Boss-Employee Gap Legislation

[Recidiva]

I'd like to see the legislation pass. It's good information. Knowing the disparity between the highest paid and the lowest paid in an organization is information that's important to investors and consumers.

There have been complaints that this is intrusive and difficult to calculate and to that I say - pshaw.

It's more important in an ethical and an economic sense than the glossy cover pictures on the investor prospectus. If you could go to that trouble, you can go to this trouble.

Pass it. Put the data out there and see what happens. Maybe...shame at conspicuous greed? Maybe...treating people a little better? Maybe...shareholders can see whether or not the company they invest in pays an owner multiple millions and the majority of their workforce a pittance?

Let's see what makes companies great, fair treatment or squeezing every last penny from production and giving it to shareholders and a few folks at the top.

 

[tactful]

For a second there, I thought this was gonna be about cleavage.

 

[Recidiva]

For a second there, I thought this was gonna be about cleavage.

Only metaphorically. Sorry!

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

It simply cannot be an objective measure of value, only a subjective venture into envy...

When you work in a modern factory, you are paid, not only for your labor, but for all the productive genius which has made that factory possible: for the work of the industrialist who built it, for the work of the investor who saved money to risk on the untried and new, for the work of the engineer who designed who designed the machines of which you are pushing the levers, for the inventor who create the product on which you spend your time making, for the work of the scientist who discovered the laws that went into the making of that product, for the work of the philosopher who taught men how to think and whom you spend your time denouncing.
...
Every man is free to rise as far as he's able or willing, but it's only to the degree that he thinks that determines the degree to which he'll rise. Physical labor as such can extend no further than the range of the moment. The man who does no more than physical labor, consumes the equivalent of the material value-equivalent of his own contribution to the process of production and leaves no further value neither for himself, nor others. ... Material products can't be shared, they belong to some ultimate consumer; it is only the values of an idea which can be shared in unlimited numbers of men making all sharer's richer at no one's sacrifice or loss, raising the productive capacity of whatever labor they perform.
...
In proportion to the mental energy he spent, the man who creates a new invention receives but a small percentage of his value in terms of material payment, no matter what fortune he makes, no matter what millions he earns. But the man who works as a janitor in the factory producing that invention receives an enormous payment in proportion to the mental effort that his job requires of him. And the same is true of all men between, on all levels of ambition and ability. The man at the top of the intellectual pyramid contributes the most to all those below him, getting nothing except his material payment, receiving no intellectual bonus from others to add to the value of his time. The man at the bottom, who left to himself, would starve in his hopeless ineptitude, contributes nothing to those above him, but receives the bonus of all their brains. Such is the nature of the 'competition' between the strong and the weak of the intellect. Such is the pattern of 'exploitation' for which you have damned the strong.

John Galt
Atlas Shrugged

 

[Recidiva]

It simply cannot be an objective measure of value, only a subjective venture into envy...

When you work in a modern factory, you are paid, not only for your labor, but for all the productive genius which has made that factory possible: for the work of the industrialist who built it, for the work of the investor who saved money to risk on the untried and new, for the work of the engineer who designed who designed the machines of which you are pushing the levers, for the inventor who create the product on which you spend your time making, for the work of the scientist who discovered the laws that went into the making of that product, for the work of the philosopher who taught men how to think and whom you spend your time denouncing.
...
Every man is free to rise as far as he's able or willing, but it's only to the degree that he thinks that determines the degree to which he'll rise. Physical labor as such can extend no further than the range of the moment. The man who does no more than physical labor, consumes the equivalent of the material value-equivalent of his own contribution to the process of production and leaves no further value neither for himself, nor others. ... Material products can't be shared, they belong to some ultimate consumer; it is only the values of an idea which can be shared in unlimited numbers of men making all sharer's richer at no one's sacrifice or loss, raising the productive capacity of whatever labor they perform.
...
In proportion to the mental energy he spent, the man who creates a new invention receives but a small percentage of his value in terms of material payment, no matter what fortune he makes, no matter what millions he earns. But the man who works as a janitor in the factory producing that invention receives an enormous payment in proportion to the mental effort that his job requires of him. And the same is true of all men between, on all levels of ambition and ability. The man at the top of the intellectual pyramid contributes the most to all those below him, getting nothing except his material payment, receiving no intellectual bonus from others to add to the value of his time. The man at the bottom, who left to himself, would starve in his hopeless ineptitude, contributes nothing to those above him, but receives the bonus of all their brains. Such is the nature of the 'competition' between the strong and the weak of the intellect. Such is the pattern of 'exploitation' for which you have damned the strong.

