Why would passing a law that the highest salary in a company can only be 25x the lowest salary be a bad idea?
I would support it
>>70680067
You would just end up with a shit-tier CEO
>>70680067
Why would it be a good idea?
Your idea burden of proof is on you.
>>70680260
at ~2k/hour?
>>70680294
It would reduce income equality. No more CEOs making 25 million while the salary for the average worker is south of 100k.
>>70680332
How low is the lowest salary in USA? Besides: free market. Why the fuck would I care what some company pays their CEO?
>>70680067
Would you raise the wage if the company made more money?
They'd move the company base to another country, and just get around the rule entirely.
>>70680424
So more income for share holders? How does that solve anything? All sufficiently qualified people would leave to other countries. You know how hard companies compete for CEOs? Headhunter exist for a reason
I'll never understand how people don't get this economic concept:
If you increase wages at the bottom, buying power goes up and more goods can be sold. It makes sense to raise the price of goods to find the right equilibrium, but raising them in a way that directly matches a wage raise would be as detrimental as leaving it how it is. Companies can literally make more money by paying their worker more than they already do, then adjusting their prices accordingly.
Because arbitrary salary caps would be totally ineffective and serve no purpose other than muh inequality.
>Bonus cash
>Stock Options
>Common stock
None of this is salary and makes up a good bit of executive compensation.
>>70680532
The wages themselves are up to the company. If you want to pay the lowest worker minimum wage (7.25 I believe) then the CEO makes 181.25 per hour. If the you pay the lowest worker $1,000,000, then the CEO can earn $25,000,000.
>>70680332
Not many companies have a lowest salary of 80/hr.
Also you're retarded, the bulk of CEO pay isn't salary in most cases and implementing this law would do nothing. The market forces wouldn't change and CEO compensation would just shift towards even more options/expenses/other methods.
>>70680588
There is more than consumer facing business. Your theory applies well to burgers though.
>>70680569
>All sufficiently qualified people would leave to other countries.
At which point you slap major tariffs on all imports. If they want access to the US market, they have to hire exclusively within the US. No more H-1/2B visa exploitation. We could also end all immigration (no real need to continue expanding population wise, we need to hit an equilibrium if we are to survive.)
>>70680588
>I'll never understand the most discussed topic in economic theories ever
You should just publish your view and collect your nobel price already
>>70680755
You take that into account. All payment in any form would count towards the salary.
>>70680332
> 10 * 25 = 2000
American Education.
>>70680846
>b-b-but they're rich and they shouldn't be!!!
>go to college and then get my MBA
>spend 10 + years working different management positions at various multinationals
>finally land a sweet board position job
>oh wait my salary is being hamstrung because pack the jizzmopper is jealous as fuck
And then I moved to a different country. Enjoy having huge fucking brain drain because you want to drag everyone down to the lcd's level.
>>70680640
>high tech firm
>lowest pay is quite high, CEO pay high
>labor-intensive firm
>lowest pay is min wage, CEO pay is low
Not all firms operate on the same kind of labor costs per employee. Your arbitrary limit would not work - and that's assuming (wrongly) that companies wouldn't disregard it through other methods of compensation anyways.
>>70680588
Yeah dude, those businesses sure are dumb! I'm sure the girl that wrote the article for the Huffington Post that you stole this idea from totally knows more than those dumb men running businesses!
>>70680792
Sounds like degrading your economy to 2nd world tier for the sake of equality. We still haven't discussed how lower CEO wages are useful at all. Wouldn't keeping companies competitive and a free market drastically improve living standarts for lower classes?
>>70680067
Economic calculation problem
>>70681013
>Sounds like degrading your economy to 2nd world tier for the sake of equality.
How so?
>We still haven't discussed how lower CEO wages are useful at all.
Among other things, look at inflation since the 1960s (when CEO pay was actually around 25:1 to the average salary of their workers.)
>Wouldn't keeping companies competitive and a free market drastically improve living standarts for lower classes?
We end welfare and foodstamps. Either the lower class swims or they sink. Enough of this 'everybody gets a trophy' bullshit.
>>70680588
You can also raise aggregate demand by increasing wages at the bottom though, and assuming the resources are available to meet that demand it makes sense to balance the good (better standard of living for the working class, more jobs created to meet the higher demand) with the bad (inflation & possible shortages)
Also from a moral standpoint anyone who works an honest day deserves a decent standard of living which the unfettered free market won't deliver so there's that to consider
>>70680958
>Not all firms operate on the same kind of labor costs per employee.
Streamline or you fail.
>and that's assuming (wrongly) that companies wouldn't disregard it through other methods of compensation anyways.
See: >>70680846
>>70681256
>guys look at the world 50 years ago when it was totally the same and our economic profile was identical we just have to go back to those days it'll be fine
I'm not following why your "sink or swim" mentality doesn't get to also apply to corporate structure?
>>70680950
See: >>70680640
>why is putting a cap on competitiveness a bad idea
Gee boss I dunno
>>70680792
>>70680846
>>70681256
>>70680640
>>70680424
>>70680067
This is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard on how to fix "income inequality" and you should be fucking ashamed of yourself
CEOs of multinational companies make a lot of money because they're at the top of a very big pyramid.
If a CEO makes 5 million dollars a year, and has 100,000 employees, then the CEO sacrificing his entire paycheck would give every employee a bonus of.. 50 bucks.
You're a goddamn idiot and it's a real fucking shame your vote counts the same as everyone else's.
>>70681441
>why is reading comprehension so rare on /pol/
>>70681490
>australia
>>70681256
Because all companies would flee the US
>At which point you slap major tariffs on all imports
Which mostly hurts consumers with little money. Your system wouldn't improve living standarts of the lower class it would ruin them for the sake of a PR gag
>Among other things, look at inflation since the 1960s (when CEO pay was actually around 25:1 to the average salary of their workers.)
So? My concern is buying power not comparing myself to the richest. Would you rather live in a villa next to Bill Gates or in a block apartment in Detroit without inequality?
>We end welfare and foodstamps. Either the lower class swims or they sink. Enough of this 'everybody gets a trophy' bullshit.
Then what the fuck is the point? What are you trying to achieve? Ruin everything for everybody?
>>70681378
It has nothing to do with streamlining you colossal retard.
A manufacturing firm that employs 10000 workers at low pay simply does not have the same labor cost structures as a tech firm that employs 100. Assigning different costs to different levels of human capital is the definition of streamlining.
>We just have to add everything up!
Have you ever worked at a company ever? If the firm wants to compensate people, corporate overhead charges can be used to provide incentives beyond salary.
