Can make and will make are two very different measures. But again, what you are actually showing is why the federal minimum should be raised, not the reverse. Because you show quite well that people really do need more than 7.35 to get by.


BUT.. the worst issues have to do with part-time abuse. That is another topic and I have to leave now.

You need to look at the websites I provided a little better and read my post a little more. People do need more than $7.35 to get by. But most people who are taking care of themselves or a family make a lot more than $7.35 an hour and/or work more than 40 hours a week. The second and third websites show what people need to make to live. The first website shows who actually makes minimum wage. Think about it some more.

[karel]

what in the good hell is going on in this thread?

[BigBallinStalin]

Because, as I said, anyone making even a penny more is not making minimum wage any longer.
But making 7.36, or even 7.75 doesn' cut it in today's world, without government subsidies. THAT is the real issue.. do we subsidize businesses by supporting their employees or do we make companies pay the wages people actually need and then either fail or gain based on more real costs.
THAT, by-the way, includes people making salaried wages. It used to be that only higher end managers worked salaried jobs, but that, too has changed.

I need you to provide statistics with how many people aren't making a living wage; and not a "per hour" living wage because if you work 40 hours a week and make $10 an hour, you need to work more than 40 hours a week.

I guess we have to go back to basics a little. Employer pays employee. Employer pays taxes. Employee pays taxes. Government uses tax dollars to give money to employers and employees. So this idea that "we can subsidize business or require companies to pay employees more instead of giving them government subsidies" is irrelevant.

[PLAYER57832]

Because, as I said, anyone making even a penny more is not making minimum wage any longer.
But making 7.36, or even 7.75 doesn' cut it in today's world, without government subsidies. THAT is the real issue.. do we subsidize businesses by supporting their employees or do we make companies pay the wages people actually need and then either fail or gain based on more real costs.
THAT, by-the way, includes people making salaried wages. It used to be that only higher end managers worked salaried jobs, but that, too has changed.

I need you to provide statistics with how many people aren't making a living wage; and not a "per hour" living wage because if you work 40 hours a week and make $10 an hour, you need to work more than 40 hours a week.

I did provide those statistics. In fact, the most common reported stats give yearly gross incomes from which hourly wages are deduced, not the reverse.

Even so, you don't explain why you think this disputes the need for a raise in the minimum wage.

I guess we have to go back to basics a little. Employer pays employee. Employer pays taxes. Employee pays taxes. Government uses tax dollars to give money to employers and employees. So this idea that "we can subsidize business or require companies to pay employees more instead of giving them government subsidies" is irrelevant.

Maybe you don't think there is a difference between getting a reasonable wage for work versus depending on government subsidies because your pay is so low, but I sure do! It certainly matters for taxes, because taxes are paid on wages, but not subsidies -- whether to individuals or corporations.

Further, it really matters in a climate of cutting subsidies. I don't think the government should be subsidizing most businesses at all, unless it is for reasearch that is then available to everyone, not just whomever happens to hold the most similar patents already (which is how government researched patents are currently offered out). There are a very few exceptions, like maintaining a basic set of critical industries (including a basic level of agriculture) -- however, I don't think direct subsidies are the best way to go in that regard, either.

For example (just to show what I mean by indirect subsidies), instead of having stocks of FEMA supplies (or relying solely on the American Red Cross and such), I would instead offer grocery stores in an area tax breaks for building their stores, or at least storage facilities that will withstand the emergencies in that area (the 1000 year flood, tornadoes, etc.). In exchange, they would be required to carry a tad more than their usual stocks of non-perishable goods, which would then be available in an emergency.. not necessarily for free, or at government expense, either. (though I can percieve of a kind of at cost offering on a very limited, rationed basis during emergencies). Similarly, I would like to see most government offices and even some subsidized housing built in a way that they can serve as post-disaster housing for workers in the area. BUT.. some of that means that when these things are seriously reviewed, folks will find out that they live in an areas where people really should not be living fulltime. Fine if they want to stay, but to expect everyone to subsidize a rebuild -- be it a seaside community or a tornado devastated town, is not right. Building and construction codes, but also community designs should be mandated to be reasonable for the environmental conditions, not just the convenient short term economics. In many cases, long-standing communities have already met those tests, but many newer places don't.

Can make and will make are two very different measures. But again, what you are actually showing is why the federal minimum should be raised, not the reverse. Because you show quite well that people really do need more than 7.35 to get by.


BUT.. the worst issues have to do with part-time abuse. That is another topic and I have to leave now.

You need to look at the websites I provided a little better and read my post a little more. People do need more than $7.35 to get by.[/quote]Good, we agree.. the minimum wage needs to be raised.

But most people who are taking care of themselves or a family make a lot more than $7.35 an hour and/or work more than 40 hours a week. The second and third websites show what people need to make to live. The first website shows who actually makes minimum wage. Think about it some more.

If you are working more than 40 hours a week, you might be providing some financial support, but you are NOT "taking care of" your family.. you just are not. This is true whether it is a Wallstreet banker making a few hundred K or more a year or the lady tending the register at Dollar General. The Wallstreet banker, though can afford to hire a decent nanny.. or just support his wife, who will do a reasonable job of caring for the kids. The clerk at Dollar General cannot unless they have a relative or get most income from a spouse/their child's other parent.

Beyond that, look back at the original argument and debate. MY point, all along is twofold. First, that its absolutely immoral for the CEOs and stockholders of these companies to collect huge bonuses and then turn around and claim they cannot pay their workers enough for those workers to live without subsidies. This is particularly aggregious when a lot of those stockholders are currently crowing about how they "support themselves"... decry the "entitlement mentality" of society, etc. Its a basic rule.. you pay your employees FIRST, not last. Owners make the investment, sure... but that is a risk, it is not a gaurantee. They stand to gain big, but also might lose big. What is happening is that this idea of risk has been so minimized that stockholders and investors basically see their investments as guaranteed... and the stupid idiots who actually work for a living are just out of luck. That is not a good system. WORKERS, not investors drive the economy. Investors are important, but can do nothing without workers who traditionally only want a basic, decent wage.

The second point is what I have said all along. There is a reason slavery was outlawed, a reason why we actually have a minimum wage. That reasons is because some people will always be willing to work for whatever wage.. but allowing companies to get by with cheap labor actually hurts the rest of us, because those people don't pay the taxes, don't spend the money and wind up depending on the rest of us in various tangible and intangible ways. Its not just government subsidies, its also the food banks private individuals support (though a lot of people don't realize that most food banks are heavily subsidized by the government... the staples typically come from tax dollars and the varoius odds and ends come from individuals).

It even gets into things like volunteer scout leaders, fire departments, etc. People who have to work 60-80 hours don't have time to do those volunteer things, so kids wind up more at loose ends, communities go without protections they need, etc... and it really does come back to a very low minimum wage as a major component of why.