John Galt
Atlas Shrugged

Yes, but I think Ayn Rand was an idealistic and selfish idiot who was also on public assistance during parts of her lifetime.

More data and easily calculated data that can help determine the healthy business practices of a company is good.

She wrote a crappy book and never ran a business successfully to my knowledge.

But someone else did well and said something about it:

"There is one rule for the industrialist and that is: Make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible." - Henry Ford

 

[tactful]

Only metaphorically. Sorry!

Go ahead, hurt my brain with those big words, ouch.

 

[Recidiva]

Go ahead, hurt my brain with those big words, ouch.

Well, I do believe there are boobs hereabout if you look. I'm sure I've seen them. Did you miss the boob aisle?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Yes, but I think Ayn Rand was an idealistic and selfish idiot who was also on public assistance during parts of her lifetime.

More data and easily calculated data that can help determine the healthy business practices of a company is good.

She wrote a crappy book and never ran a business successfully to my knowledge.

But someone else did well and said something about it:

"There is one rule for the industrialist and that is: Make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible." - Henry Ford

Start with a slander.

Insufficient data as far as value. Why not compare instead of salary to salary but the percentage of gross profit given to labor as verses that given to brain?

Get in another slander.

Your metric has nothing to do with setting the wage; it is only a tool to fuel envy and calls for more "fairness" legislation. Maybe some anti dog eat dog law...



As crappy as you wish to say her books are, she knew the altruistic heart as well as any of her contemporaries.

 

[tactful]

Well, I do believe there are boobs hereabout if you look. I'm sure I've seen them. Did you miss the boob aisle?

No, I usually go down (eye wise) that aisle, they are few and far in between, but yes, one does notice the softness of the flesh and the perky point buds of excitement, of breastage on a woman's body. I'm sure they'll be other threads today get one's attention, it's just sad, this isn't one of them.

 

[CandiCame]

Would that just be for US employees or do we get to see the Nestle CEO make millions while using child labor to pick their coca beans at 8 cents an hour? Because those kids aren't American employees, but it's an American company.

 

[doctor_insanus]

"There is one rule for the industrialist and that is: Make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wages possible." - Henry Ford

Yes, but being one of the most successful businessmen in history only counts if he was was an objectivist tool. We should put more stock in the author of unworkable fictitious economic policies.

 

[Recidiva]

Start with a slander.

Insufficient data as far as value. Why not compare instead of salary to salary but the percentage of gross profit given to labor as verses that given to brain?

Get in another slander.

Your metric has nothing to do with setting the wage; it is only a tool to fuel envy and calls for more "fairness" legislation. Maybe some anti dog eat dog law...



As crappy as you wish to say her books are, she knew the altruistic heart as well as any of her contemporaries.

It's not slander, it's an opinion based upon study.

I'm pretty sure she's dead and doesn't care and I just don't consider her in any way as a person who would give good advice about social comportment or economics or industrial ethics. Maybe she was good at knitting. If she wrote a book about that, I'd check it out.

Oh! Yeah, Henry Ford has something to say about the altruistic heart too:

An idealist is a person who helps other people to be prosperous. - Henry Ford

He was, in fact, wrong, because Ayn Rand was an idealist and she just liked to crush dreams and prosperity unless it belonged to the biggest bully in the room.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Start with a slander.

Insufficient data as far as value. Why not compare instead of salary to salary but the percentage of gross profit given to labor as verses that given to brain?

Get in another slander.

Your metric has nothing to do with setting the wage; it is only a tool to fuel envy and calls for more "fairness" legislation. Maybe some anti dog eat dog law...



As crappy as you wish to say her books are, she knew the altruistic heart as well as any of her contemporaries.

It's not slander if its true, and both of those statements were.

Making up your own definitions still I see.

 

[Recidiva]

No, I usually go down (eye wise) that aisle, they are few and far in between, but yes, one does notice the softness of the flesh and the perky point buds of excitement, of breastage on a woman's body. I'm sure they'll be other threads today get one's attention, it's just sad, this isn't one of them.

Moment of silence for boob dearth.

 

[kbate]

I'd like to see the legislation pass. It's good information. Knowing the disparity between the highest paid and the lowest paid in an organization is information that's important to investors and consumers.

There have been complaints that this is intrusive and difficult to calculate and to that I say - pshaw.

It's more important in an ethical and an economic sense than the glossy cover pictures on the investor prospectus. If you could go to that trouble, you can go to this trouble.