>b-but firms will report it
no fuck off, it's in the firm's interest to attract CEOs, not offshore them
>>70680955
>MBA students
>smart
Buying your way into the capitalist class sure takes brainpower alright
inb4 Im a butthurt liberal arts student
>>70681441
The logical limit of that is anarchy which is self-evidently retarded
Its not a question of limiting competitiveness, that's pretty much the essence of civil society, its a question of where to set the limits
>>70680588
That doesn't make the businesses more money, it just loses them the products.
If you give your employees an extra dollar an hour, and they spend that dollar at your store, you only get the dollar back that you gave them, and lose whatever they bought with that dollar.
If everyone were to wages at the same time, it might make a difference, if only the system weren't limited to just the one country. For it to work, you'd have to make outsourcing illegal, and for what can't be outsourced, not make the wages so high that the employers close shop entirely (even though they theoretically get it back, that's more money on the line, and therefor, more risky).
Of course, the government could force people to produce at gunpoint, and avoid all these problems...
>>70681715
>huge monopolies would go bust
And that's bad because...
>>70681859
>Its not a question of limiting competitiveness, that's pretty much the essence of civil society, its a question of where to set the limits
You literally just said it's about limiting competitiveness. And I've read through this thread and haven't seen you or anyone else justify capping CEO wages. The sole justification I've seen is "it's more equal" which just begs the question of why this kind of equality is needed or just? Cause from where I"m standing it's neither.
>>70682016
You suck at bait
Why would it be a good idea?
>>70681551
You know you're retarded when an Australian is right
>>70680067
OK. You make a company and it becomes very successful. Government says you can only pay yourself 25X your new employees wage.
>>70680067
I don't like the image that you used to try and engage me and your question is bereft of a hook to proper discourse.
> Fuck off
>>70680067
>>70680067
Because it doesn't take the free market into account. It creates an artificial value for the position that's arbitrary and based only upon jealousy and perceived "fairness". Not all jobs have the same value. If the high school dropout working fries at McDonalds makes $15000/yr full time the CEO of the company who generates billions of dollars in revenue worldwide shouldn't be capped at $375000. He or she is worth much more. Socialists don't get that life isn't fair and people don't have equal abilities.
tl;dr You won't give yourself a lobotomy or cut your leg off just because another person is retarded or get fucked by an IED in Afghanistan.
>>70680067
>CEO pay meme
>literally the top decision maker in the company
>responsible to shareholders to make the company (and therefore them) money
>if not, everyone loses
They get payed because of that merit, and as an incentive to stay with the company if they do well (bonuses).
>>70682063
>its not a question of *whether to* limit competitiveness its a question of how much
I hope that wording is clearer for you
Also limiting CEO pay this way is just because an honest day's work deserves a fair share of the produce. Capping it by law is a cleaner way to sort that than strikes and riots which are inevitable if the standard of living for labor deteriorates too far
Not sure if I endorse 25x or whatever exactly but the principle seems fine
>>70682403
Their argument is that all jobs benefit society so that means we must force a level of equality upon everyone. It's just poorly disguised income redistribution. Some simpletons really believe that the CEOs, in order to make more money would raise the wages of their lowest level workers but the architects of this plan know the real goal is to keep people from every starting a business.
The goal of socialists is always to stop the free market and end private ownership of business.
>>70682624
Take for instance, my company.
># of employees: ~37,000
>CEO salary: ~$1.2mil (not including bonuses obv)
>YEARLY BUMP IN PAY IF WE ABSORBED 100% OF HIS SALARY: $34/yr
Plus, you know you can always... become the CEO. If you've got the balls for it, you end up making the cash. Even if you end up below that.
When did personal drive and determination to BE somebody die in America?
>>70682793
>Also limiting CEO pay this way is just because an honest day's work deserves a fair share of the produce.
Why do you think an arbitrary, one-size-fits-all government mandate is more effective at determining the "fair share" than the company's own method of employee valuation?
>>70682793
>an honest day's work deserves a fair share of the produce
Who defines 'honest'?
>>70682793
How does limiting a CEO's pay increase a workers wage? Before you do these "help me refute an argument" threads you should at least understand the site your shilling for faggot
>>70682082
Sorry, I don't speak Arabic.
>>70682549
>Socialists don't get that life isn't fair and people don't have equal abilities.
Which is why I didn't set it at 1:1
>>70680792
>At which point you slap major tariffs on all imports
Oh yes. Protectionism and beggar they neighbour policies. That has never been proven to lead to global recession and crisis or anything.
Except it has. Google beggar thy neighbour, you economically illiterate fuckwit.
>>70680067
>arbitrary cap on salary's
it doesn't help the poor at all it just limits potential.
literally why are you faggots so fucking stupid.
>>70680067
25 x 8.25??? are you fucking autistic
>>70680067
no. it wouldn't.
what would be a good idea is eliminating corporations altogether by requiring everything to have a single owner.
so mr dean would own all dean foods factories, all money earned by dean foods would be his, and all pay for employees, and all operating expenses, would come out of mr deans pockets.
if mr dean sells food with e coli and someone dies, mr dean goes to jail.
>>70682793
>Limit capable leaders earning capacity artificially
>Leader goes to where earning capacity is limited by free market
>???
>Company goes down the shitter because it can't hire skilled enough leaders
Wow, it's like you think CEOs don't do anything!
>>70683339
Why set it at anything? Your life is not affected by other people having more money than you. That's what's called covetousness and it's one of the 10 Commandments for good reason. What is it to you if I earn $10 billion? Go earn your own money.
>>70680792
>I-i-if we violate all the laws of the WTO and BITs that the US itself worked to set up, things will be great!
>No, other countries won't use other currencies as their reserves and tell us to fuck off with retaliatory action
I can't decide if this guy is a bait artist or a noble soul that gave away his brain
>>70680294
Chipotle CEO is overpaid.
In fact that whole company is overpaid.
Talk about the biggest fucking ripoff ever.
They do one thing: Make burritos.
They can't even do that very well.
>>70682937
Because capitalists have every reason to exploit their workers as much as possible, which is hardly fair
A one-size-fits-all mandate is simplistic and but some sort of check on the power of capital is needed to maintain a just society
>>70682999
In dollars and cents it doesnt but it ensures the proceeds of the work are divided more fairly
>>70683640
>Why set it at anything?
To combat inflation.
>>70683688
the workers exploit the owner more than vice versa.
>>70682624
>The year is 2016
>There are still people in the United States of America defending the wealth gap by arguing that anyone with the motivation and hard work can rise to the top
>>70680424
Who gives a rat's ass about "income inequality"?
Why should it even matter to you? If a successful company wants to spend it's money a certain way, who the fuck are you to tell them they can't? Should I start telling you how you can, or cannot spend your money?
Eat a bag of dicks, you fucking Communist cuck nu-male faggot.
>>70683640
>What is it to you if I earn $10 billion?
Nothing. But when you're earning $10 billion a year and you're paying your average worker south of 100k, something's not right.
TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMICS DOES NOT WORK
>TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMICS DOES NOT WORK
TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMICS DOES NOT WORK
>TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMICS DOES NOT WORK
TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMICS DOES NOT WORK
>TRICKLE DOWN ECONOMICS DOES NOT WORK
>>70683819
>I make $10 a week
>Hey, you make $100 a week, therefore you should have a salary cap of $10
I thought shitposting was my job?
>>70683831
>Who gives a rat's ass about "income inequality"?
Anybody who cares about inflation. Look at the purchasing power of the dollar in 1960 when CEOs earned 25x what they paid their average employee. Today, they earn north of 300:1.
>>70683738
U wot m8? Explain yourself.
>>70683743
This. I get pissed going into Wal-Mart just seeing how lazy they are compared to other grocery stores that pay less.
>>70683819
The wealth gap has improved everyone's lives. Richer are richer but the poor are richer too compared to just 50 years ago. You're still comparing the top to the bottom instead of then and now.
>>70683922
THAT'S NOT AN ARGUMENT
>>70681551
He's right though, you fucking moron.
>>70683688
>but it ensures the proceeds of the work are divided more fairly
How so? More money for Mr. Shekelberg junior who inherited his father's portfolio and never works a day in his life?
Isn't the contractional pay already the fair one? Do you know how words work?
>>70681551
Don't weasel out of this one you retarded fucking communist
>>70683922
>get told over and over again
>keep repeating the same shit
At this point you can't even make an economic argument for it anymore, you're stuck on the moral aspect. And the moral argument is weak because it presumes that you should be allowed to tell people how they can spend their money.
>>70683922
>If I say something enough it'll become true
Bernie, pls.
>>70683743
LOL
How so
>>70683618
>he thinks CEOs do 2-300x more than their lowest paid worker
>he thinks people will stop wanting to make significantly more if its theoretically limited, and limited only relative to the lowest paid worker
>>70684001
That has nothing to do with inflation.
>>70683971
We are putting a cap on your shitposting.
>>70683831
> If a successful company wants to spend it's money a certain way, who the fuck are you to tell them they can't?
They are literally being thieve Judas, one of the first commies to be bitchslapped by the LAWRD.
http://www.drbo.org/chapter/47026.htm
That's a very disappointing .gif
>>70680294
So they have the salary of about 400 hundred workers? Thats not that much.
>>70684001
Inflation is caused by the Fed being controlled by Keynesian dickheads.
And what the fuck does it matter if CEOs today earn 300x as much as workers? Workers living standards have gone up considerably since the 60s. Everyone's living standards have. So clearly this system is working.
You need to fuck off with you commie bullshit. "just" my ass. The world isnt just, people are not equal, and do not all deserve a hand out just for being alive and doing a bare minimum of work.
>>70683831
>why have any laws at all?
HURR DURR
>>70684144
I'll trade him my shitposting rights for this thread if he wants to blow OP the fuck out
>>70683413
>China uses beggar thy neighbor policies
>they kill all their competition on the global scale
>massive increase in wealth and development in China
>rest of the world stagnates
yes good goy, don't question my overseas factory complexes or I'll have you indicted for antisemitism
>>70684306
>eurocuck can't read
There's a fucking shocker. I never said everybody had to be paid the exact same, now did I? Come back when you aren't retarded little nigger, faggot.
>>70683971
It is, and you seem to be doing just fine.
>>70684130
>he thinks CEOs do 2-300x more than their lowest paid worker
>Being responsible for the fate of 1000+ people is the same as stocking shelves.
>he thinks people will stop wanting to make significantly more if its theoretically limited, and limited only relative to the lowest paid worker
Yessss, good goy, remember, people will still work just as hard if they make less money!
>>70684144
18+ board, you're not allowed to post here
>>70684001
Look at the purchasing power of the dollar in 1960 when minimum wage was $1. Today, its north of $7.
>>70680067
OP is a socialist commie
And god bless 'merica
>>70680067
because its arbitrary as fuck
>>70680067
They'll just put their salaries in stocks like they did in the 90s when Bill Clinton passed a law saying that if a company was laying people off but it's CEO was making over a million a year, he'd tax all their salary
>>70684358
>China uses massive amounts of policy
>Causes some of the greatest human crises of the modern era and inequality on a colossal scale
>Is forced to implement numerous policy changes in order to accede to the WTO and join the international community
>Succeeds due to its capacity for cheap labor, though success is hard to measure when every economic figure out of the country is a lie
>developing country trade concessions facing insistent pressure, and their economy relies on keeping them
>Rest of the world stagnates
The US is growing and China's bubble is wavering, m8
>>70684313
Why is the goto libshit response when they get told to fuckoff with their nanny state faggotry?
Kill yourself cuck.
>>70684130
the workers are surviving without dying while doing nothing beyond performing a repetitive task that requires no thought or innovation of any sort, and most of them are shit at it. survival at one time required mastery of skills and great risk and bravery.
anyways, LIKE I SAID, we don't have a """""FREE"""""" market. and corporate law is the main culprit here, ie, the collective ownership of property through shareholders and boards of directors.... this is where the problems come from. it should be law that all property has a single rightful owner. that one law would solve a great deal of problems.
the other fact of the matter is that we're so very good at making things now, that there simply is more people than there are jobs to do., it's completely unnecessary that most people should have any work to do at all out of necessity; and a voluntary concession of basic income from capitalists is probably the best solution. left to their own devices as purifying laws such as the rightful owner act, most of the truly obscenely wealthy businessmen wouldn't even notice or mind the money they'd hand out to people to just go the fuck home and let robots do the work.
anyways, they'd have more fun and could focus on doing things better.
oh, sterilization is part of that deal. we don't need all these people for anything at all, and one single human more than we can maintain at a perfect happiness and standard of living is too many.
there IS an answer to 'how many people should live on earth" and in the end there is only cause for exactly one city to exist. we could call it heaven and it'd probably be on the Mediterranean coast near cypress.
there's no reason that any car which is not a maserati or bugatti, should ever fucking be made.
>>70680067
I understand the point of the question, but I feel as though its an inappropriate question. While I do think there could be benefits to a salary cap or minimum salary we should focus on the context of the question.
A typical employee is hired on a relatively standardized model, because this is the most efficient process. Typically an employee will have a set of basic skills and experience that meets the demands of the employer and ensures a set wage. There is a mild amount of negotiation possible depending on the abilities of the employee and the mandate of the employer.
In regards to CEOs, typically these are free agents who are negotiating with investors in a much more equitable way. It's more often that a CEO has a great deal of business experience and a portfolio of successes. In effect, a CEO is a lot like an actor being contracted for a film. Would we be willing to mandate that actors not be paid more than 25x that of set workers? It's an interesting idea, but one that seems to break down when viewed from that angle.
