CEO pay

[d-ray657]

The following story appeared in the Kansas City Star. So this is why we need to lighten up on corporate taxes. :mad:

Corporations richly reward CEOs for tax avoidance, group reports
By DIANE STAFFORD
The Kansas City Star

Twenty-five of the 100 highest-paid CEOs in the United States last year took home more pay than their corporations paid in federal corporate income taxes, according to a report released today.

The annual report on executive compensation, published by the Institute for Policy Studies, said the average CEO compensation at Fortune 500 companies rose nearly 28 percent, and the ratio of CEO pay to that of the average worker increased.

The research organization, which advocates for social justice, said the 25 “tax-dodging” CEOs averaged $16.7 million in pay last year. The report said most of their companies had substantial profits yet collected an average of $413 million each in refunds from the Internal Revenue Service.

Researchers said 18 of the 25 firms had subsidiaries in offshore tax havens, for a combined total of 556 tax haven subsidiaries.

“Of the 25 companies that paid their CEO more than Uncle Sam, 20 also spent more on lobbying lawmakers than they paid in corporate taxes,” according to the institute. “Eighteen gave more to the political campaigns of their favorite candidates than they paid to the IRS in taxes.”

Each year the institute also measures the pay gap between top-paid CEOs and their workforces. Looking at CEO compensation for the S&P 500, the average pay was $10.8 million in 2010, a 27.8 percent increase over 2009, the report said. Based on that comparison, “the gap between CEO and average U.S. worker pay rose from 263-to-1 in 2009 to 325-to-1 last year,” the institute reported.

Regards,

D-Ray

[finnbow]

I don't blame the companies or their CEO's. I blame the tax code.

[djv8ga]

Now that is an issue I wish the American voter would hammer on.
Cool post.

[Bigerik]

Really shows that increases in corporate taxes being a huge negative is total BS. They certainly have it to spend in what they choose. They just choose not to support the country they make their profits in.

[djv8ga]

I don't see taxes as the issue.
It's the top taking all the money from the other workers. It lowers the standard of living, shrinks the middle class, and HURTS revenue for public service.
I think this is something that could be fixed. The problem is both sides are getting lobbied so hard...

[d-ray657]

One thing I would do is provide that salaries over a particular level - say the salary of the POTUS - are not deductible as expenses to the corporation - and require that the executives pay social security and medicare taxes, and that the companies match them. At least that way the working people would see some benefit from the irrationally high salaries.

Regards,

D-Ray

[d-ray657]

I don't see taxes as the issue.
It's the top taking all the money from the other workers. It lowers the standard of living, shrinks the middle class, and HURTS revenue for public service.
I think this is something that could be fixed. The problem is both sides are getting lobbied so hard...

Yeah, did you notice that 20 of the 25 corporations that paid more to their CEO than they did in taxes also spent more on lobbying than they spent on taxes.

Does anyone know if lobbying expenses are tax deductible to a business? It seem like, if individual political contributions are not tax deductible, then lobbying expenses shouldn't be either.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Oerets]

CEO's and upper management of Corporations see no problem with their compensation. But let the actual people who do the work get paid a living wage or decent benefits. Now that is where they draw the line, don't want to make less of a profit.

If there was any truth in the rich create jobs then it would be happening at these corporations right? Or are all the jobs overseas is that why we can't see them?



Barney

[Bigerik]

CEO's and upper management of Corporations see no problem with their compensation. But let the actual people who do the work get paid a living wage or decent benefits. Now that is where they draw the line, don't want to make less of a profit.

If there was any truth in the rich create jobs then it would be happening at these corporations right? Or are all the jobs overseas is that why we can't see them?



Barney

Yup, the rich are creating plenty of jobs. In China, India, Korea, etc.

Again, these guys think in quarters, or at most, to their next bonus. What happens to the workers, the company or the country is a non-issue.

[BlueStreak]

CEO's and upper management of Corporations see no problem with their compensation. But let the actual people who do the work get paid a living wage or decent benefits. Now that is where they draw the line, don't want to make less of a profit.

If there was any truth in the rich create jobs then it would be happening at these corporations right? Or are all the jobs overseas is that why we can't see them?



Barney

I think you might be on to something.

Dave

[JCricket]

an observation - everyone here on the board seems to agree with this the OP on this. This a first?

[JJIII]

an observation - everyone here on the board seems to agree with this the OP on this. This a first?

Well..... this won't do at all!:mad:

:D

[bhunter]

an observation - everyone here on the board seems to agree with this the OP on this. This a first?

I don't! What is the percent of pay for those supposedly overpaid CEOs as a ratio of the company's overall labor expenditures? Further, aren't these compensation packages under a contract? Do we now seek to undermine the sanctity of private contracts? What percentage increase would taxing these CEOs at a higher rate bring into the government? Once again nothing but an us versus them argument tugging at emotional strings.

[merrylander]

I don't! What is the percent of pay for those supposedly overpaid CEOs as a ratio of the company's overall labor expenditures? Further, aren't these compensation packages under a contract? Do we now seek to undermine the sanctity of private contracts? What percentage increase would taxing these CEOs at a higher rate bring into the government? Once again nothing but an us versus them argument tugging at emotional strings.

