This has been a debate topic for quite some time now however I'm not sure where I stand on this. Part of me thinks that if I'm responsible for steering a company and my direction allowed for millions to be made then I would be justified in getting paid millions as well. This I don't have an issue with. My issue resides from the ratio between what the company's average worker makes vs. the guy at the top. If the CEO can take home 12 million in a year why is the average worker of the company making just over minimum wage?
My suggestion is not to regulate the amount of money a CEO can make but to regulate how much of a ratio difference a company can have between it's lowest and highest paid employees. What this would do in effect is distribute company profits in a different manner. If you want to pay your CEO millions then your average employees should be doing good as well. The CEO may steer the boat but the workers keep it moving and maintain it!
What we have now is eventually going to end up with haves and have nots. The lack of wealth distribution in this country is ridiculous and unless you are in the club or born into it you will be lucky to ever be a part of it. Now I know what you are thinking and before you call me a socialist I'm not suggesting that we take from the wealthy and give to the poor. I'm suggesting that if you are a part of a company that is doing well enough for the head guy to take home millions there shouldn't be employees working for it that need food stamps from the government to get by!
"It is even better to act quickly and err than to hesitate until the time of action is past." - Karl Von Clausewitz
Post a Reply
Please log in to post a reply.
66 Replies
10 Jul 2016, 20:58
oceanhawk wrote:
Do you think, the tournament would be as enjoyable and of such a high standard of tennis if the total amount of prize money of 28million was divided evenly among the players? Regardless of how far into the draw they get?
It doesn't represent the concept the author of this thread gave us to discuss.
Taking in count you wanted to exemplify the company with sports, let's do it in a right way and take sports where teams are more important than individuality, because being honest, a boss from a factory, without his workers, is nothing and also, those workers in the factory, without the boss are kinda nothing because there wouldn't be any factory.
Now, let's take a football team as an example of what the author is pointing with this thread. You have 11 players, let's say one of them is clearly the best with a lot of difference within the others. We'll take this, "best player of the team" as the boss of the company and the others are the workers. If that team earns, 10 milions, you shouldn't give 9 milions to the best player and just distribute 1 milion to the other 10 players. That could be possible, yes, but there's no sense to do that.
What the author is pointing is(the next calcule is just an example, you can distribute it however you want), if you earn 10 millions, give 2 milions to the best player and then give 800.000 for others. Why? The workers recognize that best player in the team has to earn more than the others because he usually do more than them or have a better quality.
10 Jul 2016, 21:03
Quasi-duck wrote:
You do know that there is a lot of stuff going down in China? They are increasing the size of their armed forces, as well as building a load of projects. Hell, Beijing is sinking in some places it is so built up with massive buildings.
Besides, this does ignore the fact that lots of people immigrate. Granted, not that many, but combine immigration with expansions in army etc.
Another things to note is China is big on fishing, and has one of/has the biggest fishing industry in the world, and it's growing. The government also uses fishermen to exert control over the South China.
There is also a lot of agriculture in China, growing again. I think they have the biggest/one of the biggest pig farming industries in the world.
Mate, the TNCs that have come into China have created millions of work positions. That's an undeniable fact.
The past is a foreign country.
10 Jul 2016, 21:04
Pablo22510 wrote:
Mate, the TNCs that have come into China have created millions of work positions. That's an undeniable fact.
TBH I have no idea what TNC's are, I just know local business, and which ones, in China are going well.
10 Jul 2016, 21:05
nemuritor98_ wrote:
It doesn't represent the concept the author of this thread gave us to discuss.
Taking in count you wanted to exemplify the company with sports, let's do it in a right way and take sports where teams are more important than individuality, because being honest, a boss from a factory, without his workers, is nothing and also, those workers in the factory, without the boss are kinda nothing because there wouldn't be any factory.
Now, let's take a football team as an example of what the author is pointing with this thread. You have 11 players, let's say one of them is clearly the best with a lot of difference within the others. We'll take this, "best player of the team" as the boss of the company and the others are the workers. If that team earns, 10 milions, you shouldn't give 9 milions to the best player and just distribute 1 milion to the other 10 players. That could be possible, yes, but there's no sense to do that.