We aren't really discussing the wages of run-of-the-mill employees, we're discussing contract limitations on otherwise free agents.
>>70680067
Demands redefinition of company, leaving loopholes for the jew.
Some conglomerates have soo many levels of employment, the salary cap would be $377,000/year for a top vs. lowest paid anyhow. Still doesn't suit your redistribution wet dream, it would just pay underqualified ball handlers that peak sum because muh sheckles.
>>70684130
>CEOs are 2-400 times smarter than their lowest paid workers.
>>70684313
I've Lost the Argument: The Post.
>>70684863
> being smart is the same as being in charge
>>70684863
>it's about working 200x smarter or 200x harder
>not about whether the work done is 200x more valuable
You're not paid for effort
>>70684406
Nice strawman. I didnt say you said everyone should be paid the same. I said you dont seem to understand what inflation is and that "fairness" is an irrelevant concept when it comes to wages. Who the fuck cares if one guy makes 100x as much as someone else? The only argument against that is moral, not practical.
And that moral argument is literally communism tier.
>>70684863
their capacity is far MORE than 400 times rarer than the average worker.
a burger flipper is like, 7 out of 10 people.
a CEO is 1 out of 4,000,000 or more.
>>70680294
>>70680332
The companies in the picture all have minimum wage workers.
$7.25/hr is the minimum wage in most states. 7.25 x 25 = 181.25
You find me a company as successful as those where the CEO makes less than $200/hr.
>>70684631
China always did, and still is fucking with the value of their currency. They artificially decrease the costs of their exports while still putting fat tariffs on non chinese made goods.
Their population are slaves to the government. The government doesn't care about the welfare of the people, they're only interested in their own profit, and as you know, they make a fucking fortune off of us and the rest of the west.
>>70684863
so humans should only be paid +-30% from the average person?
>>70684964
I would go as far as to say 10 out of 10 can flip burgers.
>Passing laws to limit salaries to a specific ratio
Fucking pointless when the government is essentially owned by corporations nowadays. Besides, most of these companies pay for their stupid shit in the long run, regardless of whether or not you bitch about said stupid shit.
>Retail company promotes a bunch of "associates" (hourly wage grunts) to low-level managers
>Number of "associates" dwindles
>More chiefs than injuns, so to speak
>Retail company decides not to hire any more "associates"
>Expectations that low-end managers will do the bitch work for a salary
>Low-end managers hit glass ceiling
>Low-end managers inevitably quit and take bitch work know-how with them
>"Associates" get shit hours, never get promoted and eventually quit
>Replacement grunts are burn-outs
>Other low-end managers have no idea how to do bitch work so they get paid a ton of dosh to pat each others' backs
>Company collapses because its overpaid managers are unproductive cunts
>>70684964
This.
>>70685073
you... would be surprised.
>>70685084
>>government is owned by corporations
corporations have the power to make hamburgers and cell phones.
government has the power to fucking kill you.
you have to be a special sort of stupid to think that corporations took over the government and not vice versa.
>>70685008
One of the most underrepresented aspects of leadership I think is that people forget that leaders are oftentimes capable and willing to do basically everything. They are at the top out of necessity, not an unwillingness to do more baseline jobs. At the best company I've ever worked at ( good wages, benefits, perks etc ) the owner of the company and its president was always willing to get his hands dirty with any job - he spent most of his time in his office on the phone because that's what leadership demanded of him by necessity.
Not anyone can be a CEO, but a CEO can replace just about anyone.
>>70685073
No joke; I got into an argument with some lefties who tried to argue that there's no such thing as "unskilled labor" and that fast food work is "difficult" and that not everyone can do it because it takes like "a few weeks before you get good at it!"
>>70684130
>>he thinks CEOs do 2-300x more than their lowest paid worker
They don't. What they do is simply 2-300x more valuable than their lowest paid worker.
Pay has nothing to do with how hard your job, and everything to do with the demand for the labor and supply of workers capable of doing it.
Very few people are capable of performing surgery, which is why surgeons make tons of money. Just about anyone with a pulse, even literal retarded people, are capable of operating a fucking cash register, so people who operate a cash register get paid shit.
>>70684423
>>Being responsible for the fate of 1000+ people is the same as stocking shelves.
>CEO makes a decision
>his workers carry it out
>the company does well
Both parts are essential
>CEO makes a bad decision
>his workers carry it out
>company goes under
>shelf stocker loses his job
The worker assumes as much risk by following as the CEO does by leading
>the CEO has done 2-300x more
Im not seeing how thats fair in this situation
>>70684704
>muh john galt fantasy
edgy
>>70685052
>China always did, and still is fucking with the value of their currency. They artificially decrease the costs of their exports while still putting fat tariffs on non chinese made goods.
Pls explain more trade basics to me I had no idea
How long do you think that will last? Do you consider it a sustainable state of affairs? Are you familiar with China's bound tariff levels in contrast to countries like the US? Are you familiar with US trade protectionism that doesn't involve tariffs (hint: it's a fucking lot)?
You've got your one talking point from Trump but surprisingly the world is more complex.
>Their population are slaves to the government. The government doesn't care about the welfare of the people, they're only interested in their own profit
Well at least there's no argument there. I think we can agree this is not an exemplary model for the US to emulate.
>>70680067
Because it wouldn't work.
The CEO would end up working for the company along with his executive buddies - anyone who is more than 25x less pay than the CEO will be labor hire/outsource to prevent the CEO's wage from skewing downwards.
>>70685198
Corporations and the government have their hands in each others pockets with lots of little favors and shit. Some douchebag will try to find a loophole in the law. They always try.
>>70685232
>>meanwhile, somewhere, this very moment, a business man hasn't slept for two days and his wife has left him, he is puking blood now and then from the stress and 24 hour workdays that he has chosen to take on himself in order to get his company off the ground.
>>this company will provide 2000 jobs for people that wake up at 6am, work for 8 hours (not too hard) and go home by 4pm, and enjoy their lives.
>>70680067
salary doesn't matter, most big wigs make their money through investment
>>70680067
Because the people who could potentially earn higher than the limit in other countries would move to those countries, in the same way that companies will move its operation to a country with lower tax rates and operating costs.
>>70680067
I think something like this could be good, but I am not sure 25 is the right multiple.
So according to this guy, if I start a company. Say a cafe. And I hire 2 waitresses at minimum wage, and profit I make that exceeds 25x minimum wage I do... what with? I need to just give it to the government, because that's "fair"? Should I just burn it in sacrifice to Marx?
Fucking leftists are retarded.
>>70680067
A better solution would be forcing companies to offer incentive stock options to all employees. The wealth disparity comes from stockholders getting a larger share of the pie than employees. Stock options bridge this gap.
>>70685706
How are options better than buying the stocks directly, which employees can do if it's exchange/otc traded.