Pass it. Put the data out there and see what happens. Maybe...shame at conspicuous greed? Maybe...treating people a little better? Maybe...shareholders can see whether or not the company they invest in pays an owner multiple millions and the majority of their workforce a pittance?

Let's see what makes companies great, fair treatment or squeezing every last penny from production and giving it to shareholders and a few folks at the top.

Yes, of course. Pshaw is a great argument for adding a "feel good" requirement to a company's reporting.

 

[Recidiva]

Yes, but being one of the most successful businessmen in history only counts if he was was an objectivist tool. We should put more stock in the author of unworkable fictitious economic policies.

I detect sarcasm. And reason. Equal amounts.

 

[unregistered]

 

[Recidiva]

Yes, of course. Pshaw is a great argument for adding a "feel good" requirement to a company's reporting.

The objections to its implementation are about it being irrelevant and hard to calculate.

Leave "irrelevant" up to the stockholder or consumer. It might also be "irrelevant" to the company owner whether or not they have fire exits or have sustainable environmental practices.

It isn't irrelevant to everybody, and it is also so easy to calculate it takes a few simple mathematical steps:

1. Get the rate of the highest paid.
2. Get the rate of the lowest paid.
3. Determine the ratio.
4. Publish the ratio.

You might have to make one or two calls to HR and use a calculator for less than five minutes if you can't do it in your head. It's not hard.

 

[Recidiva]

People want a raise, write their congressman and demand a tax cut.

"People" want a reasonable expectation that an employer is not making their employees experience disproportional sharing of wealth.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

The Fountainhead described exactly how we would lose our liberty and the consequences of that loss were explained in We, The Living.


It was the fictional variant of what Hayek and Mises were writing from the viewpoint of Sociology and Economics plus the very real fact that she actually lived within such a totalitarian system gives her some credibility upon the topic.

Nobody disses Dostoyevsky as irrelevant because he used fiction to attack the system.

Rand is only personally attacked because her warnings about Communists-Progressives-Socialist-Altruists were so remarkably prescient and cut to the quick of their goals, a law such as this being one of the tools to advance their goals by using envy to breed hate, resentment and unrest.

If that janitor wants to make what the CEO makes, then he should put down his broom and go take a risk for no one cries for the CEO when he fails and goes bust (taking the janitor's job with him).

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

"People" want a reasonable expectation that an employer is not making their employees experience disproportional sharing of wealth.

"People" are perfectly fucking free to act upon their sneakin' suspicions and go look for another job and see if anyone else wants to pay them what they think they are worth.

 

[unregistered]

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

The objections to its implementation are about it being irrelevant and hard to calculate.

Leave "irrelevant" up to the stockholder or consumer. It might also be "irrelevant" to the company owner whether or not they have fire exits or have sustainable environmental practices.

It isn't irrelevant to everybody, and it is also so easy to calculate it takes a few simple mathematical steps:

1. Get the rate of the highest paid.
2. Get the rate of the lowest paid.
3. Determine the ratio.
4. Publish the ratio.

You might have to make one or two calls to HR and use a calculator for less than five minutes if you can't do it in your head. It's not hard.

It is called an expense report and all wages and salaries are included and that is all the information you need in that area when you are betting on stocks. The distribution means nothing to you unless you are a socialist crusader who thinks that you can make the market a better place with the positive interferences of government, which if you could, you would probably already be a CEO or Senator...

No?

 

[kbate]

The objections to its implementation are about it being irrelevant and hard to calculate.

Leave "irrelevant" up to the stockholder or consumer. It might also be "irrelevant" to the company owner whether or not they have fire exits or have sustainable environmental practices.

It isn't irrelevant to everybody, and it is also so easy to calculate it takes a few simple mathematical steps:

1. Get the rate of the highest paid.
2. Get the rate of the lowest paid.
3. Determine the ratio.
4. Publish the ratio.

You might have to make one or two calls to HR and use a calculator for less than five minutes if you can't do it in your head. It's not hard.

Perhaps if the stockholders were clamoring for this data rather than democratic politicians, that argument might be worth the while.

I didn't say it would be hard to calculate.

The CEO makes $45 million, the lowest paid earns $8.00/hour, 30 hours a week, 40 weeks a year: $9600.

easy to calculate, difficult to tell me why it's important if the P/E ratio for the company is the same as one where everyone is paid the same.

 

[jeninflorida]

Ill say yes...for public corporations

And fuck no, for private companies

Fuck yes, for government fucktards and publish their ponzi pension yearly payments amd include overhead for those greedy fuckers