Well BH if you can show me a man or woman worth more than $500,000 a year it would certainly be enlightening but I honestly believe they are few and far between.:p

[finnbow]

The OP shows me two things. Earlier I mentioned that the tax code was broken. Beyond that, the corporate governance system (to which executive compensation belongs) is in shambles.

[piece-itpete]

I don't blame the companies or their CEO's. I blame the tax code.

:thumbsup: !

Everybody tries to minimize their tax bill, it's part of the game.

As far as rich people and us, I don't know what to do. But I'd rather live in a country that has rich people....

Pete

[merrylander]

PBS Newshour did a man on the street interview showing people three pie-charts. The top one had the ratio of rich-to middle-to poor with everyone at equal shares (Utopia). the middle one had more rich, a healthy middle class and few poor. The bottom chart showed many rich, not much of a middle class and lots of poor. When asked what society they would choose to live in the majority picked the middle chart. When the asked what countries the charts represented most were shocked to learn that the top did not exist, the bottom charet was the USA and the middle chart was


Sweden!

[finnbow]

PBS Newshour did a man on the street interview showing people three pie-charts. The top one had the ratio of rich-to middle-to poor with everyone at equal shares (Utopia). the middle one had more rich, a healthy middle class and few poor. The bottom chart showed many rich, not much of a middle class and lots of poor. When asked what society they would choose to live in the majority picked the middle chart. When the asked what countries the charts represented most were shocked to learn that the top did not exist, the bottom charet was the USA and the middle chart was


Sweden!

Yeh, but, but, but they're Godless commies and we're the shining city on the hill. Does not compute.:confused:

[piece-itpete]

It must come from eating lutefisk.

:eek:

Pete

[BlueStreak]

Nothing good comes from eating Lutefisk.

Dave

[Bigerik]

PBS Newshour did a man on the street interview showing people three pie-charts. The top one had the ratio of rich-to middle-to poor with everyone at equal shares (Utopia). the middle one had more rich, a healthy middle class and few poor. The bottom chart showed many rich, not much of a middle class and lots of poor. When asked what society they would choose to live in the majority picked the middle chart. When the asked what countries the charts represented most were shocked to learn that the top did not exist, the bottom charet was the USA and the middle chart was


Sweden!

Having been to both places, I'd take Sweden too!!

The hard right wing BS says that any taxation of the wealthy hurts the economy. There are lots of countries with higher tax rates and plenty of rich folks. They just have more middle class, less poor, less crime and unnecessary luxuries such as universal health care.

Why would you wanna be in country like that???

[merrylander]

Having been to both places, I'd take Sweden too!!

The hard right wing BS says that any taxation of the wealthy hurts the economy. There are lots of countries with higher tax rates and plenty of rich folks. They just have more middle class, less poor, less crime and unnecessary luxuries such as universal health care.

Why would you wanna be in country like that???

Beats me? :D

[finnbow]

Having been to both places, I'd take Sweden too!!

The hard right wing BS says that any taxation of the wealthy hurts the economy. There are lots of countries with higher tax rates and plenty of rich folks. They just have more middle class, less poor, less crime and unnecessary luxuries such as universal health care.

Why would you wanna be in country like that???

If had moved to Sweden, I'd become a teetotaler. Alcoholic beverages are priced high enough there to make an Irishman give up his daily dram.:eek:

[Bigerik]

If had moved to Sweden, I'd become a teetotaler. Alcoholic beverages are priced high enough there to make an Irishman give up his daily dram.:eek:

Nah, just use the money you save by not having to pay for your health care. Buy lots of booze with that.

[merrylander]

The Swedes all go over to Denmark to drink, damned if I know why I have seen bigger thimbles than a Danish jigger.:D

[Bigerik]

The Swedes all go over to Denmark to drink, damned if I know why I have seen bigger thimbles than a Danish jigger.:D

Or they do like the Finns and take the ferry to Estonia.

[finnbow]

The Swedes all go over to Denmark to drink, damned if I know why I have seen bigger thimbles than a Danish jigger.:D

And even there, beer was 2-3x as expensive as it was in Germany. Among the most drunken crazies I've ever seen (and I've lived in New Orleans :D) were Swedes/Norwegian in two locations - on the ferry from Oslo to Denmark drinking whole bottles of duty-free hooch and on the Greek island of Kos. The Swedes go there in droves and drink endlessly the entire time they're there. Not a sober moment in a week. Cheap booze is quite an attractant to a Swede.

[bhunter]

And even there, beer was 2-3x as expensive as it was in Germany. Among the most drunken crazies I've ever seen (and I've lived in New Orleans :D) were Swedes/Norwegian in two locations - on the ferry from Oslo to Denmark drinking whole bottles of duty-free hooch and on the Greek island of Kos. The Swedes go there in droves and drink endlessly the entire time they're there. Not a sober moment in a week. Cheap booze is quite an attractant to a Swede.

As my friend, who is a Danish Consulate, said: "nothing worse than a drunken Swede!"

[bhunter]

Well BH if you can show me a man or woman worth more than $500,000 a year it would certainly be enlightening but I honestly believe they are few and far between.:p

CEOs are under contract. There pay is usually contingent on performance or they had a very good history of producing. Boards don't give things away without an expected return. Worth? I don't know how to judge whether someone is over or underpaid other than finding someone that would do the same job for less. Seasoned CEOs are usually in demand, thus, the high pay. Is Bill Clinton or Al Gore worth what they haul in on the lecture circuit? How about Obama, the supposed anti-rich, after he leaves the Presidency. What do you want to bet he goes on the lecture circuit for high dollars. He'll likely be paid by the folks that he currently rails against.