>>70685300
>Very few people are capable of performing surgery
Very few are licensed. Do not mistake barriers to entry for scarcity. Most surgery is no more difficult than skilled carpentry. Just higher risk.
>>70685706
I'm actually curious as to what research says on this. I know there are benefits and issues with stock at the higher level (skin in the game, but rewards short-sighted action at times), but I wonder how options all the way down affects the company (and not just in the 401ks where the employee is basically locked into it).
>>70685498
The ban the stock market man!
Joking aside, it honestly hilarious how many libshits are so economically illiterate they honestly believe stocks are somehow immoral or something.
Meanwhile I'm a pretty middle class guy, making $68k a year, but I'm going to retire around 40 because I've just been stacking away money in a diverse, dividend based portfolio.
And these faggots will keep blowing their money on clubbing every weekend and taking a yearly vacation to another continent and driving a brand new SUV, and they'll keep fucking whining about their heads are barely above water.
>>70685232
I'm not going to say that being a fry cook is a particularly rare or valuable skill, but their time and effort is worth more than they are typically paid (or at least what their pay check can buy them). It used to be that you could scrape out a meager living on minumum wage, but then banking and other general kikery kept weakening their purchasing power. Now, you can barely scrape by with 80 hours of labor, when you could do the same job for 40 hours before.
>>70685893
i have some invested in my company's ESOP. hasnt really changed my perception of work, but i suppose the company just hires selectively. a good study would be for a high-turnover job and see if stock options change productivity.
i highly doubt ESOP would affect productivity in low-turnover jobs
>>70685896
>but I'm going to retire around 40 because I've just been stacking away money in a diverse, dividend based portfolio.
I never thought I would respect a fucking leaf. Keep it up m8.
>>70685896
To be fair, if those shitty hippies werent throwing all their money away, no one would be consuming anything, and the economy would crash regardless.
The biggest consumers are lefties and women.
>>70686029
When your labor is so worthless that anybody can do it, it's not going to pay very well.
>>70685879
Incentive options can be priced to allow instant capital gain, or, more commonly, they are priced in such a way that if the company's stock rises over the option's duration, the employee gains that value directly at expiration without having to actually tie up the capital of owning the stock. If the stock does not rise above the strike price, the options just expire and the employee loses nothing.
>>70686029
>but their time and effort is worth more than they are typically paid
Because you say so?
>>70685706
Lowes offers stock options. They cover half the cost to buy stocks as an employee. I can't wonder what's stopping the employees from buying the stocks with half their paychecks, selling them, and pocketing the difference. I know I would.
>>70685881
And as it happens, skilled carpentry also pays better than operating a cash register.
>>70686270
Most likely you only have so many options and there's a vesting period.
However, the profit from options is considered part of your compensation, so that's entirely expected.
>ITT: Economically illiterate teenagers promote protectionism
kek, enjoy your 20$ burgers trumpniggers
>>70685706
Go fuck yourself. You don't seem to realize workers are not slaves. They are selling their services. If their service is so easy any person on the street could do it the lowest bidder gets the job except we have minimum wage.
Stop trying to force people to do shit. If I want company stock options I can ask my employer. Its not likely because most people aren't that needy and they could hire anybody else who doesn't whine like a bitch.
Just stop. You're blatantly trying to steal money from the rich. Robin hood was a work of fiction. Being rich does not make you evil and stealing from anyone, rich or poor, does not make it moral.
>>70686270
There's probably a provision that if you sell inside of a year you have repay the company's contribution.
>>70680067
142 replies and still no one posted the original gif
pol I am disappoint
>>70685300
Very few people *need* to be decision makers though, a socioeconomic structure with a few CEOs and a lot of cashiers is a good thing
That being the case, cashiers should enjoy enough of the produce of that society to live a decent life, which they dont unless there are sufficient checks on the power of CEOs to ensure that they do
Its more fair to do it that way
>>70686420
>freaking out over suggesting stock options, which allow for a degree of sharing the success of the company
Literally one of the more reasonable concepts in this thread
>>70686270
>>70686222
I see. It's probably more trustworthy than anything fiat like government supported stuff but in the worst case if your comany goes down you loose your job and your money.
So I would still rather get my benefits in cash and put them into big ETFs.
>>70686113
But when necessary labor becomes so arduous that it can no longer profit the laborer, that system collapses. Right now, this is keeping people from properly raising families, which will lead to the destruction of society as a whole. Normally, the system would correct itself in some manner, but it is being prevented from doing that artificially, by those who profit from general society's collapse.
>>70686237
Neglected to quote you the first time. see >>70686599
>>70686369
protectionism works.
Burgers might cost 15 dollars but the average workers now has 30 extra dollars to spare.
>un-ironically defending vampire companies sucking the money from America's pockets and giving a small portion of it to chinks.
GDP = domestic production + exports - imports
With tarrifs imports goes down, exports increases to make up for it.
GDP stays the same, so americans keep there level of wealth or more, while the chinks and spics become poorer. Why is this hard to understand?
>>70685893
The only downside is possibly having to issue more stock than the company would like, possibly diluting share value. I know incentive options are also messy at tax time, but that is an IRS issue.
Other approaches include discounted stock purchase plans, where employees have the ability to buy shares at a discounted price provided they hold them for a certain period.
The trick is to link employee wealth more closely with company success. As it stands most people hardly care if their company performs well, it only affects them if they get laid off.
>Bonus cash
>Stock Options
>Common stock
WHAT IF!? what if we simply removal salaries, bonus stock, common stock and any other BS. what if we payed people based on a percentage of the profits of the company?
for example CEO makes 10% of profits
managers make 40%
Grunts make 50%
so 10 managers of a company would split 40% of the profits the CEO would get 10% to himself and the 100 shit workers would split 50%
so, 10 million in profits CEO gets 1 million, each manager would get 400k (assuming 10 managers) and if 100 workers 50k each at the end of the year.
What would be the negatives of a profit sharing corporation where everyone is tied to the progress of the company? obviously the scales would need to be adjusted but is this idea plausible?
>>70680260
this here
a supreme boss can be worth (depending on the size/structure of the company and the nature of the business) way more than 25 bottom tier employees, if they are making the right decisions
the peanut gallery rarely understands this, however
>>70686758
>With tarrifs imports goes down, exports increases to make up for it.
>If we buy less, we will magically sell more
What the fuck Canada
>>70686599
So to prevent the "crashing of the system" you're going to crash the system by installing Socialism.
It really is all about what you say, and not what the actual outcome might be with you leftists.
Rome burns around you and all you can do is play your fiddles to the tune of, "Yeah well we were moral so there!"
>>70685313
>The worker assumes as much risk by following as the CEO does by leading
Is this really the argument you're going with?
