It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Eunuchorn
Currently 75 people have more wealth than 3.5 Billion people. When the system is so innately evil...
originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
a reply to: Eunuchorn
So let's say the CEO of Ford is contractually due a massive $100 million bonus. But instead, the company is forced to give that to the 224,000 employees… amounting to about $280 annually after taxes… or $5.38 a week.
You're implying that will make some kind of difference?
originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: SkepticOverlord
Bit of oversimplified example (a lot of those 224k employees will be on high wages already why spread it amongst them) but even going with that yes 5.38 a week would make a difference to a low paid employee. Also as lower paid spend a higher proportion of their income it would also be good for the economy.
originally posted by: JIMC5499
originally posted by: Eunuchorn
a reply to: JIMC5499
It's even more sad you think voting exists.
That's a weird statement coming from somebody who wants Government to cap salaries.
originally posted by: Mirthful Me
originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: SkepticOverlord
Bit of oversimplified example (a lot of those 224k employees will be on high wages already why spread it amongst them) but even going with that yes 5.38 a week would make a difference to a low paid employee. Also as lower paid spend a higher proportion of their income it would also be good for the economy.
Credibility lost... $5.38 a week makes a difference? That would be 13.45 cents per hour wage increase, or $279.76 a year. As an aside, who is the "low paid employee" at FOMOCO?
"Lower paid" workers spend a higher proportion of their income? In fact, they spend all of it! Hand to mouth, paycheck to paycheck ring a bell? It is the goal of most people to spend a smaller percentage of their income, allowing for savings and investment, true drivers of the economy.
originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Mirthful Me
Do realise your two points contradict each other? 5.38a week won't make a difference to someone living paycheck to paycheck?
Also the ford example was just that an example(picked by skepticaloverlord) I have no idea of the lowest salaries in ford, you can insert any major corporation of your choice.
originally posted by: SkepticOverlord
originally posted by: JesseVentura
Did you know that in the last three decades, a CEOs salary has grown 875% versus that of the average worker
Did you know that a "CEO" is among the most volatile job positions, with near-constant scrutiny, in all of industry?
Did you know that we're currently in a free market economy where the board of directors of companies can opt to pay a high salary to a CEO, who might be in high demand, in order to acquire the typically very rare skill set of that CEO? If the market (companies) is willing to pay the cost (salary & perks) for a valuable commodity (experience) why is that wrong?
Was the cost of Steve Jobs worth it for Apple? I would presume the stock holders would say yes.
Is the cost of Mark Fields worth it for Ford? I think the stock holders would say yes.
Here's a real-world example. Back in the late 1990's, my team won the advertising business for a large company working hard at a turn-around… because they were months away from complete failure. The board fired the entire executive staff (they deserved it), and rebuilt it, beginning with a high-profile CEO. He was very expensive, not just because of the experience and connections he brought to the company, but because of the risk involved in trying to turn around a failing former giant. But because of him at the company's head, they were able to attract other exceptionally experienced executives to the team… he was someone other similarly experienced people wanted to work for. They were also expensive.
But it worked.
After two years, there was a phenomenal turn-around, and eventually a return to the stock's former price. Hundreds-of-thousands of stock holders and pension funds holding the company's stock went from fearing it was worthless, to the former glory of the stock price… not to mention everyone working there still had their jobs. All because the company took a huge risk on insane salaries for the CEO and the executive team.
Free market. It's a good thing.
Edit to add…
Forgot another tidbit about the company mentioned above. A few years later, after I left advertising, the company was acquired for more than their market cap, by a much bigger company, giving stock holders a huge payday. No one was laid off as there was no overlap with the acquiring company. Part of the reason for the acquisition was… you guessed it… the quality of the executive team.