[JCricket]

I guess my question would be how they earned their money. I have no problem with a corporation earning dollars. CEO's are overpaid in my opinion too. My biggest issue is when a corporation or CEO puts the dollar above the employee. Cutting employees to make a profit margin to earn a bonus just doesn't sit right with me.

[bhunter]

I guess my question would be how they earned their money. I have no problem with a corporation earning dollars. CEO's are overpaid in my opinion too. My biggest issue is when a corporation or CEO puts the dollar above the employee. Cutting employees to make a profit margin to earn a bonus just doesn't sit right with me.

I think one needs to think in terms of marginal employee productivity. That is, does that nth employee add to productivity commensurate with his associated costs. I do not think any CEO enjoys terminating people; however, if times are tight a CEO must look at those employees that are on the margin. A CEO is responsible for maintaining and hopefully growing the company for his stockholders.

[d-ray657]

Whether one agrees with the goals of the authors of this paper (http://www.cpegonline.org/workingpapers/CPEGWP2011-2.pdf) or not, the evidence therein of the income redistribution that has occurred over the last 38 years is compelling. It seems like income redistribution is not a a bad thing for the powers that be, as long as it is redistributed in an upward manner.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Charles]

Whether one agrees with the goals of the authors of this paper (http://www.cpegonline.org/workingpapers/CPEGWP2011-2.pdf) or not, the evidence therein of the income redistribution that has occurred over the last 38 years is compelling. It seems like income redistribution is not a a bad thing for the powers that be, as long as it is redistributed in an upward manner.

Regards,

D-Ray

I've got an idea.

Let's kill all of the rich people and split up their loot.

We can trust our elected officials to handle this equitably, can't we?

On second thought, maybe we ought to just kill 'em all and start over.

Chas

PS: I think I've developed a synthesis.

[djv8ga]

[QUOTE=bhunter;71727]CEOs are under contract. There pay is usually contingent on performance or they had a very good history of producing. /QUOTE]

I don't agree. These CEO's walk off with boat loads of cash when everyone else gets screwed.
I'm a hardcore right wing capitalist, but wrong is wrong.
These people are not that great at anything. If they were, they would create their own company...JMO.

[Oerets]

When a company will make cuts in staffing or selling off a division or two then shows an increase in the stock price. This is what they base their salary's on IIRC. Not actually producing a product for profit.




Barney

[djv8ga]

When a company will make cuts in staffing or selling off a division or two then shows an increase in the stock price. This is what they base their salary's on IIRC. Not actually producing a product for profit.




Barney
It's just doing their job. Wow...

[Oerets]

It's just doing their job. Wow...

Not taking the long view, just the short term. Make the money and run.....


Employees be dammed it seems to me!

Barney

[bhunter]

[QUOTE=bhunter;71727]CEOs are under contract. There pay is usually contingent on performance or they had a very good history of producing. /QUOTE]

I don't agree. These CEO's walk off with boat loads of cash when everyone else gets screwed.
I'm a hardcore right wing capitalist, but wrong is wrong.
These people are not that great at anything. If they were, they would create their own company...JMO.

I just think it's not the government's problem, but rather, it ought be between the stockholders and the CEO. A lot of times CEOs have started their own company. Remember how Steve Jobs was forced out of Apple by the man he and his board hired. Now, if there is a problem with the quality of the tax laws, then fix loop holes.

[JCricket]

I think one needs to think in terms of marginal employee productivity. That is, does that nth employee add to productivity commensurate with his associated costs. I do not think any CEO enjoys terminating people; however, if times are tight a CEO must look at those employees that are on the margin. A CEO is responsible for maintaining and hopefully growing the company for his stockholders.

And herin is the problem. The CEO puts his corporate profits and the satisfaction of the stock holders over the employee. We are not talking about the companies on the verge of collapse that must make a cut to keep going, we are talking about he companies who are trying to show increased profit margine to CREATE HIGHER STOCK value. Not better returns on the money, but higher stock value. This is the game. Employees be dammed!

And the assumption that a CEO does not enjoy cutting employees is flawed. They would have to care first before any emotion would register.

[BlueStreak]

[QUOTE=bhunter;71727]CEOs are under contract. There pay is usually contingent on performance or they had a very good history of producing. /QUOTE]

I don't agree. These CEO's walk off with boat loads of cash when everyone else gets screwed.
I'm a hardcore right wing capitalist, but wrong is wrong.
These people are not that great at anything. If they were, they would create their own company...JMO.

Well, I'll be damned. You and I are in agreement, kinda.
Sometimes I think people lose sight of the fact that CEOs are EMPLOYEES.
They don't own the company. In nearly all cases they did not create or build the company. And it definitely is WRONG when some Bozo CEO does a lousy job.......and walks off with millions. It's also interesting to note that these EMPLOYEES are hired under a binding, negotiated contract.

It's fine for them, but not for the rest of us.