First of all, the scenario you've come up with is ludicrous. What task could the CEO possibly command a shelf stocker to perform that would make the company go under? More likely is that the CEO makes a bad decision that lower corporate individuals carry out, and if it does badly, the CEO is in trouble. The shelf stocker gets to keep his job in that scenario.
If the CEO makes a bad enough decision that the shelf stocker is forced out because of downsizing, he's losing an unskilled worker's salary, and he bears none of the responsibility for that poor decision with him when applies for a similar job later on. The CEO gets paid more because he's required to make DECISIONS that affect the entire company. The lower down grunt workers have far less responsibility.
>>70686533
Its not reasonable at all. Stop trying to make bullshit laws forcing people to do things they don't want to do.
Asking someone if they would make a law that forced people to choose getting fucked in the ass or getting fucked in the mouth is not reasonable. I can choose I where I want to be fucked without government assistance.
>>70686698
>implying
Given the statistics I would rather say low income makes you output more kids.
>>70680424
>It would reduce income equality.
I think you meant inequality. The easiest way to reduce what the left calls "income inequality" is to stop importing poverty. When you import poverty YOU GET MORE POVERTY.
>>70686758
>With tarrifs imports goes down, exports increases to make up for it
Nah. Because when you implement tariffs, everyone starts doing it to increase *their* revenue. So everyone is tariffing the shit out of everyone else's products, and everybody's exports go down.
This is what happened in the 19th century, when protectionism became popular again in Europe. You dont want tariffs, mate. It just results in beggar thy neighbour asshatery.
>>70686706
>worker gets an extra $30
>burgers cost half that
It's like nothing changed from when they made $7.25 and a burger cost $3.50
But at least they have more money, even if it's worth less.
Motherfucking Zimbabwe economics right here.
>>70686420
To quote one of my favorite films:
"That'll make a guy work just hard enough not to get fired."
>>70686849
Honestly that might fuck over the low-income people the most. People who make less money need income security, and profits can fluctuate. It also makes more sense to tie executives' compensation to the company performance to a large degree since it depends directly on their strategic direction.
If you kept salaries but added a degree of profit-sharing that would seem like an interesting idea to me.
>>70686849
And what if every day Santa Claus shows up to every worker and shits gold at them from his fat ass?
>>70686706
>protectionism works
holy shit lel
>what is comparative advantage
literally no economist of note supports protectionism.
/pol/ will defend this
What would you do about franchises? The ceo of McDonalds has at least 2 separate companies between them and a cashier.
>>70680424
you would just see more management and consulting companies pop up.
>>70687000
It's already done in many companies, either as direct compensation or as part of a 401k. Have you never had a job?
>>70680067
Its not a bad idea, people who can't accept this as a reality are already too far cucked by the government.
>>70680067
Yea more useless government intervention great idea.
>>70686849
the way this works is to convert the percentage to shares and then if you need more workers or somebody needs a raise, the entire workforce contributes depending on how many shares they have. on the other hand, if the workforce becomes efficient and the workload can be handled with fewer people, everybody gets a raise depending on how many shares they get.
>>70686934
I must say, that's some quality bait, but I'm not falling for it.
>>70687222
Clearly the franchise owner needs to hand any money he makes above 25x the wage he pays his workers to the government. Thats just fair! Despite him taking all the risks and providing all the capital to start the Franchise.
>commies actually believe this.
>>70680067
So they now earn $1/hr and get a fuck ton of kickbacks and other incentives, just like Japan.
Or they pseudo-splinter and make shell companies that they own.
>>70687232
Or alternatively (or both) more Labor hire companies - so the bottom workers (the shelf stocker that is being thrown around in this thread a lot is a good example) won't be employed by Acme, they'll be employed by 'WorkPower' or the like and will be contracted to stock shelves for Acme.
The whole idea is Grade A, export quality retarded.
>>70680067
is the smartest scientist, most talented artist, best ceo 25 times more productive than the lowest skilled worker? say the janitor?
if you say no i would be curious about your reasoning.
>>70687425
The model for that already even exists in US.
Copy Steve Jobs. done.
>>70686849
This is basically what happens already. The only difference is the bottom workers can demand a higher or lower percentage if they wanted to. Some grunts might be better workers than others. What happens then? The better grunts ask for higher pay than the shitty nigger grunts.
Oops your back to evil free market capitalism where people get paid what they're worth or what they can sell their services for.
>>70686979
Except that golden parachutes exist and in reality CEO's risk no more than any other employee. They stand to lose their livelihood, but little else. In many industries the grunts stand to lose their lives as well. I will agree that the cost of their mistakes is far larger because of the number of people affected, but their personal risk is no greater than the guy mining the coal.
>>70680067
50x, and I think above average salary rather than lowest would be fair. If your average salary is $50,000, that'd be a salary of $2.5 million.
I think that's fair and that's more in line (but still ahead of) with what CEO's in companies operating outside the US make. It's only in the US that they make hundreds of times more money than their average salary much less their lowest.
Either way, having some sort of salary cap based on the wages of their employees does give incentive to raise employee wages.
>>70686979
The workers are choosing to work collectively toward a goal set by the CEO. They are deciding to let the CEO's decisions affect them, thereby subjecting themselves to the same risk he takes. Both share the responsibility of achieving the collective goal, the CEO by making good decisions and the worker by carrying them out effectively. If either one of them fails, the collective suffers.
However if they both succeed the CEO takes 2-300x more.
You know in your heart that isn't fair
>>70687497
I honestly couldn't remember if was also him or not that did it. I didn't want to say it and be wrong.
>>70680424
>No more CEOs making 25 million while the salary for the average worker is south of 100k.
You must have ignored the image which clearly shows this as an impossibility because the money simply isn't there
>>70687048
This. And reducing unemployment. Getting people to work instead of NEETing does wonders for overall wealth disparity.
>>70687398
>calls people shit poster
>posts shitty korean cartoon
>>70687554
>Except that golden parachutes exist and in reality CEO's risk no more than any other employee.
I'd argue that this depends on the company. Some CEOs, especially founders or people who have had their whole career with the company have their salary massively in stock and could have their wealth annihilated if the company fell apart.
The tradeoff is that CEOs in this position might decide that the only priority is making wallstreet happy so that their stock goes up, at the cost of anything else.
>>70680067
Here's some math for you dumb niggers
CEO pay is literally nothing anyway. Take any major CEO. Lets say GE or something.
He makes 18.9 million a year.
How many employees does GE have? 305,000 people work for GE.
Lets just say for example they only make 12,000 a year each (yes thats RETARDEDLY low and obviously they make a lot more)
305,000 x 12,000 = 3660000000
3.6 Billion dollars annually for all of them
OK communist wet dream time: now completely negate CEO salary and equally distribute across the workers.
