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.

 

Wall Street, Economic Vamparisme, Why Profitting Off Others Is Bad

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 10:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Edumakated

It's not the CEO it's holding stock in the company and Profitting off of doing nothing and all of the actual laborers not seeing a fair return on their labor.

Your perspective is a joke.


Different pillars of employment require different skill sets.

Some of those skills are more valuable than others.

A CEO makes that company WAY more money than the grill.

Economics 101




posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 10:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Chickensalad

Nonsense.

You can't have an engine if you remove a part, it's a useless engine.

In no world is a CEO or stock holder worth 56 million times more than the person who does the actual work to get the job done.

Hate to break it to you but the system isn't working.

I know in fantasy land it may look different but in reality for the majority of the world living in some form of poverty or another it's not working.

Obviously it's flawed and defending it is nonsensical.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 10:10 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion




If the company can't afford to share its profits with its employees then it shouldn't be in business.

I have to disagree with that. Many successful companies have started as small business and even involve family help to get started or are a one man team from the start.

Also running a business takes alot of monthly overhead and risk , that could financially ruin most people for having just one bad month.

I had monthly overhead expenses typically north of 40K and that was a very small business. It doesn't take much to financially ruin you with those numbers. So the owners needs to be compensated not because they are the owners but because they are taking large risks and a small bump on the road could kill a business.

I have been on both sides the equation as employee and business owner and I can tell you, that biggest issue or misconception I see with employees that have never run there own business is.

1. Thinking that a business owner started a business and took all the risk and headaches that goes with doing that , for the benefit of others.

2. That a small business owner sets the salary for its employee and not the labor pool.

Having said that . you are absolutely correct about the following.


Our current system is flawed horrendously


However, the issue is not greedy corporations or businessmen owners.

The issue is not even that corporations have un realistic and unattainable goals to consistently grow for infinity , in order to increase their value and stay alive.

The issue is that those greedy and desperate corporations for survival have the ability to influence our laws by lobbying . superpacs , and other means to bribe our politicians to manipulate the market and and the consumer. They consistently keep moving the grey area further back from what was once acceptable out of desperation to survive, because the American voters let them.

In order to fix the system you need to stop those corporations from influencing the politicians. As long as people concentrate on the symptoms of corruption such as economy , healthcare, minimum wage. medicaid, ss, racism, sexuality, etc nothing will change.

You need to go after the monetary influences in washington for any form of clarity to shine thru.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 10:11 PM
link   
a reply to: interupt42

The risk you take is definitely a value builder but at what point do you begin to share the risk with the employee?

What is proper compensation and what isn't?

I agree with you on one hand but I disagree about people being payed their fair share.

If we were seeing a better divide than we would see less money going into fewer hands which is what we have now.
edit on 1/21/2016 by onequestion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 10:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Chickensalad

Nonsense.

You can't have an engine if you remove a part, it's a useless engine.

In no world is a CEO or stock holder worth 56 million times more than the person who does the actual work to get the job done.

Hate to break it to you but the system isn't working.

I know in fantasy land it may look different but in reality for the majority of the world living in some form of poverty or another it's not working.

Obviously it's flawed and defending it is nonsensical.


You need to grow up.

The guy dropping fries is important but in no way is that job worth the same to the company as the CEO. First off, there is nearly an unlimited supply of people who can learn to drop fries. Executives with the skill to steer a multi billion global enterprise employing tens if not hundreds of thousand of people are hard to come by.

If the guy dropping fries screws up, the worst thing that happens is a customer may get a little pissed off. If the CEO screws up, people lose jobs, stock price craters, grandma's retirement evaporates, etc.

Your perspective on responsibilities is a bit skewed.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 10:15 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion
I see that you don't understand how engines nor global corporations work.

Word of advice, don't open up a business in the engine industry



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 10:16 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

I think you know that this was build up for profit?

isn't a company in your country a person?




posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 10:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Chickensalad

I understand exactly why global corporations shouldn't exist and everything I've said is perfectly thought out and tangible.

I'm sorry that you think what we do now is what we should be doing.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 10:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: interupt42

The risk you take is definitely a value builder but at what point do you begin to share the risk with the employee?

What is proper compensation and what isn't?

I agree with you on one hand but I disagree about people being payed their fair share.

If we were seeing a better divide than we would see less money going into fewer hands which is what we have now.


You keep saying fair share. WTF is fair share? Be specific.

Business owners take huge risks. Houses are mortgaged to the hilt. They may not even pay themselves just trying to keep the doors open and avoiding layoffs. They can be ruined financially. Employees share none of that risk. You are hired to do a job. You show up, do your job and get paid.

My boss started his business at his kitchen table 25 years ago. The company has grown and is now very successful. He took the risk and reaped the reward. He now employs about 300 people. He is a multimillionaire.

My fair share is that he provided a place for me to earn a living. I earn a very good income. If at any point I am unhappy with the arrangement, I can choose to leave to go work at a competitor. He owes me nothing. We agreed on compensation and that is it. If he is unhappy with what I am producing, he can fire me. If I am unhappy with what I am being paid for my work, I can quit. This isn't very complicated.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 10:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

If you work for a company full time and make less than what you need to SURVIVE then your not getting a fair share.

It's ok everything is working just fine right?