Dave

[djv8ga]

[QUOTE=djv8ga;71744]

Well, I'll be damned. You and I are in agreement, kinda.
Sometimes I think people lose sight of the fact that CEOs are EMPLOYEES.
They don't own the company. In nearly all cases they did not create or build the company. And it definitely is WRONG when some Bozo CEO does a lousy job.......and walks off with millions. It's also interesting to note that these EMPLOYEES are hired under a binding, negotiated contract.

It's fine for them, but not for the rest of us.

Dave
Exactly.
Just offering a contract that supplies them with these salaries & "Golden Parachutes" is wrong & to me personally is not very conservative.
By giving them these guarantees, The whole idea of hard work & even worse, being competitive is thrown right out the window.
Why not just milk the job for a couple of years & fail? You than can go find another contract with the guaranteed money and do the whole damn thing over again.
And I don't buy into the idea that ceo types will be turned down for another job if they fail. We all know how tight knit Wall Street & these pirates are. It's a lot like the NFL where the same old coaches who suck time & time again almost always score another job in no time flat.
I remember back in the dark ages when almost all of a ceo's high-end compensation was in shares. That created one hell of a reason to do the best job, hire the best & PAY THEM WELL too. If the ceo didn't kick but, he had the most to lose.

[whell]

These threads are somewhat humorous to me. Its has gone from blaming companies for not paying their "fair share of taxes" - kinda like GE and Berkshire Hathaway - and doing what is in their best interest: minimizing their expenses, including their tax liability, to (predictably) CEO bashing. These threads seem to forget that the tax code is created by politicians, lawyers and CPA's FOR politicians, lawyers and CPA's. They've created a tax code which increasingly has less to do with funding the legitimate functions of government and more about money laundering campaign contributions and servicing special interests.

And you guys want to get mad at companies and CEO's for trying to minimize their company's exposure to this? Your anger seems WAAYY misplaced.

[whell]

In fact, I wonder if we'd stand more to gain from a flat tax on income from illegals, as opposed to eeking anything more out of corporate tax returns:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/post/undocumented-workers-got-billions-from-irs-in-tax-credits-audit-finds/2011/03/23/gIQAhtaKvJ_blog.html?hpid=z3

It also appears, per my post above, that our brilliant politicos "stimulated" this boon for undocumented workers. :rolleyes:

[Charles]

These threads are somewhat humorous to me. Its has gone from blaming companies for not paying their "fair share of taxes" - kinda like GE and Berkshire Hathaway - and doing what is in their best interest: minimizing their expenses, including their tax liability, to (predictably) CEO bashing. These threads seem to forget that the tax code is created by politicians, lawyers and CPA's FOR politicians, lawyers and CPA's. They've created a tax code which increasingly has less to do with funding the legitimate functions of government and more about money laundering campaign contributions and servicing special interests.

And you guys want to get mad at companies and CEO's for trying to minimize their company's exposure to this? Your anger seems WAAYY misplaced.

You are correct, taxes have next to nothing to do with funding the government, considering that the government can create just as much fiat currency as it wishes, any time it wishes.

Taxes are only for controlling the population, stealing the wealth of the producers, and passing out favors.

Chas

[d-ray657]

These threads are somewhat humorous to me. Its has gone from blaming companies for not paying their "fair share of taxes" - kinda like GE and Berkshire Hathaway - and doing what is in their best interest: minimizing their expenses, including their tax liability, to (predictably) CEO bashing. These threads seem to forget that the tax code is created by politicians, lawyers and CPA's FOR politicians, lawyers and CPA's. They've created a tax code which increasingly has less to do with funding the legitimate functions of government and more about money laundering campaign contributions and servicing special interests.

And you guys want to get mad at companies and CEO's for trying to minimize their company's exposure to this? Your anger seems WAAYY misplaced.

There is a kernel of truth in what you have to say. However, I don't think the companies, the CEO's and their cronies are unintended beneficiaries of the way the system works. They are active participants in the oligarchy who buy and sell as many laws as they can get away with.

What we are talking about here is not anti-rich, it's anti-greed and anti-corruption. I and others are opposed to a system that makes it harder for the folks who work for a living to get honest value for their labor, while those who benefit from the labor take a greater and greater share of its value. You can rest assured that the financial elite have not geared their propaganda and campaign spending to make it harder for them to gain an even greater share of the nation's wealth. The greater influence their wealth provides them leaves economic justice in the dirt.

Regards,

D-Ray

[djv8ga]

These threads are somewhat humorous to me. Its has gone from blaming companies for not paying their "fair share of taxes" - kinda like GE and Berkshire Hathaway - and doing what is in their best interest: minimizing their expenses, including their tax liability, to (predictably) CEO bashing. These threads seem to forget that the tax code is created by politicians, lawyers and CPA's FOR politicians, lawyers and CPA's. They've created a tax code which increasingly has less to do with funding the legitimate functions of government and more about money laundering campaign contributions and servicing special interests.

And you guys want to get mad at companies and CEO's for trying to minimize their company's exposure to this? Your anger seems WAAYY misplaced.
Your response is typical of a Republican & an account if I'm not in error. It's not as much a tax code issue as it is a Crony Capitalism problem. No matter what the fuck you do to the tax code, Crony Capitalism will continue to flourish.
Make no mistake, the Republican party was the founder of these tatics, but now the Democrats have caught up & maybe even passed them up.
It's great to have all the money, have the entrenched Republicans saying that we should get rid of S.S. & give these CEO's our money & when they go belly up, We lose our retirement, we bail them out, and they ride off with millions of dollars to their next gig.
Yeah, what a joke.