3660000000 + 18000000 = 3678000000
divide that again by the number of works
3678000000 % 305000 = 12059
12059 is the new annual for each employee
Congrats they now get 60 more dollars a year yay communism
Now please never think about CEO pay again
>>70680067
ceo salary doesnt mean shit.
if someone was stupid enough to do this then every single ceo would have a 1 dollar salary and be compensated some other way.
>>70687203
Protectionism is a net loss globally, but a net gain locally. Fuck southeast Asia.
>>70687701
Immelt's salary is pretty ridiculous for someone who sat on his ass for years after the financial crisis.
GE's doing some cool stuff now but that was a hell of a dead period
>>70680260
Who are you fooling? They're all shit-tier CEOs these days. Otherwise they wouldn't be driving our economy into the dirt, or begging for handouts left and right to sustain their profits.
>>70687242
And its by choice. Don't make it a law you faggot.
>>70687701
what about the salaries of all board members and executives?
>>70687701
>Now please never think about CEO pay again
>Don't think of the shekels goyim
fuck off kike
>>70683819
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCbfMkh940Q
>>70687067
>Nah. Because when you implement tariffs, everyone starts doing it to increase *their* revenue.
THEY ARE ALREDY TARRIFING OUR SHIT. And stop perpetuating this false dichotomy that it is either open borders trade deals or a closed shop. There is a balance somewhere in between and that balance needs to be tilted in the favor of the US.
>>70688001
Nice try schlomo, we all know the bankers are the problem, not CEOs in general. Try reddit next time :)
>>70687884
>doing the best for your company is shit-tier
It's not shit-tier to want more for your company, period.
It's shit-tier that idiot politicians hand out cash like free candy - but then again if you actually look at the figures, you'd see that most of the free money giveaway happens from left-leaning causes and politicians.
Who helped the banks in 2008 again?
Was it Bush?
>>70687697
Yeah, in my corporate experience, the worst offenders are executives who show up, do a bunch of nasty things like layoffs to pump up their options value, and pull the ripcord and move on to the next company to do it again. Lifers tend to live and die by the company's success, but they still have a better safety net than their grunts.
>>70687991
Add them in too. I guarantee you won't get a much different outcome. I also gave a REALLY low figure for average salary per employee, its obviously much higher so this number is low end.
>>70687571
Life isn't fair. The workers are not taking a big risk. They didn't invest in this company. If they fail at their work it really doesn't make that much of a difference. Since when has wallmart gone out of business from its completely shit employees?
Life isn't fair faggot, get used to it.
>>70680067
Elon musk gets paid $1 per year for being the CEO of Tesla.
The problem with making simple laws like this, is that there are extremely simple ways to still make a fuck ton of money.
They make tax evasion look legal and easy.
>>70680640
I like the subtle approach you took there.
>>70688101
>oy veyy hes on to me
>better deflect on to the kike bankers which everyone hates
fuck off kike
>>70687991
Usually not the issue either. It tends to be a drop in the bucket. The shareholders are the ones reaping most of the rewards. How about a rule where dividends and stock buyback rewards must be mirrored in employee compensation? My company pays 5% dividends, but I have never gotten a salary increase of 5% in a given year, even with top ratings.
>>70680260
No, companies would just have to hire the right CEOs that would make excellent decisions without being greedy little assholes.
>>70688207
> the worst offenders are executives who show up, do a bunch of nasty things like layoffs to pump up their options value, and pull the ripcord and move on to the next company to do it again.
I see no issue with something being in place to kick people like this in the financial balls. I'm all for rewarding success, but this just encourages failing.
>>70688060
Tariffs aren't symmetrical you inbred cockgoblin. Developed countries have lower bound tariffs but more complex technical barriers while developing countries have higher bound tariffs under continued pressure to lower them.
>>70688523
Buy some shares then?
>>70688060
Your ideas have been tried, and proven to fail.
Shoo, shoo, Neo-Mercantilist.
>>70688523
5% dividend, sure, but do they have 5% dividend growth YoY too? That's the more comparable metric to whether you're getting raises.
>>70688266
>The workers are not taking a big risk. They didn't invest in this company. If they fail at their work it really doesn't make that much of a difference. Since when has wallmart gone out of business from its completely shit employees?
The workers invest their time and effort into their job and depend upon it for their livelihood
What the fuck do you mean they don't invest
>Life isn't fair faggot, get used to it.
>life isnt fair so i should be complacent about it
No
>>70680067
it would be very good if you could close loopholes, like hiring through subcontractors
/pol/ should be fucking ashamed for falling for this faggot's bait.
>>70680067
>>70680424
>>70680640
>>70680792
>>70680846
>>70681256
>>70681378
>>70681433
>>70681499
>>70681551
>>70682016
>>70683274
>>70683339
>>70683738
>>70683922
>>70684001
>>70684313
>>70684406
>>70688618
>Says the country who doesn't export anything ever.
Well, I guess you export Architects, but they then go on to pay tax into whatever nation they then reside in, not nedercuck government, so the point still stands.
Generally export nations don't listen to what not-export nations have to say about tariffs, because they generally know absolutely jack shit.
>>70688569
nah m8 he's too busy buying new phone contracts, internet service, hbo, netflix, eating out, car payments, electricity bills, video games and new clothes.
I can't believe we've allowed America's poor to stoop so low.
>>70688742
We export fucking 21% of EU vegetables. We export over 80% of EU petrochemical products. We have Philips, to export electronics.
This entire fucking country is based on trade and export. You goddamn retard. We even export gas.
>>70681490
Buit how much more effort,realistically, is it to manage 100,000 employees at a "distance" than to do the actual labor work that minimum wage employees actualliy do. Sit in an office wondering about what 100,00 people are doing vs. doing minimum wage labor and all levels above, shouldn't everyone just get the same wage?
>>70689118
>>70689118
I don't have a bait picture sufficient for this
Someone help
>>70688670
>the workers invest effort into their jobs
Its 2016 and you still think being a human scan machine is a hard job
They don't take as much risk as the manager. If they fuck up their jobs nothing happens. If the CEO fucks up the entire company is done. Thats why CEOs make more money. They are the ones taking risks. Grunts workers are just sheep who only know how to do what they're told.
They don't invest in the company. Sure they spend their time there because they're losers who can't get a better job but they never gave the company any capital to start up.
>life isn't fair so i should be complacent about it
yes
>>70688742
>>70689050
Actually, I;m not done. We have Unilever, one of the largest consumer goods producers in the world. We have Shell, one of the largest petrol companies. We dominate the flower market. Edam and Gouda cheese are exported world wide.
You are so fucking uneducated its not even funny.
Tariffs dont work, they only make everyone poorer. Go get fucked you koala raping abbo.
>>70689392
Are you saying minimum wage workers should do higher wage pay for a higher pay? Shouldn't everyone just do the work they do and be happy for the pay they get, in an altruistic sense?
