Carne Seca
Well-Known Member
He is making more money than he can spend in a lifetime. You don't find that insane? You don't see the disparity between reality and corporate greed?
Layoffs coming...
- Thread starter althor
- Start date
Totoe
Well-Known Member
I should edit for sarcasm. I forget how many people there are on here who do think like that.
Carne Seca
Well-Known Member
Oh, bullshit. less money to CEO's, more money for quality control and quality product. I've seen benefits and commissions cut for regular employees that actually MAKE the money for the company. The sales, retention, and technical customer service reps are the money generating engine of the corporate world. More and more they are losing benefits, getting lower wages, cutting back on commissions for sales and raising the mandatory sales quota to unrealistic levels. I worked for a company in sales and retention and got anywhere from 900.00 to 1,500.00 in commissions. By the time I left, we were lucky to get 100 to 200 dollars in commissions and top sales executives who had been in the company for years were losing their jobs because they couldn't make the quota. The turn-over rate was insane. AND they cut back on hiring. So more work for less people. This was when the company was making INSANE profits. What was different? They had hired a new CEO and his salary/bonus/benefits package was HUGE. All the changes didn't come about until he was hired.
Cut back on CEO shit and redistribute it to the ones that actually MAKE the money for the companies.
kelly4
Well-Known Member
Constrict doesn't mean 'limit'.
It means 'squeeze'. You're thinking or 'restrict'.By raising taxes they are 'constricting' profits.
kelly4
Well-Known Member
Oh, I agree. But, I don't agree with limiting profits or pay to executives. Where would the Government interference end?
billybob420
Well-Known Member
You're right, I got that wrong.Constrict doesn't mean 'limit'.
By raising taxes they are 'constricting' profits.
But still, corporate* profits are at an all time high, and will most likely keep going up. Wages on the other hand, not so much.
Carne Seca
Well-Known Member
when Corporate greed and wage disparity is addressed. If it wasn't for the excesses there wouldn't be a need for "government interference".
Omgwtfbbq Indicaman
Well-Known Member
Its a bird
its a plain
its....
its a plain
its....
kelly4
Well-Known Member
No matter how much he makes, somebody will still say it's excessive.
Sorry buddy, but its the CEO and his strategies that are making the money. Without good leadership and someone who knows corporate finance, the poor workers would never have a job to go to in the first place.
Employees don't make shit for profits, the sales people and the corporate officers make far more money for the company than any of the worker bees.
Employees just facilitate.
Let government interfere as much as they want, excessive pay schedules will not go away, ever.
Carne Seca
Well-Known Member
It's the marketing and sales teams that come up with money making strategies. A CEO is just a figurehead.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
That isn't the point.
The point is punishing the people who drive your company to success is bad business ethics. It seems like what these top tier CEO's want is to do is have their cake and eat it too while their workers fight for crumbs. That's not leadership, and it's rare to find this type of behavior from leaders of businesses outside America. Japan for example, a CEO of an international airline recently docked his own pay and started taking public transportation to work just so his workers wouldn't face the brunt of the decreasing profits. That is good business ethics. Leaders who actually care about the workers that run their company and place their own profits second. You have to remember, these guys are already worth tens, hundreds of millions of dollars, some even in the billions. When they do things like this it only makes them look greedy. This is far from what the American dream initially offered. America is about freedom, equality, helping your neighbor in a time of need, what's equal about pushing all the problems onto your neighbor so you don't have to feel any of the pain from an economic crisis at all, especially when you're the one who is best prepared for it because you have already accumulated the wealth and they haven't?
I'll try to give you an analogy.. Say it's summer and I owned a lemonade stand and hired two people to work it while I supervised it. It brings in $100 a day, I pay my two workers $15 each, $40 goes to expansion, $30 goes to me. Now it's winter and I'm selling less lemonade, say I take a hit to income at 30%, now I'm making $70 total per day instead of $100. Would it be fair, right, ethical of me to dock my workers pay down to $10 each, continue to take home $30 myself, and put $30 back into the company? They're working the same hours as before, would that be OK?
The point is punishing the people who drive your company to success is bad business ethics. It seems like what these top tier CEO's want is to do is have their cake and eat it too while their workers fight for crumbs. That's not leadership, and it's rare to find this type of behavior from leaders of businesses outside America. Japan for example, a CEO of an international airline recently docked his own pay and started taking public transportation to work just so his workers wouldn't face the brunt of the decreasing profits. That is good business ethics. Leaders who actually care about the workers that run their company and place their own profits second. You have to remember, these guys are already worth tens, hundreds of millions of dollars, some even in the billions. When they do things like this it only makes them look greedy. This is far from what the American dream initially offered. America is about freedom, equality, helping your neighbor in a time of need, what's equal about pushing all the problems onto your neighbor so you don't have to feel any of the pain from an economic crisis at all, especially when you're the one who is best prepared for it because you have already accumulated the wealth and they haven't?
I'll try to give you an analogy.. Say it's summer and I owned a lemonade stand and hired two people to work it while I supervised it. It brings in $100 a day, I pay my two workers $15 each, $40 goes to expansion, $30 goes to me. Now it's winter and I'm selling less lemonade, say I take a hit to income at 30%, now I'm making $70 total per day instead of $100. Would it be fair, right, ethical of me to dock my workers pay down to $10 each, continue to take home $30 myself, and put $30 back into the company? They're working the same hours as before, would that be OK?
nitro harley
Well-Known Member
Lay off's coming.......that was a no brainer for sure.............nitro..
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
billybob420
Well-Known Member
In my opinion it's about a healthy to and fro between the management and the workers. Unfortunately the working class is very weak right now and the management class is very strong, so there's no to and fro.
I also think government intervention wouldn't really help, given a strong working class the government wouldn't have to step in, and shouldn't.
It's all cause and effect.
I also think government intervention wouldn't really help, given a strong working class the government wouldn't have to step in, and shouldn't.
It's all cause and effect.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
kelly4
Well-Known Member
You're going to have to rework some numbers.
well I can see you have no corporate experience whatsoever and have no clue as to what a corporation is or the hierarchical structure therein. The CEO is the one making MOST of the big decisions. People like Ingvar Kamprad, Carlos Ghosn, and Sir Richard Branson are just figureheads with nothing to do all day?? You should try living in the real world instead of on a little patch of reservation land occupied by nothing but destitute and marginalized native Americans. You might learn a thing or two.