[bhunter]

There is a kernel of truth in what you have to say. However, I don't think the companies, the CEO's and their cronies are unintended beneficiaries of the way the system works. They are active participants in the oligarchy who buy and sell as many laws as they can get away with.

What we are talking about here is not anti-rich, it's anti-greed and anti-corruption. I and others are opposed to a system that makes it harder for the folks who work for a living to get honest value for their labor, while those who benefit from the labor take a greater and greater share of its value. You can rest assured that the financial elite have not geared their propaganda and campaign spending to make it harder for them to gain an even greater share of the nation's wealth. The greater influence their wealth provides them leaves economic justice in the dirt.

Regards,

D-Ray

Do you think there is less or more class mobility today than there was in the heyday of unions?

[Oerets]

Do you think there is less or more class mobility today than there was in the heyday of unions?



Yes, but is that better? Not if your not the one wanting the move right!


Ahhh yes having a job for life with benefits and pension what a concept.




Barney

[d-ray657]

Do you think there is less or more class mobility today than there was in the heyday of unions?

Clearly more in times of high unionization. For one, rising union wages raised wages all around. A stronger wage structure makes for a larger middle class. More of the working poor move comfortably into the middle class.

In the meantime, a good working wage allows one to develop capital to start one's own business if that is a goal. I have seen dozens and dozens of small and medium sized business that were started by tradesmen. (BTW, these were businesses that succeeded because they were run by people who knew the business rather than bean-counters)

Moreover, many union members have had the wherewithal to be the first generation within a family to be able to send their offspring to college. While college is not a guarantor of success nor of the ability to generate wealth, a college degree is a strong indicator of the ability to earn a decent living - at least in comparison to those with no degree.

Moreover, in times of strong unionization, the wealth gap is much smaller. When it is a shorter trip from the middle class to the propertied class, it seems like more folks have an opportunity to make the journey.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Bigerik]

Clearly more in times of high unionization. For one, rising union wages raised wages all around. A stronger wage structure makes for a larger middle class. More of the working poor move comfortably into the middle class.

In the meantime, a good working wage allows one to develop capital to start one's own business if that is a goal. I have seen dozens and dozens of small and medium sized business that were started by tradesmen. (BTW, these were businesses that succeeded because they were run by people who knew the business rather than bean-counters)

Moreover, many union members have had the wherewithal to be the first generation within a family to be able to send their offspring to college. While college is not a guarantor of success nor of the ability to generate wealth, a college degree is a strong indicator of the ability to earn a decent living - at least in comparison to those with no degree.

Moreover, in times of strong unionization, the wealth gap is much smaller. When it is a shorter trip from the middle class to the propertied class, it seems like more folks have an opportunity to make the journey.

Regards,

D-Ray

Let me start by saying how much I enjoy reading your posts. I always come away feeling smarter or at least enlightened and challenged by what you write. Thanks!

I remember being shocked at the animosity displayed by the "man on the street" toward the big 3 union workers during the effort to save GM and Chrysler. It seemed that the very middle class assembly line workers were now viewed with the same disdain previously shown towards the most idle and useless of the rich. Kim Kardashian and Paris Hilton were heroic figures, but a middle class worker on the line was someone who needed to be brought down a peg. Such was the true face of capitalism.

[d-ray657]

Let me start by saying how much I enjoy reading your posts. I always come away feeling smarter or at least enlightened and challenged by what you write. Thanks!

I remember being shocked at the animosity displayed by the "man on the street" toward the big 3 union workers during the effort to save GM and Chrysler. It seemed that the very middle class assembly line workers were now viewed with the same disdain previously shown towards the most idle and useless of the rich. Kim Kardashian and Paris Hilton were heroic figures, but a middle class worker on the line was someone who needed to be brought down a peg. Such was the true face of capitalism.

Aw shucks.:o The best way to digest what I say here is with the grain of salt that should be applied to all opinions.

Those who have accumulated wealth are no dummies. I would be surprised if Machiavelli wasn't required reading in the MBA programs. Divide and conquer has been a tried and true strategy for centuries. So long as the powers that be can convince us the the guy next to us is a bigger threat to our nickel than they are, they can keep us distracted from challenging their hegemony.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Oerets]

Can't seem to remember who said it back in the late 1800's , but it went something like this...


As long as I can get half of the people to mistrust the other half I will have my way.




Barney

[Rex E.]

Aw shucks.:o The best way to digest what I say here is with the grain of salt that should be applied to all opinions.

Those who have accumulated wealth are no dummies. I would be surprised if Machiavelli wasn't required reading in the MBA programs. Divide and conquer has been a tried and true strategy for centuries. So long as the powers that be can convince us the the guy next to us is a bigger threat to our nickel than they are, they can keep us distracted from challenging their hegemony.

Regards,

D-Ray

I know when I went to college way way back about 20 years or so ( :D ) Machiavelli was a freshman level requirement. Still have my copy of "The Prince" I bought for class way back when.

[Charles]

Aw shucks.:o The best way to digest what I say here is with the grain of salt that should be applied to all opinions.