What the author is pointing is(the next calcule is just an example, you can distribute it however you want), if you earn 10 millions, give 2 milions to the best player and then give 800.000 for others. Why? The workers recognize that best player in the team has to earn more than the others because he usually do more than them or have a better quality.
A sports team as a private business is sable and can do whatever it wants. If it feels one player is so good that he deserves a lot more pay than the others, they're free to do so. If the other players feel it isn't fair, they'll have to move to another team. End of. It's free markets.
The past is a foreign country.
10 Jul 2016, 21:06
Quasi-duck wrote:
TBH I have no idea what TNC's are, I just know local business, and which ones, in China are going well.
Trans National Corporations, aka Microsoft, Apple, Google, etc.
The past is a foreign country.
10 Jul 2016, 21:08
Pablo22510 wrote:
Trans National Corporations, aka Microsoft, Apple, Google, etc.
Thanks. That is undeniable.
It has also created a lot of local businesses thanks to all the rip-offs
10 Jul 2016, 21:11
nemuritor98_ wrote:
oceanhawk wrote:
Do you think, the tournament would be as enjoyable and of such a high standard of tennis if the total amount of prize money of 28million was divided evenly among the players? Regardless of how far into the draw they get?
It doesn't represent the concept the author of this thread gave us to discuss.
Taking in count you wanted to exemplify the company with sports, let's do it in a right way and take sports where teams are more important than individuality, because being honest, a boss from a factory, without his workers, is nothing and also, those workers in the factory, without the boss are kinda nothing because there wouldn't be any factory.
Now, let's take a football team as an example of what the author is pointing with this thread. You have 11 players, let's say one of them is clearly the best with a lot of difference within the others. We'll take this, "best player of the team" as the boss of the company and the others are the workers. If that team earns, 10 milions, you shouldn't give 9 milions to the best player and just distribute 1 milion to the other 10 players. That could be possible, yes, but there's no sense to do that.
What the author is pointing is(the next calcule is just an example, you can distribute it however you want), if you earn 10 millions, give 2 milions to the best player and then give 800.000 for others. Why? The workers recognize that best player in the team has to earn more than the others because he usually do more than them or have a better quality.
I used tennis as an example, to display the incentives that cannot be achieved with redistribution or caps.
Using football... The captain of the team, do they hire the other players? I didnt think so..
Do they take financial risk?
Just answer this question, why should the government decide how much I earn? Is that freedom?
If Socialists understood Economics, they wouldn't be socialists -Friedrich von Haye
10 Jul 2016, 21:12
Pablo22510 wrote:
A sports team as a private business is sable and can do whatever it wants. If it feels one player is so good that he deserves a lot more pay than the others, they're free to do so. If the other players feel it isn't fair, they'll have to move to another team. End of. It's free markets.
That should happen with work too, the problem is that there's no free market when we talk about big companies.
10 Jul 2016, 21:13
Quasi-duck wrote:
Pablo22510 wrote:
Mate, the TNCs that have come into China have created millions of work positions. That's an undeniable fact.
TBH I have no idea what TNC's are, I just know local business, and which ones, in China are going well.
transnational corporation
All businesses do better with the spread of free enterprise. People do better as well, there is less poverty with free enterprise.
There is not a single force better at reducing poverty, than free enterprise
If Socialists understood Economics, they wouldn't be socialists -Friedrich von Haye
10 Jul 2016, 21:13
oceanhawk wrote:
Just answer this question, why should the government decide how much I earn? Is that freedom?
I'm not saying government should decide it, the businessman should.
10 Jul 2016, 21:14
nemuritor98_ wrote:
Pablo22510 wrote:
A sports team as a private business is sable and can do whatever it wants. If it feels one player is so good that he deserves a lot more pay than the others, they're free to do so. If the other players feel it isn't fair, they'll have to move to another team. End of. It's free markets.
That should happen with work too, the problem is that there's no free market when we talk about big companies.
WTH? Sorry, but that makes no actually sense what so ever...
If Socialists understood Economics, they wouldn't be socialists -Friedrich von Haye
10 Jul 2016, 21:15
nemuritor98_ wrote:
oceanhawk wrote:
Just answer this question, why should the government decide how much I earn? Is that freedom?