You keep defending today's model when clearly it's not working.

Why are you defending it it doesn't make sense?



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 10:31 PM
link   
Sorry if I'm coming off as a bit rash...not my intentions.

Look, yes I agree that all employees are valued and should be treated as such, but a lower lever employee can be replaced way easier than a CEO or even a franchise owner themselves.

It takes different skills to run a global corporation than it does to run a grill or cash register. They aren't even close.

Using your engine analogy,which is a poor analogy to be fair, consider the CEO as the CPU and the fry cook as a thermostat. The engine can run without the thermostat, and yes it may stop running without it being replaced eventually, but it only costs less than $20 and self labor to replace, whereas if the CPU stops, it can cause the entire engine to stop all together.....and they aren't near as cheap nor easy to replace.

Again, it's a terrible analogy and I'm sure some one else can poke holes in the whole thing, but I'm just trying to get on your level of understanding here.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 10:31 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

it makes perfect sense if you are the CEO

why moan about the problem when its the law makers to blame for the problem?

?
edit on 21-1-2016 by missedinformation because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 10:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Chickensalad

The CEO isn't worth 56 million times more though right?

Can we agree on that?

Have you heard of maximum ratio?

What's the right ratio?



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 10:34 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

Like I said I agree with you that the system is broke. But many of the symptoms you are seeing is because Corporations are creating the rules as they need to via lobbying and our politicians and CEO are lying through their teeth.

For example:
I'm in the engineering industry and I always hear about the corporate hype about not enough American engineers to fill the jobs.

Then you see companies like Disney who had full staff of American workers who all the sudden were fired and their jobs were outsourced to India. So is the issue really the lack of qualified American workers or the desire by these companies to legally send jobs oversea for cheap labor.

Now the key is not that Disney is evil or enjoys doing this or even greed, Its that Disney HAS TO DO that in order to survive and increase their bottom line for infinity or they fail. The problem is that Oligopolies and corporations such as Disney have made it legal to do that.

You want a fair workers market place you must concentrate on taking that monetary influence away. Or wait till our standard of living drops to the level of China ,so our cost of living becomes equal to theirs. Hence we will be able to compete with them.

bottom line corporations and business are doing what they are suppose to be doing to survive. The people that are dropping the ball are the Politicians and the American voters that don't stick to the only issue at hand: Corruption in DC.

You fix that then workers will have a greater voice to change the system.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 10:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Edumakated

If you work for a company full time and make less than what you need to SURVIVE then your not getting a fair share.

It's ok everything is working just fine right?

You keep defending today's model when clearly it's not working.

Why are you defending it it doesn't make sense?


Your market wage and ability to pay your bills are two entirely different things. But let's get to the crux of the debate. How much exactly do you think people should get paid? Be specific. What is the minimum annual income someone with basically zero marketable skills (i.e., that person would be working a minimum wage job) earn for working a 40 hour week?

The second question I have is how much should we pay teenagers doing the same job?



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 10:38 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

That all depends on the good being produced and the demand on the market actually.

I don't think that there is any neat number that we can come up with that covers everything.

If consumers one day decide to stop spending their money on company A in your OP, and the CEO of company A doesn't make the decisions made to keep the company in the black, then he isn't worth much, but if it goes the other direction, and he keeps profits high regardless, and still allows jobs for a large percentage while still keeping investors happy, then he's worth way more.



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 10:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

See this is where we differ.

Your gauging someone's value based on a perceived skill and on that notion alone.

That is exactly where your logic is flawed.

I consider ther factors into the wage equation. Such as...

Skill set...
Is it laborious... Yes
Hard working.... Yes
Product knowledge... Yes
Reliable... Yes
Good customer service... Yes
Full time employee... Yes
Does this employee contribute to the success of my company... Yes

Then that person deserves a fair share period.

I'm not basing their value solely on a perceived skill level. Yes That is a factor but not the only factor.

Answer this question....

Who works harder, the manager or the person unloading the truck, and define exactly why and how?

The actual value depends on the area.
edit on 1/21/2016 by onequestion because: (no reason given)

edit on 1/21/2016 by onequestion because: (no reason given)

edit on 1/21/2016 by onequestion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 10:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Chickensalad

The CEO isn't worth 56 million times more though right?

Can we agree on that?

Have you heard of maximum ratio?

What's the right ratio?


It depends on the CEO. First, I don't know any CEO that makes 56 million times than a minimum wage employee. Second, most CEOs earn most of their money from stock options, not salary. The reason for this is because a big part of a CEO responsibility is to create shareholder value which means a higher share price.

The biggest flaw though is that there are only a small number of CEOs making obscene amounts of money. F500 CEOs represent the largest 500 global corporations. They are hardly representative of the typical business owner. It is like complaining about how much A list actors make or professional ball players.

Is it unfair that Will Smith makes $20 million a movie while the production assistant is probably working for free?



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 10:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Chickensalad

How about this...

Which employee can the company be run without, and why does he still work there?



posted on Jan, 21 2016 @ 10:45 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

While those employees in your above post should be cherished, their absence generally have no bearing on the major investors. That one employee you described can leave and go to another competing company whereas if a CEO or another higher personal with those same qualities was to leave, it could cause investors to panic and drop like flies.

I hope you see the difference.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join