Those who have accumulated wealth are no dummies. I would be surprised if Machiavelli wasn't required reading in the MBA programs. Divide and conquer has been a tried and true strategy for centuries. So long as the powers that be can convince us the the guy next to us is a bigger threat to our nickel than they are, they can keep us distracted from challenging their hegemony.

Regards,

D-Ray

http://www.amazon.com/MANAGEMENT-MACHIAVELLI-Prescription-Success-Business/dp/0136026087

You may ind the reviews interesting.

Chas

[d-ray657]

Here is an interesting commentary on how excessive executive compensation can cause unproductive short-sightedness.

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/09/02/we-need-to-stop-rewarding-win-at-all-costs-leaders/

Regards,

D-Ray

[merrylander]

Reminds me of the last place I worked where we would get monthly videos exhorting us to destroy our competition. I guess that may have been because the competition paid their software engineers at a par with top management.

[whell]

Your response is typical of a Republican & an account if I'm not in error. It's not as much a tax code issue as it is a Crony Capitalism problem. No matter what the fuck you do to the tax code, Crony Capitalism will continue to flourish.
Make no mistake, the Republican party was the founder of these tatics, but now the Democrats have caught up & maybe even passed them up.
It's great to have all the money, have the entrenched Republicans saying that we should get rid of S.S. & give these CEO's our money & when they go belly up, We lose our retirement, we bail them out, and they ride off with millions of dollars to their next gig.
Yeah, what a joke.

I count myself as neither a Republican or an account, nor do I play either on TV.

Crony capitalism used to occur with or without the tax code. Now the tax code perpetuates it.

[d-ray657]

I count myself as neither a Republican or an account, nor do I play either on TV.

Crony capitalism used to occur with or without the tax code. Now the tax code perpetuates it.

I've seen your picture. You have a face for radio. :D

Even though it's not true, it was too tempting to resist.

I think we could find some areas of agreement on where the tax code serves the moneyed elite.

Regards,

D-Ray

[piece-itpete]

I have seen the chilling effect unions can have on productivity with my own eyes.

Also, my former UAW buddy used to bitch about, 'How can we survive paying the floor sweeper $18-19/hr + (amazing) benefits?' - his 'former' status, 19 years with Chrysler, sadly proved him right.

Pete

[Oerets]

I have seen the chilling effect unions can have on productivity with my own eyes.

Also, my former UAW buddy used to bitch about, 'How can we survive paying the floor sweeper $18-19/hr + (amazing) benefits?' - his 'former' status, 19 years with Chrysler, sadly proved him right.

Pete

The experiences I have with unions and companies is that if the company is hurting sure there is a give back. But when you see the supervisors up to the CEO getting the lions share of profits. Then it become hard to feel like giving back.

The CEO and VP's should make more the the person on the line. But anything over 150% is just plain greedy IMHO. But let them give their employees a living wage, retirement and benefits that is when you hear the complaints they can't make money.




Barney

[d-ray657]

Yup, it's downright sinful to pay a living wage to any but the best and the brightest. $17 an hour is around $35K a year. That's even above the poverty level.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Bigerik]

I have seen the chilling effect unions can have on productivity with my own eyes.

Also, my former UAW buddy used to bitch about, 'How can we survive paying the floor sweeper $18-19/hr + (amazing) benefits?' - his 'former' status, 19 years with Chrysler, sadly proved him right.

Pete

Yup, and we know how low pay and no job security do wonders for productivity!!

[Oerets]

If I recall Chrysler history correctly, people just didn't like the vehicles they built. The union had nothing to do with that.




Barney

[Bigerik]

If I recall Chrysler history correctly, people just didn't like the vehicles they built. The union had nothing to do with that.




Barney

Actually, a republican government hit them with the stupid double whammy of tighter emissions and CAFE standards at the same time. They had neither the money, nor the engineering resources to be able to meet these, and modernize their fleet at the same time, on top of the huge changes in the automotive market at the time.

[piece-itpete]

I thought you lefties were green?

Anyway the benefits the UAW was getting are just crazy. You can't equate the same pay with it.

As an example, there was some 'give back' with his final contract - they gave back the day after Easter off.

In 'The decline and fall of the American automotive industry' Yates mentions workers slapping on trim behind their backs...

There is a line somewhere.

Pete

[Bigerik]

I thought you lefties were green?

Anyway the benefits the UAW was getting are just crazy. You can't equate the same pay with it.

As an example, there was some 'give back' with his final contract - they gave back the day after Easter off.

In 'The decline and fall of the American automotive industry' Yates mentions workers slapping on trim behind their backs...

There is a line somewhere.

Pete

World is becoming a strange place when I am being called a lefty... :)

Anyhow, both CAFE and emissions controls were in place to meet a necessary goal, but done the wrong way.

There should have been one national emissions standard in place. Having California and then other states do their own is idiotic.

CAFE was a stupid way for the government to force carmakers to do what the government didn't have the balls to do. The government should have put clear, precise, long term fuel tax increases into place if they wanted change in the marketplace. Why do the Europeans drive smaller cars? Cause gas costs a lot. Pretty easy for a manufacturer to produce product in that market. However, CAFE forces them to come up with all manner of cheats to stop people from buying the cars they want and can afford. The absolutely stupidest way to try to fiddle with the market place. Plus, it gives a huge advantage to foreign competitors that already sell into such a market at home.