I'm not saying government should decide it, the businessman should.
Yes well the business already decide how much the CEO Makes, and actually get to decide how much most of their employees get paid..
If Socialists understood Economics, they wouldn't be socialists -Friedrich von Haye
10 Jul 2016, 21:16
oceanhawk wrote:
nemuritor98_ wrote:
Pablo22510 wrote:
A sports team as a private business is sable and can do whatever it wants. If it feels one player is so good that he deserves a lot more pay than the others, they're free to do so. If the other players feel it isn't fair, they'll have to move to another team. End of. It's free markets.
That should happen with work too, the problem is that there's no free market when we talk about big companies.
WTH? Sorry, but that makes no actually sense what so ever...
As you like putting China as an example and all those milions of jobs NTC's made, think if there's free market there.
And don't say now that there isn't because China leaders are commies while their economy is a fully capitalist one.
10 Jul 2016, 21:18
oceanhawk wrote:
nemuritor98_ wrote:
oceanhawk wrote:
Just answer this question, why should the government decide how much I earn? Is that freedom?
I'm not saying government should decide it, the businessman should.
Yes well the business already decide how much the CEO Makes, and actually get to decide how much most of their employees get paid..
That's why the author made this thread because there are too many businessman nearly using their workers as slaves while they earn milions of dollars.
10 Jul 2016, 21:25
nemuritor98_ wrote:
oceanhawk wrote:
nemuritor98_ wrote:
Pablo22510 wrote:
A sports team as a private business is sable and can do whatever it wants. If it feels one player is so good that he deserves a lot more pay than the others, they're free to do so. If the other players feel it isn't fair, they'll have to move to another team. End of. It's free markets.
That should happen with work too, the problem is that there's no free market when we talk about big companies.
WTH? Sorry, but that makes no actually sense what so ever...
As you like putting China as an example and all those milions of jobs NTC's made, think if there's free market there.
And don't say now that there isn't because China leaders are commies while their economy is a fully capitalist one.
It isnt 100% free enterprise, but if it was china would be even richer..
See china began to open to free markets, and guess what, China is now like really really rich. The spread of free enterprise in China, has lead to the removal of over 400million people from poverty
Meanwhile, socialism is yet to bring one person out of poverty... And they have already put a lot of people in poverty, so they are actually on the minus scale now..
If Socialists understood Economics, they wouldn't be socialists -Friedrich von Haye
11 Jul 2016, 07:57
nemuritor98_ wrote:
think if there's free market there. [China]
The places where TNCs set up are called SEZs, and there is a free market there. Hong Kong has the freest market on this planet, and as a result is doing great!
nemuritor98_ wrote:
That should happen with work too, the problem is that there's no free market when we talk about big companies.
There is a free market. I understand that you have to go against the rich and against the elite because of your left-wing beliefs, but there is a free market.
The past is a foreign country.
11 Jul 2016, 08:23
Pablo22510 wrote:
There is a free market. I understand that you have to go against the rich and against the elite because of your left-wing beliefs, but there is a free market.
China's economy is pretty much capitalism. If they didnt adopt some, they wouldve died out with communism.
And if you have any evidence to suggest that "soaking the rich" actually works, pls be sure to share it. As I have been looking around the web, and am struggling to find any actually evidence
You're too dumb to argue with, you can't even understand the phrase "provide a source". I'm done with you, your skull is too thick and ears too full of wax.
Says the commie
And you dont understand the phrase, answer the Question.......
Actually give me one example of socialism or communism working in full, and I will drop out of every single argument, and admit defeat... go on....
If Socialists understood Economics, they wouldn't be socialists -Friedrich von Haye
11 Jul 2016, 16:24
Is that... failure I smell? Failure to provide a source after asked 5+ times?
11 Jul 2016, 18:45
Quasi-duck wrote:
Is that... failure I smell? Failure to provide a source after asked 5+ times?
No you are smelling your self, failure to answer the question
A) Do you accept that tax revenue increased as a result of the tax cuts imposed by conservative president Ronald Regan.
B) Find me one example of Socialism of Communism working in full and I will admit that I am wrong and all the rest
If Socialists understood Economics, they wouldn't be socialists -Friedrich von Haye