>>70689524
Explain to me how tariffs don't work in the benifit of the country making tariffs.
hard mode: explain how they don't work for a country that could produce all of their own good and more by themselves.
>>70689678
>>70689392
But then again, shouldn't CEOs altruistically pay their workers all an equakl amount, no matter what the work they do?
>>70689700
>ez mode
Raises the prices of goods, causing a higher cost of living. In today's world, unless they fit under the country's existing tariff schedule, will provoke trade retaliation
>hard mode
No such country exists where they have comparative advantage in every good
>>70685675
Well in Canada/USA we put a salary cap on NHL teams, which was effectively 50% of Canada's GDP. The result was actually a net benefit to everyone involved. By capping the amount teams could spend on players it meant a more equal distribution of skills in the league as a whole, making teams/the game more competitive - as well as giving franchises more incentive to reinvest their profits into the team.
Now as a result instead of a single team or small group of teams consolidating all the wealth, the wealth is distributed more equitably. To some degree this infringes on the freedoms of those investors or players, but that's the cost of being a part of a league. They aren't a league of one or two teams, they are part of a national organization and they are obligated to act like it.
>>70680424
Why the arbitrary number? Why not 5 times? 3 times? What's the logical difference? What's the rationale? Does owning 10 faggots instead of 9 magically make you immoral? Why punish success? Why punish taking risk? Why must you steal from more successful people?
>>70687031
You mean the welfare queens that aren't working?
>>70689906
Thank you Canada you godsend.
>>70689964
Because you are "owning 10 faggots instead of 9" instead of "employing 10 important people instead of 9". Change your attitude.
Yeah, we need more laws... That will solve our problems!
>>70689700
Because every country that sees their income reduced through tariffs, will scramble to implement tariffs of their own to counteract it. End result: exports decrease and prices go up for everyone.
The Germans, French and Brits tried this shit between 1870 and 1914, and all it did was decrease growth and increase prices.
>>70689524
m8, I only rape Wallabies.
Phillips is a shit company that makes low quality goods (this isn't the fucking 70s anymore idiot, Royal Phillips is a royal piece of shit)
No one cares about Fleurs
Shell is a licensed brand now, nothing else.
Unilever is actually owned by the jews.
Camembert > all that shit cheese you mentioned.
>>70689857
WRONG.
Removing tariffs just negatively affects the country that removed the tariffs and is a benefit for everyone else.
See: Australia, removed tariffs and promoted free trade, yet is now fucked because guess what, EVERYONE else still charges tariffs, even your precious fucking EU, but Australia doesn't so we just get raped.
You are actively trying to tell other people to remove their tariffs whilst you have some of the harshest in the world.
Fuck you EU scum.
>>70689968
they have more kids because they need more help around the house and or/ are uneducated to birth control.
>>70690212
>Australia is so mad he's confused me for a Euro
>He still unironically thinks tariffs are the only protectionist tool
It must be incredible to have such low standards for shitposting
>>70690156
was referring to the unit of measurement
>>70689906
I'm talking about a small business owner. If I have to give away any profits I make that are above 25x the wage of my employees, why would I even hire people? I'd just fucking run that café myself.
Its entirely unfair to screw people out of their own hard earned money over some ridiculous notion of "fairness" through income redistribution.
>>70688523
perhaps. I've never liked the system of true capitalism, which is public investment
See to me, Money should be representative of work, that's the way it was before the concepts of usury and investment became realities
Now, the ultra rich don't really work, they simply have money, that breeds more money, due to interest, and returns on investment.
If the poor shouldn't be able to get money without labor, neither should the rich.
>>70690348
I'm not. The reason we have a problem with employers nowadays is because they view them as a liability or assets instead of people.
>>70680067
Salary doesn't mean anything. My CEO just gave up his entire salary (over $900k, which isn't even that much compared to companies like >>70680294) but he will still make several million in performance bonuses.
>>70687884
XD
What?
>>70690367
>hard earned money
>making money off the labor of others
choose one
>>70690409
This, so so much this.
>>70688649
I would say that stock price appreciation covers the YoY growth part. Owning stock is a much better deal than working.
>>70690532
The only worthwhile one is Elon Musk, or people with the drive like him.
>>70690212
>>70689857
Actually I'm not done yet either.
Not only do you have harsh tariffs on imports, but you actively try to enforce psudo-tariffs and world laws with your godawful yurocuck laws designed to make everything worse.
like RoHS, you'll try to imply that it was a good thing and not just a hidden tariff, but you'd be lying.
Like <1w standby making appliances and computers slow and expensive.
Like EU emissions laws, which unlike the US emissions standards and clean air act - yours don't actually do anything! they just make shit more expensive - the VW scandal wasn't even an issue in the EU becuase the same cars passed the 'strict EU standards' with flying fucking colours. EU emissions standards are really just another hidden EU tariff designed to penalise vehicles not manufactured in the EU.
Your state and supranational government both levy some of the harshest obvious and a multitude of hidden tarrifs, yet you have the gaul to try and tell the rest of the world to remove theirs.
FUCK YOU.
>>70690639
Sure, but that's not an income return or a distribution to shareholders, that just's Wall Street valuation.
>>70689050
Lol, just because they ship from your ports does not mean you are exporting anything. I hear the prostitutes are good though.
>>70690535
>commie kike shit
>muh labor theory of value
management is productive labor contrary to what berners believe
>>70690535
But it'd be fair if I run the café myself and earn 500x minimum wage, right?
>>70689906
In sports this is a bad comparison. The product is not the team or the player. The product is the competition, the league. It is unarguably good for the competition to impose measures that equally distribute talent.
Daily reminder that if you confiscated the entire wealth of the 1%, you would only double the salaries of everyone else for one year. Then the rich would have nothing, and you wouldn't make anything more.
if you just take their yearly salaries then it's only a dollar an hour increase or something quite trivial.
keep this in mind when you see these eat the rich threads.
>>70690716
I'm still not Euro, and all you're doing is explaining exactly why I think raising tariffs is retarded. You can be protectionist without tariffs in more efficient and subtle manners.
Is this modern shitposting? Agreeing with people really angrily and hoping they'll argue against their own point out of habit?
>>70688523
>>70690409
>>70690546
if you're so butthurt about than buy some shares instead of wasting your money on anime and vidya you lazy niggers
if you are poor in the modern age you are retarded, there's nothing else to it
>>70690770
We make a lot of shit though/ Food, electronics, consumer goods. Most European petrochemical industry is located in Rotterdam as well.
And the prostitutes are all bulgarian sex slaves.
>>70690741
I still get cranky when there are big stock buybacks but shitty raises across the board. This happens at least every other year. This is just the board pumping up their own share value (or at least that is how it looks/feels).