[merrylander]

There is a line somewhere.

Pete

And there is the problem - the assembly line - Saturn tried a new approach but sadly they are history. I believe that after six months on an assembly line most of us here would be babbling incoherently no matter how much they paid us. Imagine standing in a pit with a five socket air wrench bolting on wheels. All you ever see of the effing car is wheels.:eek:

[merrylander]

World is becoming a strange place when I am being called a lefty... :)

Anyhow, both CAFE and emissions controls were in place to meet a necessary goal, but done the wrong way.

There should have been one national emissions standard in place. Having California and then other states do their own is idiotic.

CAFE was a stupid way for the government to force carmakers to do what the government didn't have the balls to do. The government should have put clear, precise, long term fuel tax increases into place if they wanted change in the marketplace. Why do the Europeans drive smaller cars? Cause gas costs a lot. Pretty easy for a manufacturer to produce product in that market. However, CAFE forces them to come up with all manner of cheats to stop people from buying the cars they want and can afford. The absolutely stupidest way to try to fiddle with the market place. Plus, it gives a huge advantage to foreign competitors that already sell into such a market at home.

That and other taxes, Ford of England developed a marvelous 999cc four cylinder engine for the Anglia because there was a tax on anything over 1 litre. I had one of those Anglia and was offered bg bucks for the engine.

[piece-itpete]

My uncle worked on the line at Ford. He said, some days you could get your task done all the way back to teh conveyor coming down from upstairs sit and read the paper for a while. Other tasks, you're right at the hole where they going down to the next level sweating bullets - 'they' hate when you stop the line.

Want boring? Chopping blank bolts to length on a 14 hour shift, I think I slept with my eyes open!

CAFE does interesting things. A few years back in Car and Driver they mentioned that in order to keep their CAFE up the sales of GMs SUVs were actually subsidizing Cobalt sales to the tune of 2k or more per unit! So you could say that the rich were subsidizing the poor. O happy day :)

I drove a 1.3 liter I4 for 9 years. It was almost good enough for a little car @ 87 hp. The 4 hour drive to Kalamazoo I was making for work monthly was torture though.

Pete

[Oerets]

One thing I have noticed about car manufacturing jobs with unions, is their car are no cheaper then the non-union brands. With logic of some the non-union ones should be a lot lower in price.




Barney

[finnbow]

One thing I have noticed about car manufacturing jobs with unions, is their car are no cheaper then the non-union brands. With logic of some the non-union ones should be a lot lower in price.


Barney

It only takes, on average, about 15 man-hours to manufacture a car. I too cannot see how $10/hr or $150 per car really impacts sales on a $20-30K car.

[bhunter]

And there is the problem - the assembly line - Saturn tried a new approach but sadly they are history. I believe that after six months on an assembly line most of us here would be babbling incoherently no matter how much they paid us. Imagine standing in a pit with a five socket air wrench bolting on wheels. All you ever see of the effing car is wheels.:eek:

I agree with that. I always thought it'd be better if people rotated to various jobs on an assembly plant. Standing at one station must be boring and injurious to ones health.

[bhunter]

One thing I have noticed about car manufacturing jobs with unions, is their car are no cheaper then the non-union brands. With logic of some the non-union ones should be a lot lower in price.




Barney

What's the pay and benefit differential between the two?

[Oerets]

What's the pay and benefit differential between the two?

Only know Ford workers, and they have a contract up soon. I could be wrong but seems the Toyota plant in Kentucky pays close to if not the same as the Ford workers.



Barney

[merrylander]

I drove a 1.3 liter I4 for 9 years. It was almost good enough for a little car @ 87 hp. The 4 hour drive to Kalamazoo I was making for work monthly was torture though.

Pete

The little Anglia I owned was rated at 40HP but bolt on dual Webers and a set of good pipes and it boosted to 60HP. Four on the floor used to piss off all the VW owners when I would downshift to 3rd at 50MPH and floor it past them.:p

[piece-itpete]

LOL! Are webers those side-draught carbs? They seemed to do wonders with the little I4 I had in the old TR7.

I saw a comment from a guy who drove the old Mercedes diesels - 'Who needs more than 56 horsepower??' :)

I agree with that. I always thought it'd be better if people rotated to various jobs on an assembly plant. Standing at one station must be boring and injurious to ones health.

I know my uncle did different jobs at Ford. My bud at Chrysler ran a stamping machine for most of his years, but also was in charge of the automated conveyor system. Thank goodness, as he never would've gotten another job anywhere near his $29/hr running a stamping machine anywhere else.

Only know Ford workers, and they have a contract up soon. I could be wrong but seems the Toyota plant in Kentucky pays close to if not the same as the Ford workers.

Barney

It's the benefits. I don't remember Obama carving out health plan exemptions for Toyota or Mercedes workers here.

Pete

[piece-itpete]

I found some interesting info. I can only view it in html.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:oCetebdKXvAJ:chryslerlabortalks07.c om/Economic_Data.rtf+cost+difference+uaw&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Some snips:

UAW Represented Assembly Workers as of March 5, 2007


GM Assembler Hourly Rate $26.09

COLA 1.77

$27.86



FORD Assembler Hourly Rate $26.10

COLA 1.83

$27.93



DAIMLERCHRYSLER Hourly Rate $26.86

Assembler COLA 1.89

$28.75



Competitive Labor Cost Comparison

2006 Average Labor Costs -- UAW represented (per hour worked)



DaimlerChrysler $75.86



Ford $70.51



General Motors $73.26




U.S. Japanese Transplants Labor Cost Comparison

2005 Average Labor Costs



*Honda $42.95



*Nissan $41.97



*Toyota $47.60



*Memo: DaimlerChrysler estimates

.-.-.-.-.

Or if the layoff is for a full week, they would be paid SUB Regular Benefits.



Major

Assembler Electrician

Weekly SUB Plan payment $382.79 $507.68



State Unemployment Compensation $362.00 $362.00



Gross weekly unemployment benefits $744.79 $869.68

.-.-.-.

Paid Time Off

During 2006, paid time off that these employees were both entitled to:

Vacations 17.5 days

Holidays 17 days

Total Paid Time off 34.5 days

.-.-.-.-.

Pete

[merrylander]

I notice that everyone conveniently forgets the old days with big three. Every new model meant changing over the assembly line and the sheet metal. All the workers, except for the few doing the changeover got a month's holiday - without pay.

Pete you will love this, my last eight years with Bell I got six weeks paid vacation. I could not really use it all so I banked what I did not use. When I 'retired' I was on paid vacation for three and a half months before the pension started. Now despite being regulated, and treating its employees like human beings, Bell still made money. They never thought of declaring bankruptcy like some companies here so they could duck out from under their pensions.

[piece-itpete]

That's awesome! My dad got 6 weeks too. And when he got paid for his unused sick time at 1/2 pay at retirement he cleared 10 grand net. Sadly for me, that ship has sailed. I doubt we can go back.

The bright spot I see for the big two is the union owns the retirement fund now. Don't have to worry about the corporate leeches, just the mob or lawyer ones :)

Pete

[merrylander]

Oh we can go back, can you say tarriffs? Fair trade not free trade. The politicians need to realize that the post industrial age was a flop. All the dreamers say we must innovate but the only way you can innovate is if you actually build the damn product.

[Oerets]

Someday the powers that be will realize National Security and a strong manufacturing along with productive agriculture sector is the best policy for the USA.

The financial and service industries just won't do it in times of need.
Unless you can pay off the bad guys, if not get ready to service them.


Barney

[bhunter]

I found some interesting info. I can only view it in html.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:oCetebdKXvAJ:chryslerlabortalks07.c om/Economic_Data.rtf+cost+difference+uaw&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us



Interesting numbers. Labor cost of ~$76.00/hr. versus ~$44.00/hr for the Japanese company. The difference seems to be in the benefits. The Japanese scale seems more reasonable for the health of the company. What is more startling is the numbers on pensions and the ensuing drain on the companies. I assume the companies pay this out of their current operating revenue rather than having set that money aside at the time it was earned. How much formal training is necessary for an assembler?

[bhunter]

Someday the powers that be will realize National Security and a strong manufacturing along with productive agriculture sector is the best policy for the USA.

The financial and service industries just won't do it in times of need.
Unless you can pay off the bad guys, if not get ready to service them.


Barney

I think it was sad that we lost the high technology fab plants. These ought to have remained here; however, given the environmentalists here I see why they left. I argue that it is the assinine administrative regulations more than labor cost that caused industry to flee.

[d-ray657]

I think it was sad that we lost the high technology fab plants. These ought to have remained here; however, given the environmentalists here I see why they left. I argue that it is the assinine administrative regulations more than labor cost that caused industry to flee.

Somehow, I fail to see it as a disaster when a company, which is intent on running its business in a dangerous or unhealthy way, takes its ways elsewhere.

Regards,

D-Ray

[piece-itpete]

Interesting numbers. Labor cost of ~$76.00/hr. versus ~$44.00/hr for the Japanese company. The difference seems to be in the benefits. The Japanese scale seems more reasonable for the health of the company. What is more startling is the numbers on pensions and the ensuing drain on the companies. I assume the companies pay this out of their current operating revenue rather than having set that money aside at the time it was earned. How much formal training is necessary for an assembler?

A few years back the big '3' gave the unions a large chunk of money and washed their hands of the pensions. The unions run the pensions now. And the unions themselves protected their current members and hugely cut the pay and bennies of the new hires. So I think we'll see improvement across the board at Ford and GM, though Fords been doing well anyway.

Training depends on what you're doing. Installing rims/tires as mentioned, last I saw there was a 5 socket dedicated air gun with auto feed lug nuts hanging from overhead and a rack that feeds the tires to the line (yes it's impressive! And that was a while back). I can't remember how they move the tires from rack to hub (I guarentee they don't do it by hand, particularly with today's bigger tires) but the job consisted of lining up the gun and operating it via trigger. I suspect anyone with any nominal mechanical aptitude could learn it quickly.

Another one, something my uncle said was a b*tch on his particular model. Installing the windshield washer fluid resevoir. His was, fit it in there, hook up the hose and wire (to the already installed pump), and 3 screws. It was difficult to get to the 3rd screw apparently. But he would've said you didn't have to be technically astute.

Not to say they don't work hard. And there are plenty of skilled jobs on a modern assembly line and/or production line, with so much automation and machines to keep running.

Pete